# Embarrassments for Harper



## CubaMark

*First:* Canada loses out on seat at the U.N. Security Council - first time in sixty years.

*Second:* Deficit $2-billion higher than predicted ($55.6bn) , but don't worry, _"next year will be lovely"_.


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> *First:* Canada loses out on seat at the U.N. Security Council - first time in sixty years.
> 
> *Second:* Deficit $2-billion higher than predicted ($55.6bn) , but don't worry, _"next year will be lovely"_.


And again, it's the opposition's fault. Sort of makes the opposition more powerful than the government, don't it?


----------



## boukman2

*Uae*

you forgot about us getting kicked out of the UAE. i think they didn't like discovering we had had a serial killer running our secret military base...


----------



## Macfury

I honestly don't know why Harper wanted that seat so badly in the first place. Better luck next time!


----------



## CubaMark

I thought perhaps the CONservatives were just throwing the "it's Ignatieff's fault" out there in a hissy fit. Had no idea they were this deluded. And then there's this:



> Some observers believe the Harper government's foreign policy is largely responsible for the outcome, including its pro-Israel stance on the Middle East, cutting foreign aid to Africa, and also the move away from UN peacekeeping and toward the Afghan mission.
> 
> However, Cannon dismissed the idea.
> 
> "I do not in any way see this as a repudiation of Canada's foreign policy," he said. "The principles underlying our foreign policy, such as freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law, were the basis of all our decisions.
> 
> "Some would even say that because of our attachment to those values that we lost a seat on the council. If that's case, then so be it."
> 
> (CBC)


Talk about taking a vacation from reality! Sadly, I think this actually serves one of Harper's agenda items: withdrawing Canada even more from playing a role in global society.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> ...I think this actually serves one of Harper's agenda items: withdrawing Canada even more from playing a role in global society.


So there's one good thing about this anyway.


----------



## dona83

Why are we so pro-Israel anyway? It seems like more than half the time, they're the ones starting or provoking a conflict around their area.

As for losing the seat, all I see is a lot of childish finger pointing from EVERYBODY. Shame on our entire political system.


----------



## CubaMark

Now we just need to get the other permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) kicked off the council, and maybe the it can start to approach some semblance of usefulness


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Now we just need to get the other permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) kicked off the council, and maybe the it can start to approach some semblance of usefulness


I think the permanent positions should be eliminated, and then the US should quit the UN, which acts as a giant leech on the country.


----------



## groovetube

I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell ya, that the conservatives would blame this on the liberals.

It's getting to the point where, I'm almost certain, almost I tell's ya, that the conservatives, aren't responsible, for anything! Anything at all.


----------



## dona83

groovetube said:


> I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell ya, that the conservatives would blame this on the liberals.
> 
> It's getting to the point where, I'm almost certain, almost I tell's ya, that the conservatives, aren't responsible, for anything! Anything at all.


:lmao: No kidding eh. Tories, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONCE!!!


----------



## hayesk

Macfury said:


> So there's one good thing about this anyway.


Are you actually saying Canada shouldn't participate in global society?


----------



## boukman2

*globe article*

the globe has scathing take on harper's UN folly!
It’s Stephen Harper’s loss - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Macfury

hayesk said:


> Are you actually saying Canada shouldn't participate in global society?


The UN takes far more from Canada than it gives and is increasingly attempting to create some sort of overarching power structure, including the power to tax. Canada should participate in global society on its own terms and be more wary of the UN.


----------



## Ottawaman

> Canada had campaigned for nine years — since its last term on the council — for a seat. In the final days of Tuesday's bid, Canada wined and dined diplomats, offering them gifts of Canadian beer and maple syrup.
> 
> Canada even had a Mountie in red serge as a prop flown in so the 192 foreign diplomats who were casting ballots could get a photo with him.


CBC News - World - Cannon blames Ignatieff for Canada's UN vote loss


----------



## screature

:yawn: Are people seriously going to debate whether or not this is the Cons fault or the Libs...

Really? This is a matter of the EU and the Muslim world voting in separate blocks....

The EU wants one of theirs to be voted in so they voted accordingly...

The Muslim world voted as they did because of the Government's pro Israel stance, which at best if the Liberals were in power somehow have striven for a fence sitting neutral position, just to garner favour...

For Christ's sake even Bob Rae denounced Iggy's partisan approach to his repudiation of Harper's bid...

This is really the level of partisan politics that we have stooped to where we are blaming each other at a party level for how the rest of the world votes...? What has the government of Canada done that is so bad internationally? Really? Think about it. Two EU nations up against one NA nation for a spot... If neighbouring countries vote as a block for one of their own who has the best odds...? C'mon, do the math....


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> *First:* Canada loses out on seat at the U.N. Security Council - first time in sixty years.
> 
> *Second:* Deficit $2-billion higher than predicted ($55.6bn) , but don't worry, _"next year will be lovely"_.


Why don't you come home CM and engage in at least a municipal level of Canadian politics. Maybe then if you were actively engaged aside from your academic armchair position your posts you would have some level of credibility... 

You and Iggy must be cut from the same cloth... Spending time as an ex-pat ivory tower academic criticizing Canada's foreign policy and that makes you an expert when you don't even live here any longer...

Iggy had to do a bus tor to get in touch with Canadians.... why? Because he was away for so long.

Come home CM, stay for a few years, go on a bus tour, get in touch with your roots...


----------



## imactheknife

dona83 said:


> Why are we so pro-Israel anyway? It seems like more than half the time, they're the ones starting or provoking a conflict around their area.
> 
> As for losing the seat, all I see is a lot of childish finger pointing from EVERYBODY. Shame on our entire political system.


Got to love Canada's politics...feels like kindergarten all the time..


----------



## imactheknife

boukman2 said:


> the globe has scathing take on harper's UN folly!
> It’s Stephen Harper’s loss - The Globe and Mail


joy the glop and flail rides again...


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Why don't you come home CM and engage in at least a municipal level of Canadian politics. Maybe then if you were actively engaged aside from your academic armchair position your posts you would have some level of credibility...
> 
> You and Iggy must be cut from the same cloth... Spending time as an ex-pat ivory tower academic criticizing Canada's foreign policy and that makes you an expert when you don't even live here any longer...
> 
> Iggy had to do a bus tor to get in touch with Canadians.... why? Because he was away for so long.
> 
> Come home CM, stay for a few years, go on a bus tour, get in touch with your roots...


Easy now, there's no need to go all Harper on the guy now.


----------



## BigDL

Conservatives amuse me with their utter failure and how to spin it.


----------



## kps

screature said:


> :yawn: Are people seriously going to debate whether or not this is the Cons fault or the Libs...


Of course they will...and derive a bizarre sense of schadenfreude out of it. LOL

Now perhaps we should see which of these EU nations we can kick out of NATO.

Anyone have a link to the actual voting roll? Might be interesting to see who voted for who...


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> Conservatives amuse me with their utter failure and how to spin it.


this whole thing is a hilarious spectacle of a meltdown.

Well Harper, guess it wasn't such a smooth move to blow them off for a cup o' timmies hey?
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/700134

:lmao:


----------



## bsenka

screature said:


> For Christ's sake even Bob Rae denounced Iggy's partisan approach to his repudiation of Harper's bid...


So did Lloyd Axworthy.


----------



## boukman2

*i had forgotten*



groovetube said:


> this whole thing is a hilarious spectacle of a meltdown.
> 
> Well Harper, guess it wasn't such a smooth move to blow them off for a cup o' timmies hey?
> Doughnuts over diplomacy - thestar.com
> 
> :lmao:


i had forgotten about that! that's mean of you to remind me. i feel ill. the world is at the UN in new york (the Center of the World) and our Fearless Leader... is... checking his roll up the rim at a doughnut store... (ok, it was the world HQ for timbits in the toronto suburbs, don't get too picky...) 
sigh.
after that it's surprising they even let us into the UN building for a tour, let alone a chair in the security council...


----------



## CubaMark

screature said:


> Why don't you come home CM and engage in at least a municipal level of Canadian politics. Maybe then if you were actively engaged aside from your academic armchair position your posts you would have some level of credibility...
> 
> You and Iggy must be cut from the same cloth... Spending time as an ex-pat ivory tower academic criticizing Canada's foreign policy and that makes you an expert when you don't even live here any longer...
> 
> Iggy had to do a bus tor to get in touch with Canadians.... why? Because he was away for so long.
> 
> Come home CM, stay for a few years, go on a bus tour, get in touch with your roots...


I'd be on a plane tomorrow... if I had a job waiting for me. Alas, as my wife and I are expecting, I need to nail down some dependable income. Not that easy to do from a distance. (anyone want to throw some e-work at me, I'm available!)

Geez, a guy goes away for a few years to get an education, and his countrymen jump all over him for having an opinion. Next thing you know, they'll tell me my passport isn't valid anymore...!


----------



## groovetube

CubaMark said:


> I'd be on a plane tomorrow... if I had a job waiting for me. Alas, as my wife and I are expecting, I need to nail down some dependable income. Not that easy to do from a distance. (anyone want to throw some e-work at me, I'm available!)
> 
> Geez, a guy goes away for a few years to get an education, and his countrymen jump all over him for having an opinion. Next thing you know, they'll tell me my passport isn't valid anymore...!


yes C-Mark how dare you leave for a while to go to school.

How un-Canadian of you!


----------



## jimbotelecom

Call an election so we can shuffle in a new minority government!


----------



## imactheknife

jimbotelecom said:


> Call an election so we can shuffle in a new minority government!


exactly, I would love to see any of the other "worthy leaders" from the liberals or NDP do a better job...worthy is the key word....of course we might have to rope someone from outside of Canada to do the job. Hey Cuba Mark you available for the PM's job??


----------



## jimbotelecom

imactheknife said:


> exactly, I would love to see any of the other "worthy leaders" from the liberals or NDP do a better job...worthy is the key word....of course we might have to rope someone from outside of Canada to do the job. Hey Cuba Mark you available for the PM's job??


We need to apply common sense to a dismal situation with a teetering economy and record high debt (run up by the Cons) it's time to rule with a coalition or quasi-coalition.
Canada needs to pool its resources. Think about hw the country was governed in WWII.


Personally I'm voting Green...I just hope the get one seat.


----------



## ertman

Macfury said:


> I think the permanent positions should be eliminated, and then the US should quit the UN, which acts as a giant leech on the country.





Macfury said:


> The UN takes far more from Canada than it gives and is increasingly attempting to create some sort of overarching power structure, including the power to tax. Canada should participate in global society on its own terms and be more wary of the UN.



I understand your point, but I disagree with your reasoning. Its not that the UN in it's current state is bad for Canada, necessarily, its that the UN is such a weak organization, that it serves as little use to Canada. Unfortunately the only way to fix this would be actions that go against your conservative ideals.

The only problem arising from Canada going it alone and participating in global society on its own terms, is that our country is not wealthy or strong (military) enough to be effective on a global level.


----------



## SINC

jimbotelecom said:


> We need to apply common sense to a dismal situation with a teetering economy and record high debt (run up by the Cons)


Uh, best to be totally honest here. You forgot to add "at the insistence of the Liberals and NDP", who threatened an election if they didn't spend the dough.


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> I think the permanent positions should be eliminated, and then the US should quit the UN, which acts as a giant leech on the country.


Hell! Why stop there. Let's get rid of the UN. Talk about a self-serving, bureaucratic, money-sucking waste of time. If the thing was to truly be effective, get rid of the security council and all the other crap. Each country gets one vote, each country ponies up 2000 troops, each country pays an equal amount to support the thing.

Then the sanctions would work as the whole world equally votes on issues and is prepared to do something. Right now the same players are involved and that only leads to more tension. The U.S. wouldn't have invaded Iraq under such a system, as the U.S. wouldn't have been allowed to. North Korea wouldn't be an issue either and, the stupid Cuban blockade would finally be lifted ....


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> I'd be on a plane tomorrow... if I had a job waiting for me. Alas, as my wife and I are expecting, I need to nail down some dependable income. Not that easy to do from a distance. (anyone want to throw some e-work at me, I'm available!)
> 
> Geez, a guy goes away for a few years to get an education, and his countrymen jump all over him for having an opinion. Next thing you know, they'll tell me my passport isn't valid anymore...!


I apologize, just in a bad mood because some people want to make this a partisan issue and create division where there is little to no need for it.


----------



## Macfury

ertman said:


> I understand your point, but I disagree with your reasoning. Its not that the UN in it's current state is bad for Canada, necessarily, its that the UN is such a weak organization, that it serves as little use to Canada. Unfortunately the only way to fix this would be actions that go against your conservative ideals.


I don't believe it should be "fixed," because the weakness of the organization is fine with me. Were it any stronger it could do greater damage. As rps says it's a lopsided monstrosity that serves the needs of its most powerful members.


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> We need to apply common sense to a dismal situation with a teetering economy and *record high debt (run up by the Cons)* it's time to rule with a coalition or quasi-coalition.
> Canada needs to pool its resources. Think about hw the country was governed in WWII.
> 
> 
> Personally I'm voting Green...I just hope the get one seat.


Do you honestly think the debt would have been less with a Liberal/NDP/Coalition government? I mean seriously, the opposition have been screaming for billions more in stimulus spending. The "record high debt" is a red herring to lay at the feet of the government by the opposition when they know all along it would have been no different had they been in power... well more several billion more give or take a few.


----------



## CubaMark

Rps said:


> Hell! Why stop there. Let's get rid of the UN. Talk about a self-serving, bureaucratic, money-sucking waste of time. If the thing was to truly be effective, get rid of the security council and all the other crap. Each country gets one vote, each country ponies up 2000 troops, each country pays an equal amount to support the thing.


Sadly, far too many people see only what they want to see with regard to the United Nations: that is, "it's all bad". But the U.N. does an enormous amount of very good work. UNICEF is one of the many, many agencies. The FAO (Food & Agriculture Organization), which helps farmers around the world. It's also an enormous data collection machine.

I certainly have my issues with the U.N. most of that focused on the Security Council and general undemocratic nature that gives the dominant (and formerly dominant) powers veto capability. But I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Want to see the breadth of the United Nations? Check out www.UNsystem.org


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Want to see the breadth of the United Nations?


It's breadth is so great, the website timed out. Get that fixed guys!!


----------



## ertman

Macfury said:


> I don't believe it should be "fixed," because the weakness of the organization is fine with me. Were it any stronger it could do greater damage. As rps says it's a lopsided monstrosity that serves the needs of its most powerful members.


If you would also note RPS's comment, he also is trying to fix it, which makes it stronger and more effective.


----------



## Macfury

ertman said:


> If you would also note RPS's comment, he also is trying to fix it, which makes it stronger and more effective.


Yes, I see. But I don't want it to be stronger, as RPS suggests. Having a majority of disadvantaged nations voting as to how the resources of the world--economic and military--are directed is not my idea of a good time.


----------



## screature

*Not worth the price*

Not worth the price



> Any Canadian who today observes that the United Nations is a deeply flawed and in some ways corrupt organization will no doubt be accused of being a sore loser. On Tuesday, Canada failed in its bid to secure a seat on the UN Security Council, so any denunciation of the place is a case of sour grapes, correct?
> 
> Not really. Canada had no choice but to pursue that seat on the Security Council, just as we have, for all intents and purposes, little choice but to be a member state of the UN in the first place.
> 
> The corrupt and flawed nature of the UN is not something that suddenly manifested itself this week. Canada's winning or not winning a seat changes nothing with respect to the organization's long-standing legitimacy problem.
> 
> Different people will cite different moments when it became clear that the UN was possibly not just an ineffective body but a destructive one. For some, it was the refusal of the UN in the 1970s to pass any resolutions condemning the Cambodian genocide, thereby confirming that Third World dictatorships get special dispensation. For others, the moment of truth finally came in 2001, when the UN sponsored the now infamous "anti-racism" conference in Durban, South Africa: a conference that descended into an orgy of anti-West hatemongering.
> 
> One of the chief challenges facing the UN is that undemocratic countries, such as those that make up the Arab and Muslim blocs, band together and shape outcomes according to their illiberal values. What results is topsy-turvy situations where, for example, notorious human rights abusers get to shape UN policy on human rights.
> 
> The tyrants, thugs and revolutionaries who wield power at the UN might not like Canada much these days because Canada has become one of the strongest voices against extremism, terrorism and illiberalism. A seat on the UN Security Council would have been nice, but not at the cost of betraying Canadian values.


----------



## ertman

Macfury said:


> Yes, I see. But I don't want it to be stronger, as RPS suggests. Having a majority of disadvantaged nations voting as to how the resources of the world--economic and military--are directed is not my idea of a good time.





Macfury said:


> I don't believe it should be "fixed," because the weakness of the organization is fine with me. Were it any stronger it could do greater damage. As rps says it's a lopsided monstrosity that serves the needs of its most powerful members.


Not trying to start an argument over semantics, but are saying you don't want it serving the needs of only its most powerful members, but at the same time you don't want it to be equitable either? I kind of understand.

Would a solution be somewhere in the middle? Where the amount of resources and the size of the *vote*, be possibly based on percentage of GDP(as an example)? So in that case, larger and stronger economies pay a larger share, but get a larger vote?


----------



## Macfury

ertman said:


> Not trying to start an argument over semantics, but are saying you don't want it serving the needs of only its most powerful members, but at the same time you don't want it to be equitable either? I kind of understand.
> 
> Would a solution be somewhere in the middle? Where the amount of resources and the size of the *vote*, be possibly based on percentage of GDP(as an example)? So in that case, larger and stronger economies pay a larger share, but get a larger vote?


I'd rather it serve the needs of its more powerful members--who largely represent Canadian views--than to be at the mercy of its many members. However, having it represent the views of only the powerful members isn't fair either. I'd recommend one vote per country, while reducing its power.


----------



## boukman2

*wasn't just the serial killer*

having a look at another harper foreign policy glitch:
(Is Harper’s double-double or Ignatieff’s trash talk to blame for UN debacle? - The Globe and Mail)


----------



## screature

boukman2 said:


> having a look at another harper foreign policy glitch:
> (Is Harper’s double-double or Ignatieff’s trash talk to blame for UN debacle? - The Globe and Mail)


Geez there is a surprise... bad press in the UAE over the government's refusal to allow for extra UAE fights... How shocking!!! 

Also how surprising is it that the sources of the G&M's report are:



> Defence officials





> a UAE official source





> A senior defence official


and no names. FUD is the G&M's main modus operandi.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Uh, best to be totally honest here. You forgot to add "at the insistence of the Liberals and NDP", who threatened an election if they didn't spend the dough.


I guess what you're suggesting here, is that the conservatives not stand by their principles and take it to the Canadians to decide. Just because the ndp/bloc liberals sounded off about a coalition doesn't mean it would have happened.

Nevermind the fact the cons have proven themselves VERY adept at spending LOTS of our money without any help from the liberals or the NDP.

Harper tried the very same thing to topple Martin. His signature was right there with the bloc too.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> I apologize, just in a bad mood because some people want to make this a partisan issue and create division where there is little to no need for it.


we didn't need to, Harper and crew already did that by publicly blaming the liberals.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> we didn't need to, Harper and crew already did that by publicly blaming the liberals.


After Iggy fired the first salvo... how soon we forget? 

I will say this though... to call them out in the media was petty, (a communications problem, one that I have decried the Cons for consistently... maybe when the change in Chief of Staff occurs the messaging will change... one can only hope...) it was better left for rebuttals in QP, of which you can be sure there will be many...


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> After Iggy fired the first salvo... how soon we forget?
> 
> I will say this though... to call them out in the media was petty, (a communications problem, one that I have decried the Cons for consistently... maybe when the change in Chief of Staff occurs the messaging will change... one can only hope...) it was better left for rebuttals in QP, of which you can be sure there will be many...


I seem to recall a certain man named Harper who took to the world stage to try and smear the Canadian government for not joining the US in Iraq.

Hearing Harper whine about the opposing party saying not so positive things about him is not just hypocritical, but totally pathetic.

Perhaps he should practice what he preaches then.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> I seem to recall a certain man named Harper who took to the world stage to try and smear the Canadian government for not joining the US in Iraq.
> 
> Hearing Harper whine about the opposing party saying not so positive things about him is not just hypocritical, but totally pathetic.
> 
> Perhaps he should practice what he preaches then.


I will say this.. Jean Chretien's legacy will be not getting us involved in the Iraq war... How surprising is it that his legacy will be for *not* doing something, as that was emblematic of his years in office... ohhh aside from being caught on camera strangling a guy...:lmao: that was a good one... at least he stood up for himself.

Ok now back to the content of your post... 

Really? 

You are going to compare the criticism of an opposition leader to a foreign policy choice of a majority government that had nothing to do with the UN and our standing within it to that of criticism from an opposition leader in a minority government for a bid for a temporary seat on the UN security council in which other nations actually get to vote on the outcome and ultimately can respond to that criticism in a meaningful way...?

Well, all I can say is I am not surprised.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> I will say this.. Jean Chretien's legacy will be not getting us involved in the Iraq war... How surprising is it that his legacy will be for *not* doing something, as that was emblematic of his years in office... ohhh aside from being caught on camera strangling a guy...:lmao: that was a good one... at least he stood up for himself.
> 
> Ok now back to the content of your post...
> 
> Really?
> 
> You are going to compare the criticism of an opposition leader to a foreign policy choice of a majority government that had nothing to do with the UN and our standing within it to that of criticism from an opposition leader in a minority government for a bid for a temporary seat on the UN security council in which other nations actually get to vote on the outcome and ultimately can respond to that criticism in a meaningful way...?
> 
> Well, all I can say is I am not surprised.


Yes. Are you saying Harper was completely ineffectual in opposition? His efforts to publicly embarrass our government from the newspapers in the US? I think that's what you're really trying to say.

And as for Chretien/Martin, they balanced the budget. Thank god there wasn't another government in office who LOVED to spend spend spend, so there was enough money to weather this storm.

Oh, and I recall who was screaming in opposition about bank deregulation. And is now taking credit for the hard work we all did before they took office for the good financial position we were in.

Not surprised either here.

Glad to see you're finally showing what side you're gunning for, and shedding the slippery thing.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> *Yes*. Are you saying Harper was completely ineffectual in opposition? His efforts to publicly embarrass our government from the newspapers in the US? I think that's what you're really trying to say.
> 
> And as for Chretien/Martin, they balanced the budget. Thank god there wasn't another government in office who LOVED to spend spend spend, so there was enough money to weather this storm.
> 
> Oh, and I recall who was screaming in opposition about bank deregulation. And is now taking credit for the hard work* we* all did before they took office for the good financial position we were in.
> 
> Not surprised either here.
> 
> Glad to see you're finally showing what side you're gunning for, and shedding the slippery thing.


Stick to web development, it is your forte...

Leave politics to those who are professionals at it or at least have some professional experience in the matter. Or is this too direct for you....  seeing as you are so diplomatic when speaking about area's of your particular expertise...

Go ahead and make your straw man arguments... I'm not bitting. 

This need not be a partisan issue... Iggy started it and Cannon kept it going for which I already have said was a mistake... Who is showing their true colours here between you and I...? I guess we both are.. you are a die hard partisan Liberal and I have a mind of my own.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Stick to web development, it is your forte...
> 
> Leave politics to those who are professionals at it or at least have some professional experience in the matter. Or is this too direct for you seeing as you are so diplomatic when speaking about area's of your particular expertise...
> 
> Go ahead and make your straw man arguments... I'm not bitting.


oh screature. You're such a dweeb when you get angry really. No problem, I'm all about direct. In fact I prefer that to passive/aggressive crap.

what strawman arguments did I bring up. You're the one going off on Chretien, etc., I simply responded.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> oh screature. You're such a dweeb when you get angry really. No problem, I'm all about direct. In fact I prefer that to passive/aggressive crap.
> 
> what strawman arguments did I bring up. You're the one going off on Chretien, etc., I simply responded.


:yawn:


----------



## groovetube

You said -I- brought in a strawman argument.

What was it?


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> You said -I- brought in a strawman argument.
> 
> What was it?


Is there an echo in here...  I thought I already responded... "I'm not bitting".

If you don't know then you are merely proving my point. At least I am willing to admit the failure of the those that I agree with on an issue by issue basis...


----------



## groovetube

that's what I thought. You mouthed off, threw some words around, and you're full, of crap.

If you're going to throw around the strawman accusation, you have to know what it means.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> that's what I thought. You mouthed off, threw some words around, and you're full, of crap.
> 
> If you're going to throw around the strawman accusation, you have to know what it means.


Clearly you don't... next... 

Hear it is going to be sunny this weekend.  Time for some gardening.


----------



## i-rui

It's pretty hilarious that the Harper government tried to blame the liberals for Canada not getting votes in the UN.

We lost to Portugal because they have a long history of being neutral in foreign politics, while Canada (under Harper) is now known to be America's bitch who does what they're told. Of course the countries in the UN didn't want to give the U.S. even more power in global security matters.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> It's pretty hilarious that the Harper government tried to blame the liberals for Canada not getting votes in the UN.
> 
> We lost to Portugal because they have a long history of being neutral in foreign politics, while Canada (under Harper) is now known to be America's bitch who does what they're told. Of course the countries in the UN didn't want to give the U.S. even more power in global security matters.


I fnd equally hilarious that cons are accusing liberals of being partisan.

Ohhh that's a starwman argument sorry.


----------



## MacDoc

Succinct summary



> *Canada’s UN bid: Blames lies with Harper*
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been undermining Canada’s bid for a United Nations Security Council seat since he was first elected back in 2006. Our embarrassing loss to Portugal merely confirms that our image as a progressive, even-handed, nation has taken a knock on his watch.
> 
> Apart from staking out a leading Afghan role, the Conservatives treated the UN largely as an afterthought. They aligned Canada closely with then U.S. president George W. Bush’s unloved administration, tilted our Mideast policy to be more pro-Israel, and walked away from pledges to fight global warming. They were erratic on human rights, de-emphasized African aid, and showed scant interest in peacekeeping and disarmament.
> 
> So it’s no great surprise that we reaped a General Assembly vote of non-confidence Tuesday in our seventh bid for a council seat, despite having won all six previous bids since the UN was founded in 1945. The Conservatives made us easy to ignore.
> 
> Yet Harper wouldn’t accept responsibility for the embarrassing loss. Instead, the PM’s office sought to blame Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff. According to the PMO, Ignatieff “chose to oppose Canada” and gave an impression of a nation divided.
> 
> Compared to the serial damage Harper did to Canada’s image, Ignatieff’s role in this debacle was small beer. “I know how important it is for Canada to get a seat on the Security Council,” he said. “But Canadians have to ask a tough question: has this government earned that place? We’re not convinced it has.”
> 
> Neither was the General Assembly, apparently. It took the measure of Harper’s indifference and opted for Portugal instead, even though Portugal doesn’t belong to the Group of 20 or Group of Eight, spends less than Canada on aid, has a lower profile in Afghanistan and gives less to the UN’s coffers.
> 
> It would have been harder for the General Assembly to rebuff Canada under past leaders such as Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien. Strong UN boosters, they were activists who spent relatively more on aid, contributed thousands of peacekeepers, lobbied for American/Soviet détente and arms control, helped found the International Criminal Court, fought genocide in the Balkans and censured apartheid.
> 
> *Canada still has a lot to offer. But Harper made it easy to snub us. The blame belongs to him*


http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/874291--canada-s-un-bid-blames-lies-with-harper

made an ass of himself numerous times on the world stage along with his cronies....not hard to see it......the UN members did see it and voted accordingly....


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Clearly you don't... next...
> 
> Hear it is going to be sunny this weekend.  Time for some gardening.


the floors open for you to explain yourself. I've asked twice, or I'll assume, as I thought, you're just mouthing off.

You can give someone else the "i'm a professional prime minister spiel".


----------



## mrjimmy

> Canada’s formerly expansive foreign policy has narrowed into three tunnels at the end of which lie Washington, Kabul and Tel Aviv. Those faced with a choice between Canada and Portugal might well consider what Canada’s platform is, and whether we are the same Canada that once worked so hard for peace in the world.





> he second question is, Does Canada deserve a seat in the Security Council? Bob Fowler, Canada’s longest-serving UN ambassador, says no: “The world doesn’t need more of the Canada it has been getting.” Narrow or non-existent policies on key issues, an ineffectual aid program based on the shifting sands of political opportunism, UN peacekeeping operations languishing at rock bottom, and cynical opportunism in the Middle East suggest that Canada may not have much to offer.


The Mcleod Group


----------



## Macfury

> Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been undermining Canada’s bid for a United Nations Security Council seat since he was first elected back in 2006. Our embarrassing loss to Portugal merely confirms that our image as a *progressive*, even-handed, nation has taken a knock on his watch.


Progressive now just means "on the road to socialism" so I'm relieved.


----------



## groovetube

there isn't much, that you don't think leads to socialism macfury.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Clearly you don't... next...


groove is "all about direct" except when it comes to answering a direct question.

Still too early to hill roses, but the earth is nice and moist for tulip bulbs.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> made an ass of himself numerous times on the world stage along with his cronies....not hard to see it......the UN members did see it and voted accordingly....


Yep, I can't believe that maniac, giving up all of the treasures that come with supporting the UN. The untold riches! The glamour! 

Methinks this wasn't an embarrassment for Harper, but an embarrassment for "progressives" like CubaMark and MacDoc. Oh the shame!


----------



## groovetube

read it again macfury. Political genius prime minister to be, yapped off, but failed to explain himself.

-I-, asked the direct question.

What's funny, is screature actually created the, er, strawman. Then complained about it.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Yep, I can't believe that maniac, giving up all of the treasures that come with supporting the UN. The untold riches! The glamour!
> 
> Methinks this wasn't an embarrassment for Harper, but an embarrassment for "progressives" like CubaMark and MacDoc. Oh the shame!


If, as you suggest, this is inconsequential for Harper, then why did he pursue it with such vigor?


----------



## groovetube

mrjimmy said:


> If, as you suggest, this is inconsequential for Harper, then why did he pursue it with such vigor?


I'm quite certain, the liberals made him. And the bloc too.

Ungrateful brats.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> If, as you suggest, this is inconsequential for Harper, then why did he pursue it with such vigor?


I personally don't care, but I'm sure Harper wanted it... and lost in his bid because he failed to appeal to a couple of voting blocs. This is not a "major embarrassment on the world stage."


----------



## gmark2000

Sounds as if some of guys wanted us to lose the UN seat just to make hay. What about some Canadian pride?


----------



## screature

*Stuffing the UN's ballot box*

Stuffing the UN's ballot box

Finally, someone who get's it...



> Canada's non-election to the UN Security Council is a disappointment to Canadians and a real loss
> 
> to the UN system. But the greatest disappointment of all has been the exploitation of the disappointment by partisan groups advancing narrow agendas.
> 
> The Sierra Club suggested that Canada lost because Canada has withdrawn from the Kyoto accord on climate change. Anti-Israel voices inside the Canadian civil service have murmured to friendly journalists that Canada was punished for Prime Minister Harper's staunch support for the Middle East democracy. Personally, I'm waiting for somebody to suggest that Canada lost because Maclean's magazine's coverage of corruption in Quebec offended La Francophonie.
> 
> *These statements are self-interested and polemical -- and also reveal a weak understanding of the workings of the United Nations.*





> ....But it's not the voting that matters at the UN. It's the nominations.
> 
> The temporary Security Council seats are assigned to regional blocs. Five seats become available Jan. 1, 2011. One of those seats is assigned to the African bloc. One is assigned to the Asian and Arab bloc, one to the Latin American and Caribbean bloc, and two to the bloc to which Canada belongs: Western Europe and Others.
> 
> Each of those regional blocs caucuses separately to determine whom it will nominate to fill its assigned seat.
> 
> The Africans nominated one candidate, South Africa, and it was duly elected. The Asians nominated one candidate, India, which was likewise duly elected. The Latin American and Caribbean group nominated one candidate, Colombia, again duly elected.
> 
> Noticing a pattern?
> 
> But the Western European and others group nominated not the requisite two candidates, but instead three:
> 
> Germany and Portugal, as well as Canada. By nominating three, the Western European and Others bloc forfeited its right of decision. That looks like an unwise act. Why did it happen?
> 
> The answer has nothing to do with Kyoto or Israel, and everything to do with the internal politics of the European Union. It's the European Union countries that dominate the Western bloc. Increasingly, the EU countries have been negotiating these UN nominations among themselves first. They decide that they want Germany and Portugal -- and then they muscle their way through the rest of the bloc onto the UN floor.
> 
> This phenomenon creates two serious structural problems:...





> .... One logical answer to the EU bloc voting problem is to transform France's permanent seat on the Security Council into an EU seat. That would appropriately recognize the EU's power and importance: Only permanent members of the Security Council have a veto, after all. Then the Western Europe and Others bloc could agree that one of the two Western bloc seats should always go to one of the "others" -- including, yes, Israel, which should be accepted as a full member of the bloc, with full member rights.
> 
> *Short of that elegant solution, a good stopgap would be for Canadians to quit blaming themselves when they are maltreated by others.* Under the Stephen Harper government, Canada has compiled an outstanding foreign-policy record of support for human rights and democracy worldwide. That's something to be proud of. This week's rejection of Canada at the UN is genuinely something to be ashamed of -- but in Brussels, not in Ottawa.


----------



## FeXL

What kind of nonsense is this? Using reason and fact instead of wringing hands, rending hair and coughing up furballs?

I'll have none of that!


----------



## CubaMark

Screature, interesting that the NP article, which states:

_ "Under the Stephen Harper government, Canada has compiled an outstanding foreign-policy record of support form human rights and democracy worldwide. That's something to be proud of" 

_doesn't bother to identify those foreign policy successes... Simply stating something doesn't make it true (except in right-wing media, apparently).


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> Screature, interesting that the NP article, which states:
> 
> _ "Under the Stephen Harper government, Canada has compiled an outstanding foreign-policy record of support form human rights and democracy worldwide. That's something to be proud of"
> 
> _doesn't bother to identify those foreign policy successes... Simply stating something doesn't make it true (except in right-wing media, apparently).


Well he has steadfastly supported Karzai, whose record is as unblemished as an Afghani prison system.beejacon

Also a big time supporter of Israel, clearly a bastion of human rights if you don't mind a bit of murder, theft and high seas hijacking as part of the national policy.beejacon


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> Screature, interesting that the NP article, which states:
> 
> _ "Under the Stephen Harper government, Canada has compiled an outstanding foreign-policy record of support form human rights and democracy worldwide. That's something to be proud of"
> 
> _doesn't bother to identify those foreign policy successes... * Simply stating something doesn't make it true (except in right-wing media, apparently)*.


Well that really wasn't the point of the article now was it.. it was really about the process at the UN or did you miss that.

I think media of all colour and stripes are guilty of that or do you really think that left leaning media is a pure as the driven snow. If you do then I have some prime real estate I think you might be interested in.


----------



## BigDL

Oh! I thought it was a vanity piece for conservative supporters, to lick their wounds with after Canada's new government openly admitted that Iggy's comments commands more attention on the world stage than Harpo's.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> Oh! I thought it was a vanity piece for conservative supporters, to lick their wounds with after Canada's new government openly admitted that Iggy's comments commands more attention on the world stage than Harpo's.


Do you just arbitrarily drop into threads, read a few posts or lines from a few posts and then respond? It's kind of how your posts read sometimes.


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> Oh! I thought it was a vanity piece for conservative supporters, to lick their wounds with after Canada's new government openly admitted that Iggy's comments commands more attention on the world stage than Harpo's.


Apparently not at home though, where it counts:

CBC News - Politics - Conservatives widen lead: poll


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Apparently not at home though, where it counts:
> 
> CBC News - Politics - Conservatives widen lead: poll


I still see more Canadians disapprove of the Conservatives than that approve of 'em.

Err what was your point again


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> I still see more Canadians disapprove of the Conservatives than that approve of 'em.
> 
> Err what was your point again


Confused again? That statement would be true of almost any party with less than 50 per cent of popular support--which describes all federal parties in Canada.


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> I still see more Canadians disapprove of the Conservatives than that approve of 'em.
> 
> Err what was your point again


Perhaps we could draw you a picture to go with the graph? If an election were held tomorrow, enough Canadians would vote to keep the Conservatives as their government and return them to power. Got it now?


----------



## hayesk

I hardly see how that matters.


----------



## boukman2

*star editorial*

excellent editorial in the star:
Siddiqui: World passes judgment on Harper?s foreign policy - thestar.com


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> Do you just arbitrarily drop into threads, read a few posts or lines from a few posts and then respond? It's kind of how your posts read sometimes.


How I express my opinion t'is mine, It belongs to me, I'm the owner of it, and i'tis no others, I have formed it and 'tis something that in a free and democratic society that I cherish, adore, hold dear, love, dote on, be devoted to, revere, admire; think the world of, set great store by, hold in high esteem; care for, tend to look after, protect, preserve, keep safe, treasure, prize, value highly and hold dear so as long as I choose to harbor, entertain, possess, form, hold on to, and express opinions they shall be mine and mine alone to contemplate, formulate, look at, view, regard, examine, inspect, observe, survey, study, scrutinize, think about, ponder, reflect on, consider, mull over, muse on, dwell on, deliberate over, meditate on, ruminate on, chew over, brood on/about, turn over in my mind and cogitate.

Until such time as I choose to select, pick out, opt for, settle on, decide on, fix on, wish, want, desire, feel/be inclined, like, see fit and I'm pleased to comment, remark, make an observation, statement, utterance; pronouncement, judgment, reflection, view, criticism and until I am ready, prepared, all set, organized, primed psyched up, geared up, completed, finished, done, arranged, fixed, in readiness, willing, pleased, inclined, disposed, predisposed; eager, keen, happy, glad, game about to, on the point of, on the verge of, close to, liable to, likely to observe, reflect, say, state, declare, announce; interpose, interject. They shall stay mine and mine alone remaining in my possession and no other until.....

*You had to ask!*


----------



## Macfury

boukman2 said:


> excellent editorial in the star:
> Siddiqui: World passes judgment on Harper?s foreign policy - thestar.com


Siddiqui has got to be one of the least objective writers the _Star_ puts into print. He sides consistently against the West, and is blatantly pro-developing nations. I could write his column for him, knowing exactly how he will take it.


----------



## Macfury

SINC: I think he's answered the question. He just drops into threads.


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> I still see more Canadians disapprove of the Conservatives than that approve of 'em.
> 
> Err what was your point again


yes the hard righters here seem to forget that the rest of Canadians vote centre to left.

Wonder when this big conservative enlightenment period is to start.

4 years and 2 elections later, and they're still freaking out banging pots and pans whenever dear leader scrapes up a couple percentage points above the liberals, who really should have been decimated long ago.

Man that just has to burn some rear ends eh?


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Perhaps we could draw you a picture to go with the graph? If an election were held tomorrow, enough Canadians would vote to keep the Conservatives as their government and return them to power. Got it now?


Did you notice that the poll was completed on the the day that this thread started (at 2:41 pm.)



CBC Story referenced said:


> The random survey of 1,832 Canadians aged 18 and over was conducted *Oct. 6-12* and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
> 
> Read more: CBC News - Politics - Conservatives widen lead: poll


Hardly enough time for the failure and the fallout of the conservative spin on this story to affect the survey now in'it.

Perhaps we shall see the affects on subsequent surveys however.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Did you notice that the poll was completed on the the day that this thread started (at 2:41 pm.)
> 
> Hardly enough time for the failure and the fallout of the conservative spin on this story to affect the survey now in'it.
> 
> Perhaps we shall see the affects on subsequent surveys however.


I'll be happy to bet that whether or not Canada is favourited for a seat on the UN Security Council will have a statistically insignificant affect on voter intentions--just as the Census flap, reflected in those poll numbers, was a non-starter.


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> yes the hard righters here seem to forget that the rest of Canadians vote centre to left.
> 
> Wonder when this big conservative enlightenment period is to start.
> 
> 4 years and 2 elections later, and they're still freaking out banging pots and pans whenever dear leader scrapes up a couple percentage points above the liberals, who really should have been decimated long ago.
> 
> Man that just has to burn some rear ends eh?


My father may have used the phrase "one can detect the aroma of burning scrotum" God rest his soul.


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> My father may have used the phrase "one can detect the aroma of burning scrotum" God rest his soul.


well I -was- tryin to soften the blow a little.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> My father may have used the phrase "one can detect the aroma of burning scrotum" God rest his soul.


There are laws against burning your kids' scrotums, even in the Maritime provinces.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> I still see more Canadians disapprove of the Conservatives than that approve of 'em.
> 
> Err what was your point again


But even more disapprove of the Liberals and even more disapprove of the NDP....


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> How I express my opinion t'is mine, It belongs to me, I'm the owner of it, and i'tis no others, I have formed it and 'tis something that in a free and democratic society that I cherish, adore, hold dear, love, dote on, be devoted to, revere, admire; think the world of, set great store by, hold in high esteem; care for, tend to look after, protect, preserve, keep safe, treasure, prize, value highly and hold dear so as long as I choose to harbor, entertain, possess, form, hold on to, and express opinions they shall be mine and mine alone to contemplate, formulate, look at, view, regard, examine, inspect, observe, survey, study, scrutinize, think about, ponder, reflect on, consider, mull over, muse on, dwell on, deliberate over, meditate on, ruminate on, chew over, brood on/about, turn over in my mind and cogitate.
> 
> Until such time as I choose to select, pick out, opt for, settle on, decide on, fix on, wish, want, desire, feel/be inclined, like, see fit and I'm pleased to comment, remark, make an observation, statement, utterance; pronouncement, judgment, reflection, view, criticism and until I am ready, prepared, all set, organized, primed psyched up, geared up, completed, finished, done, arranged, fixed, in readiness, willing, pleased, inclined, disposed, predisposed; eager, keen, happy, glad, game about to, on the point of, on the verge of, close to, liable to, likely to observe, reflect, say, state, declare, announce; interpose, interject. They shall stay mine and mine alone remaining in my possession and no other until.....
> 
> *You had to ask!*


:lmao: Lots of work there... I'm not even going to comment beyond...:clap: and once again. :lmao: 

Thanks for keeping it light (at least I think that is what you are doing)... I needed that....


----------



## screature

boukman2 said:


> excellent editorial in the star:
> Siddiqui: World passes judgment on Harper?s foreign policy - thestar.com


:yawn: That is the best you got... a rabid Star columnist...?

Quite frankly I think Harper launched a campaign merely because traditionally it was expected... I don't think he really cared all that much and knew it was a fait accompi for reasons already mentioned a la the EU... why else start your campaign so late and spend so little effort on the campaign. It was lip service really... it means much more to left of centre folks... not exactly his electoral base, their vote was lost already, getting a seat on the council wouldn't parlay into really that much being gained on the national front, which as many reporters/columnists have already pointed out.


----------



## BigDL

*Possibly another issue as an Embarrassment for Harper*

A report from the BBC


BBC World said:


> Lawyers for Omar Khadr, a Canadian-born prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, have said they are negotiating to avert a trial.


Story here


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> A report from the BBC
> 
> Story here


Why are you embarrassed about this?


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> A report from the BBC
> 
> Story here


What exactly does this have to do with the subject matter of this thread? There is not even any story yet and you post it here... 

I don't mean to discredit your opinion... no need to go through that again. 

I just fail to see what this has do with the discussion at hand other than a cursory distraction to the actual subject matter of the thread.


----------



## i-rui

"Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has refused to ask US authorities to release Khadr, who is the only remaining Western citizen at Guantanamo. "

as a canadian i'm embarrassed by the above.


----------



## BigDL

A story some what International in scope, and National implications if Khdar is some how "sprung" without a trail and without Harpers approval. c

Could be viewed by citizens that the PM is less than effectual internationally on our national stage, just a thought.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> A story some what International in scope, and National implications if Khdar is some how "sprung" without a trail and without Harpers approval. c
> 
> Could be viewed by citizens that the PM is less than effectual internationally on our national stage, just a thought.


Well... so start another thread, it has nothing to do with this one. 

Honestly, lets keep it relevant to the subject matter at hand... you will get more traffic on your post, if this bothers you, by starting a new thread IMO and I mean this in the friendliest and most serious way...


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> Well... so start another thread, it has nothing to do with this one.
> 
> Honestly, lets keep it relevant to the subject matter at hand... you will get more traffic on your post, if this bothers you, by starting a new thread IMO and I mean this in the friendliest and most serious way...


Your opinion is understood and acknowledged. We will have to agree to disagree. 

Others may view this as a related issue or as a separate issue worthy of its own thread, I expressed my opinion i'tis mine....


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> Your opinion is understood and acknowledged. We will have to agree to disagree.
> 
> Others may view this as a related issue or as a separate issue worthy of its own thread, I expressed my opinion i'tis mine....


Okie Dokie... it is the trained debater in me... in a moderated debate I would suggest your comments (link) would be ruled out of order.  Carry on... 

On the lighter side... This makes me think of Monty Python's Dinosaur Sketch:



> Elk: Oh what is my theory, that it is. Yes, well you may well ask, what is my
> theory.
> Host: (slightly impatient) I am asking.
> Elk: And well you may. Yes my word you may well ask what it is, this theory
> of mine. Well, this theory that I have--that is to say, which is mine--
> ...is mine.
> Host: (more impatient) I know it's yours. What is it?
> Elk: Where? Oh, what is my theory?
> Host: Yes!
> Elk: Oh, my theory that I have follows the lines I am about to relate.
> (Coughs) Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem.
> Host: Oh God.
> Elk: Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem.
> Ahem. Ahem. [Impatient noises from Host] The Theory, by A. Elk. That's
> A for Anne, it's not by a elk.
> Host: Right....
> Elk: This theory which belongs to me is as follows. Ahem. Ahem. This is how
> it goes. Ahem. The next thing that I am about to say is my theory.
> Ahem. Ready?
> (Host moans)
> Elk: The Theory by A. Elk brackets Miss brackets. My theory is along the
> following lines.
> Host: Oh God.
> Elk: All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much MUCH thicker in the middle,
> and then thin again at the far end. That is the theory that I have and
> which is mine, and what it is too.






+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> What exactly does this have to do with the subject matter of this thread? There is not even any story yet and you post it here...


Well, screature, how he expresses his opinion is his and he reveres it...


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> Okie Dokie... it is the trained debater in me... in a moderated debate I would suggest your comments (link) would be ruled out of order.  Carry on...


 Interesting and I view Ehmac as a public meeting. Coming from different directions it's a wonder more collision, on this juncture of the info super highway, don't occur.



> On the lighter side... This makes me think of Monty Python's Dinosaur Sketch:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


Great success in spite of forgetting the ahem! ahem! ahem! aaahem!


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> Interesting and I view Ehmac as a public meeting....


Public meetings have to have rules otherwise it is impossible to maintain a coherent discussion... at any rate, as you already said "we will have to agree to disagree"... It's been fun... truthfully... Next.


----------



## mrjimmy

screature said:


> Well... so start another thread, it has nothing to do with this one.
> 
> Honestly, lets keep it relevant to the subject matter at hand... you will get more traffic on your post, if this bothers you, by starting a new thread IMO and I mean this in the friendliest and most serious way...


Last time I checked, CubaMark started this thread. Are you our new (self appointed) thread constable? Why don't you just chill and wait for the OP to determine what is or isn't relevant to his thread.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Last time I checked, CubaMark started this thread. Are you our new (self appointed) thread constable? Why don't you just chill and wait for the OP to determine what is or isn't relevant to his thread.


Those who start a thread do not become the moderators. They do not own them.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Those who start a thread do not become the moderators. They do not own them.


Perhaps not but it's the type of civility and respect I've grown to enjoy at ehMac. Screature needs to dial it back. It is not in the spirit of this forum.


----------



## fjnmusic

Given that the thread is devoted to Harper's misdeeds, I agree that the refusal by his government to do anything to help represent Omar Khadr is completely relevant. Any other country has done it's best to ensure its citizens receive a fair trial, which Mr. Khadr is unlikely to receive in the US or at Gitmo. Note that this had nothing to do with whether or not the individual is guilty; it is simply about ensuring access to a fair process, and if he is found guilty, at least it can be said the accused had the best defense possible rather than a kangaroo court. Mr. Harper seems unable to fathom the concept of the right to a fair trial, even for one of his own citizens, and I have no doubt that this may well have impacted the decision of the international community. How can an individual be very effective on the subject of human rights internationally when one won't even defend the rights of his own citizen?


----------



## Ottawaman




----------



## i-rui

fjnmusic said:


> Given that the thread is devoted to Harper's misdeeds, I agree that the refusal by his government to do anything to help represent Omar Khadr is completely relevant. Any other country has done it's best to ensure its citizens receive a fair trial, which Mr. Khadr is unlikely to receive in the US or at Gitmo. Note that this had nothing to do with whether or not the individual is guilty; it is simply about ensuring access to a fair process, and if he is found guilty, at least it can be said the accused had the best defense possible rather than a kangaroo court. Mr. Harper seems unable to fathom the concept of the right to a fair trial, even for one of his own citizens, and I have no doubt that this may well have impacted the decision of the international community. How can an individual be very effective on the subject of human rights internationally when one won't even defend the rights of his own citizen?


+1. agree 100%


----------



## gmark2000

Chretien and Martin didn't help Khadr either so I guess the "government" is being consistent.


----------



## Macfury

Why would Chretien, Martin or Harper be led to believe that Khadr would not receive a fair trial in the U.S.? The notion that the "international community" is fixated on this one case is laughable.


----------



## i-rui

gmark2000 said:


> Chretien and Martin didn't help Khadr either so I guess the "government" is being consistent.


The Chretien government actually did try initially.

But more importantly, neither Chretian or Martin ignored the supreme court's ruling regarding Khadr.


----------



## bsenka

Macfury said:


> Those who start a thread do not become the moderators. They do not own them.


Hey.... That is a great idea for a forum structure. Might not work at this site, but it could be a really neat idea in practice somewhere.


----------



## CubaMark

*If you love a thread, set it free. If it stays true to your OP, it is yours. If it strays, then it never was....*


----------



## BigDL

*The Contrarian Parker Donham offers synopsis of Khadr Case*



Contrarian said:


> As if to underscore his administration’s support for justice in this form, Harper’s foreign affairs minister, Lawrence Cannon, deemed this point in the negotiations an opportune time to issue a statement denying Canada had agreed to let Khadr serve any of his sentence in Canada, as would be allowed under a prisoner exchange treaty between the two countries.


The link here


----------



## Macfury

The behind-the-scenes negotiations will not be reported to that blogger.


----------



## screature

mrjimmy said:


> Perhaps not but it's the type of civility and respect I've grown to enjoy at ehMac. Screature needs to dial it back. It is not in the spirit of this forum.


Dial it back how? Was I rude in anyway... no just questioning the relevance of the posts to the thread. I think BigDL is a big boy and can look after himself just fine... we had our back and forth and it was over before you opined. You talking about civility and respect... now there's a laugh. :lmao:


----------



## mrjimmy

screature said:


> Dial it back how? Was I rude in anyway... no just questioning the relevance of the posts to the thread. I think BigDL is a big boy and can look after himself just fine... we had our back and forth and it was over before you opined. You talking about civility and respect... now there's a laugh. :lmao:


That's exactly the response I expected from you.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Given that the thread is devoted to Harper's misdeeds, I agree that the refusal by his government to do anything to help represent Omar Khadr is completely relevant. Any other country has done it's best to ensure its citizens receive a fair trial, which Mr. Khadr is unlikely to receive in the US or at Gitmo. Note that this had nothing to do with whether or not the individual is guilty; it is simply about ensuring access to a fair process, and if he is found guilty, at least it can be said the accused had the best defense possible rather than a kangaroo court. Mr. Harper seems unable to fathom the concept of the right to a fair trial, even for one of his own citizens, and I have no doubt that this may well have impacted the decision of the international community. How can an individual be very effective on the subject of human rights internationally when one won't even defend the rights of his own citizen?


Can't disagree more. Kadhr should not receive any more special treatment that any other Canadian national who commits a crime in the US or against American citizens/military personnel. You are assuming he won't receive a fair trial in the US. Your statement "Mr. Harper seems unable to fathom the concept of the right to a fair trial" is just baloney and I have plenty of doubt that the Khadr case had anything at all to do with the UN vote. Kahdr is receiving the same treatment from this government that they did under the Liberal watch.


----------



## screature

mrjimmy said:


> That's exactly the response I expected from you.


Well I wouldn't want to disappoint...


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Can't disagree more. Kadhr should not receive any more special treatment that any other Canadian national who commits a crime in the US or against American citizens/military personnel. You are assuming he won't receive a fair trial in the US. Your statement "Mr. Harper seems unable to fathom the concept of the right to a fair trial" is just baloney and I have plenty of doubt that the Khadr case had anything at all to do with the UN vote. Kahdr is receiving the same treatment from this government that they did under the Liberal watch.


Whether it's liberal or conservative is beside the point. There is plenty of evidence that Khadr would not receive a fair trial at Guantanamo Bay from a military tribunal trial, and Harper is deliberately avoiding doing the right thing. Typically, he'll blame his predecessors or the opposition parties for his problems, but here, there are several things to consider, including the age of the accused at the time of the alleged crime, the lack of witnesses other than Khadr himself (meaning he can only be found guilt if he incriminates himself–something not allowed in US law), and the fact that he was tortured/coerced into making statements that make him appear guilty. Why does Harper have it in for this guy? It's not about special treatment, for gosh sakes—it's about being treated like any other Gitmo accused person in the western hemisphere. Harper is the holdout—why?


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Whether it's liberal or conservative is beside the point. There is plenty of evidence that Khadr would not receive a fair trial at Guantanamo Bay from a military tribunal trial, and Harper is deliberately avoiding doing the right thing. Typically, he'll blame his predecessors or the opposition parties for his problems, but here, there are several things to consider, including the age of the accused at the time of the alleged crime, the lack of witnesses other than Khadr himself (meaning he can only be found guilt if he incriminates himself–something not allowed in US law), and the fact that he was tortured/coerced into making statements that make him appear guilty. Why does Harper have it in for this guy? It's not about special treatment, for gosh sakes—it's about being treated like any other Gitmo accused person in the western hemisphere. Harper is the holdout—why?


Well, I think probably because he comes from a family of known terrorists and the Government's well known tough on crime stance. Two fairly obvious reasons that jump immediately to mind. Also I think most probably Harper effectively sees Khadr as a traitor and he deserves his fate whatever it maybe so he isn't going to intervene.

There are plenty of people in the Con's electoral base who view it exactly this way and Harper knows it, he isn't going to go to the wall for someone who he views as a traitor and risk alienating his base support.


----------



## Macfury

All of the allegations, both against the defendant and those who have incarcerated him are well known. I see no reason why Canada's Prime Minister should involve himself in this trial. If the results of the trial are considered grossly unfair, I suppose that Canada could launch an appeal.


----------



## BigDL

fjnmusic said:


> Whether it's liberal or conservative is beside the point. There is plenty of evidence that Khadr would not receive a fair trial at Guantanamo Bay from a military tribunal trial, and Harper is deliberately avoiding doing the right thing. Typically, he'll blame his predecessors or the opposition parties for his problems, but here, there are several things to consider, including the age of the accused at the time of the alleged crime, the lack of witnesses other than Khadr himself (meaning he can only be found guilt if he incriminates himself–something not allowed in US law), and the fact that he was tortured/coerced into making statements that make him appear guilty. Why does Harper have it in for this guy? It's not about special treatment, for gosh sakes—it's about being treated like any other Gitmo accused person in the western hemisphere. Harper is the holdout—why?


I would think the major mitigating factor in all of this sorry mess is that Khadr is (was) a child soldier. 

Internationally the people that coerce/force children into warfare are the criminals and should be prosecuted not the child soldier. A fact that Harper refuses to acknowledge, this is why this issue can only cause Harper embarrassment one way or the other.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Well, I think probably because he comes from a family of known terrorists and the Government's well known tough on crime stance. Two fairly obvious reasons that jump immediately to mind. Also I think most probably Harper effectively sees Khadr as a traitor and he deserves his fate whatever it maybe so he isn't going to intervene.
> 
> There are plenty of people in the Con's electoral base who view it exactly this way and Harper knows it, he isn't going to go to the wall for someone who he views as a traitor and risk alienating his base support.


Thank you, you've just proved my point. Guilty! Khadr hasn't even had a trial yet, let alone a fair trial, and you like many others have determined he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for some pretty thin reasons (if I have a parent who committed a murder, it does make me a murderer as well). It is entirely possible that the hand grenade in question was tossed by someone other than Khadr, but since there were no other survivors, we_ assume_ it must have been him. That's a pretty low standard of proof. To be honest, I don't have a problem with Khadr being found guilty, _but he has a right to a fair trial first._


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> All of the allegations, both against the defendant and those who have incarcerated him are well known. I see no reason why Canada's Prime Minister should involve himself in this trial. If the results of the trial are considered grossly unfair, I suppose that Canada could launch an appeal.


Not when the court is a military tribunal.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Not when the court is a military tribunal.


An appeal to the U.S. government, not the military tribunal. Thank goodness Obama is in office now, or things could have been much worse.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Thank you, you've just proved my point. Guilty! Khadr hasn't even had a trial yet, let alone a fair trial, and *you like many others have determined he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for some pretty thin reasons* (if I have a parent who committed a murder, it does make me a murderer as well). It is entirely possible that the hand grenade in question was tossed by someone other than Khadr, but since there were no other survivors, we_ assume_ it must have been him. That's a pretty low standard of proof. To be honest, I don't have a problem with Khadr being found guilty, _but he has a right to a fair trial first._


Did I say anywhere that I agree with the reasons that the government holds? Jumping to conclusions don't you think? For the record I think he should be viewed as a child soldier, it doesn't mean that I can't understand the reasoning of those who view it otherwise.

Also no, not guilty yet, he hasn't had a trial, but if you are indicted for a crime you are held in prison until that trial occurs (unless of course you make bail). Whether or not he actually killed anyone I think he would still be viewed as a traitor by many (Harper included), he was still there fighting on the side of terrorists.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Did I say anywhere that I agree with the reasons that the government holds? Jumping to conclusions don't you think? For the record I think he should be viewed as a child soldier, it doesn't mean that I can't understand the reasoning of those who view it otherwise.
> 
> Also no, not guilty yet, he hasn't had a trial, but if you are indicted for a crime you are held in prison until that trial occurs (unless of course you make bail). Whether or not he actually killed anyone I think he would still be viewed as a traitor by many (Harper included), he was still there fighting on the side of terrorists.


Well, technically if he is a Canadian citizen and kills an American soldier, he is not traitor. Unless we are all actually Americans.


----------



## CubaMark

*This comment, posted to the story in the Globe & Mail by John Ibbitson, "A U.S. Request Harper Would Dread," nicely sums up the issue:*



> *Rob0007*
> 1:09 AM on October 15, 2010
> 
> Commentators are missing the point of this story. Khadr was 15 when he was arrested in 2004. He has been held in custody for 6 years before his case came to trial.
> 
> He was in a compound under attack by both US helicopter gun ships (called "Widow Makers) The helicopters were raking the compound with cannon fire and rockets. US ground troops were attacking the compound with riflles, machine guns and grenades. *They were trying to kill all of the occupants.* Someone threw a grenade back - not an unusual act for someone fighting for his life.
> 
> It cannot be proven Mr. Khadr threw the grenade. Therefore the US needed a confession to prove their case. Their tactics were so disreputable the "confession" would not be admissible in any Canadian or US civilian court. The Supreme Court of Canada found Mr. Khadr's rights were violated.
> 
> The victim of the murder charge was not wearing his helmet in a combat zone (duh?) US troops shot a defenceless and unarmed Khadr twice in the back.
> 
> The US military tribunal is a kangaroo court. If you want to learn how dysfunctional this court is listen to Rick McInnes-Rae's interview of Carol Rosenberg on a podcast of CBC's Dispatches for Oct. 14, 2010. See www.cbc/ca/dispatches.
> 
> The reason we should repatriate Mr. Khadr is the reprehensible system of justice being used to convict him is one no Canadian should ever have to endure.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Well, technically if he is a Canadian citizen and kills an American soldier, he is not traitor. Unless we are all actually Americans.


Well if he is a Canadian and kills an allied soldier I think that is tantamount to treason. It's a fine line in principle if not in law.


----------



## BigDL

The issues surrounding the reason for Mr. Khdar's detention in Gitmo are one thing but President Obama wanting to distance himself from the mess of a Military Tribunal making a pronouncement on a child solider is whole n'other matter.

Harper is hung out with the problem of not acting on a Canadian Supreme Court decision but will jump when the President of the Excited States says "Jump." 

That particular "Jump" may play well with the folks in Southern Alberta but I think less well the further you move to other parts of Canada.


----------



## eMacMan

BigDL said:


> The issues surrounding the reason for Mr. Khdar's detention in Gitmo are one thing but President Obama wanting to distance himself from the mess of a Military Tribunal making a pronouncement on a child solider is whole n'other matter.
> 
> Harper is hung out with the problem of not acting on a Canadian Supreme Court decision but will jump when the President of the Excited States says "Jump."
> 
> That particular "Jump" may play well with the folks in Southern Alberta but I think less well the further you move to other parts of Canada.


Ahem: The fine upstanding folks in Southern Alberta have absolutely no wish to have the Prime Ministers nose firmly entrenched in the backside of the US president.


----------



## BigDL

eMacMan said:


> Ahem: The fine upstanding folks in Southern Alberta have absolutely no wish to have the Prime Ministers nose firmly entrenched in the backside of the US president.


There you go I stand corrected. 

As I could only imagine Harper knew it would play well in his home area that he would proceed on such a course of action.

So now I can't imagine why a master strategist would find himself in a position as he seems to heading toward. Hummm!


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> If the results of the trial are considered grossly unfair, I suppose that Canada could launch an appeal.


The supreme Court of Canada has already deemed that his rights were violated. By OUR VERY OWN standards of law the trial is ALREADY grossly unfair.


----------



## fjnmusic

Anyone still think this particular item isn't relevant to this forum thread?


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Anyone still think this particular item isn't relevant to this forum thread?


Yep.

This thread is about:

Embarrassments for Harper

First: Canada loses out on seat at the U.N. Security Council - first time in sixty years.

Second: Deficit $2-billion higher than predicted ($55.6bn) , but don't worry, "next year will be lovely".

Both of which of which this issue has nothing to do with. If the general consensus is that people want to add to the list so be it... even though I don't think any of them are "embarrassments", but merely issues to be addressed by the government.

This issue is not what the the thread was stated to be about but if everyone wants to run off in all directions to bash Harper and the government... "have at 'er".  If CM wanted people to add to the list I would suggest he would have added... "Please feel free to add to the list." He may now well say that is what he intended and maybe he did, but it wasn't what was stated.

Some of you well may ask why I am doing this...? suggesting that threads should remain on topic... well for a few reasons...

I have done the same thing in other threads and so have many others, pointing out when a thread has "gone off the rails". Previously to this every time I have the OP thanked me for getting the debate back on topic.

From a discussion/debate standpoint if every manner of comment is seen as valid and relative to the discussion the said discussion/debate will quickly degrade into chaos with the result often being the point of the discussion that was intended in the first place is lost. 

It is rude to hi-jack a thread for one's own purposes. If you have something to say/a question to ask stimulated by the subject at hand but is not entirely relevant it is more polite/ordered to start another thread based on that aside comment/question. 

When I am talking to someone and something comes into my head spring boarding off of what we are talking about but not exactly relevant, I make a mental note to start talking about it after the discussion on the topic at hand has been exhausted... maybe that is just me, but based on my formal debating experience I really don't think so. Either that or say something like, "this is a complete aside but..." it is discussed and then we move back to the main subject.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> Ahem: The fine upstanding folks in Southern Alberta have absolutely no wish to have the Prime Ministers nose firmly entrenched in the backside of the US president.


You presume to speak for them all do you... I would imagine as you put it they do not, but whether this is the case or not is a point for debate.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> The supreme Court of Canada has already deemed that his rights were violated. By OUR VERY OWN standards of law the trial is ALREADY grossly unfair.


His Charter rights were violated, because he was subjected to sleep deprivation prior to interrogation. However the federal government is under no obligation to request his return, considering the circumstances under which the alleged crime was committed. Neither has the trial itself been deemed illegal or unfair.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Anyone still think this particular item isn't relevant to this forum thread?


Yes.


----------



## CubaMark

I'm the OP. I'm fine with how things are turning out... I consider the treatment of Khadr a huge embarrassment not only to Harper, but to all of Canada...


----------



## fjnmusic

CubaMark said:


> I'm the OP. I'm fine with how things are turning out... I consider the treatment of Khadr a huge embarrassment not only to Harper, but to all of Canada...


Well then. Game on!

And with all due respect to Screature's very thorough and well-reasoned argument as vigilante forum moderator, it seems to me that forum debates/discussions, like most forms of conversation, tend to take on a life of their own and evolve quite naturally into related areas of discussion. This can present a problem when linear sequential people talk with random abstract people, for example. However, if I read it correctly, the OP cited two prime examples of what he felt were actions/decisions/consequences of our current PM's governance that are embarrassing to the country as a whole, which we can either agree with or refute, providing example and counter-examples as we see fit. Sounds like a reasonable debate to me.

I would also venture to say that Harper puts his foot in it quite regularly, almost pathologically, which is why I believe he will never win a majority in Canada. Just prior to the last election, for example, he made some rather cutting comments about Quebec and arts funding which may well have pissed off enough people to cost him the majority he sought. Harper cannot function without having a received adversary to attack.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> Yep.
> 
> This thread is about:
> 
> Embarrassments for Harper
> 
> First: Canada loses out on seat at the U.N. Security Council - first time in sixty years.
> 
> Second: Deficit $2-billion higher than predicted ($55.6bn) , but don't worry, "next year will be lovely".


The point of bringing Omar Khadr into the thread is it's a THIRD embarrassment to harper...not that it has anything to do with the first 2.

As if anyone could ever limit his embarrassments to just 2.




Macfury said:


> His Charter rights were violated, because he was subjected to sleep deprivation prior to interrogation. However the federal government is under no obligation to request his return, considering the circumstances under which the alleged crime was committed. Neither has the trial itself been deemed illegal or unfair.


Any confession or testimony/statements gathered while his human rights were being violated would be considered inadmissible. The trial is already a sham.

Also the Federal court DID order the Harper government to step in and protect Khadr's rights. The supreme court simply couldn't go that far because they didn't want to breech the separation of the 2 branches of government.


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> I'm the OP. I'm fine with how things are turning out... I consider the treatment of Khadr a huge embarrassment not only to Harper, but to all of Canada...


I am less than surprised by this and as I already I have said if the consensus is such and now the OP has chimed in with his acceptance who am I to stand in the way...?

Didn't I say this to BigDL like this pages ago. 

But it is now official then new title and first post to this thread should read:

*Embarrassments for Harper*

First: Canada loses out on seat at the U.N. Security Council - first time in sixty years.

Second: Deficit $2-billion higher than predicted ($55.6bn) , but don't worry, "next year will be lovely".
*
... and anything else you care to add*.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> T*he point of bringing Omar Khadr into the thread is it's a THIRD embarrassment to harper...not that it has anything to do with the first 2.*
> 
> As if anyone could ever limit his embarrassments to just 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any confession or testimony/statements gathered while his human rights were being violated would be considered inadmissible. The trial is already a sham.
> 
> Also the Federal court DID order the Harper government to step in and protect Khadr's rights. The supreme court simply couldn't go that far because they didn't want to breech the separation of the 2 branches of government.


No one was invited to add others by the OP... CM just clariied that and we are moving on... 

Continue the bashing free for all.... :lmao:


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> I'm the OP. I'm fine with how things are turning out... I consider the treatment of Khadr a huge embarrassment not only to Harper, *but to all of Canada*...


How so ????

This includes yourself, what did you have to do with it... you are admitting complicity with that of which you criticize? Good on ya... are you in rehab for that? 

BTW what exactly did any Canadian authorities *do* to Khadr, other than allow for due process of the independent state that detained him, all the while remembering, the best we could would be to complain, as we do not have immediate jurisdiction over the matter. The government has left it in Obama's hands... If you want to blame anyone blame him... He did say he would close Gitmo and now* he* is keeping it open specifically for Khadr...

Whoops whose embarrassment is that???


----------



## BigDL

Then there was this storyUAE Bans Canadian Flights on the same day as the other two


> Yep.
> 
> This thread is about:
> 
> Embarrassments for Harper
> 
> First: Canada loses out on seat at the U.N. Security Council - first time in sixty years.
> 
> Second: Deficit $2-billion higher than predicted ($55.6bn) , but don't worry, "next year will be lovely".


Kinda like a triple whammy day for Harper's Cons


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> Any confession or testimony/statements gathered while his human rights were being violated would be considered inadmissible. The trial is already a sham.


We don't know what evidence will be considered admissible.



i-rui said:


> Also the Federal court DID order the Harper government to step in and protect Khadr's rights. The supreme court simply couldn't go that far because they didn't want to breech the separation of the 2 branches of government.


The Supreme Court said that the court had _erred_ in ordering the PM to intervene, because it had no right to do so.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> Then there was this storyUAE Bans Canadian Flights on the same day as the other two Kinda like a triple whammy day for Harper's Cons


Only if you disagree with the policy. Otherwise it is just business as usual fighting the media. Since when has this 4 year old administration *ever* been the media's darling?


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Only if you disagree with the policy. Otherwise it is just business as usual fighting the media. Since when has this 4 year old administration *ever* been the media's darling?


Easy now, Screature. This is starting to sound like sour grapes. It's like blaming the leader of the opposition when you have a minority government because they didn't show solidarity with you. Harper puts his foot in his mouth quite regularly and all the media needs to do is report it. It's still his foot. He's like Ralph Klein but without the charm.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Easy now, Screature. This is starting to sound like sour grapes. It's like blaming the leader of the opposition when you have a minority government because they didn't show solidarity with you. Harper puts his foot in his mouth quite regularly and all the media needs to do is report it. It's still his foot. He's like Ralph Klein but without the charm.


What?  The UAE issue is only an embarrassment if you agree that Canada should be held hostage to the continuance of an ongoing agreement based on new terms and conditions that were imposed by the UAE in midplay. How the h**l is this sour grapes?

As far as the foot in mouth comment is concerned, that phenomenon has less to do with the utterer of the statement and more to do with the point of view of the reporter.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> What?  The UAE issue is only an embarrassment if you agree that Canada should be held hostage to the continuance of an ongoing agreement based on new terms and conditions that were imposed by the UAE in midplay. How the h**l is this sour grapes?
> 
> As far as the foot in mouth comment is concerned, that phenomenon has less to do with the utter of the statement and more to do with the point of view of the reporter.


Almost anything can be classified as an "embarrassment" if one doesn't agree with it. The title of the thread itself is something of an embarrassment to literate folk.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> How so ????
> 
> This includes yourself, what did you have to do with it... you are admitting complicity with that of which you criticize? Good on ya... are you in rehab for that?


You can still be embarrassed if you have nothing to do with the act. Just ask any teenager who goes out in public with their parents.



screature said:


> BTW what exactly did any Canadian authorities *do* to Khadr, other than allow for due process of the independent state that detained him, all the while remembering, the best we could would be to complain, as we do not have immediate jurisdiction over the matter. The government has left it in Obama's hands... If you want to blame anyone blame him... He did say he would close Gitmo and now* he* is keeping it open specifically for Khadr...


Inaction to do the right thing is something to be embarrassed about. You act like complaining would have been useless, but Britain complained, and asked for the release of British citizens. And they got them. THEN they asked for British RESIDENTS (not even citizens) and they were released.

Khadr is the last western born prisoner left at Guantánamo. He was a 15 year old CANADIAN KID when captured. That's something ALL Canadians should be embarrassed about. It's terrible. It shows just how much the Harper government cares about the rights of Canadian people.

And the Harper Government has also wasted $1.3 MILLION on legal costs to fight against his rights and release. There's those good old fiscally responsible conservatives again.....

now that's a true national embarrassment.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> You can still be embarrassed if you have nothing to do with the act. *Just ask any teenager* who goes out in public with their parents.
> *
> Inaction to do the right thing is something to be embarrassed about*. *You act like* complaining would have been useless, but Britain complained, and asked for the release of British citizens. And they got them. THEN they asked for British RESIDENTS (not even citizens) and they were released.
> 
> Khadr is the last western born prisoner left at Guantánamo. He was a 15 year old CANADIAN KID when captured. That's something ALL Canadians should be embarrassed about. It's terrible. It shows just how much the Harper government cares about the rights of Canadian people.
> 
> And the Harper Government has also wasted $1.3 MILLION on legal costs to fight against his rights and release. There's those good old fiscally responsible conservatives again.....
> 
> now that's a true national embarrassment.


You are seriously going to cite the emotional reaction of teenagers as justification...  I would hope the government operates at a level higher than that...

The right thing is a matter of debate... that is why we are discussing it and why the Supreme Court of Canada left the final decision on the matter to the government of Canada... Notice a lack of Private Members Bills and Opposition Motions on the matter... that might give you a clue as to how even the opposition sees the public divided on this issue.

You conveniently avoided Obama's complicity in the matter...

How did I* act* in anyway or the other.. I made a statement of fact... the outcome of a plea would be the responsibility of the US administration,,, Just the same as it would be if no plea were made... they have the final say.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> Almost anything can be classified as an "embarrassment" if one doesn't agree with it. The title of the thread itself is something of an embarrassment to literate folk.


I think the title is the "hook" to draw people in, which is exactly why you and I are adding our two bits now. Sometimes it's important for us literate folk to mix with the commoners.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> I think the title is the "hook" to draw people in, which is exactly why you and I are adding our two bits now. Sometimes it's important for us literate folk to mix with the commoners.


Blush.....


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> I think the title is the "hook" to draw people in, which is exactly why you and I are adding our two bits now. *Sometimes it's important for us literate folk to mix with the commoners.*


Really..? I hope you are joking...

What *exactly * is this supposed to mean. ? Just so us *commoners* can understand?!?!?!?! 

I would agree/argue the title is the* cheap* hook to draw people in, just like so much yellow journalism these days and it is the first post that actually talks about what the thread is about.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> You are seriously going to cite the emotional reaction of teenagers as justification...  I would hope the government operates at a level higher than that...


That was a joke. Although it does serve to illustrate the point that the actions of others can play THE role in embarrassing situations.



screature said:


> The right thing is a matter of debate... that is why we are disusing it and why the Supreme Court of Canada left the final decision on the matter to the government of Canada...


The supreme court said the Harper government was wrong. It's pretty clear. The reason they can't ORDER them to do something is because of the importance to keep the legislative & executive branches separate. (and i agree with them on that point because that would set a dangerous precedent). But nevertheless, the point the court made was there was serious human rights violations and the government doesn't care.



screature said:


> You conveniently avoided Obama's complicity in the matter...


It's a non factor. We're talking about Embarrassments for Harper. I wouldn't want to get off track in this thread lest i be reprimanded.....

BUT, since you asked :

Obama failed on this point and his promise to close the prison down. I would never say otherwise. Doesn't change the fact that Harper has failed to act when every other western country has stepped up. the fact that we're talking about a kid makes it even more egregious.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Really..? I hope you are joking...
> 
> What *exactly * is this supposed to mean. ? Just so us *commoners* can understand?!?!?!?!
> 
> I would agree/argue the title is the* cheap* hook to draw people in, just like so much yellow journalism these days and it is the first post that actually talks about what the thread is about.


Seriously, dude, you need to find a sense of humour once in a while. I think there's a sale on them at eBay today and tomorrow only. This is only an amateur forum for Canadian Mac users, after all.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Seriously, dude, you need to find a sense of humour once in a while. I think there's a sale on them at eBay today and tomorrow only. This is only an amateur forum for Canadian Mac users, after all.


I have a sense of humour... just ask my friends.. I don't know you or where you are coming from.. that is why I asked. My failing is I wasn't sure of your insinuations... For that I am I am indeed guilty...


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> That was a joke. Although it does serve to illustrate the point that the actions of others can play THE role in embarrassing situations.
> 
> *The supreme court said the Harper government was wrong. *It's pretty clear.....
> 
> It's a non factor. We're talking about Embarrassments for Harper. I wouldn't want to get off track in this thread lest i be reprimanded.....
> 
> BUT, since you asked :
> 
> Obama failed on this point and his promise to close the prison down. I would never say otherwise. Doesn't change the fact that Harper has failed to act when every other western country has stepped up. the fact that we're talking about a kid makes it even more egregious.


No they said Khadr's rights as far as the Canadian Constitution is concerned were abused... the Americans don't operate under the authority of our constitution...

As far as Obamama is concerned... didn't I hear someone say "game on" to which I agreed... It is an issue. 

This is a game of political "chicken" between Obama and Harper to see who will blink first as both have votes at stake. Both are hoping the other will blink first to let the other off the hook... quite frankly I think Obama has less to lose. But time will tell.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> I have a sense of humour... just ask my friends.. I don't know you or where you are coming from.. that is why I asked. My failing is I wasn't sure of your insinuations... For that I am I am indeed guilty...


Got any phone numbers for references? Just kidding. A spoonful of sugar indeed helps the medicine go down, and a finely honed sense of sarcasm is indeed a blessing. Anyhoo, back to Harper, our hero.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> No they said Khadr's rights as far as the Canadian Constitution is concerned were abused... the Americans don't operate under the authority of our constitution...


The Americans don't operate under the authority of ANYONE'S constitution (even their own). Still didn't stop Britain from demanding their imprisoned citizens and residents get released.




screature said:


> This is a game of political "chicken" between Obama and Harper to see who will blink first as both have votes at stake. Both are hoping the other will blink first to let the other off the hook... quite frankly I think Obama has less to lose. But time will tell.


Glad to hear Harper is playing political games with some kid's life. What a great guy.

At least Obama has the good sense to not do it with one of his own citizens.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> Glad to hear Harper is playing political games with some kid's life. What a great guy.
> 
> At least Obama has the good sense to not do it with one of his own citizens.


He was in Afghanistan as part of a terrorist organization, he isn't just some kid. 

As for "playing political games", it was a figure of speech. Politics is a "blood sport" (another figure of speech  ) and all who enter it, if they aren't fully aware of what they are getting themselves into from outset, learn very quickly or are tossed out very quickly.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> He was in Afghanistan as part of a terrorist organization, he isn't just some kid.


dragged there by his father as an adolescent. he was just a kid.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> dragged there by his father as an adolescent. he was just a kid.


I believe he should be considered a child soldier as I already have said and should be treated accordingly, but he wasn't Doogie Howser either. You assume he was dragged there by his father while he may in fact have been willing and eager to go, he was undoubtedly already brainwashed at this point in time, filled with the vitriol and hatred of his father and those around him.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> I believe he should be considered a child soldier as I already have said and should be treated accordingly, but he wasn't Doogie Howser either. You assume he was dragged there by his father while he may in fact have been willing and eager to go, he was undoubtedly already brainwashed at this point time, filled with the vitriol and hatred of his father and those around him.


Either way it would be hard to argue that he really made his own decision.

Given that there is zero admissible evidence that he threw the grenade (In either US or Canadian courts) and anecdotal evidence that he did not. At the very least he should be returned to Canada and tried or not tried under Canadian law. Yes treason would be one possible charge and a lot easier to prove conclusively than the iffy charges based on torture confessions he faces in the US tribunal.

Can't recall whether or no he was born in Canada. If no, then as Canada was technically at war, perhaps his citizenship could be revoked.

I say technically at war as we have sent troops over there to fight terror. An impossible target to define and therefore an impossible war to win at least by military might.


----------



## fjnmusic

Doogie Hauser spent time as a soldier? That sneaky kid!


----------



## jimbotelecom

Khadar should be treated like the child soldiers of the Nazi regime were at the end of WWII. But he has been treated like a war criminal even though the US says it wasn't a war?!

It's a mess.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Doogie Hauser spent time as a soldier? That sneaky kid!



You didn't know...?


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> You didn't know...?
> 
> View attachment 16448


Nice. :clap:

Anyway, it wasn't a war. It was a pre-emptive strike. Wait minute, that was Iraq, a year and a half later. How did we end up in Afghanistan again? Looking for Bin Laden and Al-Quaeda terrorists or something like that, and ended up fighting the Taliban and the insurgents. The insurgents we created by forcing them to defend themselves from a foreign invasion. If Afghani soldiers invaded Canada, would we be insurgents if we tried to defend ourselves? And how do you know when you've won the war on an abstract noun like 'terror'? When there are no terrorists left? What if you become the new terrorist? Do you then seek to destroy yourself?

Things I think about in my spare time.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Nice. :clap:
> 
> Anyway, it wasn't a war. It was a pre-emptive strike. Wait minute, that was Iraq, a year and a half later. How did we end up in Afghanistan again? Looking for Bin Laden and Al-Quaeda terrorists or something like that, and ended up fighting the Taliban and the insurgents. The insurgents we created by forcing them to defend themselves from a foreign invasion. If Afghani soldiers invaded Canada, would we be insurgents if we tried to defend ourselves? And how do you know when you've won the war on an abstract noun like 'terror'? When there are no terrorists left? What if you become the new terrorist? Do you then seek to destroy yourself?
> 
> Things I think about in my spare time.


I would have just pounded the appropriate targets to rubble and left.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I would have just pounded the appropriate targets to rubble and left.


Yeah, that works too. Why bother with all that mucky-muck about trying not to kill innocent people along the way? Nuke 'em. The old-fashioned way. Just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Yeah, that works too. Why bother with all that mucky-muck about trying not to kill innocent people along the way? Nuke 'em. The old-fashioned way. Just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


The appropriate targets--not civilians. Don't be a doink!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> The appropriate targets--not civilians. Don't be a doink!


Hmm. Couldn't find that one, but if you take out the 'o' we could be goin' somewhere. Problem is, as you know, that a wise enemy makes the "target" difficult if not damn near impossible to find, especially if it's mixed in among the civilians. Of course, if there is no actual target to begin with, like the weapons of mass destruction that could be launched within 45 minutes, made with enriched plutonium from Africa, as was the case in Iraq, then the target can be impossible to find. 

Which makes you wonder: if you can zoom in with Google street view and read street license plates. why on earth can the US military not locate Osama Bin Laden after nine years of searching? Perhaps they are trying as hard as OJ Simpson when when he was looking for the "real killers" on every golf course he could find.


----------



## MacDoc

> * The Economist on Canada’s UN rejection *
> 
> *Norman Spector*
> 
> * Globe and Mail Update *
> 
> *Posted on Saturday, October 16, 2010 10:57AM EDT*


The Economist on Canada’s UN rejection - The Globe and Mail

cartoon got it in one....reap what you sow Mr. Harper...

best snip as exemplar



> _ Last year he raised eyebrows by choosing to inaugurate a doughnut-innovation centre rather than attend the UN General Assembly_


----------



## Macfury

> Last year he raised eyebrows by choosing to inaugurate a doughnut-innovation centre rather than attend the UN General Assembly


Since Harper is on record as a skeptic of the value of the UN, this decision is entirely appropriate.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Since Harper is on record as a skeptic of the value of the UN, this decision is entirely appropriate.


if the Harper Government doesn't value the UN, then why lobby to be part of the security council?

kind of like calling a girl an ugly cow, and then asking her for a date....


----------



## mrjimmy

i-rui said:


> if the Harper Government doesn't value the UN, then why lobby to be part of the security council?
> 
> kind of like calling a girl an ugly cow, and then asking her for a date....


...and then getting rejected and telling everyone you didn't want to date her anyway.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> if the Harper Government doesn't value the UN, then why lobby to be part of the security council?
> 
> kind of like calling a girl an ugly cow, and then asking her for a date....


If I had to guess, having a seat on the security council probably offer a few perks. Attending the General Assembly, not so much.


----------



## screature

*Wall Street Journal's Take*

Bravo, Canada
A U.N. snub is a badge of honor.



> Life must be very good in Canada, or at least dull, judging by the domestic reaction to its failed bid last week for a temporary seat on the U.N. Security Council. Listen to the yowls in the papers north of the border: "A nation reeling," "humiliating defeat," "a rebuke from the global community," "tarnishes our reputation," "a slap in the face."
> 
> We say: Way to go. Canada seems to have annoyed a sufficient number of Third World dictators and liberally pious Westerners to come up short in a secret General Assembly ballot. The sins committed by Stephen Harper's Conservative government include staunch support for Israel, skepticism about cap-and-trade global warming schemes, and long-standing commitment to the Afghan war. Americans would be so lucky to get a leader as steadfast on those issues as the Canadian Prime Minister.
> 
> The United Arab Emirates took credit for putting together a group of anti-Canadian Arab and Islamic states to stop the bid for the two-year rotating chair. The UAE also has a beef with Ottawa over landing rights for Emirates Airlines going into Canada.
> 
> The U.S. role here is also embarrassing—to the U.S. Richard Grenell, a former senior official at the U.S. Mission to the U.N., reported last week that America's U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, refused to campaign on Canada's behalf. Mr. Harper's politics are not hers, and Liberal opposition leader and Obama political soulmate, Michael Ignatieff, declared last month that Canada under Mr. Harper didn't deserve to get one of the 10 temporary seats.
> 
> The farcical nature of all this was made clear when the Canadians lost to Portugal, which—with all due respect to the memory of Vasco da Gama—is no global titan. This small and economically hobbled Iberian country will now hold one of two temporary spots reserved for Western bloc states. Germany was assured the other.
> 
> Canada, on the other hand, is a serious country. Under Mr. Harper's leadership, Canada has avoided the worst of the global recession and emerged with a vibrant banking system and strong currency (now trading near parity to the U.S. dollar). The courage of its soldiers in Afghanistan, and in other missions, is testament to a nation that honors its commitments. Canadians should wear the U.N. snub as a badge of honor.
> Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A20


----------



## Macfury

Bravo, _WSJ_!


----------



## Max

Good write-up. I have no love for Harper but it seems to me that losing that particular UN seat should be kept in perspective. It remains to be seen whether the future Canadian history books will even consider the matter worth even a footnote in its pages on Stephen Harper.

As an aside, the landing rights flap is a revealing, even absurdist look at the horse trading that goes on behind the scenes.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> Bravo, _WSJ_!


+1



Max said:


> Good write-up. I have no love for Harper but it seems to me that losing that particular UN seat should be kept in perspective. It remains to be seen whether the future Canadian history books will even consider the matter worth even a footnote in its pages on Stephen Harper.
> 
> As an aside, the landing rights flap is a revealing, even absurdist look at the horse trading that goes on behind the scenes.


I haven't been able to understand the criticism leveled @ Harper on this (not that he's above reproach). Read some of the level headed reports on this & there's no way Canada would have been nominated, especially after the involvement of the UAE.

It's not that big of a deal. Who cares?


----------



## Max

Apparently you don't, but some people do. People who don't like Harper, ferinstance, and who are forever casting about on the search for ammunition to use against him.


----------



## groovetube

Max said:


> Apparently you don't, but some people do. People who don't like Harper, ferinstance, and who are forever casting about on the search for ammunition to use against him.


ah don't be so accommodating Max. The ink was barely dry on the new reports before Harper and crew had Iggy's fault!!! attack ads.

It's just the way things go. Apparently. Now anyway.


----------



## kps

It's the permanent members of the council who rule the roost. Who the hell is going to listen to Portugal...Germany, Canada for that matter or any other 2 year stinter of a country?

Harper wanted the prestige and actively sought support, but the largely dysfunctional UN voted otherwise. No big deal and no embarrassment either.


----------



## groovetube

speaking of, embarrassments for Harper, I've been following this. Companies got federal contracts after attending far-flung Tory fundraisers - The Globe and Mail

I'd say, where there's smoke, there's fire. Time for some er, accountability.


----------



## bsenka

groovetube said:


> speaking of, embarrassments for Harper, I've been following this. Companies got federal contracts after attending far-flung Tory fundraisers - The Globe and Mail
> 
> I'd say, where there's smoke, there's fire. Time for some er, accountability.


Total BS. Typical G&M fail.

The maximum donation is still $1100 for everyone. There is literally no chance that's influencing contracts.

If there is a smoke-fire analogy to be made, it's that the left-wing media is really getting desperate.


----------



## Macfury

bsenka said:


> Total BS. Typical G&M fail.
> 
> The maximum donation is still $1100 for everyone. There is literally no chance that's influencing contracts.
> 
> If there is a smoke-fire analogy to be made, it's that the left-wing media is really getting desperate.


When the lefty media sees fire, they're usually smoking something.


----------



## Max

Wow, that's rich. High octane humour there! Hey folks, stick around. He's here all week.


----------



## CubaMark

*Canadian gov't scientists protest gag order, go straight to public with own website*


> Canada's Tory government is notoriously hostile to science (especially climate science, which poses an existential threat to their power base in the planet-killing tar-sands). But a state-imposed gag-order on scientists, putting their ability to communicate to the press in the hands of petty bureaucrats, is beyond the pale even for them. Why is it that so many "small government neocons" love big government solutions to their embarrassing little problems? (BoingBoing)


See their website: www.publicscience.ca

*The Globe & Mail article (click image to read)*


----------



## bryanc

CubaMark said:


> Canadian gov't scientists protest gag order, go straight to public with own website
> 
> See their website: www.publicscience.ca
> 
> *The Globe & Mail article (click image to read)*


I saw this a little while ago and thought about posting it here. But the Harper apologists will no doubt argue that this is not because Harper is anti-science, because ... uh... The Liberals! Liberals muzzled scientists too! Liberals! Ack!


----------



## groovetube

Max said:


> Wow, that's rich. High octane humour there! Hey folks, stick around. He's here all week.


these poor sods haven't figured out the fellers they are defending so valiantly to spend their tax dollars are taking them to the cleaners, and they're good wid dat.

Apparently standing up for good government means voting for your guy and screaming STFU whenever anyone dares point out their misdeeds.




bryanc said:


> I saw this a little while ago and thought about posting it here. But the Harper apologists will no doubt argue that this is not because Harper is anti-science, because ... uh... The Liberals! Liberals muzzled scientists too! Liberals! Ack!


Careful macfury gets real touchy when anyone pulls out the "the liberals made us do it" routine.


----------



## CubaMark

No-one else has picked up on Auditor General Sheila Fraser's report?

*AG: Forces camouflaged choppers' high cost*





> The scathing analysis of programs to buy choppers for maritime patrol and army battlefield operations was the highlight of her fall report, and critics were quick to link the embarrassment to the plan to spend $16 billion on the F-35 Lightning II.
> 
> Other chapters of Fraser's report looked at the Conservative government’s stimulus program and the regulation of big banks. But it was the combined $11-billion purchase of CH-148 Cyclones and CH-147F Chinook helicopters that drew the most fire.
> 
> Fraser said both programs are years behind schedule, far over their initial cost estimates and — in the case of the sole-sourced Chinooks — "the contract award process was not fair, open and transparent."





> The audit accused Defence planners of *deliberately misleading* the federal Treasury Board *by claiming* — at the beginning — that *they were buying "off-the-shelf" helicopters.*
> 
> ....
> 
> *After approval, the air force demanded a series of modifications to the base models that forced defence contractors, in the case of the Cyclone, to create "an aircraft that never existed before."*
> 
> And Defence did not develop long-term-cost plans for the aircraft early enough. When they did, it was presented after the fact.


(Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


----------



## BigDL

Hey CM are you sure you're allowed to introduce the full spectrum of embarrassments of the Federal Conservatives lest the Harperites complain of "not on topic."


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I saw this a little while ago and thought about posting it here. But the Harper apologists will no doubt argue that this is not because Harper is anti-science, because ... uh... The Liberals! Liberals muzzled scientists too! Liberals! Ack!


Fine by me, as long as they don't grant press interviews without approval. Love to see their little scientific Napolean complexes in action!


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Love to see their little scientific Napolean complexes in action!


But you won't be able to. Harper is keeping them muzzled so you won't know anything about what they're doing on your dime.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> But you won't be able to. Harper is keeping them muzzled so you won't know anything about what they're doing on your dime.


Sure--on their own website and on their dime. Which is why I made the comment.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Sure--on their own website


I'm surprised you find it acceptable that your own government is making it harder for you to find out what your taxes are paying for.

It's nice of the scientists to do this end-run around Harper's new policies of "silence the minions!"


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I'm surprised you find it acceptable that your own government is making it harder for you to find out what your taxes are paying for.
> 
> It's nice of the scientists to do this end-run around Harper's new policies of "silence the minions!"


I can find a list of projects funded by my tax dollars. Better the scientists inform me of their results on their own time. It may be nice of them, but I suspect ego is the biggest factor here. And if I don't like what they say I can always ask my MP to defund them!


----------



## hayesk

Ha ha, it's clear McFury doesn't know many scientists. And yes, you certainly have the right to ask your MP to defund scientists that don't post the results that you like, but isn't that the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la! I can't hear you! la la la!"

I want my tax dollars to support scientific research of various topics both significant and insignificant, both relevant to current events and irrelevant, as you never know where scientific discovery will come from. I want both the data and interpreted results posted so they stand up to peer review. Knowledge can't progress very well if we only choose to hear the results we like. Unfortunately, Harper's Conservatives don't seem to be that interested in progression of knowledge.


----------



## Max

Hear hear, hayesk!


----------



## kps

CubaMark said:


> No-one else has picked up on Auditor General Sheila Fraser's report?
> 
> AG: Forces camouflaged choppers' high cost


Whys is this an embarrassment to Harper when this helicopter fiasco has been going on for 25+ years? 

Here's a better quote:



> While Canada’s Sea King helicopter fleet aged and deteriorated to potentially dangerous levels, political pettiness and lack of concern turned a straightforward off-the-shelf buy into a 25+ year long odyssey of cancellations, lawsuits, rebids, and more. Eventually, the Canadian military settled on Sikorsky’s H-92 Superhawk as the basis of its new CH-148 Cyclone Maritime Helicopter, which will serve from the decks of Canada’s naval ships and bases.


Read the time-line in the quoted article, then if you still think it's all Harper's fault, I'm all ears.

Canada’s CH-148 Cyclones: Better Late Than Never?


----------



## screature

kps said:


> Whys is this an embarrassment to Harper when this helicopter fiasco has been going on for 25+ years?
> 
> Here's a better quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the time-line in the quoted article, then if you still think it's all Harper's fault, I'm all ears.
> 
> Canada’s CH-148 Cyclones: Better Late Than Never?


+1 yup, people should know their history.


----------



## Macfury

hayesk said:


> Ha ha, it's clear McFury doesn't know many scientists. And yes, you certainly have the right to ask your MP to defund scientists that don't post the results that you like, but isn't that the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la! I can't hear you! la la la!"
> 
> I want my tax dollars to support scientific research of various topics both significant and insignificant, both relevant to current events and irrelevant, as you never know where scientific discovery will come from. I want both the data and interpreted results posted so they stand up to peer review. Knowledge can't progress very well if we only choose to hear the results we like. Unfortunately, Harper's Conservatives don't seem to be that interested in progression of knowledge.


This is like saying I want Canada to buy tickets in foreign lotteries. If you don't play, ya can't win!


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> This is like saying I want Canada to buy tickets in foreign lotteries. If you don't play, ya can't win!


all one has to do is think of the many miraculous discoveries such as penicillin and many others to easily see this comment as absolutely, hilarious.


----------



## hayesk

Macfury said:


> This is like saying I want Canada to buy tickets in foreign lotteries. If you don't play, ya can't win!


Wow. Just wow. I hope you are just having a bit of fun trolling, because I can't imagine someone being so ignorant about scientific research and discovery. I guess your attitude towards scientific research represents Harper's thinking perfectly - keep the population stupid - they're easier to control this way.

Canada's not going to have much of a future when low-skilled jobs are being moved to China, and our brightest minds move elsewhere because they get no support here.


----------



## Macfury

hayesk said:


> Wow. Just wow. I hope you are just having a bit of fun trolling, because I can't imagine someone being so ignorant about scientific research and discovery. I guess your attitude towards scientific research represents Harper's thinking perfectly - keep the population stupid - they're easier to control this way.
> 
> Canada's not going to have much of a future when low-skilled jobs are being moved to China, and our brightest minds move elsewhere because they get no support here.


Our brightest minds will move to where they get the most money. I was referring to your desire to have your tax dollars support _ANY _kind of research. It's funny how you want your tax dollars to do that, but never your private dollars.

I think groovetube may not be up on the history of penicillin. Is that a government invention, groove?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Our brightest minds will move to where they get the most money.


Not in my experience. The best scientists are rarely motivated by cash. Like any other people, scientists have families, lives, national pride, and other concerns that constrain their career choices. Part of the reason Canada gets so much more bang for its (very limited) research dollars than most countries (esp. the US), is that so many scientists want to live here. Especially during the Bush years, there were a lot of academic refugees from the US looking for jobs in Canada.

Funding opportunities are certainly a factor in where scientists go to work, but it's not the only one.

Furthermore, unless the majority of scientific research remains publicly funded, and published in publicly accessible ways (i.e. not how Stephen Harper would like), there will be real problems because science relies on globally shared data. Science cannot really progress without the open access model we have developed.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Furthermore, unless the majority of scientific research remains publicly funded, and published in publicly accessible ways (i.e. not how Stephen Harper would like), there will be real problems because science relies on globally shared data. Science cannot really progress without the open access model we have developed.



Clearly you didn't follow the money. 

However, scientists are more likely to share data through official circles such as journals and conferences, instead of reading some reporter's precis in the newspaper. Still, all that the government did in this case is require the scientist to follow protocol before speaking to the newspaper.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Scientists are more likely to share data through official circles such as journals and conferences


Yes, but these methods must be open to all, peer-reviewed and preferably free in order for the system to work.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Our brightest minds will move to where they get the most money. I was referring to your desire to have your tax dollars support _ANY _kind of research. It's funny how you want your tax dollars to do that, but never your private dollars.
> 
> I think groovetube may not be up on the history of penicillin. Is that a government invention, groove?


Oh macfury. Surely, you aren't this ridiculous. 

Though I find many neo cons or, libertarians if they're too chicken to call themselves neo cons quite capable of this buffoonery.

Refer back to Hayesk's post to put it back into perspective it fails you k?


----------



## screature

hayesk said:


> Canada's not going to have much of a future when low-skilled jobs are being moved to China, and *our brightest minds move elsewhere because they get no support here*.


Whose fault is that? In the creative content world/arts most of our best and brightest move to the US or elsewhere to make their name because they can't receive recognition here (with a few exceptions) until they have made it in the US or elsewhere... the problem doesn't lie with the Government it lies with us... the public and our Canadian inferiority complex. Remember when you point a finger three are pointing back at you. 

Success within the sciences, just like the arts, often relies heavily (as it should) on the private sector not the public sector. If you can't sell it it most often it is because no one/very few want it or care.


----------



## groovetube

speaking of, er, embarrassments. This from the government who would have us believe they are, ah, fiscally responsible.

What was that crap about 'stopping the gravy train' we kept hearing about? Oh yeah.
CBC News - Canada - Canada's embassy spending soars

Perhaps this isn't really, an embarrassment though eh. Just, expected no?


----------



## BigDL

Seems the Khadr deal is an embarrassment for Harper. The Minister (Cannon) is either bats#!t crazy or ignorant of what happens in his own department.



CBC News said:


> Under fire from opposition MPs during Monday's question period in the House of Commons, Cannon insisted the Canadian government was not involved in plea negotiations, despite a U.S. State Department memorandum that reveals the Conservative government was aware of the Toronto-born Khadr's plea agreement


Read more:

The Cons are just bringing on the embarrassment for themselves. :clap:


----------



## Macfury

Khadr's lawyers should be embarrassed for refusing the five-year plea deal offered earlier.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Khadr's lawyers should be embarrassed for refusing the five-year plea deal offered earlier.


Look over there! A shiny thing!

Just as a reminder; this thread is about "Embarrassments for Harper" not "distractions that have nothing to do with the decisions of our elected government."


----------



## whatiwant

I saw Senator Romeo Dallaire speaking about this yesterday on the morning news and I'd have to agree with him that it is a huge failure of our govt to uphold UN conventions that we helped to create. That said, I believe it would've been an embarrassment to the former Liberal govt before it was passed onto the impotent Harper govt.


----------



## SINC

jawknee said:


> That said, I believe it would've been an embarrassment to the former Liberal govt before it was passed onto the impotent Harper govt.


In spite of that point being hammered home in this thread multiple times, the Harper haters continue to dream up "embarrassments" that started with their very own party.


----------



## jimbotelecom

SINC said:


> In spite of that point being hammered home in this thread multiple times, the Harper haters continue to dream up "embarrassments" that started with their very own party.


Have to agree here: the Libs and the Cons are both at fault on the Khadar matter. It's embarrassing that a child is treated like this. Imagine if the Allies had done the same thing to the thousands of German child soldiers at the end of WWII. Nonetheless, I'm looking forward to a new minority government when the election is called.


----------



## Macfury

Let's face it. For some people it's simply embarrassing for a Prime Minister to be victorious election after election. It's a stinging humiliation, and there's a lot of anger among such people that Stephen Harper does not share their shame.


----------



## whatiwant

SINC said:


> In spite of that point being hammered home in this thread multiple times, the Harper haters continue to dream up "embarrassments" that started with their very own party.


Yes but the whole "it was them not us" is no excuse to ignore the matter, and that kind of ignorance is certainly embarrassing, regardless of "who started it".


----------



## jimbotelecom

Macfury said:


> Let's face it. For some people it's simply embarrassing for a Prime Minister to be victorious election after election. It's a stinging humiliation, and there's a lot of anger among such people that Stephen Harper does not share their shame.


Canada hasn't had a majority Prime Minister win election after election since Chretien. We're now in an era where different interests ensure that majority governments are difficult to attain. Harper's not embarrassed whatsoever. He's done a wonderful job keeping the libs twisted and conflicted for years now.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> In spite of that point being hammered home in this thread multiple times, the Harper haters continue to dream up "embarrassments" that started with their very own party.


oh yeah we're makin all this up. Our hate just fabricates all these things Harper does.

bu bu bu but the wiberals!!!!! The LIBERALS!!! LIEberals! arrrrgghghh.

Sorry. They're not in power. Haven't been for 4 years.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> Seems the Khadr deal is an embarrassment for Harper. The Minister (Cannon) is either bats#!t crazy or ignorant of what happens in his own department.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more:
> 
> The Cons are just bringing on the embarrassment for themselves. :clap:


More making mountains out of mole hills. This appears to be nothing more than a matter of semantics when you look at the language of the questions and the answers. Was the government *involved *in "negotiations" no. Were they *aware* of the plea deal and were they known to be open to it, yes.

Typical media and opposition dissemination of FUD as has been both their modus operandi for quite some time now.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Sorry. They're not in power. Haven't been for 4 years.


On the contrary, I'm sorry you can't grasp the fact that many of the events posted here began under the Liberal regime over four years ago.


----------



## jimbotelecom

groovetube said:


> oh yeah we're makin all this up. Our hate just fabricates all these things Harper does.
> 
> bu bu bu but the wiberals!!!!! The LIBERALS!!! LIEberals! arrrrgghghh.
> 
> Sorry. They're not in power. Haven't been for 4 years.


True. 4 years and the convient excuse becomes very tired. 

Time for a realignment in the next election.


----------



## whatiwant

SINC said:


> On the contrary, I'm sorry you can't grasp the fact that many of the events posted here began under the Liberal regime over four years ago.


You're right and that's a completely legitimate excuse for them to sit on their hands.


----------



## MacDoc

So Sinc is the fact that 



> On Harper’s watch, premiers are more likely to see the federal government in court than to dialogue with the prime minister across a negotiating table.
> _W*ith only a few exceptions most provinces currently have ongoing or pending litigation against the Harper government. *_


Hebert: Unrest among provinces hits new heights under Harper - thestar.com

also the Liberals fault.,.....?

Wearisome excuse from the lap puppy contingent.....

The man is a continuing national and international embarrassment....and now faces revolt in the west over peddling a national key resource....


----------



## eMacMan

I do find it funny that MD refers to Harpo as an embarrassment. 

My better half and a lot of other Canadians literally cringed everytime Chretien opened his mouth.


----------



## screature

MacDoc said:


> So Sinc is the fact that
> 
> 
> Hebert: Unrest among provinces hits new heights under Harper - thestar.com
> 
> also the Liberals fault.,.....?
> 
> Wearisome excuse from the lap puppy contingent.....
> 
> The man is a continuing national and international embarrassment....and now faces revolt in the *west over peddling a national key resource*....


Nonsense, he isn't peddling anything it was a hostile take over bid and a decision is yet to be made. Your statement is BS.

John Manley a former Liberal Industry Minister knowns this is all FUD by the Oppostion and Wall... what a bunch of nonsense.

John Manley
Potash: a political calculation that will do more harm than good 



> Canadians, through Parliament, decided long ago that foreign investment is good for our country. This position has been held by successive governments stretching back to the 1980s, and has resulted in an Investment Canada Act that, on the whole, welcomes investments in Canadian companies.
> 
> Under the act, the federal government must approve a proposed investment if it determines that the transaction would be of net benefit to Canada. This usually means ensuring that jobs are protected, that Canadians take leading roles in the governance and management of the business, and that capital expenditures and research and development continue to occur in Canada.
> 
> While there is a duty to consult affected provinces, it is the federal industry minister who must make the decision. This is as it should be, and in fact mirrors similar processes around the world.
> 
> All of which brings me to the proposed acquisition of Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan by Australia’s BHP Billiton. *While I am not privy to all the facts in the transaction, I regret that the debate has become so overtly politicized. The “net benefit” test is meant to be an impartial calculation, not a political one.*
> 
> In a speech on Oct. 21, in which he announced his government’s opposition to a takeover of Potash Corp., Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall detailed his concerns around “net benefit” – specifically with respect to jobs and provincial government revenues. These are matters for BHP Billiton to address. I have no doubt that Industry Minister Tony Clement will weigh these concerns. In addition, the minister may wish to seek assurances that BHP Billiton is prepared to stand by its commitments in coming years.
> 
> However, Mr. Wall also said that potash is a “strategic resource” and that it is not in Saskatchewan’s interest to allow Potash Corp. to be acquired by a foreign company. This creates an impossible hurdle for any investor to surmount, and essentially tells Potash Corp. investors that they cannot sell their shares to the highest bidder under any circumstances.
> 
> *The Premier’s “strategic resource” rationale is a political calculation – one that he is entitled to make if he feels he can justify it to his citizens. But the Investment Canada Act exists to derive benefits for Canadians from foreign investors, not to protect resource companies designated as “strategic” at the 11th hour by provincial governments.*
> 
> *If Canada, at the urging of one of its provinces, wishes to block the sale of a resource company, we must be prepared to accept reciprocal treatment in other countries where Canadian firms operate. No one believes that this would benefit Canada. Nor would it benefit Saskatchewan-based potash companies that do business in other jurisdictions.*
> 
> *Our Constitution gives the provinces control over natural resources. Regardless of who owns Potash Corp., that will not change.
> *
> In my view, the issue before the federal government is whether it is in the national interest to continue to abide by open, fair and transparent investment rules.
> 
> *The federal government has been consistent on the need to attract foreign investment. Our leading institutions have confirmed that this is the proper course for a relatively small, trade-dependent economy. So whether in the case of Potash or any other proposed investment, I earnestly hope that the federal government will continue to seek the best possible outcome for Canadians and then apply the rules passed by Parliament. This, more than anything else, will benefit Canada.
> *
> John Manley is president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.


----------



## i-rui

eMacMan said:


> I do find it funny that MD refers to Harpo as an embarrassment.
> 
> My better half and a lot of other Canadians literally cringed everytime Chretien opened his mouth.


I'm sure you (and many other) Canadians did, but the truth is the MAJORITY of Canadians actually voted for him. 

Something Harper can't say.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> I'm sure you (and many other) Canadians did, but the truth is the MAJORITY of Canadians actually voted for him.
> 
> Something Harper can't say.


No actually they didn't. The Libs won a majority of seats due to the nature of our riding and first past the post system. In terms of popular vote the Libs under Chretien only ever got as high as about 41% (1993: 41% 1997: 38%, 2000: 40%) of the popular vote. Also we don't vote for our PM in this country.


----------



## i-rui

you're right. 

i should have said majority government - which Harper has never had.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> you're right.
> 
> i should have said majority government - which Harper has never had.


You should have, but you explicitly said that "the MAJORITY of Canadians actually voted for him. "


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> No actually they didn't. The Libs won a majority of seats due to the nature of our riding and first past the post system. In terms of popular vote the Libs under Chretien only ever got as high as about 41% (1993: 41% 1997: 38%, 2000: 40%) of the popular vote. Also we don't vote for our PM in this country.


While many consider non-votes to be apathy, they can also be viewed as "None of the above". From that view point Chretien probably failed to get more than 25% of the vote.

Sadly in Canada one is not really voting for an MP but rather for the party that has the ring through his nose. A bit more honest than the US system but one cannot claim that an MP really represents his constituents when he is obligated to represent the interests of his party before the interests of the nation or his voters.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> You should have, but you explicitly said that "the MAJORITY of Canadians actually voted for him. "


I guess you didn't see the part where i acknowledged that? 

(well actually you did since you quoted it).

see, i have no problem admitting a statement i said was wrong. 

you should try it sometime.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> I guess you didn't see the part where i acknowledged that?
> 
> (well actually you did since you quoted it).
> 
> see, i have no problem admitting a statement i said was wrong.
> 
> you should try it sometime.


I was wrong about Franklin Roosevelt a few months back.


----------



## i-rui

link?

(just kidding)


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I was wrong about Franklin Roosevelt a few months back.


I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> The man is a continuing national and international embarrassment....and now faces revolt in the west over peddling a national key resource....


A bit too eager to blame aren't we?

CBC News - Money - BHP's PotashCorp bid rejected for now


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc was peeing his pants with anticipation over this one... time to put on a fresh pair of breeks.


----------



## eMacMan

Well it is now official. Harpo at least at the international level is welching on his promise to get our boys out of Afghanistan.

Some of them will stick around to train Afghani Soldiers.

Come on now. Depending on the country training soldiers usually takes from 60 to 120 days. We have not been able to do it over an eight year stretch, so why should any one believe that sticking around a few more months/years will make the slightest difference.

Fact is Canada is racking up a deficit and getting our all of our soldiers out of Afghanistan as promised is one of the better ways to reduce spending.

The only possible winners in this war are the banksters, drug dealers and the arms manufacturers. We have already given them more than enough blood, money and lives.

One can only hope our MPs eMail and letter boxes are so full that they have no choice but to insist that Canada does indeed withdraw on schedule.

Not a lot of hope here unless the Liberals do an about face and force a vote in parliament.


----------



## Dick Hertz

Embarrassments for Harper? How about the fact that his government is illegitimate? Back in 2008, he lost the confidence of the House and should have lost his government at that point. Proroguing Parliament to avoid a confidence vote to save his government was without precedent and amounts to seizing power via a coup d'etat. 

More embarrassments? Let's see here:


Prisons for criminals convicted of unreported crimes, or any other "tough on crime" strategy when Canada's crime rate is a fraction of America's and falling.

Two words: Fake Lake.

An ill-advised GST cut that has plunged Canada into a structural deficit.

No-bid contracts for fighter jets the American military says it doesn't need, much less our military.

Trying to reopen the abortion debate with "fetal personhood" laws.

I could go on, but it would be too painful. I just hope we soon get a progressive coalition government that represents the views of 70% of Canadians. What we have now is a reactionary one that caters to the 30% lunatic fringe located in the hinterlands of Alberta and eastern BC.


----------



## Macfury

Great heavens, i say a prayer of thanks each day that we have been delivered from the "progressives."


----------



## chasMac

Macfury said:


> Great heavens, i say a prayer of thanks each day that we have been delivered from the "progressives."


+1. Tho Harper is giving the progressives a run for their money and rivals Blair in embracing the centre.


----------



## Dick Hertz

Macfury said:


> Great heavens, i say a prayer of thanks each day that we have been delivered from the "progressives."


So how's that structural deficit given to us by Der Fuherer working out for you?


----------



## chasMac

Dick Hertz said:


> ...Der Fuherer...


You lose.


----------



## BigDL

Dick Hertz said:


> Embarrassments for Harper? How about the fact that his government is illegitimate? Back in 2008, he lost the confidence of the House and should have lost his government at that point. Proroguing Parliament to avoid a confidence vote to save his government was without precedent and amounts to seizing power via a coup d'etat.
> 
> More embarrassments? Let's see here:
> 
> 
> Prisons for criminals convicted of unreported crimes, or any other "tough on crime" strategy when Canada's crime rate is a fraction of America's and falling.
> 
> Two words: Fake Lake.
> 
> An ill-advised GST cut that has plunged Canada into a structural deficit.
> 
> No-bid contracts for fighter jets the American military says it doesn't need, much less our military.
> 
> Trying to reopen the abortion debate with "fetal personhood" laws.
> 
> I could go on, but it would be too painful. I just hope we soon get a progressive coalition government that represents the views of 70% of Canadians. What we have now is a reactionary one that caters to the 30% lunatic fringe located in the hinterlands of Alberta and eastern BC.


Now PM LoonyTune is on to the senate. Having his unelected minions defeat the will of the H of C before debate and wanting to change the upper house without consulting the provincial governments. 

With the big lies about fake problems and seizing control, Harper is, looking more and more like, this country's unprecedented evil dictator.


----------



## screature

Dick Hertz said:


> Embarrassments for Harper? How about the fact that his government is illegitimate? Back in 2008, he lost the confidence of the House and should have lost his government at that point. Proroguing Parliament to avoid a confidence vote to save his government was without precedent and amounts to seizing power via a coup d'etat.
> 
> More embarrassments? Let's see here:
> 
> 
> Prisons for criminals convicted of unreported crimes, or any other "tough on crime" strategy when Canada's crime rate is a fraction of America's and falling.
> 
> Two words: Fake Lake.
> 
> An ill-advised GST cut that has plunged Canada into a structural deficit.
> 
> No-bid contracts for fighter jets the American military says it doesn't need, much less our military.
> 
> Trying to reopen the abortion debate with "fetal personhood" laws.
> 
> I could go on, but it would be too painful. I just hope we soon get a progressive coalition government that represents the views of 70% of Canadians. What we have now is a reactionary one that caters to the 30% lunatic fringe located in the hinterlands of Alberta and eastern BC.


What is painful is reading your post that is filled with half truths and out and out right factually wrong crap.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> Now PM LoonyTune is on to the senate. Having his unelected minions defeat the will of the H of C before debate and wanting to change the upper house without consulting the provincial governments.
> 
> With the big lies about fake problems and seizing control, Harper is, looking more and more like, this country's unprecedented evil dictator.


Yeah cause the Liberals never used their majority position in the Senate to usurp the will of Parliament before?  Give me a break. Also there were 15 Liberal Senators absent for the vote... so who exactly is to blame for the outcome of the vote? Maybe if more of them actually showed up to do at least a little work you wouldn't be bitchin' about the evil dictator.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> With the big lies about fake problems and seizing control, Harper is, looking more and more like, this country's unprecedented evil dictator.


You really are doing actual dictators around the world a great service by upping the ante with ridiculous statements such as these. I never liked Martin or Chretien bulldozing their agendas through the government, but to have called them "dictators" would have been a disservice to people suffering under true dictators around the world.


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> Yeah cause the Liberals never used their majority position in Senate to usurp the will of Parliament before?  Give me a break. Also there were 15 Liberal Senators absent for the vote... so who exactly is to blame for the outcome of the vote? Maybe if more of them actually showed up to do at least a little work you wouldn't be bitchin' about the evil dictator.


Harper's hypocrisy of railing about the liberal's dominated senate thwarting the will of the elected house and first chance he has Harper jumps in full force.

Then wants a bill passed, with regards to fundamental changes to the senate, without consulting the provinces because we don't need a Meech Lake or Charolletown conversation just now thanks. Give me a break.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> Harper's hypocrisy of railing about the liberal's dominated senate thwarting the will of the elected house and first chance he has Harper jumps in full force.
> 
> Then wants a bill passed, with regards to fundamental changes to the senate, without consulting the provinces because we don't need a Meech Lake or Charolletown conversation just now thanks. Give me a break.


Setting term limits for Senators does not require constitutional change and does not require the Provinces to be consulted... having Senators elected does. 

If you can't see how such actions on Harper's part when he is in power is a way to raise awareness for how the Senate needs to be reformed, then I can't help you. Hypocrisy yes, but at least there is a strategy at play to get the Liberals and NDP pissed off enough to actually vote for change this time around.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> You really are doing actual dictators around the world a great service by upping the ante with ridiculous statements such as these. I never liked Martin or Chretien bulldozing their agendas through the government, but to have called them "dictators" would have been a disservice to people suffering under true dictators around the world.


I shall agree with your thesis to the extent that in the future I shall refer to Harper as nothing more than a Cheap Dictator.


----------



## i-rui

Why do we even have Senators in canadian politics?

This sort of political manipulation is pretty disgraceful.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> Why do we even have Senators in canadian politics?
> 
> This sort of political manipulation is pretty disgraceful.


Part of the Parliamentary system we inherited from Great Britain.


----------



## i-rui

i realize that, my statement was more of a critique as to how little function they actually perform in our government.


----------



## eMacMan

i-rui said:


> Why do we even have Senators in canadian politics?
> 
> This sort of political manipulation is pretty disgraceful.


Let's whichever PM is in power divert sizeable sums of taxpayer cash to friends of the party (bums) that are already quite well off.


----------



## MacDoc

Harper's Follies continue....clean transparent government....yeah right....pigs at the trough more like...



> Bruce Campion-Smith and Les Whittington Ottawa Bureau
> 
> *OTTAWA—The federal government showered $50 million on the Muskoka region to compensate residents for the “inconveniences” of hosting world leaders while Toronto — which suffered security headaches, protests and property damage — was shut out of any cash*.
> 
> Federal officials confirmed Thursday that much of the funding of a generous G8 “legacy infrastructure fund” was never meant for the summit but rather as payback to people in the Parry Sound-Muskoka region — a riding held by Industry Minister Tony Clement.
> 
> As Toronto cleaned up shattered glass from downtown streets and tallied up its lost business, residents across Muskoka were enjoying new sidewalks, bandshells, public washrooms, bridges and a resurfaced airport runway, all courtesy of the summit “slush” fund, opposition MPs charged Thursday.
> 
> And they questioned why Toronto — which played host to the larger G20 meeting in June and was ground zero for the protesters — has been denied similar largesse.
> 
> “The restaurant owners and the guys that got their windows smashed want some help for these things and I’m not sure they’re going to get it,” said NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre).
> 
> “Was there a corresponding legacy fund for Toronto?” he asked during a Commons’ committee Thursday.
> 
> “Not to our knowledge, no,” said Taki Sarantakis, of Infrastructure Canada.
> 
> And a spokesperson for Toronto Mayor David Miller also confirmed there was no G20 legacy fund for the city. Stuart Green, of the mayor’s office, said that Ottawa contributed $27,000 for tree planting and about $250,000 to build a “living wall” — a wall of plants — at the Direct Energy Centre.
> 
> Officials from five federal departments were on the hot seat Thursday as they were grilled by opposition MPs about a scale of spending that Martin called “flagrant . . . hog-troughing of the highest order.”
> 
> “Tony Clement has a lot to answer for,” he said.
> 
> “This legacy fund . . . has nothing to do with a legacy for the G8. It seems like a legacy to the minister. You did everything but build a statue to Tony Clement in the riding.”
> 
> But bureaucrats said the legacy fund was no different than other funds put in place in Canadian cities that hosted world events — $60 million for Vancouver in 1997 for hosting APEC and some $13 million for Halifax for the 1995 G7 summit.
> 
> “This fund was very much set up as a legacy fund to compensate the region for the inconveniences associated with hosting this event,” said Bryce Conrad, of Infrastructure Canada.
> 
> “Having a large group of world leaders and their respective delegations presented a number of significant challenges to the local population.
> 
> “These include dealing with the increased security, the media and the sheer disruption of everyday life associated with this type of world class event.’’
> 
> Conservative MP Ed Holder (London West) called the fund “a gift to the region, a chance for all Canadians to say ‘thank you’.”
> 
> Yet officials were unable to explain why Toronto — which saw its downtown core virtually shut down for the G20 summit — wasn’t compensated as well.
> 
> For their part opposition MPs on the Commons’ government operations committee were united in expressing outrage over the tally of expenses.
> 
> “What you’re telling us here is shocking. It doesn’t seem to be 100 per cent above board. How can you justify all of those expenditures,” Bloc Québécois MP Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne-Blainville) said.
> 
> Liberal MP Siobhan Coady (St. John’s South-Mount Pearl) questioned why upgrades were made in towns far from Huntsville, where the G8 summit was held at the end of June.
> 
> “Some of them are almost 100 kilometres away, an hour’s drive away, from the site itself. How inconvenient could it have been?” Coady said.
> 
> Under the legacy program, municipalities scored a financial windfall. Unlike traditional infrastructure projects that require local municipalities and the province to kick in equal shares, Ottawa paid the entire cost of legacy projects.
> 
> The Conservatives have been under fire for months for the avalanche of funding around the Muskoka region before the G8 gathering.
> 
> For instance, the government earmarked $274,850 for a bandshell and new public washrooms in Baysville, 31 kms from the summit site. Thousands were spent on a new Lions Park shelter and band shell in Sundridge, 65 kms from Huntsville, and $10 million went for upgrades for the North Bay airport even though it was never used by G8 leaders.
> 
> “They had money for just about everything up there — things that people neither needed nor wanted, and yet nothing left for Toronto — no legacy fund and not even compensation for businesses which were badly hurt,” said Liberal MP Dan McTeague (Pickering-Scarborough East).
> 
> *But the $50 million for the G8 was only about half of the cash that the federal government has pumped into the region since Clement, who originally won the Parry Sound-Muskoka riding by only 28 votes in 2006, became industry minister.
> 
> A Toronto Star investigation found that, besides the G8 summit funds, Ottawa funneled another $50 million into the riding of 90,000 people in the past few years* . Under a range of federal programs, money has been found for almost every conceivable project in the riding, including fire halls, train stations, curling clubs, parks, bike paths, community centres, car pool systems, college dorms, museums and health programs.
> 
> “I’ve never seen anything like it in my years here,” said the NDP’s Martin.












same pigs....tail curls to the right....Preston Manning must be blushing....


----------



## mrjimmy

MacDoc said:


> Harper's Follies continue....clean transparent government....yeah right....pigs at the trough more like...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> same pigs....tail curls to the right....Preston Manning must be blushing....


I guess vote buying is still legal in Canada.


----------



## Macfury

Most of the money wasted by the Conservatives in hosting the G20 in Toronto was spent in Toronto. I don't agree with the spending, but there's a few hundred million injected into the economy.


----------



## groovetube

somehow that smacks of that ridiculous commercial by Tums. Calcium! Something you need anyway!

Is the fact that some of the wasted money was spent in Toronto supposed to make it all better? I'll guess if you're sitting in Edmonton, hell no!

That money should not have been wasted at all. Period.

And as for the senate thing, I thought Harper promised, not to do that. But it seems whenever Harper breaks a promise, one he made as a change from the liberals, we just revert to, 'well the liberals did it...'

Sort takes the liquid outta voting out the party that, -did that- doesn't it.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> And as for the senate thing, I thought Harper promised, not to do that. But it seems whenever Harper breaks a promise, one he made as a change from the liberals, we just revert to, 'well the liberals did it...'


What did Harper promise not to do?


----------



## MannyP Design

Macfury said:


> What did Harper promise not to do?


You know… stuff. And things.


----------



## groovetube

lol


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> i realize that, my statement was more of a critique as to how little function they actually perform in our government.


That is why there needs to be reform and the Cons are the only ones to even bring it up and attempt to pass legislation to start the ball rolling. Currently the Cons have the upper hand in the upper House and they are still introducing legislation to change the status quo... what has any other party ever done to try and change things.... Nothing.


----------



## mrjimmy

screature said:


> That is why there needs to be reform and the Cons are the only ones to even bring it up and attempt to pass legislation to start the ball rolling. Currently the Cons have the upper hand in the upper House and they are still introducing legislation to change the status quo... what has any other party ever done to try and change things.... Nothing.


Screature, are they really trying to change things? Seems to me they want and are doing the same as everyone before them. The laughable thing is that _they say_ they are different. Perhaps they all do but it's the Conservatives that are currently doing the talking.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Screature, are they really trying to change things? Seems to me they want and are doing the same as everyone before them.


Sure they are. They stuffed the Senate with Conservatives instead of Liberals for the first time in ages!


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> That is why there needs to be reform and the Cons are the only ones to even bring it up and attempt to pass legislation to start the ball rolling. Currently the Cons have the upper hand in the upper House and they are still introducing legislation to change the status quo... what has any other party ever done to try and change things.... Nothing.


Typical of Harper. He Know best! "The views of my supporters are the middle.

Consensus?

We don't need no stinking consensus!"


----------



## screature

mrjimmy said:


> Screature, are they really trying to change things? Seems to me they want and are doing the same as everyone before them. The laughable thing is that _they say_ they are different. Perhaps they all do but it's the Conservatives that are currently doing the talking.


Who else has introduced a Bill to reduce Senators terms to eight years? This is the 3rd time they will have introduced a Bill to do so. It has been previously been rejected by the Liberal dominated Senate... 

Reform has to start somewhere... Now that the Libs are on the receiving end of their own practices it is all, "This is an affront to democracy"... Yah really... Maybe now they will be willing to accept the notion of changing the status quo... Once you have walked a mile in my shoes.... They are getting to walk a few yards in those of others and are crying foul... who exactly is the hypocrite here? 

Additionally as I pointed out before they have no one else to blame but themselves for the recent loss of the vote in the Upper House as 15 Liberal Senators weren't even "on the job" for the vote... Show up for the job you are paid to do and then maybe you have a right to complain....


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> That is why there needs to be reform and the Cons are the only ones to even bring it up and attempt to pass legislation to start the ball rolling.


The NDP & The Bloc have both called for the abolition of the Senate. The Tories & The Liberals haven't.

Regardless, for Harper to try and pull this crap on a bill that was passed by elected officials shows just how reprehensible his government is.


----------



## groovetube

the justifications for what the cons did, are telling. So now it's just desserts. Anything, to smooth it over. The liberals had it comin', well the wascally wiberals did it! The poor poor cons tryin to do good and look what happens. They got forced !!! by those liberals.

Excuse me when I belch and laugh so hard I fall over when a con tries to tell me they're better than the other guy.

Gullible is the word that comes to mind.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Sure they are. They stuffed the Senate with Conservatives instead of Liberals for the first time in ages!


Precisely my point.


----------



## kps

screature said:


> Additionally as I pointed out before they have no one else to blame but themselves for the recent loss of the vote in the Upper House as 15 Liberal Senators weren't even "on the job" for the vote... Show up for the job you are paid to do and then maybe you have a right to complain....


yeah, same piggies, different colour tie and they didn't show up. Probably not the only vote these freeloaders never showed up for. 

I lean toward the Cons, but Clement creeps me out and he does have a lot to answer for.

How does that NIN song go? All the pigs, All lined up? 

It really doesn't matter, red, blue, orange or Fleur de Lis...grunt, grunt, grunt.


----------



## mrjimmy

kps said:


> yeah, same piggies, different colour tie and they didn't show up. Probably not the only vote these freeloaders never showed up for.
> 
> I lean toward the Cons, but Clement creeps me out and he does have a lot to answer for.
> 
> How does that NIN song go? All the pigs, All lined up?
> 
> It really doesn't matter, red, blue, orange or Fleur de Lis...grunt, grunt, grunt.


Exactly. They just trick us into choosing sides as if there is some difference between them.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> The NDP & The Bloc have both called for the abolition of the Senate. The Tories & The Liberals haven't.
> 
> Regardless, for Harper to try and pull this crap on a bill that was passed by elected officials shows just how reprehensible his government is.


Abolition isn't reform and requires opening up the Constitution and agreement of all the provinces... not going to happen anytime soon. The reforms the Cons are calling for could happen in very short order.

Look at the history of what the Libs did in the Senate to bills that were passed by elected officials... my, my some people have selective memories...


----------



## FeXL

But, but, but...that was different!


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> But, but, but...that was different!


Cue groovetube with his old man jokes about the "wascally wiberals."


----------



## mrjimmy

FeXL said:


> But, but, but...that was different!


No, it's the same. That's the problem.


----------



## i-rui

at least the Harper government is consistent in their hypocrisy.


----------



## screature

mrjimmy said:


> no, it's the same. That's the problem.


+1


----------



## groovetube

well, after telling Canadians how many maillions a year the gun registry costs, in fact Manitoba Tory Candice Hoeppner says it costs 106 million a year (!), now an independant review says it only costs 1.5 million?

Wow that's quite a stretch from 1.5 to 106 million eh?

Cost of long-gun registry a fraction of what Tories claim, report shows - The Globe and Mail


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Cue groovetube with his old man jokes about the "wascally wiberals."


merely a reiteration of the constant whine from the con supporters. It seems to irk though. Which is fine.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> merely a reiteration of the constant whine from the con supporters. It seems to irk though. Which is fine.


I don't believe it irks as much as it surprises to see the same gag so often repeated by one so young.


----------



## groovetube

I repeat it almost as often as I see it from you con supporters. 

In further er, embarrassment news, I had to get a small chuckle form this sun article, Government to CBC: Be open, comply with law- Politics - Canoe.ca where Harper and crew are busy b slapping the CBC over transparency and accountability. The very last line of the article.



> “The outcomes are what matter and the CBC is about as transparent as mud,” said the CTF’s Kevin Gaudet. “Like most government departments, and crowns and agencies, they use every trick in the book to hide whatever they want.
> 
> *Sadly, the Harper government approves of this approach."*


ow.


----------



## Ottawaman

Conservative government departments and agencies spent $125,384,600.67 since 2006 on hospitality expenses. Including spas and golf resorts.


----------



## screature

Ottawaman said:


> Conservative government departments and agencies spent $125,384,600.67 since 2006 on hospitality expenses. Including spas and golf resorts.


This only means anything with context... what have previous governments spent in a 4 year time frame...?

Got give it to you Ottawaman you are the headline king...

BTW... You really the Chief Information Officer of the Canadian Yachting Association?


----------



## Ottawaman

CYA = cover your ass


----------



## screature

Ottawaman said:


> CYA = cover your ass


:lmao: Ok then... good one.... :lmao: Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Ottawaman

screature said:


> This only means anything with context... what have previous governments spent in a 4 year time frame...?
> 
> Got give it to you Ottawaman you are the headline king...


"Hey, remember those Liberals? Man, could they spend. Not as much as us, mind you, but -- that was different. Next question! "


----------



## screature

Ottawaman said:


> "Hey, remember those Liberals? Man, could they spend. Not as much as us, mind you, but -- that was different. Next question! "


Where's the numbers...


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> what have previous governments spent in a 4 year time frame...


In what way is this relevant? If the liberals spent 10x as much, should we be happy about the con's going golfing on our tab? Does the possibility that the previous administration may have been worse in some way justify the gorging at the trough underway by the current administration? The fact of the matter is that the "transparent" "responsible" "morally upstanding" conservatives are nothing but a bunch of lying thieves and we should be disgusted with their larceny. If the previous batch was just as bad, that's no excuse.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> In what way is this relevant? If the liberals spent 10x as much, should we be happy about the con's going golfing on our tab? Does the possibility that the previous administration may have been worse in some way justify the gorging at the trough underway by the current administration? The fact of the matter is that the "transparent" "responsible" "morally upstanding" conservatives are nothing but a bunch of lying thieves and we should be disgusted with their larceny. If the previous batch was just as bad, that's no excuse.


It's relevant because one party is as bad as another when it comes to spending. Given a chance, the NDP would be no different.


----------



## groovetube

so. Now we've gone from the tories are accountable, transparent, fiscally responsible, to, well, the other guy isn't any better, so we might as well keep them in power (in fact give them a majority!).

Oh how the mighty have fallen.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> It's relevant because one party is as bad as another when it comes to spending. Given a chance, the NDP would be no different.


Gee all people who are in groups, all people are evil? Even RV'ers?


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> It's relevant because one party is as bad as another when it comes to spending. Given a chance, the NDP would be no different.


The past behaviour of other parties is of exactly zero relevance to this discussion. If you are okay with the Conservatives spending hundreds of millions of your tax dollars on spas and golf, that's your business. But you can't say it's okay because the Liberals did it too.

This is exactly like saying that it's okay to cheat on your taxes because other people have done so in the past.

The same logic will hold when the Liberals are back in power; the fact that the Conservatives gorged themselves at the public trough won't in any way justify the Liberals doing so (but they almost certainly will).

It doesn't matter who's doing it or who's done it before. It's not acceptable and the taxpayers should be outraged.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> It doesn't matter who's doing it or who's done it before. It's not acceptable and the taxpayers should be outraged.


They're certainly outraged whenever the NDP and the Libs try to stick us with unnecessary GHG regs that would cost far more than the previously listed outrages--the taxpayers have their limits.

I will say this. For one who is supposedly collecting so many "embarrassments" Stephen Harper is remaining in office a long time. Guess the price of actually doing something is to have some people on the other side of the fence burn with shame.


----------



## BigDL

That is one opinion it is always good to hear other opinions in a formal debate to understand where changes could improve concepts and ideas.

But If ones happy because they got their way, I guess that the Harperite model.


----------



## SINC

Conservatives extend poll lead over Liberals


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> That is one opinion it is always good to hear other opinions in a formal debate to understand where changes could improve concepts and ideas.


Some concepts are so wretched that they can only be quashed.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> In what way is this relevant? If the liberals spent 10x as much, should we be happy about the con's going golfing on our tab? Does the possibility that the previous administration may have been worse in some way justify the gorging at the trough underway by the current administration? The fact of the matter is that the "transparent" "responsible" "morally upstanding" conservatives are nothing but a bunch of lying thieves and we should be disgusted with their larceny. If the previous batch was just as bad, that's no excuse.


"Hospitality" is something that* all* governments spend money on, it is only within the context of knowing what is "normal" or average that we can know if these numbers are excessive or not. Everything is relative.


----------



## mrjimmy

bryanc said:


> It doesn't matter who's doing it or who's done it before. It's not acceptable and the taxpayers should be outraged.


This and only this should be the issue.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> "Hospitality" is something that* all* governments spend money on, it is only within the context of knowing what is "normal" or average that we can know if these numbers are excessive or not. Everything is relative.


+1

Although I saw most of the G20 security spending as ridiculous, the PBO assessed it as fair.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Conservatives extend poll lead over Liberals


The support for Harper maybe growing in portions of the Country however it will not translate to a majority, no matter how much you may wish for it.


CBC News said:


> The poll suggests that Conservatives continue to garner support among seniors, men, those born in Canada and those with middle levels of socioeconomic status. Meanwhile, Liberals continue to get support from the university-educated, non-Canadian born and Ontario residents.
> 
> Read more: CBC News - Canada - Conservatives extend poll lead over Liberals


I suspect when you look at the rest of the regional breakdown of support for the Conservatives, Harper would not be able to acquire the much desired Majority Status he and the Conservatives so covet.

This at a time when Iggy's poll numbers drop nearing the speed of terminal velocity.

With no real opponent, Canadians, still don't like Harper, the rest of the Conservative offerings and Conservative policies, well enough to vote for them in droves or any other way. :clap:


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> With no real opponent, Canadians, still don't like Harper, the rest of the Conservative offerings and Conservative policies, well enough to vote for them in droves or any other way. :clap:


That may be, but Canadians still don't trust Iggy or the Liberals enough _to even give them a minority_.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> That may be, but Canadians still don't trust Iggy or the Liberals enough _to even give them a minority_.


Ha!


----------



## eMacMan

BigDL said:


> With no real opponent, Canadians, still don't like Harper, the rest of the Conservative offerings and Conservative policies, well enough to vote for them in droves or any other way. :clap:





SINC said:


> That may be, but Canadians still don't trust Iggy or the Liberals enough _to even give them a minority_.


Which is why "None of the Above" should be a valid ballot choice.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> That may be, but Canadians still don't trust Iggy or the Liberals enough _to even give them a minority_.


Agreed and that's my point, just that very fact speaks volumes about how little Canadians care for Harper and the Conservatives.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Agreed and that's my point, just that very fact speaks volumes about how little Canadians care for Harper and the Conservatives.


That statement makes utterly no sense--unless you're suggesting that Iggy is a monstrously worse choice than the current PM.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> Agreed and that's my point, just that very fact speaks volumes about how little Canadians care for Harper and the Conservatives.


Ok... but what about big and tall Canadians? That must be where their support lies then...


----------



## Macfury

I thought the NDP was the party of the "little man."


----------



## i-rui

Th Cons wouldn't even have a minority government if the Left didn't have 3 parties cannibalizing their votes. (not that choice is a bad thing, it's great).

When the reform party was around to split the Right the Liberals did much better. Even Iggy could've won back then.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> When the reform party was around to split the right the Liberals did much better. Even Iggy could've won back then.


Memmmmm-orieeeees...


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> Th Cons wouldn't even have a minority government if the Left didn't have 3 parties cannibalizing their votes. (not that choice is a bad thing, it's great).
> 
> When the reform party was around to split the Right the Liberals did much better. Even Iggy could've won back then.


Don't forget the significance of the Bloc when it comes winning a majority.... they make it very difficult indeed. When Chretien had to deal with a splintered "right" he could win a majority even though his core support was in Ontario. Now that the re-branded Cons have made significant inroads in Ontario and the strangle hold for the Libs in Ontario doesn't exist the Bloc has become all the more significant in terms of any Federal party gaining a majority.

As far as a divided left "cannibalizing" votes goes, welcome to the 1990's for the "right".  In the end there is no one right or left... even within the same party. Politics as with everything else isn't about homogeneity it is about compromise and finding the most basic common denominator along which to find "commonality". If the "left" is politically divided amongst 3 parties (4 if you count the Bloc) then it is just an indicator that there is no "one" left and therefore your point is mute.

Not to mention the Libs are far from being on the left, they are centrists and in fact, on many, many issues/policies they have much more common ground with the Cons than they do with the NDP.


----------



## i-rui

we'd have a much truer democratic process if the Right had 2 or 3 parties to push for their views instead of ganging up to form one poorly constructed group that uses fear and anger to unite the whole instead of a vision of progress for the country.

I'd hate for the Left in canada to reduce itself into one group to battle the right so we end up with a 2 party sham like they do in the US. The Harper government has basically lifted their playbook from the republican party, it'd be a shame if the Liberals + others did the same from the Democrats.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> I'd hate for the Left in canada to reduce itself into one group to battle the right...


Me too!: )


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Don't forget the significance of the Bloc when it comes winning a majority.... they make it very difficult indeed. When Chretien had to deal with a splintered "right" he could win a majority even though his core support was in Ontario. Now that the re-branded Cons have made significant inroads in Ontario and the strangle hold for the Libs in Ontario doesn't exist the Bloc has become all the more significant in terms of any Federal party gaining a majority.
> 
> As far as a divided left "cannibalizing" votes goes, welcome to the 1990's for the "right".  In the end there is no one right or left... even within the same party. Politics as with everything else isn't about homogeneity it is about compromise and finding the most basic common denominator along which to find "commonality". If the "left" is politically divided amongst 3 parties (4 if you count the Bloc) then it is just an indicator that there is no "one" left and therefore your point is mute.
> 
> Not to mention the Libs are far from being on the left, they are centrists and in fact, on many, many issues/policies they have much more common ground with the Cons than they do with the NDP.


you always like to paint the cons in such a rosy light, yet the numbers not only dont look good for the liberals, latest numbers show Harper losing seats he has now, not gaining, and he liberals gaining some seats.
Harper pulls away as ‘fall swoon’ hits Ignatieff in poll - The Globe and Mail

let's also see where this little bombshell goes.
RCMP urged to probe whether leak triggered Taseko share sell-off - The Globe and Mail

the very same kind of scandal helped sink the liberals completely.


----------



## Macfury

Love to see these tempests in a teapot igniting the rabble!


----------



## groovetube

tempests in a teapot.

When Mr. Goodale was in the hot seat, he was a criminal apparently. Sunk the whole government.

It's pretty amazing to have watched as this conservative government sinking to the lowest levels of a corrupt and bottoming out 13 year old liberal government, in 4 short years. Can you just imagine, if they were in a majority for 13 years?

oh that would have been different... :lmao:


----------



## Macfury

Ahh, the dreams of a return to "wibberal wule." It's touching, actually.


----------



## Max

Yet you are not touched by it at all!


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> *you always like to paint the cons in such a rosy light*, yet the numbers not only dont look good for the liberals, latest numbers show Harper losing seats he has now, not gaining, and he liberals gaining some seats.
> Harper pulls away as ‘fall swoon’ hits Ignatieff in poll - The Globe and Mail


Uhh? Where did I paint the cons, in rosy light in that post? It was simply my own analysis and opinion, without any partisan rhetoric at all. If you think that was a partisan post you should read some of your own sometime...


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Yet you are not touched by it at all!


Not lately.


----------



## groovetube

It's pretty funny actually, to see screature moan that I called out his usual, "look! The cons are doin good!' stuff, then... right after I dared point out the hypocrisy of the current conservative government, our resident libertarian suddenly jumps and shrieks that obviously, I MUST be awaiting "wiberal" rule.

Somewhere, in the midst of this sheer clusterY'know, some people really just don't excuse bad government, regardless of stripe. I may consider my politic somewhat 'liberal', in the scheme of things, that doesn't mean I would vote for Iggy, or even remotely like the Canadian liberal party.

But that might just be a little too much information to process I suppose.

When the liberal party was doing the very things the cons said they wouldn't, I stopped voting for them. I'm gonna guess here and surmise that ain't gonna be the case with con voters.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> It's pretty funny actually, to see screature moan that I called out his usual, "look! The cons are doin good!' stuff...


You're full of cow patties gt. I never said anything like... "look! The cons are doin good!' stuff...

Try honing up on your reading comprehension skills gt then maybe you will be a more credible participant in these debates. 

Where in this am I saying "look! The cons are doin good!' stuff..."



> Don't forget the significance of the Bloc when it comes winning a majority.... they make it very difficult indeed. When Chretien had to deal with a splintered "right" he could win a majority even though his core support was in Ontario. Now that the re-branded Cons have made significant inroads in Ontario and the strangle hold for the Libs in Ontario doesn't exist the Bloc has become all the more significant in terms of any Federal party gaining a majority.
> 
> As far as a divided left "cannibalizing" votes goes, welcome to the 1990's for the "right". In the end there is no one right or left... even within the same party. Politics as with everything else isn't about homogeneity it is about compromise and finding the most basic common denominator along which to find "commonality". If the "left" is politically divided amongst 3 parties (4 if you count the Bloc) then it is just an indicator that there is no "one" left and therefore your point is mute.
> 
> Not to mention the Libs are far from being on the left, they are centrists and in fact, on many, many issues/policies they have much more common ground with the Cons than they do with the NDP.


Sometimes you really are a troll.... phhtt, phhtt... stay true to your avatar at all times gt...


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I may consider my politic somewhat 'liberal', in the scheme of things, that doesn't mean I would vote for Iggy, or even remotely like the Canadian liberal party.


It doesn't mean it for sure, but I didn't take you for an NDP "little man."


----------



## groovetube

no macfury you said it it did. You play the numbskull game of since you dont like Harper, you're a tree hugging, thug lovin Iggy romancin liiiiberal.

You and few others fall for the whole right/left game you're told to play. It's the very reason we've ended up with the likes of Harper and Iggy in the first place, it's because we've allowed it.


----------



## MacDoc

Seems to me Herr Harper said he was waiting for the US on GHG and that was the delay....

Now he's not even paying lip service to that....... just pissing into the atmosphere as he pleases...




> *Canada won’t follow U.S. plan to cut greenhouse gases: Baird*
> Published On Sun Nov 28 2010
> 
> The Harper government has no plans to follow a U.S. initiative to slash the greenhouse gas emissions of big polluters — even though Ottawa has pledged to harmonize its climate policies with the Americans.
> 
> The White House, stung by its failure to legislate a cap-and-trade bill before the recent congressional elections, has a Plan B set to be implemented within weeks.
> 
> The new U.S. rules — passed by executive order — are aimed at curbing emissions from large industrial facilities like refineries and cement factories. They go into effect Jan. 2.
> 
> Canadian climate experts say this country could contain the pollution growth from its own industries, notably the oilsands, by introducing similar standards north of the border.
> 
> But newly minted Environment Minister John Baird downplayed the plans from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as “patchwork.”


more 
Canada won?t follow U.S. plan to cut greenhouse gases: Baird - thestar.com

more shoeshuffling ****e from the Harpo dinosaurs...and their attendant lap puppies whimpering around here....


----------



## Macfury

Excellent! I don't believe anyone in the world is following Obama's leads these days do the PM is in good company! 

If Obama keeps it up, Canada's economy will race past that of the U.S.


----------



## SINC

Ah yes, another "respectful" comment by "His Nibs". For goodness sakes, show some respect for the office and save the juvenile comments. Using "Nazi style" comments demeans everyone and in particular those who use such terrible slurs. There are even ehMac members here who lost loved ones to those "herr" individuals and your comments are gross. Show a little compassion for those folks, Dr. G. among them.

Gimme a break. tptptptp


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Ah yes, another "respectful" comment by "His Nibs". For goodness sakes, show some respect for the office and save the juvenile comments. Using "Nazi style" comments demeans everyone and in particular those who use such terrible slurs. There are even ehMac members here who lost loved ones to those "herr" individuals and your comments are gross. Show a little compassion for those folks, Dr. G. among them.
> 
> Gimme a break. tptptptp


I have respectfully asked the mayor to do something about this in impartial fashion.


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> Ah yes, another "respectful" comment by "His Nibs". For goodness sakes, show some respect for the office and save the juvenile comments. Using "Nazi style" comments demeans everyone and in particular those who use such terrible slurs. There are even ehMac members here who lost loved ones to those "herr" individuals and your comments are gross. Show a little compassion for those folks, Dr. G. among them.
> 
> Gimme a break. tptptptp


Thank you, Sinc. Lest we forget. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC

You are most welcome Dr. G.

Now, does the offender have the courage to apologize?

As Dr. G. would say, we shall see.


----------



## groovetube

Since when did the term 'Herr' automatically refer to nazis and ones who killed jews?

As someone who was born in Germany, I think you can apologize as well.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Since when did the term 'Herr' automatically refer to nazis and ones who killed jews?
> 
> As someone who was born in Germany, I think you can apologize as well.


If you even remotely thought anything I wrote was an affront to you, my apologies.

But get real, the use of that term in that post was meant solely as degrading and as such one can seek the bottom of the pit in its intent.


----------



## groovetube

my point is, we can spend an entire conversation stepping on everyone's toes. It isnt hard, and then feign outrage at every turn.

I have to chuckle at the idea you might want to play the politically correct game, however, I think it is ludicrous to think that macdoc, or anyone in this thread truly would want to sully or disrespect the memories of the victims of the holocaust.

If they actually did, they should be removed for sure.


----------



## SINC

And my point is that too many posters don't take the time to consider the impact their flippant, and often careless remarks, taken in a wrong light, might have on fellow ehMacians. This is just one example.


----------



## Ottawaman

I find the idea that we need to pay respect to the "Office of the Prime Minister" absurd. It is a political fabrication. It has a function to serve us, the voter. Conferring the status of deity to such a device undermines the principles that democracy demands. We have the right, and the obligation to scrutinize said office, and if we find it wanting, to reveal its deficiencies. 
If the occupant of the office can bend it to his/her will without regard to the wishes of the voter , then said office was constructed poorly. 
I hate when people wave the flag in order to quash critical evaluation of political constructs.


----------



## eMacMan

Ottawaman said:


> I find the idea that we need to pay respect to the "Office of the Prime Minister" absurd. It is a political fabrication. It has a function to serve us, the voter. Conferring the status of deity to such a device undermines the principles that democracy demands. We have the right, and the obligation to scrutinize said office, and if we find it wanting, to reveal its deficiencies.
> If the occupant of the office can bend it to his/her will without regard to the wishes of the voter , then said office was constructed poorly.
> I hate when people wave the flag in order to quash critical evaluation of political constructs.


+1
Democracy depends on the average bum standing up and shouting when the stench reaches his neck of the woods. Matters not where the stench happens to originate.

As an aside, I find it easy to judge how big a lie the US president is telling, just count the flags in the background. FWIW Bush ordered flags by the thousand count.


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> And my point is that too many posters don't take the time to consider the impact their flippant, and often careless remarks, taken in a wrong light, might have on fellow ehMacians. This is just one example.


Like making flippant, careless remarks regarding a certain Canadian comic's sexuality, his 'boyfriend' and his cavorting? All designed to shame and discredit? 

This is just one example. Do you need a ladder to climb down from your high horse?


----------



## SINC

mrjimmy said:


> Like making flippant, careless remarks regarding a certain Canadian comic's sexuality, his 'boyfriend' and his cavorting? All designed to shame and discredit?
> 
> This is just one example. Do you need a ladder to climb down from your high horse?


Nope. I still have no use for Mercer or his opinions or comedic efforts.


----------



## gmark2000

groovetube said:


> Since when did the term 'Herr' automatically refer to nazis and ones who killed jews?


In this context of political discussion, it was inferring a Nazi reference for sure.


----------



## groovetube

gmark2000 said:


> In this context of political discussion, it was inferring a Nazi reference for sure.


really? I saw no nazi reference. Herr is as common as saying 'mr.' in Germany.

You too, as well as SINC as missed the boat on this one.

And OM, wel put. It seems people conveniently get up on their high horse when it suits them and their cause.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> really? I saw no nazi reference. Herr is as common as saying 'mr.' in Germany.
> 
> You too, as well as SINC as missed the boat on this one.
> 
> And OM, wel put. *It seems people conveniently get up on their high horse when it suits them and their cause*.


And others willing to play dumb when it suits them as well...


----------



## whatiwant

Substitute "herr" with "soup nazi" and not only is it ok, but it's freaking hilarious!


----------



## i-rui

it was wrong to imply Harper is a nazi.

he's just a fascist.


----------



## mrjimmy

i-rui said:


> it was wrong to imply harper is a nazi.
> 
> He's just a fascist.


+ 1


----------



## screature

jawknee said:


> Substitute "herr" with "soup nazi" and not only is it ok, but it's freaking hilarious!


Yep that's fine...


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> it was wrong to imply Harper is a nazi.
> 
> he's just a *fascist*.





mrjimmy said:


> + 1


 Sometimes I wonder if people really understand the full implications and meaning of the words they use... I suspect that in this case you both do and think you are being funny but in the end it just amounts to trolling and trying to get under certain people's skin.


----------



## mrjimmy

screature said:


> Sometimes *I wonder if people really understand* the full implications and meaning of the words they use... I suspect that in this case you both do and think you are being funny but in the end it just amounts to trolling and trying to get under certain people's skin.


Hmm, and being condescending doesn't amount to trolling? 

Calling Harper a fascist is a matter of opinion. If it gets under your skin it is of no consequence. It's not directed at you or any other member.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Hmm, and being condescending doesn't amount to trolling?
> 
> Calling Harper a fascist is a matter of opinion. If it gets under your skin it is of no consequence. It's not directed at you or any other member.


Yes, but the mayor has delivered an edict against provocative comments, therefore you are in violation of the community rules if you do such a thing.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> And others willing to play dumb when it suits them as well...


another one who missed the boat.

If you think I'm getting indignant about the use of "herr' here, perhaps you need to step back and take deep breath, and read again.

Maybe it's communicating in forum at play here, but it's really simple.


----------



## groovetube

jawknee said:


> Substitute "herr" with "soup nazi" and not only is it ok, but it's freaking hilarious!


nice one.


----------



## screature

mrjimmy said:


> Hmm, and being condescending doesn't amount to trolling?
> 
> Calling Harper a fascist is a matter of opinion. If it gets under your skin it is of no consequence. It's not directed at you or any other member.


It doesn't get under my skin and never said it did, but being a fascist *isn't* a matter of opinion as the word has very specific connotations and attributes that need to be present by definition and Harper certainly doesn't meet the requirements.

Sorry if you took it as condescending, I think you are being needlessly sensitive as I said I did not believe it to be the case here and did say what was most likely the case.

And sorry I don't buy the "It's not directed at you or *any other member.*" when there has been a very recent debate going on involving certain members about the use of the word Nazi or Nazi references, I think it is indeed meant as a "jab" at certain other members or at least at their opinions.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> another one who missed the boat.
> 
> If you think I'm getting indignant about the use of "herr' here, perhaps you need to step back and take deep breath, and read again.
> 
> Maybe it's communicating in forum at play here, but it's really simple.


I don't think you are indignant at all, I think you are playing dumb to think that MacDoc and his well known political proclivities was not trying to make a Nazi reference by referring to Harper as Herr Harper... Just because you come from German linage doesn't mean that you are incapable of seeing the obvious innuendo within the context of the thread and this forum when it is starring you straight in the face.


----------



## fjnmusic

Innuendo--isn't that an Italian suppository?

Where do you put it? Innuendo.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> Innuendo--isn't that an Italian suppository?
> 
> Where do you put it? Innuendo.


I thought some one would bring that up... no surprises it was you fjnmusic...


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> I don't think you are indignant at all, I think you are playing dumb to think that MacDoc and his well known political proclivities was not trying to make a Nazi reference by referring to Harper as Herr Harper... Just because you come from German linage doesn't mean that you are incapable of seeing the obvious innuendo within the context of the thread and this forum when it is starring you straight in the face.


Wow.

It continues. speaking of playing dumb... or...


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> It doesn't get under my skin and never said it did, but being a fascist *isn't* a matter of opinion as the word has very specific connotations and attributes that need to be present by definition and Harper certainly doesn't meet the requirements.


Fascist can be used in many ways (one of them as an insult) and Harper has exhibited enough disregard for the democratic process that I feel the term is warranted.

And *that* is a matter of opinion.


----------



## mrjimmy

i-rui said:


> Fascist can be used in many ways (one of them as an insult) and Harper has exhibited enough disregard for the democratic process that I feel the term is warranted.
> 
> And *that* is a matter of opinion.


+ 1 

And this is me agreeing with that opinion.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> Wow.
> 
> It continues. speaking of playing dumb... or...


Uhh no one missed the boat in the first place and the playing part is indeed dubious at times...


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> Fascist can be used in many ways (one of them as an insult) and Harper has exhibited enough disregard for the democratic process that I feel the term is warranted.
> 
> And *that* is a matter of opinion.


Well so can can the word gay but it doesn't make it appropriate.  Some people will bend over backwards to try and justify their choice of words.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> no macfury you said it it did. You play the numbskull game of since you dont like Harper, you're a tree hugging, thug lovin Iggy romancin liiiiberal.
> 
> You and few others fall for the whole right/left game you're told to play. It's the very reason we've ended up with the likes of Harper and Iggy in the first place, it's because we've allowed it.


Sorry I just re-read this thread... (I was busy this week-end) and I can't believe these comments were coming from you gt... seems to me in the past you have been all too willing to participate in the "numbskull" partisan game... did you have a Saul on the road to Damascus type epiphany over the week-end...?


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> Well so can can the word gay but it doesn't make it appropriate.  Some people will bend over backwards to try and justify their choice of words.


so why do *you* get to decide what is *appropriate*? isn't that a matter of *opinion*?

and why do you feel the need to police every thread?


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> so why do *you* get to decide what is *appropriate*? isn't that a matter of *opinion*?
> 
> and why do you feel the need to police every thread?


That's a laugh... saying what one thinks is appropriate is a matter of opinion isn't it, if having opinions is policing a thread then I think we can all be called guilty. The only person who polices these threads is the mayor as he is the only one with any power so if you can't handle other people commenting on your opinions time to add me to your ignore list cause I'm not about to stop any time soon.


----------



## i-rui

i don't have a problem with you having an opinion. that's great.

i have a problem with you telling *ME* I *CAN'T* (or shouldn't) express those opinions because they're "*inappropriate*".


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> i don't have a problem with you having an opinion. that's great.
> 
> i have a problem with you telling *ME* I *CAN'T* express those opinions because they're "*inappropriate*".


I didn't say you can't I was critical of your choice of words.


----------



## i-rui

The choice of word was the whole point.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> The choice of word was the whole point.


I know and I don't think it is appropriate, not so much in a politically incorrect way (although that is most definitely true) but inappropriate as in being applied to someone who doesn't merit the appellation of the word to them.

Sure you have the freedom to do so, but I am free to disagree with your use of the word. I don't see anywhere in my posts where I was trying to censure you, all I was doing was expressing my opinion that your use of the word was not appropriate. Seems fair game to me.


----------



## i-rui

Oh ok, wonderful.

As well as thinking Harper is a Fascist, i also think he's a Douchebag.

(Just to clarify i don't *LITERALLY* think he's a douchbag in the sense i am aware he is not a feminie hygene product).


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Sorry I just re-read this thread... (I was busy this week-end) and I can't believe these comments were coming from you gt... seems to me in the past you have been all too willing to participate in the "numbskull" partisan game... did you have a Saul on the road to Damascus type epiphany over the week-end...?


that's because you can't see past your own nose. If you actually stepped out of this left/right crap, you might have noticed my strong dislike for either of the parties. And I wouldn't justify the actions of the liberals just because I hate Harper.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> Oh ok, wonderful.
> 
> As well as thinking Harper is a Fascist, i also think he's a Douchebag.
> 
> (Just to clarify i don't *LITERALLY* think he's a douchbag in the sense i am aware he is not a feminie hygene product).


There's nothing funnier than watching a few conservatives fall over themselves trying to be politically correct.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> that's because you can't see past your own nose. If you actually stepped out of this left/right crap, you might have noticed my strong dislike for either of the parties. And I wouldn't justify the actions of the liberals just because I hate Harper.


Oh boy here we go... quite frankly you are the myopic one who can't see that just because one supports given policies doesn't make one a conservative or a liberal. I can't count the number of times I have expressed this to you and others. I do however understand the game of politics and how it is played being intimately involved with it at a professional level for years... If you choose to interpret those comments that argue against misconceptions being spread about the governments policies that is your problem not mine.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> There's nothing funnier than watching a few conservatives fall over themselves trying to be politically correct.


What a laugh... and with that post you just wiped out all the "look at me I am non-partisan" claptrap you just spouted. The sad thing is you don't even seem to realize it.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> What a laugh... and with that post you wipe just wiped out all the "look at me I am non-partisan" claptrap you just spouted. The sad thing is you don't even seem to realize it.


I believe I did see one GT post that seemed to be almost coherent. I am sure it was just an aberration. beejacon


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> What a laugh... and with that post you wipe just wiped out all the "look at me I am non-partisan" claptrap you just spouted. The sad thing is you don't even seem to realize it.


oh you -want- it to be screature. That's your problem. You wish it so hard, it's almost so!

sigh. I have to explain everything, is simpler language. ok.

conservatives, or ones that seem to be anyway, tend to be the ones who yell about the politically correct stuff they so love to hate. Do you see many liberals, or those god forsaken 'socialists' yelling about having to be politically correct?

See how this works? You don't have to be liberal, conservative, ndp, or even a tree lickin' kelp burping shrubbery fan to see this.

The irony seems lost on you. Do I have to disclaim every observation of a conservative hypocrisy with at least one for the liberals for it take with you? hmmmm? There's puuulenty to be sure, but man that would just get tedious.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Do you see many liberals, or those god forsaken 'socialists' yelling about having to be politically correct?


Uh, yes! They're the prime movers of political correctness.


----------



## groovetube

see even macfury can figure this out quickly. If even, impulsively.


----------



## Macfury

But this applies almost totally to what the left perceives as the underclass or to other members of the left. They give themselves a free pass when they use invective against what they perceive to be the right.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> oh you -want- it to be screature. That's your problem. You wish it so hard, it's almost so!
> 
> sigh. I have to explain everything, is simpler language. ok.


Problem is gt YOU seem incapable of comprehending even the most basic of posts even when they are non-partisan you deliberately spin them as such...



groovetube said:


> *conservatives, or ones that seem to be anyway, tend to be the ones who yell about the politically correct stuff they so love to hate. Do you see many liberals, or those god forsaken 'socialists' yelling about having to be politically correct?*


You're kidding right... the"left" invented political correctness... But to answer your seemingly rhetorical (and absurd) question.. YES time and again.  Anytime those on the "left" see anything as even mildly politically incorrect they cry bloody murder.



groovetube said:


> See how this works? You don't have to be liberal, conservative, ndp, or even a tree lickin' kelp burping shrubbery fan to see this.


Your deliberate duplicity is almost laughable if it wasn't so sad...



groovetube said:


> The irony seems lost on you. Do I have to disclaim every observation of a conservative hypocrisy with at least one for the liberals for it take with you? hmmmm? There's puuulenty to be sure, but man that would just get tedious.


The only irony is that you don't seem to understand that "what is good for the goose should be good for the gander"... But then once again, "Your deliberate duplicity is almost laughable if it wasn't so sad..."


----------



## i-rui

sorry screature, but i think groovetube is bang on.

in real life you may truly be non-partisan, but from your posts you come off as a conservative apologist.

you're constantly making excuses for conservative decisions & actions while pointing fingers at the left. just because you preface or postscript your comments with how much you're NOT partisan, doesn't change it.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> sorry screature, but i think groovetube is bang on.
> 
> in real life you may truly be non-partisan, but from your posts you come off as a conservative apologist.
> 
> you're constantly making excuses for conservative decisions & actions while pointing fingers at the right. just because you preface or postscript your comments with how much you're NOT partisan, doesn't change it.


Your welcome to your opinion... it doesn't make make it so... I will admit I make posts that illuminate the reality of what goes on inside politics and on the Hill because I am embroiled in it every day... just like gt in his ""the real reason why Steve Jobs doesn't like Flash" thread comes across as a Flash apologist... and he of all people should understand the differentiation because he is inside the biz as I am in politics. But he refuses to acknowledge this and continues to speak as if he thinks he has an inside track and when someone questioned/challenged his own inside track he was the most vehement of defenders of his position filled with ridicule and insults.

I have never done this with my posts on politics even though I certainly have the ammunition to do so but I choose not to... I tend to want to keep things more civil. And yes I can see how you would think that I am a conservative apologist as when anyone who were to "defend"/explain the procedures and history of government/parliamentary procedure when the government of the day is conservative could easily come across that way. I run into it all the time... 

Regrettably the reality of politics/government is that unless you are on the inside and all you rely on is the "information"/disinformation/lies fed to you by the media you really don't know half of what you think you know. This is not the public's fault but the fault of a greedy media that has to make headlines regardless of what the truth really is and an opposition eager to make political gains with whatever they can... "Same as it ever was."


----------



## Macfury

screature, anything short of vomitous outrage constitutes support to these chaps.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> screature, anything short of vomitous outrage constitutes support to these chaps.


Well no one could ever accuse you of being be non-partisan!


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Problem is gt YOU seem incapable of comprehending even the most basic of posts even when they are non-partisan you deliberately spin them as such...
> 
> 
> 
> You're kidding right... the"left" invented political correctness... But to answer your seemingly rhetorical (and absurd) question.. YES time and again.  Anytime those on the "left" see anything as even mildly politically incorrect they cry bloody murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Your deliberate duplicity is almost laughable if it wasn't so sad...
> 
> 
> 
> The only irony is that you don't seem to understand that "what is good for the goose should be good for the gander"... But then once again, "Your deliberate duplicity is almost laughable if it wasn't so sad..."


HA HA HA HA HA.

Oh my.

This is rather like playing telephone. You seem to skim over what was said, and put your own spin on it.

I said conservatives seem to yell about PC-ness, because they do. But you might need to stop, and think about that just for a small second. They aren't yelling because they -support- it. No. Of course any fool can figure this out! Conservatives ted to -hate- PC-ness, and rail against it every chance they get! Even Macfury, despite his knee-jerk responses inadvertantly landed the fish here. You however, seem content to continue with your 'gt doesn't get it' crusade, and wow, lookie. 

screature you need to slow down, and consider what's been said.

And 'diliberate duplicity'?? You doth protest too much. Isn't there a _landslide_ conservative win in Vaughn you need to celebrate??


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> HA HA HA HA HA.
> 
> Oh my.
> 
> This is rather like playing telephone. You seem to skim over what was said, and put your own spin on it.
> 
> I said conservatives seem to yell about PC-ness, because they do. But you might need to stop, and think about that just for a small second. They aren't yelling because they -support- it. No. Of course any fool can figure this out! Conservatives ted to -hate- PC-ness, and rail against it every chance they get! Even Macfury, despite his knee-jerk responses inadvertantly landed the fish here. You however, seem content to continue with your 'gt doesn't get it' crusade, and wow, lookie.
> 
> screature you need to slow down, and consider what's been said.
> 
> And 'diliberate duplicity'?? You doth protest too much. Isn't there a _landslide_ conservative win in Vaughn you need to celebrate??


Thing is gt I read your posts over a few times and your past posts speak for themselves. Your duplicity is obvious, your talking out of both sides of your mouth and I'm not just talking about the PC issue. I'm done with you on this issue.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Thing is gt I read your posts over a few times and your past posts speak for themselves. Your duplicity is obvious, your talking out of both sides of your mouth and I not just talking about the PC issue. I'm done with you on this.


GT develops a sort of pathological blindness in which he can no longer read, recognize or understand his prior posts. Don't even bother.


----------



## BigDL

Great Success, Great Success

The Consupporters have made this thread about GT and not the PM

At one time the mere thought changing the focus of Harper's Embarrassments, of which there a plethora, brought howls of outrage.

Now that the focus of this thread is off the dictatorial, ineffectual, at the hog trough stylings of the Glorious Incepted Leader, the minions may feel a day's work well done?


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Thing is gt I read your posts over a few times and your past posts speak for themselves. Your duplicity is obvious, your talking out of both sides of your mouth and I'm not just talking about the PC issue. I'm done with you on this issue.


do I hear an echo in here? Nevermind the vague swipes.

Sorry screature, you misread my post, quite clearly. 

So yeah, I'd say you're done alright.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> GT develops a sort of pathological blindness in which he can no longer read, recognize or understand his prior posts. Don't even bother.


you sort of remind me of that yappy little dog that runs around the bulldog in the cartoon. You know the one.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> you sort of remind me of that yappy little dog that runs around the bulldog in the cartoon. You know the one.


What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## Lawrence

I think that this editorial in the Toronto Star sums up thoughts about the PC party,
Even if it is only Provincial, It is in a way similar to the Federal political arena.
Considering the triplets were recruited from Ontario, As well as their fearless leader.

Hudak Editorial:

We know what Hudak’s against but what would he do in power? 

OK...Sorry, Back to the squabble.


----------



## groovetube

squabble? One can't read posts (or cares to) and the other has never seen a cartoon in it's life.

It's a sad state for Ontario. McGuinty is a complete doofus, and Hudak is nothing but all mouth, no substance. I wonder if he will promise, to scrap the HST. Since according to some conservatives, that's a liberal masterminded evil to take more of our money. They've never heard of Flaherty of course.


----------



## SD-B

Macfury said:


> The UN takes far more from Canada than it gives and is increasingly attempting to create some sort of overarching power structure, including the power to tax. Canada should participate in global society on its own terms and be more wary of the UN.




I think the UN shouild go the way of the League of Nations and then rebuild.

I am happy Harper did not bring us in to the UN.

I for one am so tired of hearing about the poor Palestinians


PALLYWOOD

pallywood


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I wonder if he will promise, to scrap the HST.


If he does, he will win.


----------



## SD-B

i-rui said:


> sorry screature, but i think groovetube is bang on.
> 
> in real life you may truly be non-partisan, but from your posts you come off as a conservative apologist.
> 
> you're constantly making excuses for conservative decisions & actions while pointing fingers at the left. just because you preface or postscript your comments with how much you're NOT partisan, doesn't change it.



I might be a bit late to the party but i was just reading though this thread thinking to myself how dead on Screature is


----------



## SD-B

All this fighting about one party and the other, I can understand to a point. I too am a conservative voter although I am very liberal in many ways but feel that the Liberal party has gone to gar to the left for my liking.

In any event that's rather irrelevant for in the end i am not sure there are really that many differences between the two but what saddens me more is that it seems as if the days of great men running for power is long over. And they have all been replaced by third degree politicians.

But who can blame them?
Most great men do have baggage, or dirty laundry.
The media has seen to it that every politicians private life is now torn apart, yet is it really necessary?
Do we really care who is sleeping with who?

Although I do not put Adam Giabrone in the list of great men and far from it, in retrospect was it really necessary that he drop out of the mayors race because he had an affair with some young woman that wasn't his fiancee?

In any event, the media obsession to tear them all apart, I imagine prevents great men from wishing to run..........so we are continually left with inadequate party leaders.

Harper?
I voted for him but not with great ease.
There is a lot about him i do not like but I do admire his stance on Israel and am very appreciative that there is one leader in the world today with the balls to stand up and defend Israel.
For that alone he wins my respect...............but in may other areas he fails........but at this point in time, even with those failings, I still consider him far better than any man the Liberals have offered up.

Anyhow.........with none of them being great men, its in some ways almost pointless i think to fight over the two partys here........hopefully this will one day change.

Look at Toronto.
Rob Ford?
Yes, I too voted for him for I hated Smitherman more.
But Ford embarrasses me and he is certainly not a great man..............
Yet Tory, who is one of the most wonderful men, gracious, lovely, nice and a person I would have voted for in a minute despite his many mis-steps I believe would have been far better mayor than Ford, but.....again, the media have just torn the man apart.
Everyone says they want a politician that will do what he thinks is best for the people..........John Tory made a great mistake with his religious school funding, BUT, he was that politician that didn't listen to the polls and thought he could make a difference, yet he was torn apart for having done so.

These men cant win!


----------



## MacDoc

*Harper advisor calls for assassination of Wikileaks director*

Pinch a Harpo lap pup - find a snarling mongrel...



> In a shockingly flippant comment to a Canadian television news anchor Evan Solomon of the CBC News Network on live TV, Tom Flanagan, a senior advisor and strategist to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper today called for the assassination of Wikileaks director Julian Assange . It is believed to be the first ever televised "fatwa" since the edict by the Iranian leadership of the late Ayatollah Khomeini against British writer Salman Rushdie in February 1989.
> 
> *Amazingly, although news anchor Solomon afforded Flanagan the opportunity to retract his statement, Flanagan balked at doing so and instead reiterated that U.S. President should put out a "contract" on Assange or use "a drone" and that he would not be unhappy if Assange "disappeared.
> *
> " Flanagan who is a trusted member of PM Harper's inner circle of Tory strategists joins Sarah Palin in calling for the death of the Wikileaks director as retribution for the website's release of confidential diplomatic and intelligence "chatter" this week.


watch it here

Harper advisor calls for assassination of Wikileaks director // Current

agenda not so hidden anymore.....


----------



## bryanc

MacDoc said:


> Harper advisor calls for assassination of Wikileaks director // Current




Holy crap! I'm astounded Flanagan would be so transparent on camera. I'm not surprised they're trying to have the guy assassinated, and I expect there are a lot of other people they'd like to see have 'accidents', but I can't imagine most Canadians will be comfortable with them wearing their jackboots in public like that.


----------



## groovetube

wow. That's rather awkward isn't it.


----------



## screature

MacDoc said:


> Pinch a Harpo lap pup - find a snarling mongrel...
> 
> 
> 
> watch it here
> 
> *Harper advisor* calls for assassination of Wikileaks director // Current
> 
> agenda not so hidden anymore.....


BS Tom Flanagan hasn't been an advisor to Harper for years, they are actually rather hostile to one another now and completely on the outs with one another. Flanagan speaks for himself alone. The headline is completely irresponsible and quite frankly a lie. And this is also a lie, "_Flanagan who is a trusted member of PM Harper's inner circle of Tory strategists_"... quite simply not true and any journalist with half a brain and hasn't been asleep for the last 10 years would know this. More wonderful yellow journalism. tptptptp 

How predictable that MacDoc would post it as news.


----------



## SINC

screature said:


> How predictable that MacDoc would post it as news.


And POOF, that accusation disappears in a cloud of dust. Any Conservative (or Liberals who actually read newspapers or watch TV news) knows Flannagan and Harper parted company long ago. Sheesh.

Trying to make mountains out of molehills with bad information or what?


----------



## groovetube

and yet conservatives continue to link previous with current liberals all the time.

The outrage is good for a chuckle isn't it.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> and yet conservatives continue to link previous with current liberals all the time.
> 
> The outrage is good for a chuckle isn't it.


LOL! Wow, how thick does one have to be to believe that?

What a party has done in the past is part of their record. What a guy with zero connections to the party or the PM for years says as a personal opinion, erroneously tied to the PM is quite different. Recognize it for the bad journalism it is.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> and yet conservatives continue to link previous with current liberals all the time.
> 
> The outrage is good for a chuckle isn't it.


What are you talking about ?! My god man this has nothing to do with conservatives or liberals it has to do with appalling journalism. For a recently self proclaimed non-partisan you sure jump at every chance to try and turn issues into partisan ones when they aren't.


----------



## Macfury

Well tot one up for MacDoc. Thanks to the tireless endeavours of MaccyLeaks we now know that the Prime Minister of Canada is an assassin.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> What are you talking about ?! My god man this has nothing to do with conservatives or liberals it has to do with appalling journalism. For a recently self proclaimed non-partisan you sure jump at every chance to try and turn issues into partisan ones when they aren't.


dude, you really have to lay off the jolt cola k? 

When the extreme caffeine dies down, (SINC included with his "you gotta be THICK" comment) you'll see I simply observed that this could be rather awkward. A former advisor to Harper, making outlandish calls for someone to be assassinated. Now we can all scream outrage at what is bad journalism, but the truth is, I've seen conservatives here do the same thing, somehow bad actors who have nothing to do with the liberal party now, are still somehow part of the liberal party, even though they were never even elected members.

It happens on both sides of the argument. So yes, my comments are indeed 'non-partisan', but you seem to want to change that desperately. I'm not biting.

cue outrage that conservatives could possibly do the same things.

Dear god, the humanity.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Now we can all scream outrage at what is bad journalism, but the truth is, I've seen conservatives here do the same thing, somehow bad actors who have nothing to do with the liberal party now, are still somehow part of the liberal party, even though they were never even elected members.


I'll bite. Show us the posts. Find me a post in which someone who has "nothing to do with the liberal party now, are still somehow part of the liberal party."

And none of this: "you can easily find them," or "round and round we go."


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> dude, you really have to lay off the jolt cola k?
> 
> When the extreme caffeine dies down, (SINC included with his "you gotta be THICK" comment) you'll see I simply observed that this could be rather awkward. A former advisor to Harper, making outlandish calls for someone to be assassinated. Now we can all scream outrage at what is bad journalism, but the truth is, I've seen conservatives here do the same thing, somehow bad actors who have nothing to do with the liberal party now, are still somehow part of the liberal party, even though they were never even elected members.
> 
> It happens on both sides of the argument. So yes, my comments are indeed 'non-partisan', but you seem to want to change that desperately. I'm not biting.
> 
> cue outrage that conservatives could possibly do the same things.
> 
> Dear god, the humanity.


Your willfull ignorance to the real issue is astounding. This has nothing, nothing to do with conservatives/liberals, you are the only one trying to make it so. The "outrage" as you put it has to do with yellow journalism. End of story... until you snipe in with your usual divisive and provocative comments....


----------



## groovetube

I think you need to get off your high partisan horse. Was what I posted that hard to understand?

YOU are the one throwing around the partisan swipe. I did tried to explain that my comment that this was awkward, was merely an observation. I also recognized that this could be bad journalism since you seem to demand it, but that isn't my point.

It doesn't matter, it's still awkward. No matter what horse you back. Former advisor to the prime minister, is still former advisor! Regardless of the spitting and outrage. You must know by now it's a matter of optics. Surely...


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> I think you need to get off your high partisan horse. Was what I posted that hard to understand?
> 
> YOU are the one throwing around the partisan swipe. I did tried to explain that my comment that this was awkward, was merely an observation. I also recognized that this could be bad journalism since you seem to demand it, but that isn't my point.
> 
> It doesn't matter, it's still awkward. No matter what horse you back. Former advisor to the prime minister, is still former advisor! Regardless of the spitting and outrage. You must know by now it's a matter of optics. Surely...


 Sigghh... Your duplicity is most tiresome... 

It is only a matter of optics if the media makes it so otherwise it is just the opinion of a political science professor. Period. Gawd is that so hard to understand.


----------



## BigDL

I can recall the outrage by some, over a certain former spiritual advisor to a certain candidate running to be the President of the Excited States. Yeah I know but that's different.


----------



## eMacMan

BigDL said:


> I can recall the outrage by some, over a certain former spiritual advisor to a certain candidate running to be the President of the Excited States. Yeah I know but that's different.


Sorry but that nation has been officially renamed: The Paranoid State of America. beejacon

Happened sometime shortly after 9/11.


----------



## Lawrence

The news agencies are a bit tainted, I much prefer to read the Blogs:

Aberhart and Harper on Crusade
History of the Conservative Party of Canada which emerged from the Social Credit Party
of William Aberhart, not the Tory Party of Sir John A MacDonald


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> I can recall the outrage by some, over a certain former spiritual advisor to a certain candidate running to be the President of the Excited States. Yeah I know but that's different.


oh you er, *cough* "duplicitous" tree huggin leftard. 

sorry screature but you're the one flinging bias and partisan crap. I'm sorry you didn't like my observation, but it is what it is. Pretty simple.

Sometimes, it isn't -always- the media's fault. But they can sure stir up the horse manure already supplied can't they?


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> I can recall the outrage by some, over a certain former spiritual advisor to a certain candidate running to be the President of the Excited States. Yeah I know but that's different.


He was the candidate's spiritual advisor at the time of the accusations that he tolerated his racist rants.


----------



## Lawrence

eMacMan said:


> Sorry but that nation has been officially renamed: The Paranoid State of America. beejacon
> 
> Happened sometime shortly after 9/11.


.


----------



## Dr.G.

dolawren said:


> .


:lmao::lmao:

YouTube - 22 MInutes: Mrs Enid Airport Security


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> ...conservatives, or ones that seem to be anyway, tend to be the ones who yell about the politically correct stuff they so love to hate. *Do you see many liberals, or those god forsaken 'socialists' yelling about having to be politically correct?*


In the mood for some crow for lunch today gt.... 

Liberals demand PM slap Julian Fantino’s wrist for Hitler quip 



> In the interview, Mr. Fantino – the former Toronto police chief and Ontario Provincial Police commissioner – expressed his frustration with charges by the Liberals that he had run a “peek-a-boo” campaign, avoiding public debates and afraid to address tricky issues.
> 
> He told The Globe that was simply not the case, believing the Liberals had made the allegation out of desperation. “I think they intended to hurt my campaign,” Mr. Fantino said. “The things they said ... a lot of them were absolute lies. They keep repeating [them]. I call it the Hitler theory. You tell a lie often enough you hope that some people will believe it.”
> 
> The Grits want Mr. Harper to order his newly-elected MP to retract his comments.
> 
> “It is a term of gross slander, and to toss it around as a political epithet both trivializes that terrible moment in history and insults the memory of its real victims,” the Liberals say.


----------



## Max

Posturing on both sides, methinks. Modern politics is, more so than ever, about optics and being aware of soundbytes and how the camera can frame an issue.

Sometimes these cats can seem so petulant and thin-skinned.


----------



## screature

Max said:


> Posturing on both sides, methinks. Modern politics is, more so than ever, about optics and being aware of soundbytes and how the camera can frame an issue.
> 
> Sometimes these cats can seem so petulant and thin-skinned.


+1 agreed.


----------



## eMacMan

While Hitler may have coined the phrase, modern politicians have taken it to new heights.

Trudeau...
Harpo..........
Ignats..........
Bush....................................................................................................................................


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> In the mood for some crow for lunch today gt....
> 
> Liberals demand PM slap Julian Fantino’s wrist for Hitler quip


Well first, you'll note I said "not many".

And second, which furthers why I ragged on you in the first place about reading posts, you'll note that once again, you've misread my post. Again.

The context was that you don't see as many liberals yelling (read... "complaining") about having to BE politically correct. THEY"RE the ones most likely to be politically correct than a conservative. Not conservatives. THAT, was the point. Which apparently sailed right over you.

But I would have thought, this concept was rather obvious if one actually READ the post.

I wouldn't recommend ketchup on your crow. Too messy.

However, I would like to highlight the fact that a few here got their girdles in a knot when nazi references were made and made a show of standing up for those who lost their lives in the concentration camps.

It'll be interesting to see their reaction to Fantino, and how much their outrage boils over. Enough to write letters of disgust?

hmmm.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> Well first, you'll note I said "not many".
> 
> And second, which furthers why I ragged on you in the first place about reading posts, you'll note that once again, you've misread my post. Again.
> 
> The context was that you don't see as many liberals yelling (read... "complaining") about having to BE politically correct. THEY"RE the ones most likely to be politically correct than a conservative. Not conservatives. THAT, was the point. Which apparently sailed right over you.
> 
> But I would have thought, this concept was rather obvious if one actually READ the post.
> 
> I wouldn't recommend ketchup on your crow. Too messy.
> 
> However, I would like to highlight the fact that a few here got their girdles in a knot when nazi references were made and made a show of standing up for those who lost their lives in the concentration camps.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see their reaction to Fantino, and how much their outrage boils over. Enough to write letters of disgust?
> 
> hmmm.


I read and re-read your posts and then read them again... perhaps you might want to re-read them yourself as they clearly do not say what you thought they did or intended to say... your words are quoted above in black in white if you care to read them. 

You try and claim to be non-partisan and your posts continuously belie your duplicity. Maybe you can fool yourself and maybe even others, but I have been reading your posts for far too long to buy into your misdirections, self-contradictions, obfuscations, rants, insults and condescensions. Stay true to yourself gt... that way at least somebody believes in and cares about what you have to say.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> I read and re-read your posts and then read them again... perhaps you might want to re-read them yourself as they clearly do not say what you thought they did or intended to say... your words are quoted above in black in white if you care to read them.
> 
> You try and claim to be non-partisan and your posts continuously belie your duplicity. Maybe you can fool yourself and maybe even others, but I have been reading your posts for far too long to buy into your misdirections, self-contradictions, obfuscations, rants, insults and condescensions. Stay true to yourself gt... that way at least somebody believes in and cares about what you have to say.


oh duplicity schmaplicity. What an annoying word you keep repeating over and over. Is that the word of the week up there or something?

Yammer yammer yammer. You misread what I wrote and that's the end of the story. Clear as day. Now go eat your crow.

As for insults and condescensions, read the last paragraph of your post, and put ketchup on your damn crow while you're at it.


----------



## Macfury

GT, stop trying to make screature eat that dish of crow with your name on it.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> oh duplicity schmaplicity. What an annoying word you keep repeating over and over. Is that the word of the week up there or something?
> 
> Yammer yammer yammer. You misread what I wrote and that's the end of the story. Clear as day. Now go eat your crow.
> 
> As for insults and condescensions, read the last paragraph of your post, and put ketchup on your damn crow while you're at it.


Nope I read it quite clearly and understood very well and I said nothing that isn't there for anyone to read on a regular basis being typed out on your keyboard and posted here. 

I don't think you know what it means to "eat crow" if you think I have any reason to be having it for dinner.


----------



## Macfury

What GT said yesterday is no longer relevant to him, screature. He is a new creation, born this morning.


----------



## groovetube

Yes I suppose this concept that liberals are far more likely to be politically correct, and the conservatives are the ones likely to yell about it all the time, is, rather befuddling.

I can see how you both can get a little confused.

Man what a peanut gallery.


----------



## mrjimmy

The real question here is whether _any _reference to Hitler or Nazism is being politically incorrect or whether it's being outright distasteful and disrespectful. I wonder what broom closet Harper is going to hide him in.

Not so sure about this particular meal of crow.


----------



## groovetube

Yeah I noticed things seem awfully quiet suddenly when a er, 'celebrated conservative' mouthed of with a nazi reference.

Nothing to see here. Or let's go around in circles on something else...


----------



## mrjimmy

Before Fantino opened his yap, you had Tom Flanagan.

CBC News - British Columbia - Flanagan comments probed by Calgary police

The best part is, everytime he is mentioned in the news, so is Harper.


----------



## groovetube

Bu bu bu But him an' Harper aren't pals anymore!!!!

Careful captain duplicitous will zing you with that soon enough. :baby:


----------



## screature

mrjimmy said:


> Before Fantino opened his yap, you had Tom Flanagan.
> 
> CBC News - British Columbia - Flanagan comments probed by Calgary police
> 
> The best part is, everytime he is mentioned in the news, so is Harper.


This is such a non-story, the Harper references are the only thing really keeping it afloat even though they are completely irrelevant and many of them completely untrue (although most reports are now correctly saying *former* advisor). The guy speaks for himself. Period. And even at that as has been reported...



> But other former Liberals were giving Flanagan the benefit of the doubt. Scott Reid, a former Liberal adviser to prime minister Paul Martin who was on the same program panel with Flanagan, said he believed Flanagan was being "his usual colourful and provocative self " and was "obviously talking tongue-in-cheek."


Of course it was in poor taste and demonstrated bad judgement on Flanagan's part, he is a bit of an idiot after all, but to anyone who actually watched the broadcast and isn't merely going off of media transcripts in print, it was obvious he wasn't serious and certainly no one on the panel was taking him seriously as everyone broke into laughter. He has apologized and said he didn't mean it seriously and the zealots (like Gail Davidson) should just leave it alone. What a bloody waste of time and energy for the Calgary police department.


----------



## groovetube

there ya go! Right on cue.

It's a "non-story" goddamit!!! Can't anyone SEE THAT?????

ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!!

Except, all the news outlets seem to think otherwise. :lmao:


----------



## groovetube

ooh. In other news, Our government has... an ACTION PLAN!!!!!
Government unveils 'Air India Action Plan' - CTV News

I loved the commenter from ALberta's comment...



> I feel safer already. What a joke.


Yep.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> there ya go! Right on cue.
> 
> It's a "non-story" goddamit!!! Can't anyone SEE THAT?????
> 
> ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!!
> 
> Except, all the news outlets seem to think otherwise. :lmao:


Put a sock in it gt... I was responding to mrj... speaking of peanut galleries?  Do you think this thread is all about you? But then again this is the kind of thing that everyone here has come to expect of you.... a lot of hot air and commotion but very little thought, substance, decorum or class.


----------



## dona83

Them's fighting words.


----------



## screature

dona83 said:


> Them's fighting words.


:lmao: No merely a measured response to a rather typically childish gt post for which my patience has become exhausted.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> :lmao: No merely a measured response to a rather typically childish gt post for which my patience has become exhausted.


Elsewhere, gt makes a lot of thoughtful posts regarding the technical aspects of computers and software, but in this part of the forum there's little opinion offered--only 'tude.


----------



## dona83

I could see how Flanagan's words can be taken out of context but maybe it's something he shouldn't have said whether he was just joking or not. On the other hand, Flanagan's opinions is probably just a super extreme version of what many of us think of the WikiLeaks founder.

I just see partisan bickering, if the Liberals said something controversial the Tories would be all over it as well.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Elsewhere, gt makes a lot of thoughtful posts regarding the technical aspects of computers and software, but in this part of the forum there's little opinion offered--only 'tude.


True. Fair enough. I was speaking of posts on political themes.


----------



## screature

dona83 said:


> I could see how Flanagan's words can be taken out of context but maybe *it's something he shouldn't have said whether he was just joking or not. *On the other hand, Flanagan's opinions is probably just a super extreme version of what many of us think of the WikiLeaks founder.
> 
> I just see partisan bickering, if the Liberals said something controversial the Tories would be all over it as well.


At least not on national television.  It was a bone head move.

Actually in the House it has pretty much been only the NDP to try and make anything out of Flanagan's comments. 

It is the zealot's looking for charges to be laid against him by the Calgary police that are really blowing the whole thing out of proportion so they can have their own 15 seconds of fame and wasting the police's time and resources.


----------



## groovetube

dona83 said:


> Them's fighting words.


he just dislikes that I disagree and considers that childish, but hey that's just how screature rolls. He wants you all to know he's right.

But anyway, he continues to assert that this is non-news, and further it's only the NDP making a squawk, which again is nonsense.



> Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Mr. Flanagan’s comments were “utterly unacceptable” and “crosses the line.”


As well as others, but further, for it to be "non-news", I wonder why even the British Telegraph would report that "A former adviser to Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister, suggested a different solution to the international diplomatic crisis – assassinating Mr. Assange..."

Well. Some "non-news" eh?

Nothing to see here.

Look! Shiny ball!!!

Arrrghhhh!

And yes you're indeed right, if someone even remotely tied to a liberal ever dared say this, the screaming would indeed be quite deafening.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> As well as others, but further, for it to be "non-news", I wonder why even the British Telegraph would report that "A former adviser to Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister, suggested a different solution to the international diplomatic crisis – assassinating Mr. Assange..."


Because they have a Google alert feature that tells them when stuff like this hits papers all over the world. Then they can titillate their readers with it.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> he just dislikes that I disagree and considers that childish, but hey that's just how screature rolls. He wants you all to know he's right.
> 
> But anyway, he continues to assert that this is non-news, and further it's only the NDP making a squawk, which again is nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> As well as others, but further, for it to be "non-news", I wonder why even the British Telegraph would report that "A former adviser to Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister, suggested a different solution to the international diplomatic crisis – assassinating Mr. Assange..."
> 
> Well. Some "non-news" eh?
> 
> Nothing to see here.
> 
> Look! Shiny ball!!!
> 
> Arrrghhhh!
> 
> And yes you're indeed right, if someone even remotely tied to a liberal ever dared say this, the screaming would indeed be quite deafening.


You can disagree all like, I would be surprised if you didn't, it is your manner or lack there of that is childish.

Do you even actually read people's posts or only scan them:



> Actually *in the House it has pretty much been only the NDP *to try and make anything out of Flanagan's comments.


See I have this ability called "critical" thinking where I don't believe everything that is fed to me verbatim in the tabloids, that's where you and I differ gt. It is a non-story just being trumped up by a rabid media. It will be over and forgotten before you know it guaranteed.


----------



## SINC

screature said:


> Actually in the House it has pretty much been only the NDP to try and make anything out of Flanagan's comments.





groovetube said:


> But anyway, he continues to assert that this is non-news, and further it's only the NDP making a squawk, which again is nonsense.


Given screature's very job has him observing the house almost daily and gt is at work in TO during parliament, I'll leave it to individuals to determine who is right. 

But calling it "nonsense" from outside the house and from far afield at that, holds little credibility and is frankly, well, nonsense.


----------



## groovetube

Oh yes and screeching that this is non news while every news organization in the country as well as international news is picking this up, is, non news eh?

I don't care if he is personally making Stephen Harper his afternoon tea. It's still bullcrap.

Period.

It's only non news if you're a conservative. Because it must really irk y'all every rtime a news organization in particular the international ones say, "former advisor to Stephen Harper".

Ouch.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> Oh yes and screeching that this is non news while every news organization in the country as well as international news is picking this up, is, non news eh?
> 
> I don't care if he is personally making Stephen Harper his afternoon tea. It's still bullcrap.
> 
> Period.


See I never said it is non-news... those are your words. I said it is a non-story. Simply being in the news makes it news, saying it is a non-story means that it is an editorial comment on the newsworthiness of the story, i.e. does it really warrant the attention it is getting. It is an opinion not a statement of fact. You really should bone up on your reading comprehension and quoting skills gt, it may make you a more credible debating opponent.


----------



## groovetube

oh SORRY non STORY!!!! Oh Oh oh my god shoot me I meant non -STORY.

Well. This clears it all up. It's a non STORY to YOU screature. But apparently it was a STORY enough to make it across the pond now didn't it!

What a load of crap screature. And you have clearly demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension after getting one of my posts wrong after I explained it to you TWICE, so I wouldn't go around throwing stones in a glass house sir.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> oh SORRY non STORY!!!! Oh Oh oh my god shoot me I meant non -STORY.
> 
> Well. This clears it all up. It's a non STORY to YOU screature. But apparently it was a STORY enough to make it across the pond now didn't it!
> 
> What a load of crap screature. And you have clearly demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension after getting one of my posts wrong after I explained it to you TWICE, so I wouldn't go around throwing stones in a glass house sir.


This is significant why...? Oh I know, because the Brits are soooo famous for their ability not to latch onto tabloid worthy stories and only "hard" news.  :lmao:

I didn't get your post wrong you simply failed to understand the reasons why I continued to criticise it.


----------



## groovetube

oh screature come on. You continually got the post wrong after I explained it twice to you, if it wasn't clear. But the concept was simple.

And YOU are the one who is making this significant in your constant bleating that is is a non er, STORY. We merely made an observation, and if you remember, I simply said it was... "awkward".

That's it, that's all. Simply awkward. To which you reacted in a rather hilarious fashion I thought. But then, the usual drama queen circus ensued, complete with pomp and ceremony including the band.

"Awkward". In that all news items erp, sorry, STORIES, constantly referred to Flanagan as Harpers former advisor.

Now I know reading comprehension is super duperaliciously important, so you'll have to agree that that's all it is. Simply, a little, "awkward.

Wooo we almost had an international incident here.


----------



## Max

The general tenor of these teensy arguments gets tiresome. It's a pissing match between two individuals. Can't you dudes poke your heads above the ditch once in a while and note how insignificant this petulant little _me vs. you_ tiff is?

Let's move on past the personality warz, OK? It's just tacky to keep renewing it... your own individual arguments are reduced by the constant swipes and insults.


----------



## groovetube

I think my last post highlighted that very fact.

However you know how it is eh when you're in it.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> oh screature come on. You continually got the post wrong after I explained it twice to you, if it wasn't clear. But the concept was simple.
> 
> And YOU are the one who is making this significant in your constant bleating that is is a non er, STORY. We merely made an observation, and if you remember, I simply said it was... "awkward".
> 
> That's it, that's all. Simply awkward. To which you reacted in a rather hilarious fashion I thought. But then, the usual drama queen circus ensued, complete with pomp and ceremony including the band.
> 
> "Awkward". In that *all news items* erp, sorry, STORIES, *constantly referred to Flanagan as Harpers former advisor*.
> 
> Now I know reading comprehension is super duperaliciously important, so you'll have to agree that that's all it is. Simply, a little, "awkward.
> 
> Wooo we almost had an international incident here.


Well...if only that were true the ensuing battle here would never occurred. The original link posted by MacDoc said he *is* an advisor to Harper and *is* in his "inner circle". Even the Montreal Gazette published this incorrect information. 

At any rate (as you indicate) this "tirade" between the two of us has run its course... time to stop flogging this particular dead horse.


----------



## screature

Max said:


> The general tenor of these teensy arguments gets tiresome. It's a pissing match between two individuals. Can't you dudes poke your heads above the ditch once in a while and note how insignificant this petulant little _me vs. you_ tiff is?
> 
> Let's move on past the personality warz, OK? It's just tacky to keep renewing it... your own individual arguments are reduced by the constant swipes and insults.


Sorry for the tedium and petulance Max, it is indeed unbecoming... 

As gt said,



> However you know how it is eh when you're in it.


I agree with everything you say and sorry for my part in it... the "pit bull" in me sometimes gets the better part of me... something I am not proud of, but there it is...


----------



## Max

Been there too boys; not saying I haven't. I will go there again in the future, sure as night follows day. But you gotta know when to move on. When the topic at hand slowly but surely morphs into nothing more than a dull, plodding, all too familiar, dim-witted slugfest, no one is served by it.

OK, 'nuff said. Can someone please put the choo-choo back on its rails again?


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> OK, 'nuff said. Can someone please put the choo-choo back on its rails again?


That's asking too much. You do it.


----------



## screature

Max said:


> ...OK, 'nuff said. Can someone please put the choo-choo back on its rails again?


Thanks Max...

I think this particular train will always be destined to go off the rails just by its very nature... Perhaps it is time to bring this one into the yard and decommission it.


----------



## Lawrence

Max said:


> Been there too boys; not saying I haven't. I will go there again in the future, sure as night follows day. But you gotta know when to move on. When the topic at hand slowly but surely morphs into nothing more than a dull, plodding, all too familiar, dim-witted slugfest, no one is served by it.
> 
> OK, 'nuff said. Can someone please put the choo-choo back on its rails again?


Gotta find some more dirt on Harper first...Hang on,
I think the newest choo choo of dirt has arrived.

I'll see what I can post.


----------



## Max

Screature: Too true!

MF: I wanted to step away gracefully. I just can't think of anything new to say about Harper, one way or another.


----------



## groovetube

hell this thread is 47 pages young. I'm sure there's plenty of Harper embarrassments aplenty a'comin.


----------



## Lawrence

Not much, Just piddly things.
Give me a few days...He'll do something funny soon, I'm sure of it.


----------



## screature

dolawren said:


> Not much, Just piddly things.
> Give me a few days...He'll do something funny soon, I'm sure of it.


Is that a Rick Mercer mosh up?


----------



## Lawrence

I got it from a blog, It might be, Kind of looks like a RMR style shot.

The blog is Harper the Hypocrite

Just another dirt spot to retrieve information from.


----------



## mrjimmy

screature said:


> This is such a non-story, the Harper references are the only thing really keeping it afloat even though they are completely irrelevant and many of them completely untrue (although most reports are now correctly saying *former* advisor). The guy speaks for himself. Period. And even at that as has been reported...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it was in poor taste and demonstrated bad judgement on Flanagan's part, he is a bit of an idiot after all, but to anyone who actually watched the broadcast and isn't merely going off of media transcripts in print, it was obvious he wasn't serious and certainly no one on the panel was taking him seriously as everyone broke into laughter. He has apologized and said he didn't mean it seriously and the zealots (like Gail Davidson) should just leave it alone. What a bloody waste of time and energy for the Calgary police department.


Whether *you believe* it's a non-story or not, it exists and it's attached to the biggest news story going this minute. Flanagan's credibility in the media comes from being attached to Harper and whether he was joking or not, suggested someone be murdered. Now, to further give it legs, he's being investigated. 

For a control the message at all costs kind of guy like Harper, I'd say that was troubling.

Will it lose him votes amongst the true believers? Doubtful. They'll most likely call it a non-story. Where this will hurt him is with the giant section of fence sitters who have been witnessing Harper's 'death by 1000 cuts'. Yes this is a simply a cut, but it's cumulative.


----------



## Max

I dunno, mrjimmy, sounds overly optimistic on your part. Was just reading a Globe piece which states that Harper is steadily building up toward a majority. He is a love him or loathe him type of guy, but so far he's holding steady. It's his political opponents who are forever having a hard time finding traction.


----------



## SINC

Max said:


> I dunno, mrjimmy, sounds overly optimistic on your part. Was just reading a Globe piece which states that Harper is steadily building up toward a majority. He is a love him or loathe him type of guy, but so far he's holding steady. It's his political opponents who are forever having a hard time finding traction.


Max is correct, but I doubt Harper haters applaud Haper's steady march to a majority.



mrjimmy said:


> Whether *you believe* it's a non-story or not, it exists and it's attached to the biggest news story going this minute. Flanagan's credibility in the media comes from being attached to Harper and whether he was joking or not, suggested someone be murdered. Now, to further give it legs, he's being investigated.
> 
> For a control the message at all costs kind of guy like Harper, I'd say that was troubling.


And even the media doesn't buy your view that it is troubling:



> Flanagan's words no threat
> 
> Back in 1170, King Henry II was vexed with Thomas Becket, the archbishop of Canterbury, for being an independent-minded thorn in the royal backside. In exasperation, as legend long had it, he asked, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" whereupon four literal-minded knights -- unable to distinguish between rhetorical hyperbole and genuine command -- rushed off to Canterbury and chopped him up with their swords.
> 
> Eight hundred and forty years later, it is certainly arguable that Canadian political elites haven't appreciably improved their sense of humour. (What Henry really said, according to recent research, was: "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?" -- something one can easily imagine Stephen Harper or John Baird shouting if they ever had a Medieval Day in the House of Commons.)
> 
> But surely, surely, we have advanced to the point where every one knows former Harper aide Thomas Flanagan wasn't serious when he mused darkly about an assassination of WikiLeaks' Julian Assange. The current police inquiries into Flanagan's glib remarks in a CBC interview are simply absurd.
> 
> True, in his mock call to arms, there is an intriguing coincidence in choice of words: "I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something." But who imagines this would prompt modern-day boneheads to saddle up and do harm to the high priest of tattling? Does the political and judicial class truly have this low an opinion of the ordinary citizen?
> 
> If Flanagan had said he wished supporters of Michael Ignatieff would "go jump in the lake," would the authorities have rushed out to cordon off cold bodies of water across the country? Would opposition politicians be standing in the House of Commons in mock concern about his irresponsible remarks?
> 
> Clearly, Flanagan's comment to host Evan Solomon on the CBC program Power & Politics was in poor taste. And it might be argued that in the context of our rage-filled political discourse these days, words like "assassinate" are less clearly a meaningless rhetorical flourish than they would once have been. In the past, politicians knew how to express themselves strongly without using barroom hyperbole. For some reason, one is reminded of Winston Churchill's observation that "when the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber."
> 
> But for two reasons, we must learn to let such things pass.
> 
> First, it's actually a good thing when politicians and public figures try to speak their minds clearly, and feel free to do so. If they worry too much about offending this or that group, or about handing a weapon to political enemies, they end up saying nothing memorable at all.
> 
> In this case, we know Flanagan thinks exposing secret conversations is potentially dangerous and irresponsible, and we grasp the implication that in their self-righteous efforts to disrupt the status quo of international affairs, Assange and the modern terrorist have something in common. If, on the other hand, Flanagan had mumbled something discretely judicious about legal sanctions, we'd never have heard about it, or cared if we had.
> 
> And second, when we get into too great a fuss about what some people say, we get distracted from what others are actually doing. Julian Assange is not the victim in this story, and in no way do we wish to think of him as a martyr. Rather, he is the prime mover, for better or worse, and it is on him that we should focus.


Now, all sit back and wait for some comment about the Edmonton Journal being a Harper supporter. They're not.

Flanagan's words no threat


----------



## groovetube

Max said:


> I dunno, mrjimmy, sounds overly optimistic on your part. Was just reading a Globe piece which states that Harper is steadily building up toward a majority. He is a love him or loathe him type of guy, but so far he's holding steady. It's his political opponents who are forever having a hard time finding traction.


surely you know this is cyclical by now. How many times has the globe or anyone else reported Harper's "march to a majority"? We've heard this song and dance from the days he first got elected, the majority drumbeat was beaten to a thunderous crescendo, nope, still no dice.

His numbers has flipped flopped ever since. Now I can't predict for sure if it'll happen or not, but this is tiring.

As for this flanagan affair, it keeps on giving, this, from the globe.
Tom Flanagan threatened me over WikiLeaks comment, Toronto woman says - The Globe and Mail


----------



## SINC

Another publicity hound woman gets her 15 minute of fame.


----------



## groovetube

perhaps, keep in mind, if this were a liberal advisor...

Holy Hannah the liberals would be CRIMINALS.


----------



## screature

He's not a a conservative advisor, he speaks for himself and always has been a bit of a wing nut.... His past political affiliations have nothing to do with why I don't think he should be charged with anything. All one has to do is to look at the recording of the show to know it wasn't meant seriously and no one on the panel took it seriously. He made a stupid bone headed comment and has apologized for it and stated that he didn't mean it seriously. The continuance of this matter is all politically motivated and has no bearing in reality in terms of whether or not he committed a crime. Personally I really think people should let it go.


----------



## Max

GT, point well taken that the Harperites have been chasing a majority for a long time now and the speculation is itself cyclical. This does not preclude the possibility that he might well actually achieve that holy grail, especially considering the general weakness of the opposition.


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> Now, all sit back and wait for some comment about the Edmonton Journal being a Harper supporter. They're not.


Ah the old attempt to silence your critics. Whatever would you do without The Edmonton Journal and that other fine rag, The Sun?


----------



## mrjimmy

Max said:


> I dunno, mrjimmy, sounds overly optimistic on your part. Was just reading a Globe piece which states that Harper is steadily building up toward a majority. He is a love him or loathe him type of guy, but so far he's holding steady. It's his political opponents who are forever having a hard time finding traction.


Max, we've heard that so many times I can't believe we're not numb to it by now. We've even witnessed a few galvanizing events that should have ensured his victory. 

He needs a spectacle to win over those fence sitting, suspicious voters. It's hard to regain trust after being alienated and he's succeeded much better in that than winning his coveted majority.


----------



## Macfury

"Death by a thousand cuts" makes as much sense as "that which does not kill me makes me stronger." They work better in hindsight than as predictors.


----------



## Max

mrjimmy, I'm just telling you what I read. You are free to remain sceptical. The thing is, if he ever does take a majority, no one need be shocked... he's certainly hard at work chasing it. Slow and steady wins the race.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> "Death by a thousand cuts" makes as much sense as "that which does not kill me makes me stronger." They work better in hindsight than as predictors.


It makes total sense. He has blundered and squandered his chances one misstep at a time.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> It makes total sense. He has blundered and squandered his chances one misstep at a time.


I think Iggy would sell his soul for that level of blundering and squandering.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> I think Iggy would sell his soul for that level of blundering and squandering.


I'm sure you're right.


----------



## Ottawaman

*Look who's suddenly a big fan of coalitions *

 Conservative-Bloc coalition passes budget bill

CPC joins with the separatists to protect the untendered fighter jet purchase


----------



## i-rui

what? hypocrisy from the Harper government? what a shock!!!!!


----------



## screature

Ottawaman said:


> Conservative-Bloc coalition passes budget bill
> 
> CPC joins with the separatists to protect the untendered fighter jet purchase


Please fix your links Ottawaman... I know you rely almost exclusively on the words of others to express your own opinions but the least you could do is make it easy for the rest of us to understand where you are coming from....

But based on the headlines I can guess...

Coalition meaning:



> A c*oalition government is a cabinet* of a parliamentary government in which several parties cooperate.



Coalition government

There are no Bloc Members in the cabinet of the government. There is no formal agreement. Cross party voting on individual Bills/Issues happen all the time, i.e. have the Libs and Cons formed a coalition just because they agree to the non-combat extension of the Afghanistan Mission???? No.

Agreeing to vote inline with the government does not constitute a coalition. 

The reports you quote (even though I can't read them are BS) there is no coalition with the Bloc and the CPC. The Libs/NDP/Bloc signed a formal power sharing agreement, (even though it never came to actually taking power) so the Cons have every reasonable right to continue to refer to them as a coalition... In this instance however, it is far from the case.

It is the s**t disturbing posts like this and the cheap sensationalistic reporting of the authors of the articles that you refer to that constitute some of the main reasons for the current partisan entrenchment that exists in this country... It is all FUD and BS.


----------



## Ottawaman

Perhaps, it's politics as usual to you. but I still remember the right saying that the coalition would not be valid if the Block participated. It just seems like hypocrisy to use their support to push through Harper's agenda.


----------



## screature

Ottawaman said:


> Perhaps, it's politics as usual to you. but I still remember the right saying that the coalition would not be valid if the Block participated. It just seems like hypocrisy to use their support to push through Harper's agenda.


You need to understand the history of passing legislation for perspective.. It is not uncommon in the least for opposition parties to vote with the government depending on the particular Bill/Issue... a formal coalition is a whole different issue/matter altogether... Your and other's "hypocrisy meters" need to be toned downed because this situation does not register on a properly balanced meter.


----------



## Ottawaman

Next you'll tell me that proroguing Parliament was the democratic and just thing to do.  I find a great divide between what the *CPC* narrative says and what they actually do.

edit; fixed typo


----------



## i-rui

***rolls eyes***

Harper proposed coalition with Bloc Quebecois in 2004 :: The Hook

"...he and his supporters are pulling out all the stops to paint a Liberal and NDP coalition with the Bloc Quebecois as a deal with the devil that will "destroy Canada."

The problem for Harper in this whole smear campaign is that in 2004 he proposed to the Governor General a coalition with the Bloc Quebecois."

Hypocrisy meter is in the red.


----------



## screature

Ottawaman said:


> Next you'll tell me that proroguing Parliament was the democratic and just thing to do.  I find a great divide between what the CCP narrative says and what they actually do.


You could at least get your acronyms straight... it is CPC.

This is a deflection and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If you want to talk about prorogation that is another thread... care to start one...?

Refer to the topic at hand and with relevant commentary and maybe you will have some credibility... until then your posts and links are FUD IMO.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> ***rolls eyes***
> 
> Harper proposed coalition with Bloc Quebecois in 2004 :: The Hook
> 
> "...he and his supporters are pulling out all the stops to paint a Liberal and NDP coalition with the Bloc Quebecois as a deal with the devil that will "destroy Canada."
> 
> The problem for Harper in this whole smear campaign is that in 2004 he proposed to the Governor General a coalition with the Bloc Quebecois."
> 
> Hypocrisy meter is in the red.


Yep I will agree with you on this one... it is indeed Harper's Achilles heal on this matter. However, I will say that the most recent back room dealings with the most recent "coalition discussions" went beyond those in 2004 as they were planned in advance of the outcome of the election and there was a formal signing of an agreement which never happened in 2004... To some this may be a mere technicality, but until an agreement is signed it never happened.


----------



## mrjimmy

screature,

You spend a lot of time telling people what they need to do and how they don't understand or get it. Your style is extremely condescending, confrontational and insulting.

Could you please tone it down a notch or two? This isn't question period. It's simply an internet forum. People are entitled to express their opinions without being constantly belittled, insulted and abused.

That is all.


----------



## SINC

mrjimmy said:


> screature,
> 
> You spend a lot of time telling people what they need to do and how they don't understand or get it. Your style is extremely condescending, confrontational and insulting.
> 
> Could you please tone it down a notch or two? This isn't question period. It's simply an internet forum. People are entitled to express their opinions without being constantly belittled, insulted and abused.
> 
> That is all.


Ah, I see. Do as I say, not as I do:



mrjimmy said:


> Ah the old attempt to silence your critics. Whatever would you do without The Edmonton Journal and that other fine rag, The Sun?


That is all.


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> Ah, I see. Do as I say, not as I do:
> 
> 
> 
> That is all.


Well SINC, if you consider that a comparison or a way of excusing bad behaviour then so be it.

I stand behind my post.


----------



## SINC

mrjimmy said:


> Well SINC, if you consider that a comparison or a way of excusing bad behaviour then so be it.
> 
> I stand behind my post.


I was simply pointing out that people who live in glass houses . . . well never mind, you don't get it.


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> I was simply pointing out that people who live in glass houses . . . w*ell never mind, you don't get it.*


Ah, an insulting little jab from Mr. Glass house himself. I'd love to borrow your Windex when you're done with it.

Like I said, I stand behind my post.


----------



## screature

mrjimmy said:


> screature,
> 
> You spend a lot of time telling people what they need to do and how they don't understand or get it. Your style is extremely condescending, confrontational and insulting.
> 
> Could you please tone it down a notch or two? This isn't question period. It's simply an internet forum. People are entitled to express their opinions without being constantly belittled, insulted and abused.
> 
> That is all.


I disagree... I post to people in the same manner they post here... If they are polite so am I, if they are "condescending, confrontational and insulting" then that is what they get in return... you reap what you sow.

I would think you should appreciate this as this is often your modus operandi as well... if you feel disrespected you respond in kind.... what goes around comes around.


----------



## i-rui

SINC said:


> Ah, I see. Do as I say, not as I do:


just like the Harper Government!


----------



## CubaMark

*Well... here comes another one...*

*Tobacco lobbying preceded label retreat*



> Health Canada's abrupt decision in September to back down from expanding warning labels on cigarette packages came after tobacco company lobbyists waged a co-ordinated, sometimes secretive lobbying campaign, CBC News has learned.
> 
> An analysis by CBC News of lobby registry filings and other documents reveals tobacco executives and their paid lobbyists communicated dozens of times with key government ministries and their policy advisers, including the Prime Minister's Office.


(CBC News)


----------



## Macfury

Yawn. I heard that some union lobbyists had spoken to the government before unemployment benefits were increased.


----------



## MacDoc

Chuckle of the day courtesy WikiLeaks :clap:



> * Sarkozy took pity on Harper, WikiLeaks dump shows *
> 
> *CAMPBELL CLARK*
> 
> * OTTAWA— From Wednesday's Globe and Mail *
> 
> *Published Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2010 10:28PM EST*
> 
> *Last updated Wednesday, Dec. 01, 2010 1:34PM EST*
> 
> 
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper was invited to France’s 2009 D-Day memorial because French President Nicolas Sarkozy felt sympathy for Mr. Harper’s political troubles, according to a U.S. diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks.
> The reasons for the invitation are included in a cable from the U.S. embassy in Paris, where a French official explains that Mr. Sarkozy didn’t invite German Chancellor Angela Merkel to the Second World War memorial because the French would then be obliged to invite leaders from Italy, Poland, and the Czech Republic, and give them all a chance to speak at the long ceremony.
> *More related to this story*
> 
> 
> 
> Ex-Harper adviser regrets ‘glib’ call for retaliatory WikiLeaks assassination
> But Mr. Harper and Britain’s then-PM, Gordon Brown, received invitations because of political need, according to the explanation the Americans received from senior French official Jean-David Levitte.
> “The cases of the UK and Canada were exceptional, he added, because both Gordon Brown and Stephen Harper were in such political trouble at home that the survival of their governments was at stake,” the cable records Mr. Levitte as explaining.


Sarkozy took pity on Harper, WikiLeaks dump shows - The Globe and Mail

Harper's legacy - the most pathetic PM ....


----------



## Ottawaman

screature said:


> You could at least get your acronyms straight... it is CPC.


Thanks for pointing out my typo.

As far as my point about Harper proroguing Parliament I think it fits in a thread entitled "Embarrassments for Harper".


----------



## groovetube

yah Frank, you could AT LEAST get it right.


btw did you see the uncomfortable looking Harper trying to belt out Sweet Caroline?

eesh. You know it's bad when ...


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> ...btw did you see the uncomfortable looking Harper trying to belt out Sweet Caroline?


I wouldn't have done it if I were him, but it seems to be working, so I'd be the wrong guy to ask about it. Almost all of the press had been positive.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, when you scalp articles, could you please excise the advertising banners before copying them here? You don't want people to start feeling sorry for you do you?


----------



## jimbotelecom

Hi all

You have to take a look at this....not only does he butcher The Who, but John Lennon must be rolling over in his grave right now ( how come he didn't sing the line about "no religion too"?).
That did it! I'[m not voting for the CON party.

CBC News - Ottawa - Harper rocks Tory Christmas party


----------



## kps

What was really pathetic was the atrociously amateurish camera and sound work of the video. Since they didn't credit anyone else, I must surmise that it was the CBC.

Personally I think Harper did just fine, better than Iggy or Layton ever could, but then they're politicians and I don't vote for them because of their musical skills or their entertainment value ---even though sometimes they all turn out to be quite entertaining.


----------



## SINC

Yep, it takes courage and confidence for a PM to display his musical talents to a public gathering, knowing it will make the national media. I suspect more folks will vote for him because of it. It showed how he is 'just another one of us' to many people.


----------



## groovetube

Oh come on he's not "just one of us" don't give me this crap. Surely you're fully aware this is as much as a con job as Iggy or the other two guys would have you believe.

KPS you're right I couldn't possibly imagine Iggy trying to pull that off at all. Thanks god he doesn't try.


----------



## i-rui

jimbotelecom said:


> ....not only does he butcher The Who, but John Lennon must be rolling over in his grave right now ( *how come he didn't sing the line about "no religion too"?*).


I wonder if SINC wrote him a strongly worded note about the moral implications of editing someone's lyrics???


----------



## eMacMan

i-rui said:


> I wonder if SINC wrote him a strongly worded note about the moral implications of editing someone's lyrics???


You really should see what Woody Guthrie did to lyrics. Somehow managed to change "Lonesome Valley" from a Gospel song to a Union rally song.


----------



## Max

Decent enough keyboarding skills, Mr. Prime Minister. But that voice! Went out of the zone a few times. Well, kudos to the man for at least having having the stones to go on stage and have a little fun.

I imagine Iggy might break his face grimacing into the mic.


----------



## SINC

Max said:


> Well, kudos to the man for at least having having the stones to go on stage and have a little fun.


Nicely picked Max, that's what everyone else with the exception of kps is missing. The result is, it makes him more human to voters as well, which of course adds up to still more voter support.


----------



## groovetube

I'd say it's pretty sad when a voter would decide to vote for someone based on their bad covers. If that somehow is better than their record as PM, well that speaks volumes.

I'll have to agree with kps here.



kps said:


> snip...
> but then they're politicians and I don't vote for them because of their musical skills or their entertainment value ---even though sometimes they all turn out to be quite entertaining.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> I wouldn't have done it if I were him, but it seems to be working, so I'd be the wrong guy to ask about it. Almost all of the press had been positive.





SINC said:


> Yep, it takes courage and confidence for a PM to display his musical talents to a public gathering, knowing it will make the national media. I suspect more folks will vote for him because of it. It showed how he is 'just another one of us' to many people.





Max said:


> Decent enough keyboarding skills, Mr. Prime Minister. But that voice! Went out of the zone a few times. Well, kudos to the man for at least having having the stones to go on stage and have a little fun.
> 
> I imagine Iggy might break his face grimacing into the mic.


The C CARP Party (for full redundancy effect) will keep using press releases of Harper using music to look some what human or at the least less dork like. Perhaps they (C CRAP Party) will stop one day but as politicos perhaps they will not have enough sense. When the public have enough of the C CRAP hamster they stop paying attention as they did with this one; 



+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Max

One thing I'll say about Harper; he's more relaxed and confident these days - gone are the wooden looks, the thousand-yard stare. He's definitely acting more folksy. Canny move to get up on stage and do schmaltzy covers. Like it or not, he's connecting with his voter base - would that the other jokers did the same.


----------



## groovetube

Max, step away from the light. Step away.


----------



## Max

Hey man, calling it as I see it. Tough toenails, dewd! Doesn't mean I'd actually vote for the man.


----------



## groovetube

I donno. Maybe he's a -little- more relaxed, but all the public things I've seen him at he always looks uncomfortable and looks it. I dont see much change really.

But all the cons are all ga ga at anytime though.

I -could- say Iggy looks far better these days, but then I'd be makin it up really.


----------



## Macfury

The Libs are in fine form on the PM's performance:



> “Not even one song in French,” a senior Ignatieff official told The Globe and Mail on Thursday morning. “One week after Quebec’s artistic elite (over 100 songwriters and singers) came to Parliament Hill on C-32. It shows that he is clueless about Quebec culture.”


Oh what a fun bunch of guys!


----------



## i-rui

^^that is pretty ghey.


----------



## Lawrence

Well. At least he didn't get drunk enough to play the keys with his butt,
I would have paid to have seen that, But I digress, That is even below me.


----------



## Max

GT, he's a pretty square guy, but for him, he's more relaxed. He was pretty dang stiff in previous years.


----------



## whatiwant

Max said:


> GT, he's a pretty square guy, but for him, he's more relaxed. He was pretty dang stiff in previous years.


His iHarpOS got the corrective 4.0.2 update (taller bars of humanity). It's a step in the right direction but he's still obviously a robot.


----------



## Ottawaman

It was such an obviously staged moment, calculated to make him appear more human. Thank God his hobby growing up wasn't magic, or gasp, juggling.


----------



## screature

Ottawaman said:


> It was such an obviously staged moment, calculated to make him appear more human. Thank God his hobby growing up wasn't magic, or gasp, juggling.


It wasn't for the media... It was for the "troops". It was the first night of the CPC Staff Convention, it was meant as good fun... geesh you partisan opposition types will bend over backwards to try and paint anything in a negative light won't you.  ... it is clearly something he enjoys and gets a "kick" out of... If it was "staged" do you not think they would have planned for better video and audio? God knows they have the money.


----------



## Ottawaman

Harper and his team control the image, spin and message better than any other recent government. Their strategies will be studied for years to come. They knew it would leak, or they leaked it themselves. A slick production would detract from the down to earth, man of the people messaging. Am I cynical? You bet.


----------



## screature

Ottawaman said:


> Harper and his team control the image, spin and message better than any other recent government. Their strategies will be studied for years to come. They knew it would leak, or they leaked it themselves. A slick production would detract from the down to earth, man of the people messaging. Am I cynical? You bet.


'Cause you are int the know right. The first time he did this it was a slick production when he played "I get a little help from my friends" by the Beatles a couple of years ago.. This isn't the first time he has displayed his fondness for musical performance or have you forgotten. I think you need to realize that some things are done for the party "faithful" and not everything is meant for the media. Sometimes people just want to have fun... even PMs.


----------



## Ottawaman

I'm still fond of his sweater campaign.


----------



## groovetube

Listen OM you don't know a thing 'cause you ain't on the hill.

You're supposed to be one of the masses clapping their hands at the splendour of it all.

Never mind a great number of Canadians artists are coming down on this government.


----------



## BigDL

I'm just so pleased to know that while on his MP's pension, Harper will be able to supplement his retirement income by having a Saturday Night Dance Band. 

He shall play community halls all over Alberta for weddings, anniversaries, birthdays bashes and because of his stance on Israel he shall be welcomed to play at barmitsmas no doubt. 

Harper is one cool and cleaver strategist I must say.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> I'm just so pleased to know that while on his MP's pension, Harper will be able to supplement his retirement income by having a Saturday Night Dance Band.
> 
> He shall play community halls all over Alberta for weddings, anniversaries, birthdays bashes and because of his stance on Israel he shall be welcomed to play at barmitsmas no doubt.
> 
> Harper is one cool and cleaver strategist I must say.


Good one, BigDL :lmao:

FYI, I assume you meant to write Bar Mitzvah. Shalom, mon ami.


----------



## kps

Dr.G. said:


> FYI, I assume you meant to write Bar Mitzvah. .


What...no Bat Mitzvahs?


----------



## Dr.G.

kps said:


> What...no Bat Mitzvahs?


True .......... in the spirit of gender equality. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> *Listen OM you don't know a thing 'cause you ain't on the hill.*
> 
> You're supposed to be one of the masses clapping their hands at the splendour of it all.
> 
> Never mind a great number of Canadians artists are coming down on this government.


Really?????.... 

The real reason why Steve Jobs hates Flash

Glass houses don't ya think.... (bitting my tongue.......)


----------



## i-rui

Ottawaman said:


> It was such an obviously staged moment, calculated to make him appear more human. Thank God his hobby growing up wasn't magic, or gasp, juggling.


You sure it wasn't magic? 

Didn't you marvel at the way he made the Liberal Surplus disappear?


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> You sure it wasn't magic?
> 
> Didn't you marvel at the way he made the Liberal Surplus disappear?


Uhhhhh..... What? Who do you think paid for the Liberal "surplus"....... where did it come from...ever stop to think about it? BALANCED budgets for a government should be the ideal... no debt no deficit and most definitely NOT a surplus... a *balanced* budget.... Sometimes debt and deficit are hard to avoid because of the demands of the people and international commitments etc... But if you have a surplus it means you have taken more from the people then you have given them..... Is this something you advocate?


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> I'm just so pleased to know that while on his MP's pension, Harper will be able to supplement his retirement income by having a Saturday Night Dance Band.
> 
> He shall play community halls all over Alberta for weddings, anniversaries, birthdays bashes and because of his stance on Israel he shall be welcomed to play at barmitsmas no doubt.
> 
> Harper is one cool and cleaver strategist I must say.





Dr.G. said:


> Good one, BigDL :lmao:
> 
> FYI, I assume you meant to write Bar Mitzvah. Shalom, mon ami.


Sorry no..... Based on my experience relating to Jewish weddings, bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs (which probably number over 50 or 60... even more than I bet you have had the pleasure to attend Dr. G. ) I don't think Harper's talents would "cut the mustard".


----------



## groovetube

sorry screature, you're making less and less sense.




screature said:


> Really?????....
> 
> The real reason why Steve Jobs hates Flash
> 
> Glass houses don't ya think.... (bitting my tongue.......)



Oh go right ahead. But somehow, there's a pretty large difference between knowing something about a programming platform and debunking incorrect information, and having your nose so far up a government rear end and pretending you and you only could have an opinion on a public affair from our prime minister whom we all actively vote for/against.

You can hate flash all you like, just have your actual facts correct.

I don't believe I've asserted Mr. Harper was miming his piano playing or similar?


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> sorry screature, you're making less and less sense.


Or could it be that you just don't understand....


----------



## groovetube

ah yes, screature the parliamentary god, whom we must all defer any political opinion through.

pffft.


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> True .......... in the spirit of gender equality. Paix, mon ami.





Dr.G. said:


> Good one, BigDL :lmao:
> 
> FYI, I assume you meant to write Bar Mitzvah. Shalom, mon ami.


 I stand corrected. Thank you Dr.G.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Sorry no..... Based on my experience relating to Jewish weddings, bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs (which probably number over 50 or 60... even more than I bet you have had the pleasure to attend Dr. G. ) I don't think Harper's talents would "cut the mustard".



Well, I stand by your experienced view, screature. Shalom, mon ami. Paix.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> ah yes, screature the parliamentary god, whom we must all defer any political opinion through.
> 
> pffft.


You are too funny gt... play on.... :lmao:


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> I stand corrected. Thank you Dr.G.


No problem, BigDL. 'Tis a common mistake.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> Well, I stand by your experienced view, screature. Shalom, mon ami. Paix.


Thank you Dr. G. I trust you are serious in your post as this is what I have come to expect from you. 

The reason why I say this is because for 8 years in my younger days I was a videographer and video production manger for a small video production company in Ottawa that had a large Jewish clientèle. So over those years I probably shot or edited at least one Jewish event a month with most having paid entertainment. The entertainment was generally actually quite competent even if it was at times geared more to the older crowd. Harper is competent in his keyboard abilities, but his vocals are decidedly lacking.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> sorry screature, you're making less and less sense.
> 
> Oh go right ahead. But somehow, there's a pretty large difference between knowing something about a programming platform and debunking incorrect information, and having your nose so far up a government rear end and pretending you and you only could have an opinion on a public affair from our prime minister whom we all actively vote for/against.
> 
> You can hate flash all you like, just have your actual facts correct.
> 
> I don't believe I've asserted Mr. Harper was miming his piano playing or similar?


I don't hate Flash at all... you have missed the point entirely.... queue Jeopardy music.....


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> I don't hate Flash at all... you have missed the point entirely.... queue Jeopardy music.....


I didn't say -you- actually hated flash screature.

For once, read the damn post.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> Uhhhhh..... What? Who do you think paid for the Liberal "surplus"....... where did it come from...ever stop to think about it? BALANCED budgets for a government should be the ideal... no debt no deficit and most definitely NOT a surplus... a *balanced* budget.... Sometimes debt and deficit are hard to avoid because of the demands of the people and international commitments etc... But if you have a surplus it means you have taken more from the people then you have given them..... Is this something you advocate?


only a conservative apologist would suggest that running a deficit is more fiscally responsible & desirable than running a surplus.


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> He shall play community halls all over Alberta for weddings, anniversaries, birthdays bashes and because of his stance on Israel he shall be welcomed to play at barmitsmas no doubt.


Harper is from Ontario originally.


----------



## eMacMan

i-rui said:


> only a conservative apologist would suggest that running a deficit is more fiscally responsible & desirable than running a surplus.


Sort of like stealing from SI and UI to convert a deficit into a surplus, ala Cretin, Martin and Harpo.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Thank you Dr. G. I trust you are serious in your post as this is what I have come to expect from you.
> 
> The reason why I say this is because for 8 years in my younger days I was a videographer and video production manger for a small video production company in Ottawa that had a large Jewish clientèle. So over those years I probably shot or edited at least one Jewish event a month with most having paid entertainment. The entertainment was generally actually quite competent even if it was at times geared more to the older crowd. Harper is competent in his keyboard abilities, but his vocals are decidedly lacking.


Screature, you have quite the experience. Still, anyone who is willing to go before an audience earns my respect for that moment. I can neither sing nor play an instrument. I am able to stand before students of all ages and teach. That is my one true ability and calling. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> only a conservative apologist would suggest that running a deficit is more fiscally responsible & desirable than running a surplus.


apparently it's 'stealing' to take extra money, and pay down the debt to lower interest payments. Thankfully some of this was done before the spend like drunk idiots got in.

Couldn't imagine if all households never made payments on principle only interest and continually added insane levels of debt?

We found this out with Mulroney did we not.


----------



## mrjimmy

Ottawaman said:


> Harper and his team control the image, spin and message better than any other recent government. Their strategies will be studied for years to come. They knew it would leak, or they leaked it themselves. A slick production would detract from the down to earth, man of the people messaging. Am I cynical? You bet.


Absolutely correct. Nothing left to chance and everything carefully thought out. Although thankfully they slip up fairly regularly.


----------



## SINC

mrjimmy said:


> Absolutely correct. Nothing left to chance and everything carefully thought out. Although thankfully they slip up fairly regularly.


Absolutely wrong. You refer to opinion, not fact, and opinion can be very far from correct. You might have more correctly stated that you agree with said opinion, in which case it still may or may not be correct.


----------



## mrjimmy

screature said:


> 'Cause you are int the know right. The first time he did this it was a slick production when he played "I get a little help from my friends" by the Beatles a couple of years ago.. This isn't the first time he has displayed his fondness for musical performance or have you forgotten. I think you need to realize that *some things are done for the party "faithful"* and not *everything is meant for the media*. Sometimes people just want to have fun... even PMs.


If it wasn't done for the media why was it replayed on every news source in town? If it was done for the party faithful alone we shouldn't know about it. 

Harper do something for fun?

Bahahahahahaha!


----------



## SINC

mrjimmy said:


> Harper do something for fun?!


That too, is one man's opinion and nothing more.


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> That too, is one man's opinion and nothing more.


I stand by my post. As you stand by of all your posts in which you do the exact same thing. Which by the way are far too numerous to mention.


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> Absolutely wrong. You refer to opinion, not fact, and opinion can be very far from correct. You might have more correctly stated that you agree with said opinion, in which case it still may or may not be correct.


Oh and by the way, 'absolutely wrong' is simply your opinion. But I'm sure you realize your folly.


----------



## SINC

Nope, You're wrong about an opinion.

I'm right about a fact.


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> Nope, You're wrong about an opinion.
> 
> I'm right about a fact.


You didn't understand my post and I'm too tired and lazy to explain it to you.


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> Nope, You're wrong about an opinion.
> 
> I'm right about a fact.


Think about it.


----------



## SINC

mrjimmy said:


> You didn't understand my post and I'm too tired and lazy to explain it to you.


Well, that's one way to dodge the issue.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> I didn't say -you- actually hated flash screature.
> 
> For once, read the damn post.





groovetube said:


> ...You can hate flash all you like...


Really?


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> Well, that's one way to dodge the issue.


Do you really think I care SINC?


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> only a conservative apologist would suggest that running a deficit is more fiscally responsible & desirable than running a surplus.


Did I say that? No. So you advocate governments taking more form the people than they give back to them....? 

I advocated for balanced budgets quite clearly.


----------



## screature

mrjimmy said:


> If it wasn't done for the media why was it replayed on every news source in town? If it was done for the party faithful alone we shouldn't know about it.
> 
> Harper do something for fun?
> 
> Bahahahahahaha!


For the same reason anything garners media attention... 'cause they think it will sell.


----------



## mrjimmy

screature said:


> For the same reason anything garners media attention... 'cause they think it will sell.


I think you're being a bit naive. To believe in and trust your doctor, Pastor/ Minister/ Priest/ Rabbi or your favourite professor is one thing. To believe in and trust a Politician is quite another. 

A healthy skepticism is just that, healthy. It doesn't matter if you think he or she is the greatest thing since sliced bread they are still a politician after all.

Didn't they invent dirty tricks?


----------



## whatiwant

Where's MF when you need him... Jeez. Someone tag in!


----------



## Ottawaman

When does Parliament finish for the year?


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> Diid I say that? No. So you advocate governments taking more form the people than they give back to them....?


to clarify this is what you wrote:



screature said:


> Uhhhhh..... What? Who do you think paid for the Liberal "surplus"....... where did it come from...ever stop to think about it? BALANCED budgets for a government should be the ideal... no debt no deficit and most definitely NOT a surplus... a *balanced* budget.... *Sometimes debt and deficit are hard to avoid because of the demands of the people and international commitments etc... But if you have a surplus it means you have taken more from the people then you have given them*..... Is this something you advocate?


I read that as a conservative apologist making excuses for running a deficit and painting a surplus as stealing from the public. You clearly state that out of all 3 options (the mythical "balanced" budget, a deficit, or a surplus) that the surplus is somehow the worst result.



screature said:


> I advocated for balanced budgets quite clearly.


and how often has a *perfectly* balanced budget occurred? you either have a deficit or a surplus. the surplus is the better result because that money can be rolled into next year's budget or used to pay down the debt. The surplus money doesn't disappear. The country can still use it. the deficit simply adds to the debt and we pay more interest.


----------



## whatiwant

Ottawaman said:


> When does Parliament finish for the year?


Whenever iHarpo wants it to!!!


----------



## groovetube

Zing!


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> to clarify this is what you wrote:
> 
> I read that as a conservative apologist making excuses for running a deficit and painting a surplus as stealing from the public. You clearly state that out of all 3 options (the mythical "balanced" budget, a deficit, or a surplus) that the surplus is somehow the worst result.
> 
> and how often has a *perfectly* balanced budget occurred? you either have a deficit or a surplus. the surplus is the better result because that money can be rolled into next year's budget or used to pay down the debt. The surplus money doesn't disappear. The country can still use it. the deficit simply adds to the debt and we pay more interest.


Well yes a surplus is stealing from the people and it doesn't matter how often a balanced budget occurs it is what should be sought by all governments. As far as the current deficit goes I'm not apologizing for it but it wouldn't have mattered who was in power there would be a deficit, we can argue until the cows come home as to who would have had the larger one.

Having a surplus the way the Libs built it was out and right theft through the EI fund, WE are the ones who pay for any government surplus and I believe those funds are better left in the hands of the people than the state. You're not going to convince me otherwise so this topic is over as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Macfury

jawknee said:


> Where's MF when you need him... Jeez. Someone tag in!


screature's speaking for my position. Running a deliberate surplus is theft. There is no glory in claiming a political party did so. Better to run a small deficit and repay it next year.


----------



## screature

mrjimmy said:


> I think you're being a bit naive. To believe in and trust your doctor, Pastor/ Minister/ Priest/ Rabbi or your favourite professor is one thing. To believe in and trust a Politician is quite another.
> 
> A healthy skepticism is just that, healthy. It doesn't matter if you think he or she is the greatest thing since sliced bread they are still a politician after all.
> 
> Didn't they invent dirty tricks?


I think you are being a bit cynical. I'm not a Harper fan but I don't think he is the devil incarnate the way some of you do around here and he certainly is the best amongst the choices we currently have. 

The guy is human as are we all, he likes to play music and sing and he clearly enjoys being in the spot light. Here is an opportunity at the Christmas party of the CPC Staff convention so why wouldn't he get up there and do his this. 

I mean it was a helluva long way off from Mulroney's staged performance with Regan singing Irish Eyes.


----------



## BigDL

There ya go! Let's focus on enfotainment folks. Let's dreamily look to yesteryear's infotainment, let's not look at the man behind the curtain, nothing to see here, move along, move along.

Don't even bring up why Harper's cabinet killed the tobacco advertisement enlargement program because the announcement is imminent. It really is even if no one knows about it. 


CBCNews said:


> No retreat on tobacco warnings: Aglukkaq





CBCNews said:


> The federal government hasn't abandoned plans to reinforce warning labels on cigarette packages, Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq said Thursday.
> 
> "The news stories today are misleading," she told the House of Commons, referring to a story on the issue that CBC News carried Wednesday.
> 
> "My department continues to examine the renewal of health warning messages on tobacco packaging, and we have not shelved the plan, as I stated before."





CBCNews said:


> Provincial health ministers said they were told at a closed-door meeting in September that the government was shelving the warning label plan in favour of a focus on fighting contraband cigarettes
> 
> Those in the room, including Manitoba's Healthy Living Minister Jim Rondeau, said they pressed Aglukkaq for an explanation, but she wouldn't give them one then and still hasn't. She also declined to respond to a CBC News request for an interview.


Read more: CBC News - Health - No retreat on tobacco warnings: Aglukkaq

Again let's focus on the hay days of when Neocons were fresh, new and welcomed, ahhh yes the Shamrock Summit the 80's.


----------



## BigDL

*Buying an election?*

I fear an election is imminent. The extension of the Infrastructure Plan and now this

Now the infrastructure money going to Sydney Harbour. Are the Conservatives naive enough or desperate enough to think that can buy a Majority Government with kind of pork barreling?



CBCNews said:


> Harper said the federal government will spend $19 million over the next three months to dredge the harbour. The project will cost $38 million, with the Nova Scotia government kicking in up to $15.2 million.
> 
> The project will create jobs, he said, and will ensure the harbour can take full advantage of the economic opportunities available to it.
> 
> "By dredging Sydney Harbour, we can unlock Cape Breton's true economic potential," Harper said in a news release. "This will allow bigger ships into the harbour and create jobs in Cape Breton for the long term."


There is barely a railway to service this port, all the while Halifax is dying as a result of the CN Railways slowly strangling that port to death.



Read more: CBC News - Nova Scotia - Sydney Harbour dredging to get federal funds


----------



## Macfury

By stimulus spending standards that's a fairly small amount. Are you saying that no large ships would use the port if it were dredged to be deeper?


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> By stimulus spending standards that's a fairly small amount. Are you saying that no large ships would use the port if it were dredged to be deeper?


Supposedly post Panamax ships could visit the port all they want. The freight is going no where fast.

There would have to be construction of a container dock of post panamax proportions, and today a struggling short line railway (former CNR mainline) services Eastern Nova Scotia and Cape Breton.

That shortline railway would need massive investments into plant and equipment to move the containers to the rest of North America. 

Then the shortline railway would interline with CN Rail at Truro. CN gives Halifax Container piers (2 of 'em) short shrift on its line into Halifax now. Hard to imagine service improvements to accommodate an interline carrier.

But yet another silver bullet solution for poor ol' Cape Breton troubles.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> I fear an election is imminent. The extension of the Infrastructure Plan and now this
> 
> Now the infrastructure money going to Sydney Harbour. Are the Conservatives naive enough or desperate enough to think that can buy a Majority Government with kind of pork barreling?
> 
> There is barely a railway to service this port, all the while Halifax is dying as a result of the CN Railways slowly strangling that port to death.
> 
> Read more: CBC News - Nova Scotia - Sydney Harbour dredging to get federal funds


This is bad how...? It seems to me a question was asked about this in QP a while ago by the opposition (I can't remember if it was a Lib or NDP member, I think it may have been Mark Eyking)... it seems that the opposition and the local MP wants this to happen.

So again... this is bad how?

Pork barrelling...? when the local MP is a member of the opposition...? How do you figure????


----------



## CubaMark

*So Harper's Ethics Commissioner turned to be not quite so... ethical. 
*

*Integrity commissioner's actions 'unacceptable': Fraser*



> Former integrity commissioner Christiane Ouimet behaved unacceptably for a public servant and allegations of wrongdoing against her are justified, an audit by Auditor General Sheila Fraser found.
> 
> "In our view, [Ouimet's] behaviour and actions do not pass the test of public scrutiny and are inappropriate and unacceptable for a public servant — most notably for the agent of Parliament specifically charged with the responsibility of upholding integrity in the public sector and of protecting public servants from reprisal," Fraser wrote in her report released Thursday. (CBC)


*Whistleblower watchdog attacked her own staff, Auditor-General finds*



> Christiane Ouimet was supposed to shield federal whistleblowers from reprisals and expose government employers who were operating outside the lines.
> 
> But Auditor-General Sheila Fraser says Ms. Ouimet, Canada’s first public-sector integrity commissioner, instead engaged in the very activities she was hired to prevent, berating and marginalizing her staff while seeking vengeance against those she suspected of reporting her misdeeds.(Globe & Mail)



*When Harper nominated Ouimet for the position, he said:*

“Ms. Ouimet is a strong and dedicated manager with a proven background in operations, and will be more than capable taking on these important responsibilities,” .... “She has a unique combination of skills and experiences which will serve her well as she leads the implementation of the new regime for the protection of whistleblowers. I am pleased that she has agreed to be nominated for this position...”


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> screature's speaking for my position. Running a deliberate surplus is theft. There is no glory in claiming a political party did so. Better to run a small deficit and repay it next year.


I've been trying to explain this to my wife. She seems to have this insane funny idea, that not spending every red cent and using some of it to pay down our debts is the way to go. I think that's theft!

But hot damn I wanna spend spend spend!

Jeez maybe I'm a conservative afterall.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> I've been trying to explain this to my wife. She seems to have this insane funny idea, that not spending every red cent and using some of it to pay down our debts is the way to go. I think that's theft!
> 
> But hot damn I wanna spend spend spend!
> 
> Jeez maybe I'm a conservative afterall.


Debit and deficit are two different things.... also there is a difference between public accounts and private accounts.

Any surplus should be used to pay down debt, pay down the debt and poof... there goes your surplus.... but the Libs didn't do that, did they?


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Debit and deficit are two different things.... also there is a difference between public accounts and private accounts.
> 
> Any surplus should be used to pay down debt, pay down the debt and poof... there goes your surplus.... but the Libs didn't do that, did they?


I wasn't aware of the difference between deb*i*t and deficit, jeez, golly gee.

I also wasn't aware the liberals broke the rules by not using any surplus, to pay down the, er, debt. (not debit...)


----------



## MacDoc

Love revisionist history - didn't pay down debt ???



> As for the federal debt burden, fell by 26 points of GDP between 1995 and 2002, from 70.9 percent to 44.2 percent. Five-sixths of that decline was due to the expansion of GDP. * ne-sixth was due to the repayment of nominal debt, *which declined by $50 billion during this time as a result of six consecutive federal surpluses. In other words, if Ottawa had simply balanced its books since 1997, *instead of repaying $50 billion worth of debt,* the federal debt ratio at the end of 2002 would have equalled 48.8 percent of GDP, instead of 44.2 percent. That would still qualify us as having the second-lowest debt ratio in the G7. If that $50 billion had been invested in repairing some of the damage that was done to public programs and infrastructure earlier in the 1990s, it would have made an incredible difference to the concrete quality of Canadians' lives.



Paul Martin, the Deficit, and Debt: Taking Another Look | Canadian Democratic Movement - Politics in Canada


----------



## screature

MacDoc said:


> Love revisionist history - didn't pay down debt ???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Martin, the Deficit, and Debt: Taking Another Look | Canadian Democratic Movement - Politics in Canada


I was speaking specifically to the EI surplus... I know the Libs payed down some of the debt during the Chreiten years that they racked up during the Trudeau years. I should have been more specific in what I was referring to, I was merely following up my previous reference to the EI surplus... my bad.

However, this is what you left out of the article....



> Since Mr. Martin's first budget in 1994, Ottawa has beaten its own bottom-line budget targets nine years in a row. This cumulative “overperformance” (actual balance versus budgeted balance) now equals a staggering $80 billion. It has become clear that there was nothing accidental about this overperformance: it was preordained by a set of artificial assumptions and practices all oriented toward making Ottawa's fiscal situation look worse than it actually was.
> 
> Instead of facilitating an honest debate among Canadians about how available resources should most effectively be allocated, and to what priorities, Finance officials expend more energy trying to convince Canadians that those resources are not even there. As a result, the o*nly thing we now know for sure about official budget forecasts is that they are not intended to be accurate. This aspect of federal budget-making is perhaps Paul Martin's most dubious legacy as Finance Minister.
> 
> Instead of concluding that Mr. Martin is a hero for leading Canadians in an epic battle to eliminate the deficit (a battle which, after all, 18 OECD countries in total accomplished), perhaps we should be asking why he implemented such dramatic reductions in government programs that have been enduringly painful yet, in retrospect, were unnecessary. Our incoming Prime Minister might then be wreathed in a different aura indeed.


----------



## groovetube

oooooh so the libs DID pay down some debt (not debit  ).

But it's debt racked up from the -trudeau- years. 

How about the mammoth debt racked up by mulroney who spent waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than trudeau ever even dreamed of spending.

Oh but we need to pull out the trudeau card cause we're *cough*... duplicitous.


----------



## screature

Well it depends on how you look at it... Trudeau ran the debt up from $17B to $200B or 1176% of what he inherited. Mulroney ran it up from $200B to $450B or an increase of 225%. So yes in pure dollars Mulroney was worse but not by that much. But yes I should have said the Trudeau, Mulroney debt.

No pulling out the Trudeau card would be completely consistent with the arguments I have been making, not duplicitous. But once again, to be fair I should have said Trudeau, Mulroney debt and I didn't so once again... my bad.


----------



## MacDoc

At the same time Keynesian ( recently revived ) was considered the better way to advance societal goals as the government funding would spin off $7 of activity in the general economy for every gov dollar spent.

Unfortunately that did not always work out as lack of oversight and poor management sometimes negated the impact of those projects and undertakings that did produce lasting benefits.
I shudder at the idea of having to build say the St Lawrence Seaway now.....

Debt in itself is not something that is a risk.....acquiring too much debt ala the US or paying down debt when infrastructure requirements are not met ( akin to paying down your mortgage instead of fixing the roof ) is just poor management and decision making.

Govs and society in general are living way beyond their means and while private workers have felt the squeeze public service has resisted/avoided it.....don't see Harper taking a pay cut the way the bank of England Governor did.

They are incompetent louts - the whole lot in Ottawa and Ontario is not far off tho there are issues beyond the provincial gov control complicating the task here.

That we do not have a governing coalition is the primary issue ....both Britain and Australia immediately formed coalitions - here.....Harper has painted it as some Commie plot and the likes of the two main centre and left parties should simply be tossed on their ear for their failure to take the government away from Harper by way of coalition.

Far too much ideology , far too little competent management.....both here and in the US.

China has almost no politics and VERY competent managers almost all of whom are scientists and engineers......they ARE getting things done and showing the incompetence of the western democracies in doing so.

Toss the lawyers an career politicians - bring in some technocrats and people that are serious about reducing the cost of government by way of better efficiency.

My take.....not a hope in hell given the current structure in Canada.....


----------



## groovetube

no it doesn't. Mulroney didn't set the previous debt level he started with, and neither did Trudeau, so that's just nonsense.

If the conservatives were actually so fiscally conservative, and did what they said they would, then we wouldn't have the abominations that were Mulroney, and -is- Stephen Harper. 

It seems the only government that showed they could run things and turn things around was Cretien/Martin. But we have Harper and mr "HST" Flaherty desparately trying to take credit while sinking Canada into a deficit far greater than Mulroney could have even tried to do. 

Oh but that's the liberals fault.


----------



## screature

MacDoc said:


> At the same time Keynesian ( recently revived ) was considered the better way to advance societal goals as the government funding would spin off $7 of activity in the general economy for every gov dollar spent.
> 
> Unfortunately that did not always work out as lack of oversight and poor management sometimes negated the impact of those projects and undertakings that did produce lasting benefits.
> I shudder at the idea of having to build say the St Lawrence Seaway now.....
> 
> Debt in itself is not something that is a risk.....acquiring too much debt ala the US or paying down debt when infrastructure requirements are not met ( akin to paying down your mortgage instead of fixing the roof ) is just poor management and decision making.
> 
> Govs and society in general are living way beyond their means and while private workers have felt the squeeze public service has resisted/avoided it.....don't see Harper taking a pay cut the way the bank of England Governor did.
> 
> They are incompetent louts - the whole lot in Ottawa and Ontario is not far off tho there are issues beyond the provincial gov control complicating the task here.
> 
> That we do not have a governing coalition is the primary issue ....both Britain and Australia immediately formed coalitions - here.....Harper has painted it as some Commie plot and the likes of the two main centre and left parties should simply be tossed on their ear for their failure to take the government away from Harper by way of coalition.
> 
> Far too much ideology , far too little competent management.....both here and in the US.
> 
> China has almost no politics and VERY competent managers almost all of whom are scientists and engineers......they ARE getting things done and showing the incompetence of the western democracies in doing so.
> 
> Toss the lawyers an career politicians - bring in some technocrats and people that are serious about reducing the cost of government by way of better efficiency.
> 
> My take.....not a hope in hell given the current structure in Canada.....


Generally a good post MacDoc and I agree with much of it. Although I don't think "Harper has painted it (coalition) as some Commie plot". The strategy has been to denounce a coalition that includes the Bloc because of their separatist orientation. The Libs and the NDP do not have the seat count to form a plurality without the Bloc and that is the issue that they hinge their argument of the illegitimacy of the coalition on, not it being a Commie plot.

I also would not hold up China as a role model due to their lack of human rights and democracy. I am not willing to advocate for competent management at all costs, there in no need to throw the baby out with the bath water to achieve a more efficient government.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Generally a good post MacDoc and I agree with much of it. Although I don't think "Harper has painted it (coalition) as some Commie plot". The strategy has been to denounce a coalition that includes the Bloc because of their separatist orientation. The Libs and the NDP do not have the seat count to form a plurality without the Bloc and that is the issue that they hinge their argument of the illegitimacy of the coalition on, not it being a Commie plot.
> 
> I also would not hold up China as a role model due to their lack of human rights and democracy. I am not willing to advocate for competent management at all costs, there in no need to throw the baby out with the bath water to achieve a more efficient government.


They have indeed painted the coalition as some kind of 'commie plot', the constant reference to a 'socialist coalition', as some kind of terrible threat is laughable. I'd say total control by either the Harperites or the Iggyists is the real serious threat...

Harper is a total hypocrite since at every turn he has turned to the "separatists" for support when it suited him, and in fact, there is copies of the letter he sent the GG with his, -and- the bloc's signature on it.

So this lamenting that the only reason Harper dislikes th coalition is because of the bloc, is, total nonsense. It's his way of scaring the citizens into believing there a serious threat so vote conservative! And idiots everywhere fall for it.

Meanwhile, the bloc currently has a lot of seats in parliament and already wield a certain amount of power because they were democratically elected there, whether we like it or not.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> no it doesn't. Mulroney didn't set the previous debt level he started with, and neither did Trudeau, so that's just nonsense.
> 
> If the conservatives were actually so fiscally conservative, and did what they said they would, then we wouldn't have the abominations that were Mulroney, and -is- Stephen Harper.
> 
> It seems the only government that showed they could run things and turn things around was Cretien/Martin. But we have Harper and mr "HST" Flaherty desparately trying to take credit while sinking Canada into a deficit far greater than Mulroney could have even tried to do.
> 
> Oh but that's the liberals fault.


Actually no, the Chretien Martin years still saw an overall increase of the debt, they merely managed in the later years of their rule to pay down some of what they also added to it.



> I am tired of hearing/reading that the Chretien/Martin Liberal government "cut Canadian debt". Between 1997/8 and 2007/8, the Liberal government shaved less than $19 billion from Canada's debtload, after growing it from $653.190 billion in 1992/3 to $710.801 billion in 1997/8. (check out table 15 here.) I find it amazing that we still credit the Libs with "cutting Canada's debtload" when in 2006 the Libs actually left us a federal government that was $77 billion (24.7%) more indebted than it was when they took power in 1992.


Canadian debt grew $77 billion under Chretien and Martin


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> They have indeed painted the coalition as some kind of 'commie plot', the constant reference to a 'socialist coalition', as some kind of terrible threat is laughable. I'd say total control by either the Harperites or the Iggyists is the real serious threat...
> 
> Harper is a total hypocrite since at every turn he has turned to the "separatists" for support when it suited him, and in fact, there is copies of the letter he sent the GG with his, -and- the bloc's signature on it.
> 
> So this lamenting that the only reason Harper dislikes th coalition is because of the bloc, is, total nonsense. It's his way of scaring the citizens into believing there a serious threat so vote conservative! And idiots everywhere fall for it.
> 
> Meanwhile, the bloc currently has a lot of seats in parliament and already wield a certain amount of power because they were democratically elected there, whether we like it or not.


I have mentioned in a previous post that his letter to the GG is indeed his Achilles heal in this matter. I am not saying he is correct or non-hypocritical in the way they are spinning the anti-coalition rhetoric but it does primarily hinge on the Bloc inclusion as they know that this spins well to their base. "Socialist coalition" is a far cry from calling it a "commie plot".


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Actually no, the Chretien Martin years still saw an overall increase of the debt, they merely managed in the later years of their rule to pay down some of what they also added to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian debt grew $77 billion under Chretien and Martin


You're just soooo desperate, to run away from the fact that the cretien/martin pair did what no one else did. 

As far as Harper's "achilles heel", oh yeah I'd say that's one HELL of an achilles heel... Making him a complete liar is more like it.

And socialist plot, commie plot, to a herd of conservative supporters it makes zero difference.

Now past all this dancing around crap, to the now, this current government is making all kinds of brainless moves. And somehow, -they- are the great economic stewards?

Show me the money. I have so far, seen absolutely no evidence to support this.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> *You're just soooo desperate, to run away from the fact that the cretien/martin pair did what no one else did. *
> 
> As far as Harper's "achilles heel", oh yeah I'd say that's one HELL of an achilles heel... Making him a complete liar is more like it.
> 
> And socialist plot, commie plot, to a herd of conservative supporters it makes zero difference.
> 
> Now past all this dancing around crap, to the now, this current government is making all kinds of brainless moves. And somehow, -they- are the great economic stewards?
> 
> Show me the money. I have so far, seen absolutely no evidence to support this.


But they didn't do what no one else did. They did the same thing... they grew the debt. They were able to pay down a small portion of what they grew but the net result is they grew the debt. I'm not running away from what they did, I am merely looking at the net sum of their tenure and not trying to make it out to be more than it was. They also were able to pay down a certain portion of the debt during a period of a global economic boom so if they were being at all fiscally prudent this should not be surprising.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> You're just soooo desperate, to run away from the fact that the cretien/martin pair did what no one else did.
> 
> As far as Harper's "achilles heel", oh yeah I'd say that's one HELL of an achilles heel... *Making him a complete liar is more like it.*
> 
> And socialist plot, commie plot, to a herd of conservative supporters it makes zero difference.
> 
> Now past all this dancing around crap, to the now, this current government is making all kinds of brainless moves. And somehow, -they- are the great economic stewards?
> 
> Show me the money. I have so far, seen absolutely no evidence to support this.


Nope just a hypocrite and a stereotypical politician.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> But they didn't do what no one else did. They did the same thing... they grew the debt. They were able to pay down a small portion of what they grew but the net result is they grew the debt. I'm not running away from what they did, I am merely looking at the net sum of their tenure and not trying to make it out to be more than it was. They also were able to pay down a certain portion of the debt during a period of a global economic boom so if they were being at all fiscally prudent this should not be surprising.


they paid down over 100 billion.

What mathematics are you using?

And what government did this? Mulroney? Harper?


----------



## kps

groovetube said:


> they paid down over 100 billion.
> 
> What mathematics are you using?
> 
> And what government did this? Mulroney? Harper?


No government paid off anything...you and I did.

Governments are the quintessential cost centres, it's up to us to rein in their sorry a$$es. So far it ain't work'n...


----------



## groovetube

kps said:


> No government paid off anything...you and I did.
> 
> Governments are the quintessential cost centres, it's up to us to rein in their sorry a$$es. So far it ain't work'n...


don't disagree with you at all kps, and too many politicians including the smug jackYouKnow's included.

Just too bad that we'll all be paying once again soon enough, for the sheer stupidity like gst cuts etc., which will just end up in corporate pockets with us footing the bill soon enough when we realize these fools can't balance a chequebook if they tried.

Unfortunately, there isn't another alternative right now who can either it appears.


----------



## kps

Everything they touch seems to costs a billion dollars, like it's chump change to these guys. Security for the G8/G20, eHealth, Firearms Registry..etc. Doesn't matter which level of government these turkeys just pi*s it away. 

Over the years, my income has risen steadily, but my buying power and standard of living has diminished by a larger percentage with each year.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> they paid down over 100 billion.
> 
> What mathematics are you using?
> 
> And what government did this? Mulroney? Harper?


I already provided you with the link... one you clearly didn't read... so here it is again.

Canadian debt grew $77 billion under Chretien and Martin



> I am tired of hearing/reading that the Chretien/Martin Liberal government "cut Canadian debt". Between 1997/8 and 2007/8, the Liberal government shaved less than $19 billion from Canada's debtload, after growing it from $653.190 billion in 1992/3 to $710.801 billion in 1997/8. (check out table 15 here.) I find it amazing that we still credit the Libs with "cutting Canada's debtload" when in 2006 the Libs actually left us a federal government that was $77 billion (24.7%) more indebted than it was when they took power in 1992.





> Perhaps I should have skipped the detail above and simply pointed you to the facts in this table, which show that the Liberals added an average of $36.6 billion to the federal debt load, annually, over the first four years of the Chretien government. I have not yet read, anywhere, any reporter tell me why the Liberals' remain heroes for adding an average of $36 billion (nominal) to the federal government debt load in the first four years they were in government while it is valid for the Liberals to attack our current government for proposing a less significant reliance on debt financing to address the current fiscal crisis (given the time value of money). Is the argument that the fiscal crisis the Libs were compelled to address in 1993 was larger than that which our current government now has to face?


Show me where you are getting your numbers from....


----------



## groovetube

cut the crap.

they reversed the trend of a careening out of control debt, and actually reversed it.

Did Mulroney do this? Has Harper?

You can spin this anyway you like. The truth is, the current government, is a disaster in comparison.

Period.


----------



## screature

I see you still haven't read the facts.... and you still don't reference any data to support your argument.

Just also to note, if you actually read the data I provided to you twice, you will see that the current Government actually reduced the debt by $13.436 B in their second year of office which betters the best year of the Libs debt reduction which was $13 B.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> I see you still haven't read the facts.... and you still don't reference any data to support your argument.


Exactly. Reversing would--in this case--mean actually improving the situation.


----------



## jimbotelecom

I like the fact that the CONS purchased 65 fighter aircraft without holding competition or even testing the aircraft all for only $21 billion. 

Of course this isn't a billion dollar boondoggle, it's a multiple billion dollar boondoggle. 

Call an election and boot these idiots.


----------



## SINC

jimbotelecom said:


> Call an election and boot these idiots.


Sorry, but that isn't going to happen. Bring it on an election and get used to another Conservative government, this time likely with a majority. 




> *Political momentum slings Tories into lead, poll finds*
> 
> OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper's governing Conservatives have lunged ahead of their political rivals in public favour and would easily be returned to power if an election occurred now, a new poll finds.
> 
> The national survey, conducted for Postmedia News and Global TV, reveals that the Tories have broken out of a lengthy stalemate in public opinion and appear to have political momentum on their side.
> 
> The new findings by Ipsos Reid raises questions whether Harper will try to precipitate an election next spring, or perhaps even earlier in 2011.
> 
> According to the survey conducted this week, the Conservatives are supported by 39 per cent of decided voters, up four points from a month ago. By comparison, Michael Ignatieff's Liberals remain at 29 per cent of the decided vote.


Political momentum slings Tories into lead, poll finds


----------



## jimbotelecom

Notice that you don't deny the excessive expenditure. 

I hope you continue to have blind faith in some polls. 

I have a feeling it's bye bye CONS in 2011.


----------



## Macfury

jimbotelecom said:


> I have a feeling it's bye bye CONS in 2011.


A feeling, sure--but supported by....?


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> Notice that you don't deny the excessive expenditure.
> 
> I hope you continue to have blind faith in some polls.
> 
> *I have a feeling it's bye bye CONS in 2011.*


I don't.... however, it may be, and I hope it is... bye bye Harper.


----------



## SINC

Agreed, a new leader with charisma would have them in a majority in a heartbeat.


----------



## jimbotelecom

True. I suspect that Jim Prentice would take a majority. Alas he got out of dodge.


----------



## Rps

I think the Cons could run Bonzo and get a majority. Who is there in the other parties to challenge Lord Stevie.

The question I always ask myself at election time is: Have they done something worthy dumping them. I don't vote to put people in, I vote people out. Minor disputes aside, just what have the Harper Conservatives done that would merit voting them out...... very little that I can see.

But, when the election comes, probably by May, if Stevie doesn't get a majority, he most certainly is gone. Which asks the question who have the conservatives groomed........................... to me, they are no different from the Libs in that regard, if M.I.5 doesn't do it, he too is gone.


----------



## i-rui

Rps said:


> Minor disputes aside, just what have the Harper Conservatives done that would merit voting them out...... very little that I can see.


umm... just recently :

-1.2 billion dollar G8/G20 clusterf%$k
-20 billion dollars for Fighter Jets that are totally wrong for the purpose Canada needs.
-trying to create a prison for profit system like in the states, while drumming up fear to support a law & order state (while crime is actually *down* in the country)
-trying to divide the country with minor issues like the long census and long gun registry (a tactic directly lifted from the republicans in the south)
-Woeful environmental record and stance.
-Destroying Canada's reputation on the world stage.
-Pathetic view & respect for all things science. (appointing a creationist as science minister.....really??????????)

Harper will never get a majority government because the truth is the majority of canadians are to the left of his party. The only reason the cons are actually in power is because there are 3 or 4 choices for canadians on the left, and only 1 for those on the right.


----------



## jimbotelecom

^^^^^

And that's the short list.


----------



## SINC

i-rui said:


> umm... just recently :
> 
> -1.2 billion dollar G8/G20 clusterf%$k
> -20 billion dollars for Fighter Jets that are totally wrong for the purpose Canada needs.
> -trying to create a prison for profit system like in the states, while drumming up fear to support a law & order state (while crime is actually *down* in the country)
> -trying to divide the country with minor issues like the long census and long gun registry (a tactic directly lifted from the republicans in the south)
> -Woeful environmental record and stance.
> -Destroying Canada's reputation on the world stage.
> -Pathetic view & respect for all things science. (appointing a creationist as science minister.....really??????????)
> 
> Harper will never get a majority government because the truth is the majority of canadians are to the left of his party. The only reason the cons are actually in power is because there are 3 or 4 choices for canadians on the left, and only 1 for those on the right.


While some of your observations are fact, most of them are a bias against Conservatives. Others could produce the same list with positive comments and like it. Our standing on the world stage is better for their efforts in my opinion, just for example. I could also support them not rushing headlong into an ill fated climate change mode to waste more money. The jury is still very much out on what should be done. Thank goodness we can react when the time is right and not try to undo a mistake made in a headlong rush to Goregate carbon credits.


----------



## fjnmusic

Much as I disagree with Stephen Harper's politics, I quite enjoy when he plays piano and sings old retro songs. Makes him seem...I dunno...more human or something. Definitely not embarrassing, despite his other faults. Or maybe it makes his other faults more tolerable. Music hath charms, they say.


----------



## Rps

I'm not a Harper supporter by any stretch, nor am I a Conservative but let's take each one


-1.2 billion dollar G8/G20 clusterf%$k

Let's just chalk this up to "it was our turn". 

-20 billion dollars for Fighter Jets that are totally wrong for the purpose Canada needs.

" So I assume you are in the Air Force" Let's face it, out side of the Snow Birds do any of us know what the hell our Air Force does.... or should we have an Air Force which would be a more valid question than spending money on planes. This supports the old adage: " if it flys, floats or f..... well you get the idea.

-trying to create a prison for profit system like in the states, while drumming up fear to support a law & order state (while crime is actually *down* in the country)

Can't comment on this one. Half of me wonders about crime stats, the other half doesn't believe them.

-trying to divide the country with minor issues like the long census and long gun registry (a tactic directly lifted from the republicans in the south)

Actually Harper learned this from the Liberals, and they taught the Republicans I can assure you.

-Woeful environmental record and stance.

Canada has actually a fairly good standing in this. Your metre is the famous accord I suppose, but what use is it, are India and China [ who drawf us in pollution ] signatories. The urban legend out there is that we have these states of 3rd world countries who should be given brakes on these issues .... these so called 3rd world countries have been using 1st world technology for years, that's why our companies shift production there, this and cheap labour. Beijing will be a desert in about 5 years due to the lack of environmental consciousness by the Chinese.... 
-Destroying Canada's reputation on the world stage.

Let's also examine this .... Canada on the world stage, do you really think the large market countries give a tinkers damn about us ... and this was long before Harper and his crew.


-Pathetic view & respect for all things science. (appointing a creationist as science minister.....really??????????)

Why not, aren't they both operating under assumptions not fact.....

Harper will never get a majority government because the truth is the majority of canadians are to the left of his party. The only reason the cons are actually in power is because there are 3 or 4 choices for canadians on the left, and only 1 for those on the right.[/QUOTE]


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> I see you still haven't read the facts.... and you still don't reference any data to support your argument.
> 
> Just also to note, if you actually read the data I provided to you twice, you will see that the current Government actually reduced the debt by $13.436 B in their second year of office which betters the best year of the Libs debt reduction which was $13 B.


That's because I have more than 3 neurons firing in my head, and I don't to go running to google to think, gee, what's over a 100 billion minus 77.

hmmm.

that would be in positive territory correct?

Right. Regardless of how you want to paint this, a spend spend spend liberal government, managed to show up governments who are apparently, supposed to be fiscally conservative!

Both Mulroney, -and- Harper have clearly shown they can not only spend as much as a liberal government, but best them in many ways.


----------



## i-rui

Rps said:


> I'm not a Harper supporter by any stretch, nor am I a Conservative but let's take each one


actually when you say the following you kind of "out" yourself as a Harper and/or conservative :



Rps said:


> -1.2 billion dollar G8/G20 clusterf%$k
> 
> Let's just chalk this up to "*it was our turn*".


what exactly does that mean? have the liberals ever spent 1.2 billion in 48 hours? i'd love to hear it if they did.



Rps said:


> -20 billion dollars for Fighter Jets that are totally wrong for the purpose Canada needs.
> 
> " So I assume you are in the Air Force" Let's face it, out side of the Snow Birds do any of us know what the hell our Air Force does.... or should we have an Air Force which would be a more valid question than spending money on planes. This supports the old adage: " if it flys, floats or f..... well you get the idea.


i'm not in the air force, but that doesn't stop me from reading up on the issue and having an informed opinion. There is no need for the Canadian military to have _THE MOST_ adavnced fighter jet in the world. We will never out military Russia, and it's a foolish game to even try, What we need are jets to *PATROL* our borders, and the more we get the better. Instead we'll be getting a limited number of cutting edge fighters that aren't even designed to fly in arctic temperature. the deal has little to do with Canada's needs and more to do with back room deals & favours for industrial lobbyists.



Rps said:


> -trying to create a prison for profit system like in the states, while drumming up fear to support a law & order state (while crime is actually *down* in the country)
> 
> Can't comment on this one. Half of me wonders about crime stats, the other half doesn't believe them.


Even if you write off all the crime statistics, why would we try and mimic the US prison system? it's considered to be among the worst in the world. Why are we trying to copy a system that impressions more of it's citizens then any other country on the planet? And who would ever think to pretend that the US is considered more safe than Canada?



Rps said:


> -trying to divide the country with minor issues like the long census and long gun registry (a tactic directly lifted from the republicans in the south)
> 
> Actually Harper learned this from the Liberals, and they taught the Republicans I can assure you.


i don't even know how to respond to this. are you suggesting that US Republicans learnt their politics from Canadian Liberals? Or by "Liberals" do you mean US Democrats? Either way i think that statement is incredibly absurd.



Rps said:


> -Woeful environmental record and stance.
> 
> Canada has actually a fairly good standing in this. Your metre is the famous accord I suppose, but what use is it, are India and China [ who drawf us in pollution ] signatories. The urban legend out there is that we have these states of 3rd world countries who should be given brakes on these issues .... these so called 3rd world countries have been using 1st world technology for years, that's why our companies shift production there, this and cheap labour. Beijing will be a desert in about 5 years due to the lack of environmental consciousness by the Chinese....


you're *WAY* off on this. Per Capita Canada is actually *BEHIND* China & India. Canadians are among the most ardent polluters in the world, and we waste more than most other indistrials nations. The argument that we should walk away from climate argements simply because China won't curb it's enviromental policy is foolish & shortsighted (not to mention unfair since China manufactuers *most* of the products for the world, and pollution & waste will be a by product as it feeds the west's need for "stuff"). Also China is developing MUCH more green technology then North American countries, so while they may be behind us *NOW* if we don't get on board they'll be leading us in the future.



Rps said:


> -Destroying Canada's reputation on the world stage.
> 
> Let's also examine this .... Canada on the world stage, do you really think the large market countries give a tinkers damn about us ... and this was long before Harper and his crew.


Before Harper Canada was well thought of in World Politics. I do agree that in terms of the "big" industrial countries our slipping status won't really affect us, but the world's a bigger place than the G8/G20.



Rps said:


> -Pathetic view & respect for all things science. (appointing a creationist as science minister.....really??????????)
> 
> Why not, aren't they both operating under assumptions not fact.....


Science operates under the best theories the brightest minds can conjure up with the best data that can be gathered. These theories can be changed as new data comes to light.

Creationism operates under a theory from an old book which runs counter to available data, and this theory can *NEVER EVER* change no matter what new data comes to light.


----------



## Rps

We can banter for hours on this, but it all comes down to ideology I think.

No, I am not a conservative, I'm actually a liberal, but that is beside the point. The fact is, the Harper government has done nothing to have the Canadian population mass up and dump him. This can be either he hasn't done anything yet [ spending moeny aside ] to p*ss us off or we like what he has done.

The Liberals for years have operated on a "do-nothing" approach to government. They would spend and run the government as an act of entitlement and when the fan splattered their platform, the Conservatives would come in power under the guise of "masters of administration" and slowly bring the house in order then would be voted out. This is history not idealistic partisanism. 

In the U.S., the two parties have been at it for years, but, the ebb and flow of U.S. politics has changed. They are beginning to sound like Canadians in that "all parties sound the same and act the same". I would think that a review of legislation past this last ten years might support this contention.

So it is with this that I say that the US Republicans have learnt from our Liberals. You many think that this is an absurd remark, but we will see in 2012. 

Do I like Harper, no. Is he short sighted, yes, will he be around long, who knows, he has lasted longer than I thought he would.


----------



## groovetube

Rps said:


> We can banter for hours on this, but it all comes down to ideology I think.
> 
> No, I am not a conservative, I'm actually a liberal, but that is beside the point. The fact is, the Harper government has done nothing to have the Canadian population mass up and dump him. This can be either he hasn't done anything yet [ spending moeny aside ] to p*ss us off or we like what he has done.
> 
> The Liberals for years have operated on a "do-nothing" approach to government. They would spend and run the government as an act of entitlement and when the fan splattered their platform, *the Conservatives would come in power under the guise of "masters of administration" and slowly bring the house in order then would be voted out.* This is history not idealistic partisanism.
> 
> In the U.S., the two parties have been at it for years, but, the ebb and flow of U.S. politics has changed. They are beginning to sound like Canadians in that "all parties sound the same and act the same". I would think that a review of legislation past this last ten years might support this contention.
> 
> So it is with this that I say that the US Republicans have learnt from our Liberals. You many think that this is an absurd remark, but we will see in 2012.
> 
> Do I like Harper, no. Is he short sighted, yes, will he be around long, who knows, he has lasted longer than I thought he would.


you, are a conservative supporter.

Anyone that thinks Mulroney came in and brought 'order' to the house, is indeed, a closet conservative.


----------



## SINC

Rps said:


> No, I am not a conservative, I'm actually a liberal, but that is beside the point.





groovetube said:


> you, are a conservative supporter.


Still having reading comprehension issues are we?


----------



## groovetube

no I can read the -rest- of the post which showed the complete obvious.

That whole more than 3 neuron thing.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> no I can read the -rest- of the post which showed the complete obvious.
> 
> That whole more than 3 neuron thing.


I have no idea what you mean by that last post. I doubt anyone else does either, but hey, if it floats your boat, keep on believing whatever it is your trying to state.


----------



## groovetube

Well sinc if you actually read his post, then you would know. Not too many liberals, would make a blanket statement conservative parties, are he ones who get the house in order. Though you might consider a particular leader to be a good one.

But being a conservative, it would make sense to you, which is exactly, my point.

Once again referring to your fictional'anyone and everyone.


----------



## i-rui

Rps said:


> -1.2 billion dollar G8/G20 clusterf%$k
> 
> Let's just chalk this up to "*it was our turn*".


this is what i took to mean he was really a conservative.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> But being a conservative, it would make sense to you, which is exactly, my point.
> 
> Once again referring to your fictional'anyone and everyone.


Well, you don't seem to have a point, but like I already stated, whatever floats your boat.

As for that last sentence, once again I have no idea what you are saying, nor likely does anyone else.


----------



## SINC

i-rui said:


> this is what i took to mean he was really a conservative.


Rp clearly stated, twice in fact, that he was a Liberal, but made some observations of what he considered to be done deals. After all, it was "our" turn to host the G-20. That "our" by the way meant Canada's turn, not a Conservative turn.


----------



## i-rui

SINC said:


> After all, it was "our" turn to host the G-20. That "our" by the way meant Canada's turn, not a Conservative turn.


ah ok. if he meant that then it still doesn't explain the 1.2 billion dollar cost the Harper government spent on the weekend. Every other country has pulled it off for *significantly* less (including South Korea last month - supposedly for $33 million). 

I wonder if their government runs as "fiscally responsible"?


----------



## SINC

i-rui said:


> ah ok. if he meant that then it still doesn't explain the 1.2 billion dollar cost the Harper government spent on the weekend. Every other country has pulled it off for *significantly* less (including South Korea last month - supposedly for $33 million).
> 
> I wonder if their government runs as "fiscally responsible"?


So, what exactly does that have to do with you calling him a Conservative when he twice stated he was a Liberal? Nice try at deflection, but it does not explain your accusation that he is a Conservative. That accusation makes no sense at all when he declared his status right out of the gate.


----------



## i-rui

SINC said:


> So, what exactly does that have to do with you calling him a Conservative when he twice stated he was a Liberal? Nice try at deflection, but it does not explain your accusation that he is a Conservative. That accusation makes no sense at all when he declared his status right out of the gate.


first off it wasn't "deflection"- he stated he was a liberal twice *after* i said he was coming off as a conservative because of his use of "our". Miscommunication or missunderstanding? perhaps...

but beyond that i still would consider him a conservative based on his responses to the issues. He may see *himself* as a liberal, but i would see him as a conservative based on what he *actually* thinks.



SINC said:


> That accusation makes no sense at all when he declared his status right out of the gate.


"A rose by any other name..."

I'll judge people on their stance on the issues, not by the logo they wear. That's not to say i think he's lying...more like fooling himself.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> first off it wasn't "deflection"- he stated he was a liberal twice *after* i said he was coming off as a conservative because of his use of "our". Miscommunication or missunderstanding? perhaps...
> 
> but beyond that i still would consider him a conservative based on his responses to the issues. He may see *himself* as a liberal, but i would see him as a conservative based on what he *actually* thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> "A rose by any other name..."
> 
> I'll judge people on their stance on the issues, not by the logo they wear. That's not to say i think he's lying...more like fooling himself.


you're wasting your breathe i-rui. You may be asking a little much.


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Well, you don't seem to have a point, but like I already stated, whatever floats your boat.
> 
> As for that last sentence, once again I have no idea what you are saying, nor likely does anyone else.


Punctuation is a lost art.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> That's because I have more than 3 neurons firing in my head, and I* don't to go running to google to think*, gee, what's over a 100 billion minus 77.....


Problem is you don't know the facts so any "thinking" you do is invalid. "gee, what's over a 100 billion minus 77" this is a prime example, look at the numbers and you will realize just how wrong you are.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> actually when you say the following you kind of "out" yourself as a Harper and/or conservative :





groovetube said:


> you, are a conservative supporter.
> 
> Anyone that thinks Mulroney came in and brought 'order' to the house, is indeed, a closet conservative.



Isn't it wonderful how two of the most rabid partisan liberal defenders/apologists here get to "decide" for others what political affiliations they have just because they are open minded enough to think for themselves and decide that not everything the Cons do is bad.... astounding for anyone else but not surprising for these two.. the pomposity and arrogance is almost palpable.

Some people are moderates and can see both sides of things while others put on partisan blinders and only see a fraction of the bigger picture and decide what they choose to see is the truth. Same as it ever was.


----------



## Rps

screature said:


> Some people are moderates and can see both sides of things while others put on partisan blinders and only see a fraction of the bigger picture and decide what they choose to see is the truth. Same as it ever was.


Screature, I know you get it. The trouble today is the partisan approach. For the record I have worked for the Liberals for a number of years, and last time I looked it wasn't a sin to be a Conservative, NDP'r, Green, or, and this is one I find hard to defend, a Bloc member.

Anyone who blindly supports their party without question is a fool. It is perfectly fine to disagree with party platform .... how do you think it gets refined and changed for election time .... do you think the leader goes to Walmart and buys the thing.

In the final analysis, our country is one of the most easy to run, why, because we don't step back [ as a voting populace .. all 31% of us, or there abouts ] and really critically examine what the parties are actually proposing.

For the most part the complaints come down to money issues, which relate to taxes. When was the last time the Auditor General released a report on the ethics of decisions ... 

So, I encourage all Canadians, no matter what party, to think about their government and don't just rely on your party affliation. Think about whether a government should be tossed out, not voted in ..... they are two entirely different perspectives and they are perspectives we should all consider at election time.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Problem is you don't know the facts so any "thinking" you do is invalid. "gee, what's over a 100 billion minus 77" this is a prime example, look at the numbers and you will realize just how wrong you are.


perhaps you need simpler language.

Did the liberals leave office with a larger debt, or a smaller one?

I still have no comment on "debit" though.


----------



## groovetube

Rps said:


> Screature, I know you get it. The trouble today is the partisan approach. For the record I have worked for the Liberals for a number of years, and last time I looked it wasn't a sin to be a Conservative, NDP'r, Green, or, and this is one I find hard to defend, a Bloc member.
> 
> Anyone who blindly supports their party without question is a fool. It is perfectly fine to disagree with party platform .... how do you think it gets refined and changed for election time .... do you think the leader goes to Walmart and buys the thing.
> 
> In the final analysis, our country is one of the most easy to run, why, because we don't step back [ as a voting populace .. all 31% of us, or there abouts ] and really critically examine what the parties are actually proposing.
> 
> For the most past the complaints come down to money issues, which relate to taxes. When was the last time the Auditor General released a report on the ethics of decisions ...
> 
> So, I encourage all Canadians, no matter what party, to think about their government and don't just rely on your party affliation. Think about whether a government should be tossed out, not voted in ..... they are two entirely different perspectives and they are perspectives we should all consider at election time.


neither of you get it.

You may think, you're a liberal, but you're not. Maybe you once worked for them, maybe even gave them money. But your statements, very clearly, gave you away as not being very truthful.

Of course it isn't a sin to defend anyone. No one ever said it was. You might want to paint this all with a 'partisan brush', but it simply isn't so.

You see, if you had referred to certain conservative leaders, or individuals, who may have been a conservative, then perhaps I might have bought your line. But you didn't. And the conservative supporters here are only too happy to jump to your defence, but they clearly, don't get it either.

No, you made the partisan statement that conservatives, not just certain leaders, individuals, as a whole, is better for this country,.

And that, very clearly, outed YOU, as a partisan. It makes no difference what yor previous leanings were. It's no sin to be partisan.

I consider myself a liberal. However, I will not vote liberal currently, because I HATE iggy. As much as I do Harper. I would like to think he's better, but in all good faith I can't say he is.

I, as a liberal, do feel a liberal government is in general, better for the country, and that's what makes me, a liberal. There is my bias, and I openly admit that. If I thought the conservatives were better, then, I'd be a conservative.


----------



## Rps

groovetube said:


> No, you made the partisan statement that conservatives, not just certain leaders, individuals, as a whole, is better for this country,.QUOTE]
> 
> Really! I would welcome if you would show me where in my post that I articulated that "conservative individuals as a whole is better for this country".


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> perhaps you need simpler language.
> 
> Did the liberals leave office with a larger debt, or a smaller one?
> 
> I still have no comment on "debit" though.


They left office with a larger debt (don't you think after a abut a half dozen posts of pointing out a typo is just about enough... pretty childish don't you think ) than they started with. You would know this if you actually looked the Fiscal Reference Tables by the Department of Finance (table 15 that I posted the link for you to read 2 times... afraid of knowing the truth are you?)

Here I will make it easy for you:


----------



## groovetube

nailed.

by your own chart, it shows you're full of crap regarding trudeau's contribution to the net debt, and Mulroney's.

Ah the circular argument comes to roost.


----------



## screature

Once again you belie the fact that you never read what is posted for you:



> ...watch out for analysts who use "net debt" as the proxy for government debt load instead of "gross debt". Our government accountants have creatively introduced this concept of "net debt". Net debt is what is left after we subtract the marked-to-market value of our government's financial assets (stocks and bonds) from our actual debt load. Unfortunately our debt load does not decline when public markets crash, but the value of our portfolio of assets does. The fact is that our government does not liquidate our financial assets to pay down debt, so the "net debt" concept is cute but bogus. That is why you never see a "net debt" line on a private corporation's balance sheet. (I wish this wasn't true. I wish my bank would agree that my debt load equals my debt minus the total value of the stocks I hold -- even at depressed stock levels. But the bank does not do so -- anymore than the lenders to the government of Canada do. Our nation's debt load is the gross debtload and "net debt" is a theoretical concept that would only become real if government elected to liquidate all of its financial assets in one year and spend that cash to retire


Look at the gross debt figures as they are the ones that really matter... net debt is an accounting trick to make things look better than they really are and no you are the one who is nailed as clearly the Chretien/Martin Liberal's grew the debt during their tenure and you in you ignorance said they didn't... Ooopps.


----------



## groovetube

Looking at the gross debt, it still makes a mockery of your contention, that the conservatives are better money managers.

It just isn't so, whatsoever.

It doesn't matter what charts you post, what set of numbers you insist on using to spin anything anyway you like. The result is the same, which is what I've been saying all along.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> It doesn't matter what charts you post, what set of numbers you insist on using...


screature, this is an invitation to gracefully bow out of further debate with the cat creature. Essentially, regardless of evidence or proof, his mind is made up. Sort of the like the party faithful rps was talking about earlier.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> *neither of you get it.*
> 
> You may think, you're a liberal, but you're not. Maybe you once worked for them, maybe even gave them money. But your statements, very clearly, gave you away as not being very truthful.
> 
> Of course it isn't a sin to defend anyone. No one ever said it was. You might want to paint this all with a 'partisan brush', but it simply isn't so.
> 
> You see, if you had referred to certain conservative leaders, or individuals, who may have been a conservative, then perhaps I might have bought your line. But you didn't. And the conservative supporters here are only too happy to jump to your defence, but they clearly, don't get it either.
> 
> No, you made the partisan statement that conservatives, not just certain leaders, individuals, as a whole, is better for this country,.
> 
> And that, very clearly, outed YOU, as a partisan. It makes no difference what yor previous leanings were. It's no sin to be partisan.
> 
> I consider myself a liberal. However, I will not vote liberal currently, because I HATE iggy. As much as I do Harper. I would like to think he's better, but in all good faith I can't say he is.
> 
> I, as a liberal, do feel a liberal government is in general, better for the country, and that's what makes me, a liberal. There is my bias, and I openly admit that. If I thought the conservatives were better, then, I'd be a conservative.


We both "get it" and I would say to a much greater degree of understanding than you seem to. The thing is human beings are complicated creatures. We don't all fit into neat and tidy little boxes and easily defined categories. With some of us being much more complicated than others.

I have known "Jews" who eat pork and Christians who don't believe that Christ was the son of god but a great prophet and who choose to follow his teachings. The same is true in the political/philosophical realms as well. Some policies and beliefs of one party or another may fit better with you than others at a given point in time and so when weighed on the whole you vote one way or another. 

For example, as I have stated in other posts, at one time or another I have voted for all three of the major federal parties and only once in my life did I actually ever belong to a party which was the NDP in the early 80s. Times change, political parties change and so do people and their way of thinking, it is all malleable and in flux.

But in the end it is up to the individual to self identity themselves as liberal, conservative or socialist etc. It is not for someone else to arrogantly say "no, no matter what you think you are this or that", it is highly presumptuous and arrogant in the extreme. 

I would dare say that the majority of Canadians don't identify themselves with any political party (look at the number of card carrying party members of any political party vs. the general population and you will instantly see that his is so) they vote based on who they like, who the don't like and which party best addresses their concerns of the day.

Currently I would self identify my general overall tendencies as being a "red Tory" socially liberal and fiscally conservative. This is just an easy way to categorize my political standpoint but does not fully encompass my own beliefs. My situation is also complicated by the fact that I work on the Hill and see the daily shenanigans that go on there and the huge misrepresentations (down right lies at times) that go on daily in the media and is a constant source of frustration. So in an effort to shed some light on the actual goings on there I undoubtedly come across as a government apologist. This to a partisan observer would appear to be the case because my postings tend to counter the media misinformation and half truths, when in fact all I am trying to do is point out that everything that the media says is not the truth or has a certain editorially bent to it. I'm not saying my position is gospel but that it is merely another perspective based on intimate experience of one who is in the "trenches".

Any thinking person can look at a given policy/situation/issue/leader and associate or dissociate themselves with a given policy/situation/issue/leader on a case by case basis for themselves... it doesn't mean they are liberal/conservative or otherwise. It means they are capable of thinking and deciding for themselves and it is not up to others to tell them that they are wrong and self deluded.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> .. the pomposity and arrogance is almost palpable.
> .


that's rich coming from you.

why don't you tell other posters how their political opinion is meaningless because they don't work on the hill and lack the insight you do. *again*.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> that's rich coming from you.
> 
> why don't you t*ell other posters how their political opinion is meaningless* because they don't work on the hill and lack the insight you do. *again*.


Never have, sure I disagree with people all the time and if there is no coherent (backed up by data and facts) argument I may even be somewhat (at times downright) dismissive but I have never said anyone's opinion is meaningless. All I ever do is post an opposing or alternate view... I have NEVER posted that someone is self deluded in their political self identification. Which is exactly what you and gt did.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> We both "get it" and I would say to a much greater degree of understanding than you seem to. The thing is human beings are complicated creatures. We don't all fit into neat and tidy little boxes and easily defined categories. With some of us being much more complicated than others.
> 
> I have known "Jews" who eat pork and Christians who don't believe that Christ was the son of god but a great prophet and who choose to follow his teachings. The same is true in the political/philosophical realms as well. Some policies and beliefs of one party or another may fit better with you than others at a given point in time and so when weighed on the whole you vote one way or another.
> 
> For example, as I have stated in other posts, at one time or another I have voted for all three of the major federal parties and only once in my life did I actually ever belong to a party which was the NDP in the early 80s. Times change, political parties change and so do people and their way of thinking, it is all malleable and in flux.
> 
> But in the end it is up to the individual to self identity themselves as liberal, conservative or socialist etc. It is not for someone else to arrogantly say "no, no matter what you think you are this or that", it is highly presumptuous and arrogant in the extreme.
> 
> I would dare say that the majority of Canadians don't identify themselves with any political party (look at the number of card carrying party members of any political party vs. the general population and you will instantly see that his is so) they vote based on who they like, who the don't like and which party best addresses their concerns of the day.
> 
> Currently I would self identify my general overall tendencies as being a "red Tory" socially liberal and fiscally conservative. This is just an easy way to categorize my political standpoint but does not fully encompass my own beliefs. My situation is also complicated by the fact that I work on the Hill and see the daily shenanigans that go on there and the huge misrepresentations (down right lies at times) that go on daily in the media and is a constant source of frustration. So in an effort to shed some light on the actual goings on there I undoubtedly come across as a government apologist. This to a partisan observer would appear to be the case because my postings tend to counter the media misinformation and half truths, when in fact all I am trying to do is point out that everything that the media says is not the truth or has a certain editorially bent to it. I'm not saying my position is gospel but that it is merely another perspective based on intimate experience of one who is in the "trenches".
> 
> Any thinking person can look at a given policy/situation/issue/leader and associate or dissociate themselves with a given policy/situation/issue/leader on a case by case basis for themselves... it doesn't mean they are liberal/conservative or otherwise. It means they are capable of thinking and deciding for themselves and it is not up to others to tell them that they are wrong and self deluded.


ah but he DID identify himself with a political party, only to show it was nonsense after clearly saying something completely different the next. If I had a nickel for everytime I've seen someone try to pass themselves off as a "liberal;" but oooooh I've grown up I'd be a rich man. What a bunch of crap, and only the conservative supporters eat this crap up.

Clearly.



i-rui said:


> that's rich coming from you.
> 
> why don't you tell other posters how their political opinion is meaningless because they don't work on the hill and lack the insight you do. *again*.


Yeah I'm rather tired of the "I'm smarter than you because I work on the hill" crap. The latest round of going circles shows very clearly that he is indeed, a firm conservative. And he throws around the term "duplicitous"

pfffft.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> I have NEVER posted that someone is self deluded in their political self identification. Which is exactly what you and gt did.


I based that solely on his stance on the issues and how he responded to my points. In my view his stance on those issues were to the right of the liberal party. So IMO he is either of that political mind set, or misinformed on the issues. if Rps took offence to the remark then i apologize, but i said it to further the discussion and to try and get him to clarify his position on those issues.

I'm actually not a card carrying member of the Liberal party. I view myself as a Libertarian with Left leaning political view (i'm for liberal laws that don't take away personal freedoms).

I do not think it is a "sin" to be part of any political party, or to be on either the Left or Right. But i do think it's important for people to understand where they stand and what parties will protect issues that are important to you.


----------



## groovetube

It was the way the post was presented.

Look, I'm a liberal! And I still think conservatives are better for the country! Not one particular conservative leader, but the conservative party, in general, regardless of who is leading, and the makeup of cabinet, and, throughout history it appears...

That's a HUGE difference, from saying, I'm a liberal, but I hate Iggy, and I really think that Harper is a good leader and has a good vision for Canada, so I will support him in the next election.

Wow this is just really so basic.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> It was the way the post was presented.
> 
> Look, I'm a liberal! *And I still think conservatives are better for the country!* Not one particular conservative leader, but the conservative party, in general, regardless of who is leading, and the makeup of cabinet, and, throughout history it appears...
> 
> That's a HUGE difference, from saying, I'm a liberal, but I hate Iggy, and I really think that Harper is a good leader and has a good vision for Canada, so I will support him in the next election.
> 
> Wow this is just really so basic.


Nope kps never said this. He addressed specific issues only.

He also finished his post with this:



> Harper will never get a majority government because the truth is the majority of canadians are to the left of his party. The only reason the cons are actually in power is because there are 3 or 4 choices for canadians on the left, and only 1 for those on the right.


Hardly a Con supporter statement to make.


----------



## i-rui

^^actually i said that.

his post just got screwed up when he quoted me.


----------



## groovetube

Rps said:


> We can banter for hours on this, but it all comes down to ideology I think.
> 
> No, I am not a conservative, I'm actually a liberal, but that is beside the point. The fact is, the Harper government has done nothing to have the Canadian population mass up and dump him. This can be either he hasn't done anything yet [ spending moeny aside ] to p*ss us off or we like what he has done.
> 
> *The Liberals for years have operated on a "do-nothing" approach to government. They would spend and run the government as an act of entitlement and when the fan splattered their platform, the Conservatives would come in power under the guise of "masters of administration" and slowly bring the house in order then would be voted out. This is history not idealistic partisanism. *
> 
> In the U.S., the two parties have been at it for years, but, the ebb and flow of U.S. politics has changed. They are beginning to sound like Canadians in that "all parties sound the same and act the same". I would think that a review of legislation past this last ten years might support this contention.
> 
> So it is with this that I say that the US Republicans have learnt from our Liberals. You many think that this is an absurd remark, but we will see in 2012.
> 
> Do I like Harper, no. Is he short sighted, yes, will he be around long, who knows, he has lasted longer than I thought he would.





screature said:


> Nope kps never said this. He addressed specific issues only.
> 
> He also finished his post with this:
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly a Con supporter statement to make.


Again, you never read posts.

And it's rps, not kps.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> *Again, you never read posts.*
> 
> And it's rps, not kps.





> The Liberals for years have operated on a "do-nothing" approach to government. They would spend and run the government as an act of entitlement and when the fan splattered their platform, the Conservatives would come in power under the guise of "masters of administration" and slowly bring the house in order then would be voted out. This is history not idealistic partisanism.


Really I think I read it plenty well.... so tell me oh sage and wise one where does he say:



> Look, I'm a liberal! And I still think conservatives are better for the country!


You need to cut the phhppt, phhppt a little bit, slowdown and really think about what people are saying without thinking that they are saying something that is a personal affront to you and your beliefs/way of thinking and just accept the fact that even though you are both are "liberals" you can have different views on things and it isn't an "either you are with us or against us" situation.

What petty, petty little posts you make at times.... I post to kps all the time as well it was a simple typo.... but being the king of "petty posts" you just had to point it out didn't you... gawd... why did I ever bother taking you off my ignore list... I must be a sucker for self punishment. beejacon

No wonder the Liberal party is in such a mess of internal disarray if this is the kind of polarity that exists amongst card carrying member.


----------



## groovetube

and you want to get in huff about getting petty mr I work on the hill so I know better?

Give me a bloody break. 

No rps's post was very clear in what he meant, you just needed to actually read it is all.


----------



## Rps

In no specific order:

1- it was indeed i-rui not rps.\
2- i-rui, no offense taken, that is what discussion is for
3- GT you still haven't answered my question on where I said that conservatives would be better, that is probably because i didn't say it.
4- GT, as a fellow Liberal, please don't get your knickers in a knot over this next statement, but our party does have a history of "do-nothing". What we excel at is beginning legislation, getting voted out, having the Conservatives pass the laws, take the heat and voter resentment, and then we get back in .... not partisian belief but historical fact.
5- Harper has yet to set his landmine yet ... petty budget items aside, is undoing will be his "me - too - Americanism". I think he will want to become a "big player" in the global community and that might not sit well with the Canadianistic mindset.

That all being said, have a great day and just remember that over that next green hill, lies another day.......


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> and you want to get in huff about getting petty mr I work on the hill so I know better?
> .


:lmao: The real reason why Steve Jobs hates Flash Once again you seem to fail to realize you live in a glass house and I can see exactly what you do.  You think you are so different until an analogous situation comes home to roost. :lmao:


----------



## groovetube

once again, posting a thread about technical facts, as if it's similar to political opinion.

It still makes no sense whatsoever. But nice deflection anyway.

anyway, here's what I said earlier which still stands, while you spin out linking to unrelated threads.



groovetube said:


> *It was the way the post was presented.
> 
> Look, I'm a liberal! And I still think conservatives are better for the country! Not one particular conservative leader, but the conservative party, in general, regardless of who is leading, and the makeup of cabinet, and, throughout history it appears...
> 
> That's a HUGE difference, from saying, I'm a liberal, but I hate Iggy, and I really think that Harper is a good leader and has a good vision for Canada, so I will support him in the next election.
> 
> Wow this is just really so basic.*


----------



## groovetube

Rps said:


> In no specific order:
> 
> 1- it was indeed i-rui not rps.\
> 2- i-rui, no offense taken, that is what discussion is for
> 3- GT you still haven't answered my question on where I said that conservatives would be better, that is probably because i didn't say it.
> 
> * I highlighted it more than once, clear as day.*
> 
> 4- GT, as a fellow Liberal, please don't get your knickers in a knot over this next statement, but our party does have a history of "do-nothing". What we excel at is beginning legislation, getting voted out, having the Conservatives pass the laws, take the heat and voter resentment, and then we get back in .... not partisian belief but historical fact.
> 
> *Do nothing? That says it all right there. Sorry. Even conservative friends I have wouldn't say that, even though they feel their party is better and does more. *
> 
> 5- Harper has yet to set his landmine yet ... petty budget items aside, is undoing will be his "me - too - Americanism". I think he will want to become a "big player" in the global community and that might not sit well with the Canadianistic mindset.
> 
> That all being said, have a great day and just remember that over that next green hill, lies another day.......


sure is


----------



## groovetube

what's good for Harper, I guess is good for Putin too. 

Make it stop.




+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## SINC

Yeah, great vid there gt.


----------



## groovetube

funny you seem to be able to figure it out whenever anyone else mis-youtubes each and every time.

Must have been the Harper reference that got you mad.


----------



## SINC

First, the proper term is angry. Second I was not angry. Third, others I have fixed always make the mistake of posting the entire URL. You posted a partial URL which left no clue as to the content or I would have fixed it. And finally, as near as I can tell, the video is unconnected to the thread content as Putin is neither a Liberal, Conservative or Canadian. Other than that, it fits in well.


----------



## groovetube

jeez I think it's called preparation H.

Since we touched on Harper doing his sing song thing, I thought it be funny to show Putin trying the same gag.


----------



## groovetube

Selling Canada on the need for fighters

incredible. Standing in front of cameras citing the "ruski" threat, meanwhile knowing this exercise was planned by Canada, US, -and- Russia?

an eye opener.


----------



## i-rui

^^ sad, but not at all surprising.

It's the same deal with their prison plans. The Harper government is trying to sell canadians that crime is out of control and something has to be done (even though crime is down) meanwhile they're pushing minimum mandatory sentencing for various crimes so they can raise prison populations and pour billions of dollars into building super prisons.

Between the billions spent on the G20 fiasco, the billions spent on unneeded jets, and billions spent on unneeded prisons it's baffling how anyone can still consider them the "fiscally responsible" party.

Conservatism use to represent smaller government and fiscal responsibility. Now it's all about fear mongering and corporate interests.


----------



## kps

i-rui said:


> ^^ sad, but not at all surprising.
> 
> It's the same deal with their prison plans. The Harper government is trying to sell canadians that crime is out of control and something has to be done (even though crime is down) meanwhile they're pushing minimum mandatory sentencing for various crimes so they can raise prison populations and pour billions of dollars into building super prisons.
> 
> Between the billions spent on the G20 fiasco, the billions spent on unneeded jets, and billions spent on unneeded prisons it's baffling how anyone can still consider them the "fiscally responsible" party.
> 
> Conservatism use to represent smaller government and fiscal responsibility. Now it's all about fear mongering and corporate interests.


Just a note on the "unneeded" aircraft. The CF-18 is over 30years old and uses technology much older than that. Could you do your job today with 70's technology and compete?

What I find sad is that the Cons have to stoop to these tactics and the opposition is using this purchase as a political ploy to attack them.

Our forces need these aircraft to replace the aging tech they have and all I see is a bunch of a-holes of all political stripes making this some sort of a partisan spectacle. Pocks on all of them.


----------



## groovetube

There are many elements of "conservatism" I can get behind. But like the liberals, often the ideals are, just ideals. Unfortunately, like religion, people and their greed gets in the way.

As far as "fiscally responsible", looking south, the right wing spent more than anyone has in history. And now hope and change, is caught between spending itself silly to prop it all up temporarily, or just let it collapse and things go naturally.

In the meantime we have everyone polarizing as to who can best spend it all for their own interests.

gnip gnop.


----------



## i-rui

kps said:


> Our forces need these aircraft to replace the aging tech they have and all I see is a bunch of a-holes of all political stripes making this some sort of a partisan spectacle. Pocks on all of them.


our forces doesn't need *these* aircraft. they need something to replace the aging feet, but *NOT* F-35s, and certainly not the way the whole deal has gone down.

Better to buy twice the amount of new f-18s with dual engines (for less), then to buy unproven single engine F-35s to patrol the arctic.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> As far as "fiscally responsible", looking south, the right wing spent more than anyone has in history.


Uh. Every administration spends more than the one before it. They all take the same prize home when they leave.


----------



## SINC

Yeah, good idea boys. Stay with 70s tech F-18 aircraft. Brilliant.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Uh. Every administration spends more than the one before it. They all take the same prize home when they leave.


no that isn't the case either. But it's a good excuse as to why a right wing conservative who is supposed to be far better than the tax and spend socialists, wasn't.

We're watching that in action up here too now, but their supporters seem not to think so. They think they should be rewarded with a blank cheque majority.

oooooh yeah... Brilliant indeed.


----------



## i-rui

SINC said:


> Yeah, good idea boys. Stay with 70s tech F-18 aircraft. Brilliant.


actually the US has committed to fly f-18s in their forces until (at least) 2035. so if it's good enough for them it should be more then adequate for our airforce.

in fact it would be better because there would be less of a learning curve, you could use the older planes to train, AND there won't be any surprises with unproven technology that is sure to happen with f-35s (never buy the first generation of ANY tech).


----------



## Max

i-rui said:


> never buy the first generation of ANY tech).


Unless you're part of the military industrial complex, in which case fat budgets are your friend!


----------



## i-rui

I guess we should be glad that Harper is making us a cog in the US military industrial machine!

and just to add to my previous post, Australia just started replacing their old F-111's with new planes in *march of 2010*.

they went with new f-18's.


----------



## Max

New fighter jets are shiny baubles for many an aspiring leader eager to make his mark in dazzlingly superficial ways. It's not just a Canadian thing. The military often gets the wrong equipment due to nothing more than political expediency.


----------



## SINC

i-rui said:


> (never buy the first generation of ANY tech).


Guess you never bought a new Apple product then, eh?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> no that isn't the case either.


I'd ask you to show me a case where that isn't true, but that may be asking a lot.


----------



## groovetube

This might require you to think just a little bit macfury.

I know it's hard, but there's a few clear examples. Now I know being a.. "libertarian" and all, means that simply disagreeing with how things are done equates to bad fiscal management, but I highly doubt Chretien left Canada in worse shape than Mulroney did.

Nor Clinton, after the first Bush.

It may be true though, of Obama after the second Bush.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Guess you never bought a new Apple product then, eh?


Never buy rev A is a very common thought amongst us who buy a lot of new macs.

Just common sense.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> This might require you to think just a little bit macfury.
> 
> I know it's hard, but there's a few clear examples. Now I know being a.. "libertarian" and all, means that simply disagreeing with how things are done equates to bad fiscal management, but I highly doubt Chretien left Canada in worse shape than Mulroney did.
> 
> Nor Clinton, after the first Bush.
> 
> It may be true though, of Obama after the second Bush.


It would require you to remember that you were talking about spending not debt. Your original comment:



> As far as "fiscally responsible", looking south, the right wing *spent more* than anyone has in history.


So Clinton spent more than Bush I. Bush II spent more than Clinton. And Obama shamed them all.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> It would require you to remember that you were talking about spending not debt. Your original comment:
> 
> 
> 
> So Clinton spent more than Bush I. Bush II spent more than Clinton. And Obama shamed them all.


well aren't you a genius! Of course it isn't surprising spending goes up over time as the population increases and things simply cost more.

Why don't you go put some gold stars on your head for figuring this out! Perhaps it's that libertarian streak in you, can't fool you!

There is a difference between simple numbers and being a half arsed at managing things.

But that would require some thought. And a little honesty which it seems a lot conservative supporters desperate to keep the lies of this government hush seem to be having trouble with.

Nice shot at, 'well the liberals did it so see, the conservatives ain't so bad huh?'


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> well aren't you a genius! Of course it isn't surprising spending goes up over time as the population increases and things simply cost more.
> 
> Why don't you go put some gold stars on your head for figuring this out! Perhaps it's that libertarian streak in you, can't fool you!
> 
> There is a difference between simple numbers and being a half arsed at managing things.
> 
> But that would require some thought. And a little honesty which it seems a lot conservative supporters desperate to keep the lies of this government hush seem to be having trouble with.
> 
> Nice shot at, 'well the liberals did it so see, the conservatives ain't so bad huh?'


groove, you're in orbit tonight.


----------



## groovetube

Aaaaaaand.... Yer done.

Surprise!


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Never buy rev A is a very common thought amongst us who buy a lot of new macs.
> 
> Just common sense.


So, by your deduction, every iPad owner is without common sense, right?

All, how many million of 'em?


----------



## i-rui

SINC said:


> So, by your deduction, every iPad owner is without common sense, right?


it all depends on the buyer's situation and the need the product must fill.

if the buyer has spare cash, enjoys the latest gadgets, and will get a lot of use out of a first gen. ipad, then more power to the buyer!

but if the buyer has substantial debt, doesn't have a pressing need for the ipad, but knows that when he buys that ipad it must last him years and years and years..... then yes, in that scenario the buyer would *NOT* be exhibiting much common sense at all.

want to guess which scenario Canada's Jet Fighter purchase closely resembles?


----------



## groovetube

Sinc's just mad. It's well know the 'rev A blues', it isn't to say all rev As are bad, but I've been stung many a time by rev A, the MDD, ibooks, G5 iMacs, AL powerbooks, oh yes the first macbook pros, the list is endless.

But it that seems common wth some conservatives, you back them into a corner, and lookout...


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> So, by your deduction, every iPad owner is without common sense, right?
> 
> All, how many million of 'em?


My first iPad is still pent up demand for gen 2 and camera(s). Must be patient, for my precious, not long now, my precious, time will pass soon enough.


----------



## Rps

groovetube said:


> This might require you to think just a little bit macfury.
> 
> I know it's hard, but there's a few clear examples. Now I know being a.. "libertarian" and all, means that simply disagreeing with how things are done equates to bad fiscal management, but I highly doubt Chretien left Canada in worse shape than Mulroney did.
> 
> Nor Clinton, after the first Bush.
> 
> It may be true though, of Obama after the second Bush.


Groovetube, you comment on whether one left the other better is a matter of persepctive. This is not meant as a slight so don't take it this way, but many only look at what I call the "incidence of current" in comparing governments. One really needs to look at the "causative agents" that were left behind .... Clinton clearly was the co-author of the latest economic melt down by his action to repeal the The Glass-Stegall Act . Granted you may feel that Bush 2 was the cause, but one needs the opportunity to develop the cause. And that was supplied by Mr. Clinton under the guise that the banking and investment industry were mature enough to govern themselves.


----------



## i-rui

Rps said:


> Groovetube, you comment on whether one left the other better is a matter of persepctive. This is not meant as a slight so don't take it this way, but many only look at what I call the "incidence of current" in comparing governments. One really needs to look at the "causative agents" that were left behind .... Clinton clearly was the co-author of the latest economic melt down by his action to repeal the The Glass-Stegall Act . Granted you may feel that Bush 2 was the cause, but one needs the opportunity to develop the cause. And that was supplied by Mr. Clinton under the guise that the banking and investment industry were mature enough to govern themselves.


while i'd agree that Clinton's administration does have to share the blame for the financial crisis, i think it'd be fair to say his terms were (for the most part) successful.

By any objective critique Bush's 2 terms would have to be considered a disaster.


----------



## jimbotelecom

CBC News - Politics - MP's aide fired for leak sought lobbyist job

Scuzz-bucket CONS. Thanks for the accountability act HarpHair.

Let's boot them from office next year Canada.


----------



## groovetube

Rps said:


> Groovetube, you comment on whether one left the other better is a matter of persepctive. This is not meant as a slight so don't take it this way, but many only look at what I call the "incidence of current" in comparing governments. One really needs to look at the "causative agents" that were left behind .... Clinton clearly was the co-author of the latest economic melt down by his action to repeal the The Glass-Stegall Act . Granted you may feel that Bush 2 was the cause, but one needs the opportunity to develop the cause. And that was supplied by Mr. Clinton under the guise that the banking and investment industry were mature enough to govern themselves.


I don't think Clinton was entirely blameless, every administration has it's share of bad decisions that could potentially, later on could contribute to creating serious problems certainly.

However the biggest meltdown in US history happened under Bush 2's watch, he had 8 years solve problems, instead he decided to spend an infinite amount of billions on a war he lied to the American public about (and haliburton profited from insanely).

Blaming -that- on Clinton? Sorry.


----------



## SINC

jimbotelecom said:


> CBC News - Politics - MP's aide fired for leak sought lobbyist job
> 
> Scuzz-bucket CONS. Thanks for the accountability act HarpHair.
> 
> Let's boot them from office next year Canada.


As I have pointed out to you before, all recent polls make your wish, well, just that, a wish. The Conservatives will be re-elected. Sorry about that.

As fo your request to "boot them out Canada", you might want to make that on a forum where it is possible. This forum's total membership is less than one tenth of one percent of Canadians.

As for scuzz-buckets, I do recall something about a little event called Ad-Scam, or do you choose not to recall that little miscue on the part of your favourite crooks?


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> The Conservatives will be re-elected. Sorry about that.


.


SINC said:


> Absolutely wrong. You refer to opinion, not fact, and opinion can be very far from correct.


----------



## SINC

Ah yes, the guy who never gets it. Read any polls lately? How's Iggy doing, by the way?


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> Ah yes, the guy who never gets it. Read any polls lately? How Iggy doing, by the way?


I'm simply quoting you SINC.

What is it that I don't get again? Your opinion?


----------



## groovetube

ha ha.

or it could be read like:

nyah nyah nyah nyah nyaaaaah.

we're the kings of the castle so pffffffftthhhhhhh...

and,

it's ok the cons are lying sumbags because the liberals did something bad too.


So much for better government.


----------



## SINC

No, you don't get recent polls. Show me one that supports another government being elected.


----------



## groovetube

oh more "king of the castle" nonsense.

Allow me to stoop to that level... 

Dear leader couldn't get a majority to save his life.


----------



## SINC

Love your new avatar and slogan gt!


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> No, you don't get recent polls. Show me one that supports another government being elected.


Polls are merely opinion SINC and elections fact. Surely you get that don't you? I'd be disappointed if you didn't.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Love your new avatar and slogan gt!


yes it certainly puts things into perspective doesn't it.


----------



## SINC

Oh, I get that all right mj. Boy will you be pissed when the next one returns the current government and rejects Iggy what'shisname.


----------



## groovetube

Actually I'll be pissed after we waste untold millions to return what we all know, will be the same result.


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> Oh, I get that all right mj. Boy will you be pissed when the next one returns the current government and rejects Iggy what'shisname.


My goodness your posts are full of assumptions. Is that all you have to contribute?


----------



## SINC

I thought they were opinions? Make up your mind, please?


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> I thought they were opinions? Make up your mind, please?


One compliments the other. But as a writer you would probably know that.


----------



## groovetube

oh jimmy assumption is no way related to opinion.

I should know as a simpleton.


----------



## SINC

At least you know one thing.


----------



## mrjimmy

groovetube said:


> oh jimmy assumption is no way related to opinion.
> 
> I should know as a simpleton.


Well I know you're being sarcastic, but the other guy...?


----------



## Rps

groovetube said:


> I don't think Clinton was entirely blameless, every administration has it's share of bad decisions that could potentially, later on could contribute to creating serious problems certainly.
> 
> However the biggest meltdown in US history happened under Bush 2's watch, he had 8 years solve problems, instead he decided to spend an infinite amount of billions on a war he lied to the American public about (and haliburton profited from insanely).
> 
> Blaming -that- on Clinton? Sorry.


Groovetube, don't misinterpret my post. I certainly agree with you and many others that Bush 2 was possibly the worst president ever.... and you have to go a bit to bet out Harding. Under W's watch there couldn't be a more neglectful president. However, causative agents travel. Clinton lit the fuse and Bush neglected [ many likening him to Nero and Rome would be more appropriate ]. But Clinton was in the pocket of the bankers as was Bush.... I would never defend anything that Bush has done I can assure you.


----------



## jimbotelecom

SINC said:


> As I have pointed out to you before, all recent polls make your wish, well, just that, a wish. The Conservatives will be re-elected. Sorry about that.
> 
> As fo your request to "boot them out Canada", you might want to make that on a forum where it is possible. This forum's total membership is less than one tenth of one percent of Canadians.
> 
> As for scuzz-buckets, I do recall something about a little event called Ad-Scam, or do you choose not to recall that little miscue on the part of your favourite crooks?


You assume too much SINC. The polls show another minority situation. This time around there will be a realignment and quite possibly a coalition govt.

Furthermore, you assume I support the Liberals. I don't.

I'm looking forward to election day 2011 and the aftermath.


----------



## groovetube

generally they assume a lot simply because you take the current government to task for the BS they foist on Canadians. But they're fine with it, as long as it's a conservative government. See they're -still- shrieking about adscam. 

It's all they got at this point poor fellers.


witness the other genius when he got excited about deficits and debts exclaiming that trudeau was the one who created our debt.

They just simply believe conservatives just aren't capable of these things, key word... 'simply'...

^----


----------



## jimbotelecom

groovetube said:


> generally they assume a lot simply because you take the current government to task for the BS they foist on Canadians. But they're fine with it, as long as it's a conservative government. See they're -still- shrieking about adscam.
> 
> It's all they got at this point poor fellers.
> 
> 
> witness the other genius when he got excited about deficits and debts exclaiming that trudeau was the one who created our debt.
> 
> They just simply believe conservatives just aren't capable of these things, key word... 'simply'...
> 
> ^----


You're dead on GT. I love how they take the bait, hook, line, and sinker (no pun intended SINC).

We just keep posting problem after problem and they blame previous govts. and defend to the end their precious CONS.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> No, you don't get recent polls. Show me one that supports another government being elected.


Your opinion might mean something if you are implying what other single party could form government. 

A coalition of MP's from a number of parties could win government in a future election.

The poles I have looked at show greater support for Harper where it doesn't count. 

In Quebec, Harper is dead and the Cons have no hope of winning a major of MP's elected to the House of Commons without Quebec. 

Without Quebec MP's no national party can have a remote chance of winning a majority government status in Parliament.

So what are you talking about?


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> generally they assume a lot simply because you take the current government to task for the BS they foist on Canadians. But they're fine with it, as long as it's a conservative government. See they're -still- shrieking about adscam.
> 
> It's all they got at this point poor fellers.
> 
> 
> *witness the other genius when he got excited about deficits and debts exclaiming that trudeau was the one who created our debt.*
> 
> They just simply believe conservatives just aren't capable of these things, key word... 'simply'...
> 
> ^----


Why thank you gt.  I wish you would go back to your old avatar, this new one just doesn't suit you. Your user title is bang on though.


----------



## CubaMark

*Tasha Kheiriddin: Finance Committee springs its own (wiki)leak*



> In case you had never heard of Mr. Ullyatt, he is a former Conservative staffer who made headlines in late November – and lost his job – for leaking a draft report from the House of Commons Finance Committee to several lobbyists, via email. The report outlined where each party stood on various policies; making these divisions public would undermine the “united front” of the committee’s final report.
> ....
> What could prompt him to derail the Finance Committee? It is ironic that a government which claims it wants to listen to as many Canadians as possible when crafting the 2011 budget will now forego the input from hundreds of groups. These include the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Make Poverty History, and Imagine Canada. Many of the views expressed to the Finance Committee are far from conservative, and its final recommendations represent a compromise position. A compromise the government doesn’t want to hear? (National Post)


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> *Tasha Kheiriddin: Finance Committee springs its own (wiki)leak*


This is Harper's embarassment how? Cluthcing at straws on this one. This is the fault of one MPs stupid staffer who was fired by the MP as soon as she found out what he had done.


----------



## BigDL

......as will not see?


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> ......as will not see?


So one instance means it is endemic to all staffers??? BS. Of course this is the way the opposition are trying to spin it but it is pure non-sense used politically to create FUD.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Why thank you gt.  I wish you would go back to your old avatar, this new one just doesn't suit you. Your user title is bang on though.


it's just so easy to set traps around here it's silly.

Please DO go on... :clap:


----------



## mrjimmy

Tories, Liberals locked in statistical tie, poll suggests - thestar.com

Same as it ever was. The Harper Government doing nothing to swing the vote in his favour and absolutely nothing inspiring from the Liberals.

We are a country in desperate need of real leadership.


----------



## BigDL

The Harper Cons seem to get high on their message and then start show some of their true colours and shoot themselves in the foot so to speak.

Perhaps if the leaders (term used loosely here) would pull together for the citizens of the country instead of poll numbers everyone would be better off.


----------



## jimbotelecom

BigDL said:


> The Harper Cons seem to get high on their message and then start show some of their true colours and shoot themselves in the foot so to speak.
> 
> Perhaps if the leaders (term used loosely here) would pull together for the citizens of the country instead of poll numbers everyone would be better off.


Now that's wisdom!

thanks.


----------



## Ottawaman

I wonder if anyone here would be able to outline Harper's successes. If he was to step down tomorrow, what would be his legacy to Canada?


----------



## groovetube

The worst cover of the Seeker. Ever. :lmao:


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> The worst cover of the Seeker. Ever. :lmao:


I always wonder about people who laugh at their own jokes first....


----------



## screature

Ottawaman said:


> I wonder if anyone here would be able to outline Harper's successes. If he was to step down tomorrow, what would be his legacy to Canada?


Thus far... second longest reigning minority government in Canadian history and most prorogations in a single term.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> I always wonder about people who laugh at their own jokes first....


apparently if you forget to include smilies when you're joking people freak out.

Not everyone spots a joke. *cough*.


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> *Tasha Kheiriddin: Finance Committee springs its own (wiki)leak*


I will say this about that... 

After Kelly Block's testimony today, even though the Con Chair ruled the question from Thomas Mulcair out of order, if Kelly Block *knew *that Russell Ullyatt was* (in fact)* using Parliamentary resources to run even one of his company's then she should be expelled from Caucus.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> apparently if you forget to include smilies when you're joking people freak out.
> 
> Not everyone spots a joke. *cough*.


You know the saying: "he who laughs last, laughs best/longest".... what does this say about "he who laughs first", especially at their own joke...?


----------



## whatiwant

screature said:


> You know the saying: "he who laughs last, laughs best/longest".... what does this say about "he who laughs first", especially at their own joke...?


He who smelt it, dealt it. :yikes:


----------



## screature

jawknee said:


> He who smelt it, dealt it. :yikes:


KInda like that, me thinks.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> You know the saying: "he who laughs last, laughs best/longest".... what does this say about "he who laughs first", especially at their own joke...?


now I have a headache.


----------



## groovetube

Ottawaman said:


> I wonder if anyone here would be able to outline Harper's successes. If he was to step down tomorrow, what would be his legacy to Canada?


interesting that there isn't much of a response.

Perhaps it will be the worst cover of the seeker. Oh and hanging on in a minority longer than anyone.

yay Canada.


----------



## whatiwant

groovetube said:


> interesting that there isn't much of a response.
> 
> Perhaps it will be the worst cover of the seeker. Oh and hanging on in a minority longer than anyone.
> 
> yay Canada.


Well we know he can take a mean dump... I mean he misses out on international photo-ops as a result. I wonder if he plays tetris on his blackberry when he's in the can. Does his fw4.0.2 update allow for that?


----------



## groovetube

yeah I forgot about that. I guess that's about it eh.

in other news, Ignatieff set to trigger election call in New Year - The Globe and Mail

Let the sabre rattling begin. Can you imagine if Harper were to return yet another minority?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> yeah I forgot about that. I guess that's about it eh.
> 
> in other news, Ignatieff set to trigger election call in New Year - The Globe and Mail
> 
> Let the sabre rattling begin. Can you imagine if Harper were to return yet another minority?


I bet the Libs dump him after he loses again.


----------



## kps

and hopefully the riding he got parachuted into dumps him as well. Then he can go back to Cambridge U and be the funny Canadian again.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> I bet the Libs dump him after he loses again.


Man I hope so.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Ottawa kept in dark on abnormal fish found in oil-sands rivers - The Globe and Mail

Yup....gotta keep the ol' free marketers happy and let industry look regulate itself. After all, it's common sense that the industry would never harm consumers.

That aside, the consumption of fresh water fish has been strongly discouraged by Health Canada for well over a decade due to the presence of mercury and other toxins. Good to see that Prentice, before he got out of dodge, ordered a review. Now we'll see if Harphair does anything with the information.


----------



## groovetube

mrjimmy said:


> Man I hope so.


so do I.


----------



## Macfury

I will never be likely to vote for a Liberal party member, but during Chretien's reign I never felt that things were out of control either. It wasn't a panic. Under McGuinty in Ontario I am always worried that the guy is simply irrational and puts his own philosophical goals above the interest of the province. I would place Iggy in the McGuinty camp. Despite early assurances from Iggy himself, he's not harmless, and I hope he gets dumped soon.


----------



## Rps

Some of you have talked about what would be Harper's legacy. I think it was uniting the various conservative parties. You may not like that but he did get what many thought was an unworkable situation to work. I also think maintaing one of the longest minority governments is also noteworthy. But this may also be that the other parties themselves were unable to consolidate a defeating front.

Finally, I think what the government didn't do during the financial crisis is a legacy. Now I know there are many Harper haters out there, but even you can't dispute these items.


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Some of you have talked about what would be Harper's legacy. I think it was uniting the various conservative parties. You may not like that but he did get what many thought was an unworkable situation to work. * I also think maintaing one of the longest minority governments is also noteworthy.* But this may also be that the other parties themselves were unable to consolidate a defeating front.
> 
> Finally, I think what the government didn't do during the financial crisis is a legacy. Now I know there are many Harper haters out there, but even you can't dispute these items.


I think this is the most note worthy accomplishment as minority government's are historically extremely short lived. Yes he had a lame duck Liberal Party to contend with but given that the 4th opposition party being the media is consistently anti Harper and the government it is still an accomplishment.

Regarding other matters it is difficult to accomplish much of anything of real significance in a minority situation as there is the constant partisan politicking going on (always in election mode) and one can only do so much for fear going down in a non-confidence vote.

Leading a minority government is like walking a tight rope or on thin ice... it is hard make any bold moves without going down.


----------



## groovetube

I suppose you've never heard of Pearson.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> I suppose you've never heard of Pearson.


What is it that you liked about Pearson--and I assume you're speaking about the PM, not the airport?


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> I suppose you've never heard of Pearson.


Didn't he win a Juno award or something...?


----------



## groovetube

love the responses.

I'll have to ask again what can we say is some Harper accomplishments.


----------



## bryanc

groovetube said:


> some Harper accomplishments.


I think you've got to hand it to the guy; he's done a fabulous job of keeping the extremists and outright wacko nut jobs in his party muzzled. There have been very few slips, and he's done a great job of controlling the media when slips have occurred.

For a guy who campaigned on "transparency", Harper sure is turning out to be the "strong silent type."


----------



## hayesk

Macfury said:


> What is it that you liked about Pearson--and I assume you're speaking about the PM, not the airport?


Didn't Pearson start the UN Peacekeeping force? Pretty noble accomplishment in my opinion.


----------



## screature

hayesk said:


> Didn't Pearson start the UN Peacekeeping force? Pretty noble accomplishment in my opinion.


He played a role in the formation of the UN but he didn't do it alone. He won the Nobel Peace prize for his role in defusing the Suez Crisis through United Nations Emergency Force which was Pearson's creation, and he is considered the founder of the modern concept of peacekeeping. But this was prior to his becoming Prime Minister.


----------



## groovetube

health care and the pension plan come to mind.

I was a wee one at that point though, foggy memory.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> health care and the pension plan come to mind.
> 
> I was a wee one at that point though, foggy memory.


Well yes but they were done in conjunction with a very willing NDP, so getting such things done was a pretty easy go... not to diminish them, but just to point out the historical circumstances.


----------



## groovetube

this, is priceless.

So a liberal government in conjunction with ndp support can get things done.

Interesting.

oh and it isn't like the liberals have voted down Harper all the time, I recall a lot of hilarity over how the liberals were to afraid to cross them, and Harper was ruling as if he had a majority!!

How quickly, we backtrack.:clap:


----------



## i-rui

Rps said:


> Some of you have talked about what would be Harper's legacy. I think it was uniting the various conservative parties. You may not like that but he did get what many thought was an unworkable situation to work..


it may be a legacy, but it's a *negative* one. imagine the left did the same thing to form a unified liberal party? to water down the issues they believe in? it's bad for voters, it's bad for politics. you end up with a 2 party system like in the States that becomes only about rhetoric and offers no new solutions or options, and zero *real* debate about issues.



Rps said:


> Finally, I think what the government didn't do during the financial crisis is a legacy. Now I know there are many Harper haters out there, but even you can't dispute these items.


i don't understand exactly what you mean here. what didn't they do? there was still stimulus. please explain further.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> this, is priceless.
> 
> So a liberal government in conjunction with ndp support can get things done.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> oh and it isn't like the liberals have voted down Harper all the time, I recall a lot of hilarity over how the liberals were to afraid to cross them, and Harper was ruling as if he had a majority!!
> 
> How quickly, we backtrack.:clap:


You make too much out of what I am saying as usual... you can't see something just as a matter of fact. The Liberals and the NDP during Pearson's tenure were very much on the same page when it came to many policies... universal health care was Tommy Douglas' baby, not Pearson's. They actually worked together as opposed to in opposition to one another on many, many issues. 

If you can't see the historical and circumstantial differences between Pearson's minority government and Harper's beyond who was PM, then I can't help you because the differences are glaring for anyone to see who doesn't have partisan blinders on.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> it may be a legacy, but it's a *negative* one. imagine the left did the same thing to form a unified liberal party? to water down the issues they believe in? it's bad for voters, it's bad for politics. you end up with a 2 party system like in the States that becomes only about rhetoric and offers no new solutions or options, and zero *real* debate about issues.
> 
> 
> 
> i don't understand exactly what you mean here. what didn't they do? there was still stimulus. please explain further.


yup, now there's a head scratcher.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> You make too much out of what I am saying as usual... you can't see something just as a matter of fact. The Liberals and the NDP during Pearson's tenure were very much on the same page when it came to many policies... universal health care was Tommy Douglas' baby, not Pearson's.
> 
> *oh you mean how Harper and co. like to continually pontificate on how fiscally conservative they are and how it's their management that has(d) Canada in a balanced budget good financial position. *
> 
> They actually worked together as opposed to in opposition to one another on many, many issues.
> 
> If you can't see the historical and circumstantial differences between Pearson's minority government and Harper's beyond who was PM, then I can't help you because the differences are glaring for anyone to see who doesn't have partisan blinders on.


Oh you can bet I see the glaring differences between pearson's and Harper's minority.

Clear as day. :baby:

Now how about them Harper accomplishments.


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> Now how about them Harper accomplishments.


Oh, I dunno...

Keeping the liberals out of power for three years?


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> Oh you can bet I see the glaring differences between pearson's and Harper's minority.
> 
> Clear as day. :baby:
> 
> Now how about them Harper accomplishments.


Like I said before... your knew user ID really suits you. You wear it well.


----------



## groovetube

what still no Harper accomplishments. 

And yes my new user ID puts things into perspective doesn't it. :baby:


----------



## whatiwant

groovetube said:


> what still no Harper accomplishments.
> 
> And yes my new user ID puts things into perspective doesn't it. :baby:


what "knew" user ID? 
I can only see a new user avatar? :-(


----------



## SINC

jawknee said:


> what "knew" user ID?
> I can only see a new user avatar? :-(


This one:


----------



## whatiwant

SINC said:


> This one:


Ah ha.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> what still no Harper accomplishments.... :baby:


I know where your childish mind is headed... it wouldn't matter if he came up with a way so that people's s**t didn't stink you would come up with a negative spin on it. But since you are so insistent... here are a few:


(1) African Development Fund Replenished — Instituted in 1972, the Conservative government replenished the fund as promised at the G20 conference in Toronto in 2010 

(2) Age of Consent Legislation — Raised from 14 to 16 effective May 1, 2008 

(3) Agent Orange Compensation Package of $96 Million –$20,000 to all veterans and civilians who lived within 5 kilometers of CFB Gagetown in N.B.when Agent Orange was sprayed over a seven day period in 1966 and 1967 

(4) Air India Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry — PM Harper apologies to the friends and relatives of all those who died in that disaster 

(5) Apology to Native People — By the Government of Canada on June 11, 2008 for residential school abuses 

(6) Arctic Research Station Announced – The feasibility study started in 2007 was completed in August 2010 with the announcement that it will be built over the next five years in Cambridge Bay, Nanavut 

(7) Auto Theft and Property Crime Bill — Legislation passed that would crack down on auto theft and trafficking in property that is obtained by crime 

(8) Canada Employment Credit — Of $1000.00 

(9) Child Tax Credit — $2000 for every child under eighteen (Link to all the family tax credits)

(10) China Signs New Initiatives– PM Harper and President Hu Jintao signed a new initiative that built on December 09 Joint Statement — such as re-opening the Chinese market to Canadian beef products 

(11) Chinese Head Tax Apology– By the government on June 22, 2006 

(12) Chinese Immigrant Provision — Of $20,000 to every individual and/or surviving spouses who paid the head tax plus $24 million towards an “historical recognition program”

(13) Columbia Free Trade Agreement — Signed at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation meeting in Lima, November 21, 2008 

(14) Consumer Product Safety Legislation — To strengthen Canada’s product safety laws and better protect Canadian consumers and their families. 

(15) Criminal Code Amended (Bill C-14 ) — Measures against organized crime, with 25 years for murder without eligibility for parole — passed on June 23rd, 2009, coming into effect October 2, 2009 

(16) Disability Savings Plan — Part of the 2007 budget, it was fully implemented in December, 2008 

(17) Doer, Gary, former NDP Manitoba Premier, appointed — The Ambassador to the United States on August 28, 2009 (Link) — an accomplishment because it is a concrete example how the Conservative government can be bi-partisan

(18) Economic Action Plan, Phase One — First phase of the 12,000 “stimulus” projects approved across the country, with 8,000 already started 

(19) Economic Action Plan, Phase Two — Second phase based on measures outlined in the 2010 federal budget. 

(20) Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario – Officially launched on August 13th, 2009 in Kitchener- Waterloo, Canada’s fifth such regional organization 

(21) European Free Trade Association – Canada Agreement — Signed on July 2, 2009 — between Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland 

(22) Food Labelling Initiative — to clarify and modernize labelling on food products, including “Product of Canada” and “Made in Canada” claims

(23) Gender Equity in Indian Registration — Legislation that addresses a court ruling on gender discrimination in the Indian Act 

(24) GIS — Guaranteed Income Supplement Improvements — For seniors, changed to allow for higher earned income – 

(25) Governor General– David Johnson was just named as the next GG. He is a lawyer and academic and was chosen following a length and by-partisan advisory process, thus making it a gov’t accomplishment 

(26) GST — Goods & Services Tax Cut — From 7% to 6% and then to 5% 

(27) Haitian Earthquake Response — 

(28) Haiti’s Debt to Canada Cancelled — On June 25, 2010, at the G8 meeting in Huntsville, PM Harper announced that Haiti’s debt to Canada was eliminated 

(29) Harper Government the longest serving minority — since Lester Pearson 

(30) Hep C compensation Redressed – For latest court rulings that clear the way for national $1 billion package (Link), as well as how to apply for compensation 

(31) Identity Theft Legislation– (Bill S-4) — Received Royal Assent on October 27, 2009 — for obtaining and possessing identity information, trafficking in that information or unlawfully possessing or trafficking in gov’t documents 

(32) Income Splitting for Canadian Seniors — A change to the Income Tax Act for pensioners 

(33) India-Canada Nuclear Co-Operation Agreement– PM Harper and Indian PM Manmohan Singh sign a memoranda of understanding that lays foundation for future bilateral trade negotiations 

(34) Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement — Signed 

(35) Internet Spam Protection — Signed December 15, 2010 to protect consumers and business from the most harmful and misleading forms of online threats 

(36) Jordan Free Trade Agreement — Signed by Canadian and Jordanian government officials and reported on June 28, 2009 

(37) Kid’s sport tax credit — up to $500 per child 

(38) Kuwait Foreign Investment Promotion & Protection Agreement (FIPA) — Completed in April 2009 

(39) Land Claim Agreements — Five-point plan for Aboriginal Canadians (Link) — to compare the years the Conservatives have been in power to previous years (Link) — 256 claims since the gov’t came into power, with 623 remaining 

(40) Lobbying Act — Passed July 2, 2008 

(41) Manley Report — Approved (Report) 

(42) Marquee Tourism Events Program — Part of the 2009 Harper government budget, it is intended to provide timely economic stimulus now and in the next 24 months. (See also the example of the Shaw Festival Theatre in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, which received $2.1 million dollars)

(43) Mental Health Commission of Canada — Established and incorporated as a non-profit corporation in March of 2007 (

(44) Military Equipment Purchases – As we discovered at the time of the Haiti earthquake, the Conservative government has purchased four C-17 Globemaster Heavy Lifting Aircraft, 17 C-130 Hercules, new battle tanks and German patrol cars, as well as several thousand trucks 

(45) Northern Regional Development Economic Agency — Announced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Tuesday, August 18th, 2009 in Iqaluit, Nunavut 

(46) Nunavik Inuit Land Claims — Agreement 

(47) Old Age Security legislation — To eliminate the payment of Old Age Security benefits from prisoners.

(48) Ombudsman for Victims of Crime — Established 

(49) Panama-Canada Free Trade Agreement — Signed in Panama on Tuesday, August 11th, 2009 (but still to be ratified by Parliament) (Link) Ratified on May 15, 2010 

(50) Peru – Canada Free Trade Agreement — Adopted by Parliament June 18, 2009 

(51) Poland — Youth Mobility Agreement — Signed on July 14, 2008 that allows youth from either country to work and travel for up to one year 

(52) Protecting Victims from Sexual Offenders – Signed on December 15, 2010 to protect children against sexual predators

(53) Public transit tax credits

(54) Quebecois as a nation — A motion to confirm Quebec within a united Canada (Link)

(55) Savings Account that is tax free 

(56) Self-employ Fairness Act — (Bill C-56) — Provides special benefits to the self employed on a volunteer basis 

(57) Seniors Day — A law in the fall of 2010 that recognizes the contributions seniors make to their families, communities and workplaces 

(58) Softwood Lumber Agreement (Bill C-24) 

(59) Street racing crack down 

(60) Students exempted from taxation for scholarships, bursaries and fellowships 

(61) Tackling Violent Crime Act

(62) Taxpayers Bill of Rights 

(63) Taxpayers Ombudsman

(64) Tax Treaties with Columbia, Greece and Turkey — A law was finalized to recognize these tax treaties on December 15, 2010 

(65) TFSA

(66) Truth in Sentencing Act — Bill C25 received Royal Assent on October 23, 2009 — ending the two for one credit for time served in pre-trial custody 

(67) Ukraine-Canada Youth Agreement — Signed that would allow youth in both countries to experience freer movement 

(68) Ukrainian & Eastern European immigrants — $10 million to educate Canadians about the internment in Canadian work camps during WWI 

(69) UN Global Fund contribution for mothers, newborns and young children — $540 million pledged by PM Harper at the UN on September 21st, 2010 – when added to the $1.5 billion already promised at the G8 summit in Muskoka and G20 in Toronto, it is the largest contribution ever made by Canada to an international health institution 

(70) Universal Child Care Benefit — $1,200.00 per year for every child under age six


----------



## groovetube

oh come on.

That list reads like a -well if you didn't fall off the sidewalk it was a fantastic day!!!- kinda thing. Should there be a list of my day starting with how much milk I put in my cereal? Is it really THAT pathetic?

Now. Let's hear of a real, accomplishment, one that doesn't involve regular governmental stuff.


----------



## groovetube

jawknee said:


> Ah ha.


they're crappin themselves over it and they don't even get it.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> they're crappin themselves over it and they don't even get it.


Oh we get it plenty... you simply don't understand that we fully understand the real meaning of the word simpleton despite your feeble attempt at irony... you can think you are being clever all you want but when you laugh at your own "jokes" first... the joke is actually one you... or do you not understand that or choose to pretend not too....? Because you are too/so simple? 

You really do think the rest of us are fools and you are sooo intelligent don't you.....

We really don't care how highly you think of yourself... except for the fact that we have to endure/suffer your posts. 

Why don't you go spend more time listening to your hero Howard Stern.... I am sure you could learn a few more lessons....


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> oh come on.
> 
> That list reads like a -well if you didn't fall off the sidewalk it was a fantastic day!!!- kinda thing. Should there be a list of my day starting with how much milk I put in my cereal? Is it really THAT pathetic?
> 
> Now. Let's hear of a real, accomplishment, one that doesn't involve regular governmental stuff.


....aaaannnnndd scene....


----------



## groovetube

Any halfwit can find a list of items done by any government. One could even find such a list for the incredibly idiotic McGuinty!

You've done nothing but dance around the question without answering it. So yes your little depiction, after your dance, is well chosen!

So there we have it. No one has stepped to the plate to provide any real accomplishment that this prime minister can be remembered for.

Nothing.


----------



## mrjimmy

screature said:


> here are a few:


Only a true nonpartisan such as yourself would take the time to prepare such a list.


----------



## Lawrence

> 16) Disability Savings Plan — Part of the 2007 budget, it was fully implemented in December, 2008


Which means that before that time the disabled were only allowed to save a limited amount.
How much do you think they could have saved for their retirement had that not been in place to begin with?

I think that the conservative government should be held accountable for lost savings.

The bastards.

Which brings us back to pensions,
A heated debate in Parliament these days


----------



## screature

mrjimmy said:


> Only a true nonpartisan such as yourself would take the time to prepare such a list.


I didn't .... It is easy to find.. Google is your friend...

I didn't reference it because it isn't necessary and quite beside the point I was making...

It took me probably 10 seconds to come up with this list and I had nothing to do with it aside from using Google.... oh and adding the TFSA which was missed in the list...

The point is... it depends on your affiliation, mindset, Weltanschauung ... whatever you want to call it, that will determine what you see as an accomplishment or failure/embarrassment. Pointing to what you see in others as failures or accomplishments therefore only belies you own proclivities unless you are willing to step outside the box that is your own reality and look at it from an opposing perspective. That is why a position of being on the fence or being ambivalent or going against a certain grain, isn't the failing that so many people who are partisan by nature want to portray it, it really, really, really, really isn't that simple... and those who think it is are quite simply.... simpletons.


----------



## groovetube

yes yes yes all that blather is quite funny.

But the truth is, no one asked whether this government was -doing anything-, hell we KNOW that... what was asked was what Mr. Harper did of note, a real accomplishment.

I guess this question -was- a wee bit simple wasn't it...


----------



## Lawrence

That's the thing about the con's, It's very easy to find things that they have done, Or not done,
Just don't drink the water when you are offered a glass.

Whether that be Walkerton water or the Ottawa river water.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> yes yes yes all that blather is quite funny.
> 
> But the truth is, no one asked whether this government was -doing anything-, hell we KNOW that... what was asked was what Mr. Harper did of note, a real accomplishment.
> 
> I guess this question -was- a wee bit simple wasn't it...


See post #777


----------



## Lawrence

screature said:


> See post #777


Lol...Harper bowing to the Super Prison.


----------



## screature

dolawren said:


> That's the thing about the con's, It's very easy to find things that they have done, Or not done,
> Just don't drink the water when you are offered a glass.
> 
> Whether that be Walkerton water or the Ottawa river water.


I didn't now that Provincial and National parties under the same name were actually the same... if you look at the news recently or historically you will significant differences...


----------



## screature

dolawren said:


> Lol...Harper bowing to the Super Prison.


  That's supposed to be funny...?


----------



## Lawrence

screature said:


> I didn't now that Provincial and National parties under the same name were actually the same... if you look at he news recently or historically you will significant differences...


Triplets...Triplets...Look them up.


----------



## Lawrence

screature said:


> That's supposed to be funny...?


I didn't make Harper "bend over" to a Super Prison idea,
Must have been something the U.S. said.


----------



## screature

dolawren said:


> I didn't make Harper "bend over" to a Super Prison idea,
> Must have been something the U.S. said.


Had any taffy recently....

Ok so you want to deflect from what my post was about and take it in irrelevant direction... go right ahead.... I certainly can't stop you can I......


----------



## Lawrence

screature said:


> Had any taffy recently....
> 
> Ok so you want to deflect from what my post was about and take it in irrelevant direction... go right ahead.... I certainly can't stop you can I......


Or perhaps in a relevant direction,
This thread is about the embarrassments of Harper isn't it?

I'd have thought his concepts of Privatizing Prisons and Union busting would have made the top of the list,
Fold in some bad and or radioactive drinking water and mix in some triplets.

Seems to be about as embarrassing as I can make this thread. (I'm sure there will be more)

Let's not forget the Clement Gravy boat, Since we are here to laugh, Let's have a laugh.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## screature

dolawren said:


> Or perhaps in a relevant direction,
> This thread is about the embarrassments of Harper isn't it?
> 
> I'd have thought his concepts of Privatizing Prisons and Union busting would have made the top of the list,
> Fold in some bad and or radioactive drinking water and mix in some triplets.
> 
> Seems to be about as embarrassing as I can make this thread. (I'm sure there will be more)
> 
> Let's not forget the Clement Gravy boat, Since we are here to laugh, Let's have a laugh.


Nice springboard use my post to take the discussion any way you want.... deflection is a great defence tactic ... 

As Woody Allen once said in an interview, and a statement that I honestly hold to be very true... When asked what he believes in by the interviewer Woody Allen responded:


> I believe in the power of distraction.


----------



## Lawrence

screature said:


> Nice springboard use my post to take the discussion any way you want.... deflection is a great defence tactic ...


Defense for what?

Interesting choice of a response.

Either you said that to dead head the thread,
Or you can't defend the Con's because I'm right.


----------



## groovetube

oh now he whines about deflection after he can't address a simple, simple question without vomiting some irrelevant data he copied and pasted.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> oh now he whines about deflection after he can't address a simple, simple question without vomiting some irrelevant data he copied and pasted.


I thought you might be able to appreciate such simplicity, since you have no regard for actual individual thought and analysis based on lived experience...

Oh, gt... please tell me how I can please you.... I implore you... all I want to do is make you happy... :-(


----------



## groovetube

dude, just answer the question asked.

DOn't get all creepy on us now.


----------



## Lawrence

That's the problem with politics, Actions speak louder than words,
Sometimes those actions would have been better left as words than actions.

Better had the actions been voted down, Than be allowed to take place and become reality.

It's a shame really, A big embarrassing shame.


----------



## screature

dolawren said:


> That's the problem with politics, Actions speak louder than words,
> Sometimes those actions would have been better left as words than actions.
> 
> Better had the actions been voted down, Than be allowed to take place and become reality.
> 
> It's a shame really, A big embarrassing shame.


It all depends on your point of view doesn't it............


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> dude, just answer the question asked.
> 
> DOn't get all creepy on us now.


The only question that you asked was answered.. you just didn't like the answer.... as was anticipated back at post #773....


----------



## groovetube

no, you didn't answer it. Just like a lot of other conservatives, if they can't answer the question, they feed some nonsense that doesn't address it at all and go in circles.

If the answer is, Harper has not done anything of real note at this point, then just say it. Staying in power in a minority for the length he has, is a little lame. Or if he has, let's hear it.

Man, imagine a mouthy simpleton, explaining such incredibly inane concepts eh? :lmao:


----------



## Lawrence

screature said:


> It all depends on your point of view doesn't it............


I thought it all depends on who you vote for,
But then, How many people actually look at a resumé before they vote nowadays anyways.

Makes you wonder with all their failings...(The Con's)
How on earth they got the amount of seats that they have in the house.

If I had that many failures in my resumé, You can bet I wouldn't get hired.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> no, you didn't answer it. Just like a lot of other conservatives, if they can't answer the question, they feed some nonsense that doesn't address it at all and go in circles.
> 
> If the answer is, Harper has not done anything of real note at this point, then just say it. Staying in power in a minority for the length he has, is a little lame. Or if he has, let's hear it.
> 
> Man, imagine a mouthy simpleton, explaining such incredibly inane concepts eh? :lmao:


There you go laughing at your own "jokes" first... some people never learn....

I will give you this gt... like Howard Stern, even if you make no sense you're entertaining...


----------



## SINC

dolawren said:


> I thought it all depends on who you vote for,
> But then, How many people actually look at a resumé before they vote nowadays anyways.
> 
> Makes you wonder with all their failings...(The Con's)
> How on earth they got the amount of seats that they have in the house.
> 
> If I had that many failures in my resumé, You can bet I wouldn't get hired.


I'vd NEVER looked at a resumé before voting EVER. Of course that would be because a resumé has nothing to do with voting practice nor procedure. 

That said, the Conservatives have the number of seats they have due to support from voters. That's basic logic that needs little explanation. Check election results for confirmation. 

And if there was an election tomorrow, they would very likely wind up as the ruling party again.

Such is life.


----------



## groovetube

Well I'll simply take the answer to be, nothing. No real accomplishments.

That's kinda what I thought, but this drama display confirmed it.


----------



## Lawrence

SINC said:


> I'vd NEVER looked at a resumé before voting EVER. Of course that would be because a resumé has nothing to do with voting practice nor procedure.
> 
> That said, the Conservatives have the number of seats they have due to support from voters. That's basic logic that needs little explanation. Check election results for confirmation.
> 
> And if there was an election tomorrow, they would very likely wind up as the ruling party again.
> 
> Such is life.


Well. Perhaps, But I doubt it would be a "Blue" Ontario, More likely it'd be "Red"
Even with the latest Clement dabbling in industry, Which will probably be outsourced to China anyways.


----------



## mrjimmy

screature said:


> I didn't .... It is easy to find.. Google is your friend...
> 
> I didn't reference it because it isn't necessary and quite beside the point I was making...
> 
> It took me probably 10 seconds to come up with this list and I had nothing to do with it aside from using Google.... oh and adding the TFSA which was missed in the list...
> 
> The point is... it depends on your affiliation, mindset, Weltanschauung ... whatever you want to call it, that will determine what you see as an accomplishment or failure/embarrassment. Pointing to what you see in others as failures or accomplishments therefore only belies you own proclivities unless you are willing to step outside the box that is your own reality and look at it from an opposing perspective. That is why a position of being on the fence or being ambivalent or going against a certain grain, isn't the failing that so many people who are partisan by nature want to portray it, it really, really, really, really isn't that simple... and those who think it is are quite simply.... simpletons.


Methinks you doth protest too much. It's ok to be partisan. Embrace it and argue from a truthful position.


----------



## groovetube

one has to be careful throwin around the term 'simpleton'.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> As I have pointed out to you before, all recent polls make your wish, well, just that, a wish. The Conservatives will be re-elected. Sorry about that.
> 
> As fo your request to "boot them out Canada", you might want to make that on a forum where it is possible. This forum's total membership is less than one tenth of one percent of Canadians.
> 
> As for scuzz-buckets, I do recall something about a little event called Ad-Scam, or do you choose not to recall that little miscue on the part of your favourite crooks?





CBCNews said:


> "I'm not going to cause an election," Harper told CTV News in a year-end interview. "I'm not going to call an election and we're not bringing forward some kind of poison pill to provoke an election. We are committed to governing. We don't need an election.
> 
> Read more: CBC News - Politics - No time to 'screw around' with an election: PM


Apparently Harper doesn't share your enthusiasm


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> Apparently Harper doesn't share your enthusiasm


I said nothing about when an election would be held, nor did I show 'enthusiasm' for an election. I only stated the Harper government would be re-elected whenever the next election is held.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> No, you don't get recent polls. Show me one that supports another government being elected.


this looks rather excited.

Since the polls show pretty much a dead heat, things -could- go either way. If you based your opinion strictly on, polls.


----------



## screature

Until the writ is dropped polls don't really mean much, only offering a glimpse of what *may be* the out come of an election. Pre-writ polls are kind of like the "regular" season in sports once the writ is dropped it is the play offs and a whole new season starts. Is is only then that polls actually start to be become truly meaningful... it has played out this way time and again.


----------



## screature

mrjimmy said:


> Methinks you doth protest too much. It's ok to be partisan. Embrace it and argue from a truthful position.


Being partisan often limits ones ability to see the "truth". For many people "partisan" simply translates to blind faith. Personally I am not a fan of the party system (especially a whipped party system) as I believe it often serves as a disservice to democracy.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> Being partisan often limits ones ability to see the "truth". For many people "partisan" simply translates to blind faith. Personally I am not a fan of the party system (especially a whipped party system) as I believe it often serves as a disservice to democracy.


I do agree here. I generally go by the rule that if any politicians lips are moving the odds are that he is lying. What I find sad is this viewpoint is so often proven correct.

Harpo: Claiming we are staying in Afghanistan to better train the locals to train themselves. 'Cmon most armies train combat train troops in well under the 8 months we are still commited to remaining there. Besides we've had 8 years over there and have gotten nowhere. We are staying because those that are making monster bucks promoting/financing this war want us there and they put pressure on Washington to pressure Harpo to remain. 

Ignats: Pretty take your pick.

Bush/Cheney: Try to find one occasion that wasn't.

BO: Started with the bankster heist and went downhill after he was elected. Even Gitmo which should have been easy still hangs over his head.


----------



## CubaMark

*PM names 2 senators to hit tipping point*



> Prime Minister Stephen Harper has gained through appointments to the Senate what he’s been unable to win by elections to the House of Commons: a majority.





> Harper, who once vowed never to appoint unelected senators, has now named 38 of them.


(Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


----------



## i-rui

> Harper, who once vowed never to appoint unelected senators, has now named 38 of them.


Wow. As if anyone needed more examples of Harper's absolute hypocrisy, there's 38 of them.


----------



## groovetube

it's so'kay cause the liberals did it.

Or, the liberals -made- them do it. Something to that effect coming.


----------



## Macfury

Harper has pushed for an elected Senate for some time. Unfortunately he doesn't have the votes to pull that off. In the meantime, it's his duty as PM to continue to appoint them.


----------



## whatiwant

Macfury said:


> Harper has pushed for an elected Senate for some time. Unfortunately he doesn't have the votes to pull that off. In the meantime, it's his duty as PM to continue to appoint them.


Aaaaaaaaaand rationalized. Well done old fella!


----------



## Max

And the snide young pup weighs in, thereby making himself a smaller man in the process... congrats on the new hole in the foot, laddie!


----------



## whatiwant

max said:


> and the snide young pup weighs in, thereby making himself a smaller man in the process... Congrats on the new hole in the foot, laddie!


:d


----------



## SINC

Max said:


> And the snide young pup weighs in, thereby making himself a smaller man in the process... congrats on the new hole in the foot, laddie!


:clap: True dat.


----------



## whatiwant

SINC said:


> :clap: True dat.


What? I'm not allowed to take the **** out of the **** taker without getting called on it? Cmon guys lighten up a bit.


----------



## Max

Well, y'see, it's that mean ageism thing you slipped in there. So I threw a bit of it back on you and lo and behold, you take umbrage!


----------



## whatiwant

Max said:


> Well, y'see, it's that mean ageism thing you slipped in there. So I threw a bit of it back on you and lo and behold, you take umbrage!


Actually i was referring to your cheering squad.


----------



## Max

But what's the diff? I mean, you did what you did. You could have made a nice zinger but you had to turn the screw, yes?


----------



## whatiwant

Max said:


> But what's the diff? I mean, you did what you did. You could have made a nice zinger but you had to turn the screw, yes?


I guess I figured I was old too and what's an "old fella" between old fellas? How old are you guys anyway?!?!


----------



## SINC

jawknee said:


> i guess i figured i was old too and what's an "old fella" between old fellas? How old are you guys anyway?!?!


66.


----------



## whatiwant

SINC said:


> 66.


Nice!
Ok. Apologies to you guys. Insensitive sideways comment.


----------



## SINC

Thanks, but, no offense taken.


----------



## groovetube

easy now fellers.


----------



## Max

Easy here.

Jawnee, I'm 50. I don't know how old MF is but I'm guessing he's in that zone; we seem to have many of the same cultural signifiers going on.


----------



## groovetube

man. 50 is -old-.


----------



## bryanc

"The best years are the forties; after fifty a man begins to deteriorate, but in the forties he is at the maximum of his villainy." - H.L. Mencken


----------



## groovetube

well that explains all that is groovetube then.


----------



## screature

"You're only as old as the woman you feel."

-Groucho Marx-


----------



## SINC

Do not resent growing old. Many are denied the privilege.


----------



## bryanc

"Age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill."


----------



## BigDL

Lotta smart young folks dead, in theys graves and lotta old fools still walkn' a round.

Mudbone aka Richard Pryor


----------



## Dr.G.

"Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." Mark Twain


----------



## eMacMan

*Trying too hard*

Lord I hate to defend any politician especially Jason Kenney however:



> The funding cuts – which total nearly $53-million nationally – also affect newcomer groups in British Columbia and Nova Scotia.
> 
> The Liberals and immigrant organizations say the government is forcing agencies that help the most vulnerable newcomers to close their doors or adapt to cuts of more than 50 per cent in some cases.
> 
> Entire article here:
> Ontario hit hard by federal cuts to immigrant settlement centres - The Globe and Mail


While the article does prominently mention 15% cuts to Ontario funds, digging deeper reveals that the Harpo con's contribution had nearly quadrupled in the short time they have been around. Also that the fund under the Lieberals had been frozen for thirteen years.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Do not resent growing old. Many are denied the privilege.


Well. I have to say here... Well said.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Well. I have to say here... Well said.


Merry Christmas to you gt. And many more!


----------



## Lawrence

Dr.G. said:


> "Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." Mark Twain


Or...

"Growing older is mind over matter,
If you don't mind it doesn't matter"

~ Jack Palomaki (sp)

(I'm unsure if the surname is spelled correctly, He was a childhood friend that made up
the above saying in the 70's, He was so proud of it that he got it printed onto business cards)


----------



## groovetube

well, so much for keepin an eye on things. Tory-created watchdogs appear unable to uncover wrongdoing - The Globe and Mail

appears we've been had. Again.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> well, so much for keepin an eye on things. Tory-created watchdogs appear unable to uncover wrongdoing - The Globe and Mail
> 
> appears we've been had. Again.


Ever considered there IS no wrongdoing they have found to report?


----------



## groovetube

Did you read the article?

If you did I don't know that one could honestly ask that question.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Did you read the article?
> 
> If you did I don't know that one could honestly ask that question.


Of course I did, that's WHY I asked the question. Did YOU read it?



> Karen Shepherd, who was hired to ensure that politicians are not being unduly influenced by their well-connected friends, has never found anyone guilty of breaking the rules in the year and a half that she has been Commissioner of Lobbying.
> 
> And, in more than three years as Ethics Commissioner, Mary Dawson has discovered just one person, a Liberal MP, to have violated the Conflict of Interest Code.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Of course I did, that's WHY I asked the question. Did YOU read it?


That's a pretty funny article for someone to highlight as an "embarrassment." Like asking a town cop why he hasn't arrested more murderers when nobody has been killed.


----------



## Max

I suggest that, come the new year, we take this thread to the back 40 and shoot it.


----------



## groovetube

naw Max, I'm rather enjoying watching the conservatives dance around defending the disaster of transparency and accountability. After listening to the howls of adscam, the shrieks of the criminal liberals (which continues to this day), no it's satisfying to watch the 'mums the word' routine.

And Sinc, I think the article was referring to the fact that barely any of the complaints have even been investigated at all. In light of the recent events, we have to question whether any of the proudly paraded controls to ensure no wrongdoing occurs even accomplish anything.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> I suggest that, come the new year, we take this thread to the back 40 and shoot it.


I envision a whole series of equally stupid and flaccid thread ideas: "Embarrassments for Obama," "Embarrassments for Iggy," "Embarrassments for the Greens" and then we can all take a simple, groovetube-like delight in watching the nice peoples dance.


----------



## Rps

Here I go stepping on the land mine. I've worked in audit and risk management for a decade or more .... the structure of our government, while not as open to influences like the U.S. is still prone to lobby influence. I would be greatly suspicious of any report which states there has been no wrong doing ...... it is just unnatural in that structure. I'm not Harper or Conservative bashing here, I would be suspicious even if the Liberals were in power.


----------



## groovetube

Rps said:


> Here I go stepping on the land mine. I've worked in audit and risk management for a decade or more .... the structure of our government, while not as open to influences like the U.S. is still prone to lobby influence. I would be greatly suspicious of any report which states there has been no wrong doing ...... it is just unnatural in that structure. I'm not Harper or Conservative bashing here, I would be suspicious even if the Liberals were in power.


me too, and I'm sure, the entire peanut gallery of cons here would be tap dancing on this news if it were the liberals in power.

And MF go to it! You go girl! Harper being the current sitting prime minister, makes for a more current thread, but whatever floats yer boat.


----------



## groovetube

Tax man to hit Canadian workers harder in 2011 - The Globe and Mail

in other news, corporations will be getting a tax *cut*. 

Looks like "Dougie's" been had once again.


----------



## screature

Happy New Year groovetube!!!!


----------



## MacDoc

Well NOW Harper is involved with Muloonie



> *Harper mum on revoking Mulroney deal*
> GREG MCARTHUR
> From Monday's Globe and Mail
> Published Sunday, Jan. 02, 2011 9:38PM EST
> Last updated Sunday, Jan. 02, 2011 9:45PM EST
> 
> The federal Justice Department took a keen interest in the Oliphant inquiry's stinging assessment of Brian Mulroney's sworn testimony when he sued the federal government in the mid-1990s, documents released under the Access to Information Act show.
> 
> When copies of Mr. Justice Jeffrey Oliphant's report started circulating through the department in May, a justice official analyzed the judge's findings about Mr. Mulroney's 1996 examination-for-discovery – when the former prime minister testified that he shared the occasional cup of coffee with lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber, but didn't mention the envelopes of cash he took from the German-born businessman.
> 
> MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY
> Mulroney's actions 'inappropriate,' Oliphant says
> Brian Mulroney must address the Oliphant in the room
> Mulroney pressured to pay back $2-million defamation settlement
> The official scribbled impressions, written in French, in the margins of the report:
> 
> “Should have declared the money he received from Mr. Schreiber and his relationship with Mr. Schreiber during the... examination in 1996,” one such note states.
> 
> “Was hiding,” another note states.
> 
> *But more than six months since Judge Oliphant declared that the former prime minister “failed to disclose appropriately the facts,” the Conservative government remains steadfastly silent about what it intends to do about the $2.1-million given to Mr. Mulroney for his legal fees and public relations expenses.*


more 
Harper mum on revoking Mulroney deal - The Globe and Mail

Mr Law and order and transparent gov....yeah right...


----------



## jimbotelecom

Yep not dealing with Lyin' Brian is a big one for me. The man should pay back the $2 Mill with interest and then issue a public apology for being a CON artist.


----------



## mrjimmy

jimbotelecom said:


> Yep not dealing with Lyin' Brian is a big one for me. The man should pay back the $2 Mill with interest and then issue a public apology for being a CON artist.


Love to see how they handle it if the pressure ramps up.

Politicians don't like politicians caught in the act dontcha know.


----------



## Dr.G.

jimbotelecom said:


> Yep not dealing with Lyin' Brian is a big one for me. The man should pay back the $2 Mill with interest and then issue a public apology for being a CON artist.


When that happens, I shall be flapping my arms and flying all over St.John's. Sadly, not likely, even though it is the correct thing to do. Such is Life. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature

MacDoc said:


> *Well NOW Harper is involved with Muloonie*
> 
> 
> more
> Harper mum on revoking Mulroney deal - The Globe and Mail
> 
> Mr Law and order and transparent gov....yeah right...


Not really...



> Though Judge Oliphant was highly critical of Mr. Mulroney's 1996 sworn testimony, calling the former prime minister's excuses for not revealing the cash payments “patently absurd,” he made no recommendation about whether the government should seek to set aside the settlement. The settlement was not part of the inquiry's terms of reference.


It will be up to Minister Nicholson to decide whether or not any action for reclamation of the settlement funds will be sought. Of course Harper will be involved in that decision but it isn't directly his responsibility. Certainly if he ordered Nicholson to do it or not to do it and Nicholson defied Harper either way a Cabinet shuffle would follow in short order.



> In February of 2006, shortly after CBC’s the fifth estate broadcast an interview with Mr. Schreiber where the German lobbyist detailed how he handed cash in envelopes to the former prime minister, Brian Saunders, then an assistant deputy minister, drafted a memorandum about how the government might recover the funds. Mr. Saunders, who is now Canada’s director of public prosecutions, noted that a settlement is like any contract, and can be set aside if “one party to the contract committed fraud on the other so as [to] vitiate the consent to contract of the latter party.”


I think it will probably come down to how much public demand for repayment is brought to bear on the government as to whether or not Minister Nicholson initiates legal action for the funds to be returned. They won't do it without considerable pressure for the reasons mrj already mentioned. If the matter can fade into obscurity they will certainly let it happen.


----------



## groovetube

not really?

Absolute nonsense. Nicholson is a member of Harper's cabinet, and to suggest Harper has no involvement clearly shows serious partisanship and excuses imo.

Yes indeed we will see. And if Harper does make Mulroney pay it back, I'll say good on him.

In other news:
Rich earn 155 times more than average worker - The Globe and Mail

And this is why taxes are going up on the average worker, and we need to give a big corporate tax cut.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> not really?
> 
> Absolute nonsense. Nicholson is a member of Harper's cabinet, and to suggest Harper has no involvement clearly shows serious partisanship and excuses imo.
> 
> Yes indeed we will see. And if Harper does make Mulroney pay it back, I'll say good on him.
> 
> In other news:
> Rich earn 155 times more than average worker - The Globe and Mail
> 
> And this is why taxes are going up on the average worker, and we need to give a big corporate tax cut.


Did you actually *read* my post...  Typical.



> It will be up to Minister Nicholson to decide whether or not any action for reclamation of the settlement funds will be sought. *Of course Harper will be involved in that decision but it isn't directly his responsibility. Certainly if he ordered Nicholson to do it or not to do it and Nicholson defied Harper either way a Cabinet shuffle would follow in short order.*


Man you are a frustrating person to deal with at times.... open your friggin' eyes!


----------



## Rps

This will be interesting. Right now the Harper Government is building a War Chest for an election. I'd be thinking May would be a good time. I bet this issue doesn't go away and would very likely be a mid to late term volley by the Libs and NDP. What will be really funny in this is that the Bloc will come across as "ethical" and that will split the conservative vote in Quebec [ who are developing their own "Tea Party" movement ] so then, how can the Harper Government testify to the Canadian people that they are governing in the best interests if they don't whack Lyin' Brian with anything. What will be really interesting is the budget......the Bloc can't possibly vote against the upcoming budget...... that will be the launch point for the election I think.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Did you actually *read* my post...  Typical.
> 
> 
> 
> Man you are a frustrating person to deal with at times.... open your friggin' eyes!


yes I read your post, and what you said was very clear. It was a clear attempt at deflection.

I ain't buying it, despite the backtracking.


----------



## groovetube

Rps said:


> This will be interesting. Right now the Harper Government is building a War Chest for an election. I'd be thinking May would be a good time. I bet this issue doesn't go away and would very likely be a mid to late term volley by the Libs and NDP. What will be really funny in this is that the Bloc will come across as "ethical" and that will split the conservative vote in Quebec [ who are developing their own "Tea Party" movement ] so then, how can the Harper Government testify to the Canadian people that they are governing in the best interests if they don't whack Lyin' Brian with anything. What will be really interesting is the budget......the Bloc can't possibly vote against the upcoming budget...... that will be the launch point for the election I think.


you -could- be right, though I think it may not be this fast.

Note though, Harper's skilled way of making Iggy irrelevant once again (easy) by working with the ndp to show voters why, they should continue, to split the left vote.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> yes I read your post, and what you said was very clear. It was a clear attempt at deflection.
> 
> I ain't buying it, despite the backtracking.


There is no back tracking it was there in black and white. You didn't read it or you wouldn't have said:



> to suggest Harper has no involvement...


 as I never did anything of the kind...

Talk about back tracking and I''m not buying it!!!  :baby:


----------



## groovetube

you attempted, to deflect responsibility and involvement away from Harper, to a member of his cabinet, as if there was little to no connection. But then as an aside, a bit of a backtrack in the next couple paragraphs, that left one scratching their heads as to what, if any, point there was.

But the first two words were clear. "not really"... "not really" WHAT?

nonsense. That's my opinion, end of story.


----------



## screature

groovetube said:


> you attempted, to deflect responsibility and involvement away from Harper, to a member of his cabinet, as if there was little to no connection. But then as an aside, a bit of a backtrack in the next couple paragraphs, that left one scratching their heads as to what, if any, point there was.
> 
> But the first two words were clear. "not really"... "not really" WHAT?
> 
> nonsense. That's my opinion, end of story.


NONSENSE! 

Not really.... i..e meaning there is more to it and the rest provided a clarification as to the process and who has direct responsibility.

I don't give a rat's ass if it is your opinion, you are WRONG. I was clear in my meaning. You never change your confrontational, childish ways do you gt... you take two words as the meaning of a post and leave everything else out... I guess that follows from reading the headline of story and believing that is all there is to it... never mind the rest and the real points and issues being made.... like I said you don't read or at least you wilfully refuse to understand and believe your own twisted interpretation no matter what is said. Happy New Year... I'm done with you.


----------



## groovetube

I'm sorry if it upsets you to this degree that I strongly disagree, but screaming that I'm childish, or that I have a "twisted interpretation", or any other slams won't do anything for this debate, sorry.

It's my opinion, whether right, or wrong.


----------



## MacDoc

In this case - yes it WAS the Liberals that did it..Paul Martin specifically that created and maintained a decent banking system despite Harpo free market whinging....




> *It’s the economy, Scott Brison says, and the Tories are stupid*
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> Globe and Mail Update
> Posted on Friday, January 7, 2011 11:49AM EST
> 
> The Liberals are taking the advantage of the news lull created by Parliament’s holiday break to slam the Conservative government’s financial record and take credit for any aspect of the economy that is performing well.
> 
> Liberal MP Scott Brison held a news conference on Friday morning to say Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will unjustly try to take credit for Canada’s sound financial and banking system when he gives a speech in Washington next week.
> 
> MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY
> Under threat of election, Tories pump cash into lumber towns
> 
> “This Conservative government wrecked Canada’s finances after inheriting a $13-billion budget surplus from the previous Liberal government and then created a record $56-billion deficit,” the opposition finance critic said.
> 
> “Furthermore, it was our Liberal government that ensured our banking system was well regulated and it was the string financial prudence and regulatory prudence that protected Canada from the worst of the global financial crisis.”
> 
> The economy is likely to be the dominant issue of an election that could be called this spring. The Liberals consistently lag behind the Conservatives in public opinion polls and surveys suggest that Canadians regard the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a sound fiscal manager – a reputation bolstered by the fact that Canada fared better than other G8 countries through the recent recession.
> 
> The Liberals will have to chip away at that image if they are to weaken Conservative popularity. So Mr. Brison reminded reporters that when Mr. Harper was in opposition, he urged the Liberal government of the day to follow the Americans in the deregulation of the banking system.
> 
> *“I expect Jim Flaherty will fail to tell his American audience that Canada avoided the global financial crisis by ignoring Prime Minister Harper’s advice,” Mr. Brison said.
> 
> “I expect Jim Flaherty will fail to tell the Americans that the Conservatives plunged Canada into deficit in the fall of 2008, even before the recession began. I expect Jim Flaherty will not tell the Americans that his government ramped up spending in the first three years of office by 18 per cent.*


It’s the economy, Scott Brison says, and the Tories are stupid - The Globe and Mail

Harper however >> *his government ramped up spending in the first three years of office by 18 per cent* << has no one to blame but himself


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> Harper however >> *his government ramped up spending in the first three years of office by 18 per cent* << has no one to blame but himself


Let us not forget that this ramped up spending was in part due to pressure from Iggy and Layton under threat of collapsing the government if the Conservatives did not spend our way out of the recession. There is little you can lay blame on Harper for in that scenario.


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> Let us not forget that this ramped up spending was in part due to pressure from Iggy and Layton under threat of collapsing the government if the Conservatives did not spend our way out of the recession. There is little you can lay blame on Harper for in that scenario.


If he was so against the pressure to spend he would have let them 'collapse' the Government. Yet he didn't, he spent. He would have spent it regardless. At the time, there was plenty more pressure than Iggy and Layton. 

As was mentioned in another thread, he's the CIC, he wears the stain.


----------



## MacDoc

Classic ideology driven crap from the Cons.

any excuse to be stupid....



> Conservatives relied on a few complaints to scrap the census
> Published On Fri Jan 07 2011EmailPrint (19)
> Share
> 122
> Rss
> Article
> Comments (19)
> Richard J. Brennan
> Ottawa Bureau
> More about
> Canada Census»
> OTTAWA—The Conservative government listened to only a relative handful of Canadians — including conspiracy theorists afraid the government was going to round them up — before scrapping the mandatory long-form census, according to documents obtained by the Toronto Star.
> 
> Canadians were unhappy with so-called intrusive questions, the aggravation of filling it out and even a few were convinced the census was part of a government plot, according to Statistics Canada documents obtained under Access to Information.
> 
> But there is virtually no overwhelming evidence in the Statistics Canada documents to support the government’s contention of widespread privacy concerns — the very argument it used this summer to kill the mandatory long-form census.
> 
> The Toronto Star had requested all complaints to Statistics Canada with respect to the 2006 long-form census after cabinet ministers claimed they scuttled the long-form census after being flooded with complaints.
> 
> But according to the information provided to the Toronto Star, *less than 100 complaints were lodged with StatsCan, even though about 20 per cent of Canadian households received the long form.*
> 
> One concerned Canadian told StatsCan officials that in the “1940s the United States used census to find and detain Japanese people living in the country” and said “I wouldn’t be surprised” if the government in Ottawa did the same. The U.S. has denied this allegation.
> 
> Another stated: “I recently received the census to fill out. I am totally shocked at the type of questions being asked. The whole thing looks like it was written by the Nazis. This form goes way beyond what information is required for services in the community.”
> 
> While not exactly one or two complaints as the opposition parties would have people believe, it’s a far cry from the thousands of complaints that former industry minister Maxime Bernier said he was receiving.
> 
> “Of course, we always take Canadians’ views and opinions into account when considering public policy issues,” Industry Minister Tony Clement told the Star.
> 
> But opposition critics in Ottawa say it’s hard to believe that a relative few in a country of more than 30 million could sway a government to kill a valuable information tool such as the mandatory form census.
> 
> *“Those numbers are statistically insignificant and don’t justify this ham-handed, arbitrary, unilateral scuttling of an important, necessary instrument. I think you have the evidence right there that this was a pure ideological crusade not based on reason, logic or any particular constituency,” NDP MP Pat Martin said.
> 
> At last count there were more than 400 groups, including municipalities, experts and individuals, opposed to the Harper government’s decision to replace the mandatory form with a voluntary long-form census, arguing that the information won’t be have any credibility.
> 
> The Conservative government decision, said Liberal Marc Garneau, remains “a triumph of ignorance over common sense.
> 
> “Hundreds of well recognized and respected organizations have said this is insanity,” he said*


Conservatives relied on a few complaints to scrap the census - thestar.com

you got it in one Marc


----------



## groovetube

mrjimmy said:


> If he was so against the pressure to spend he would have let them 'collapse' the Government. Yet he didn't, he spent. He would have spent it regardless. At the time, there was plenty more pressure than Iggy and Layton.
> 
> As was mentioned in another thread, he's the CIC, he wears the stain.


The classic "they made me do it!".

Nothing like standing for your own principles and being accountable for them eh.

But I do have to ask, what was all that blather I used to hear about Harper ruling as if he had a virtual majority?

If he really is poised to get a majority as we seem to be oft reminded, what exactly is the problem?


----------



## groovetube

this truly makes you shake your head. How gullible, can you possibly be?
Harper’s embrace of ‘ethical’ oil sands ignites new arguments - The Globe and Mail

So, realizing that the big ad campaign of how environmentally responsible the oil sands are isn't quite doing the trick, they are now changing tack. It's an "ethical source of oil" now. I guess they had to figure SOMETHING out to rebrand oil sands oil, because I guess not too many were buying it like many in this country seemed to be.


----------



## Rps

SINC said:


> Let us not forget that this ramped up spending was in part due to pressure from Iggy and Layton under threat of collapsing the government if the Conservatives did not spend our way out of the recession. There is little you can lay blame on Harper for in that scenario.


Sinc, I'm not so sure on this point. I think the timing had little to do with the pressure the Liberals and other put on the Conservative government due to the upcoming [ 2008 ] recession. I think the mantra was to spend prior and the effects just got caught up in the noise of the ABCP scandal in the greedy world markets....which we would have fallen into hadn't [ and I can't believe I'm saying this ] the Liberals under JC saved us. {pun intended].

And for all you Conservative bashers out there [ and yes GT I'm still a Liberal ] on the macro scale of things, Harper hasn't done anything to radically cause us to collapse amongst ourselves .... yet to come maybe. But the deficit issue is like the old joke of the what's the difference between Psychology and Religion. Both are looking for a black cat in a black room that isn't there....the only difference is religion finds it....same with deficits...it just depends if the opposition is the religious arm and the incumbents are the psychologist arm of the thing...... I have never believed any government's published figures on the financial condition of the country....they don't lie, but they don't tell the whole or real truth either.


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Sinc,* I'm not so sure on this point. I think the timing had little to do with the pressure the Liberals and other put on the Conservative government due to the upcoming [ 2008 ] recession. I think the mantra was to spend prior and the effects just got caught up in the noise of the ABCP scandal in the greedy world markets*....which we would have fallen into hadn't [ and I can't believe I'm saying this ] the Liberals under JC saved us. {pun intended].
> 
> And for all you Conservative bashers out there [ and yes GT I'm still a Liberal ] on the macro scale of things, Harper hasn't done anything to radically cause us to collapse amongst ourselves .... yet to come maybe. But the deficit issue is like the old joke of the what's the difference between Psychology and Religion. Both are looking for a black cat in a black room that isn't there....the only difference is religion finds it....same with deficits...it just depends if the opposition is the religious arm and the incumbents are the psychologist arm of the thing...... I have never believed any government's published figures on the financial condition of the country....they don't lie, but they don't tell the whole or real truth either.


I agree with you Rps. The Cons would have had to run a deficit no matter what given the circumstances of the world wide recession. However, the Opposition was screaming for even more stimulus spending and then, in the House in QP and in the media chastise the government for the size of the deficit, which had they been in power would have been as large or larger. It is duplicitous to say the least on their part. Politics as usual.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Classic ideology driven crap from the Cons.
> 
> any excuse to be stupid....


Thank goodness it's gone. I've had enough abuse from census employees. Let all of the whiners PAY for their own marketing information instead of having the taxpayers fork it over for free.


----------



## groovetube

Rps said:


> Sinc, I'm not so sure on this point. I think the timing had little to do with the pressure the Liberals and other put on the Conservative government due to the upcoming [ 2008 ] recession. I think the mantra was to spend prior and the effects just got caught up in the noise of the ABCP scandal in the greedy world markets....which we would have fallen into hadn't [ and I can't believe I'm saying this ] the Liberals under JC saved us. {pun intended].
> 
> And for all you Conservative bashers out there [ and yes GT I'm still a Liberal ] on the macro scale of things, Harper hasn't done anything to radically cause us to collapse amongst ourselves .... yet to come maybe. But the deficit issue is like the old joke of the what's the difference between Psychology and Religion. Both are looking for a black cat in a black room that isn't there....the only difference is religion finds it....same with deficits...it just depends if the opposition is the religious arm and the incumbents are the psychologist arm of the thing...... I have never believed any government's published figures on the financial condition of the country....they don't lie, but they don't tell the whole or real truth either.


true, Harper hasn't done -too much- to cause a collapse, but then being in a minority may have helped. While some seem so quick to point out that it's the liberals screaming to spend more stimulus, they tend to forget it's the conservatives, without any help from the liberals, who have already ramped up spending at an alarming rate, and clearly have firm plans to further ramp that spending up at an even faster pace on things that should probably be shelved until we -do- get towards putting the breaks on this deficit spending. Could you imagine if he were in power years prior to the financial meltdown? I mean this is a guy who together with his finance minister pretending to not know there was a recession! 

Whether or not you believe this stuff about the opposition, the government in power has the reigns, it's doing what it wants to (according to all who maintained Harper is ruling as if he had a majority, many many times), and believing this smoke and mirrors of balancing the budget by 2015 in the face of clear out of control spending is the stuff for the gullible.

Do I think Iggy could do better? Not likely. And definitely not in a majority! To believe any one of them in a majority is good for this country is really being blind.


----------



## mrjimmy

This fiscal conservative thing is a crock. They are fiscally conservative about spending on such things as education, healthcare, the arts, the poor etc. etc.

They have no problem spending on war, weapons, security, tax breaks for their corporate pals etc. etc. 

You get the picture. It's simply a matter of your value system.


----------



## Dr.G.

mrjimmy said:


> This fiscal conservative thing is a crock. They are fiscally conservative about spending on such things as education, healthcare, the arts, the poor etc. etc.
> 
> They have no problem spending on war, weapons, security, tax breaks for their corporate pals etc. etc.
> 
> You get the picture. It's simply a matter of your value system.


I would have to agree with you there, mrj. Personally, I would not mind paying higher taxes if it meant money going to education, healthcare, the arts, the poor, improving the infrastructure, the environment, etc. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacDoc

and their own pensions - what ever did happen to the Reform Party pledge.? 

Preston must be disgusted..


----------



## mrjimmy

Dr.G. said:


> I would have to agree with you there, mrj. Personally, I would not mind paying higher taxes if it meant money going to education, healthcare, the arts, the poor, improving the infrastructure, the environment, etc. Paix, mon ami.


Same here Dr.G.


----------



## Rps

Dr.G. said:


> I would have to agree with you there, mrj. Personally, I would not mind paying higher taxes if it meant money going to education, healthcare, the arts, Paix, mon ami.


Remember what Machiavelli said about such things....endow them because the bread and circuses will distract the rabble from the true issues and thus allow the dominant to maintain power.


----------



## eggman

Rps said:


> Remember what Machiavelli said about such things....endow them because the bread and circuses will distract the rabble from the true issues and thus allow the dominant to maintain power.


That was Juvenal - not Machiavelli.

Machiavelli said, "The best fortress can be found in the love of the people".

Lennon/McCartney said, "Can't Buy Me Love"... though McCartney is later said to have reconsidered this position.

I don't think that Education, Health Care, and the Arts in the context being posited here are short term enough to be considered "buying love'... here they would likely function more like those "character building" things that our parents (or ourselves - should we be so disciplined) put ourselves through - for a long term result. (ie - getting married vs. prostitution (see the entry on Wikipedia for "Can't Buy Me Love" for the link to that aspect)


----------



## Dr.G.

MacDoc said:


> and their own pensions - what ever did happen to the Reform Party pledge.?
> 
> Preston must be disgusted..


Pension reform and the idea of making an effective EEE Senate, or doing away with it altogether. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

mrjimmy said:


> Same here Dr.G.


Great minds think alike, mrj. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

Rps said:


> Remember what Machiavelli said about such things....endow them because the bread and circuses will distract the rabble from the true issues and thus allow the dominant to maintain power.


Machiavelli's notion of higher taxes was to prepare for war as a way of ensuring peace, and to "liberate Italy from the barbarians". 

"For old Roman valour is not dead,
Nor in Italian hearts extinguish'ed."

Petrarch


----------



## Rps

eggman, he also said: He who builds upon the people builds on mire, and The temper of the mulititude is fickle.
Machiavelli's intent was to have the citizens to achieve excellence in diverse fields...that way no one populace would control aspects of the other, thus diluting the power of the Prince. Harper isn't in Big Mac's class range yet, but maybe he's working on it.


----------



## screature

MacDoc said:


> and their own pensions - what ever did happen to the Reform Party pledge.?
> 
> Preston must be disgusted..


Yep, I'm sure he is. He and only one other original Reform MP from Kelowna, Werner Schmidt stuck to their guns and never signed on for the MP pension. 

As a matter of fact Chretien made it such that MPs actually had to officially opt out of their pension as opposed to opting in, it was a cleaver way to undermine the original principle that Manning instituted for Reform MPs and it worked really, really well.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> I would have to agree with you there, mrj. Personally, I would not mind paying higher taxes if it meant money going to education, healthcare, the arts, the poor, improving the infrastructure, the environment, etc. Paix, mon ami.


The problem is we would never have any guarantee that is where the money would go, the extra taxes would simply go into general revenue and the money could be spent whatever way the ruling government decided. 

As far as your list goes Dr. G. education and health care fall under provincial jurisdiction, so if you want higher taxes for these things you need to speak to your Premier or local MPP or MLA (MNA in Quebec). The same is largely true of the poor, welfare is a provincial jurisdiction.

In fact your entire list is either provincial or mixed jurisdiction, right down to the municipal level of government. The Feds are only one part of the equation when it comes to taxation and for many things they have no jurisdiction at all.

Aside from the "have" Provinces (one of which you now live in) federal transfer payments are in principle supposed to cover the provincial shortfalls in these and other areas. If a given province is not allocating those funds to the programs and services that are most in need that it is not the fault of the feds nor is it their responsibility to correct the situation.

Such is the reality of our federation, given its current constitution.


----------



## MacDoc

bout right..



> *Why it makes sense for Liberals to attack Jim Flaherty
> Bruce Anderson
> Globe and Mail Update
> Posted on Sunday, January 9, 2011 10:40PM EST
> Click Here
> 
> A little while ago I wrote that opposition parties wouldn’t find many more votes by promising better management of the economy, since many people had come to the conclusion that Canada has come through this rough patch pretty well, all things considered. A new poll this week revealed a massive increase in optimism about the economy compared to the levels seen last year.
> More related to this story
> 
> 
> But even if there may be limited upside in touting their economic credentials, the Liberals can’t afford to walk away from the question of “which party can best manage the economy.” That’s why finance critic Scott Brison’s effort to precondition Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s speech in Washington next week is a good idea. Mr. Brison made a number of points that, from the Liberal Party’s standpoint, are in danger of fading from memory if no one is bringing them up. Repeated often and crisply enough (skills Brison has mastered) they can help neutralize the Conservatives advantage on this .
> 
> These are the points (assuming they are accurate) Brison made that could prove most potent if they start to form a bigger part of our collective memory:
> 
> »
> 
> The Conservatives ramped up government spending by 18 per cent in their first three budgets, and had put the country into deficit before the recession began.
> 
> »
> 
> Mr. Flaherty has missed every deficit target he has set, incorrectly said that Canada would suffer no recession, and promised the country would not go into deficit, all this on the way to a deficit is the largest on record.
> 
> »
> 
> “Squeezed by the cost of education, retirement savings and caring for sick loved ones, Canadians now have $1.50 of personal debt for every dollar of income – highest in history and higher than Americans face.”*


Why it makes sense for Liberals to attack Jim Flaherty - The Globe and Mail


----------



## i-rui

but at least the Harper government is going to lower the corporate tax

...again.


----------



## Dr.G.

i-rui said:


> but at least the Harper government is going to lower the corporate tax
> 
> ...again.


True. "The business of Canada is business." :greedy::greedy::greedy:


----------



## CubaMark

*MPs seek lost integrity commissioner*



> House of Commons committee is searching for its lost integrity commissioner.
> 
> Christiane Ouimet, Canada's former integrity commissioner, was a no-show Tuesday on Parliament Hill despite two months of efforts to get her in front of the public accounts committee to explain a devastating audit of her office.
> 
> The former commissioner has not spoken publicly about her departure since she suddenly resigned in October.
> 
> Now MPs are seeking legal advice on whether they should send Ouimet's case to the Commons for censure, or possibly a rare Speaker's warrant.





> Auditor General Sheila Fraser released a scathing report in December that concluded Ouimet bullied and berated her staff and had failed to do her job properly.
> 
> The audit found that 228 allegations of public service wrongdoing or reprisal were brought to the integrity commissioner's office under Ouimet's watch, and only seven were investigated.
> 
> Not a single finding of wrongdoing was issued from when the office first opened, in 2007, to Ouimet's departure near the end of 2010.



(MetroNews)


----------



## Macfury

I'm sure it will all come out in the wash. Not an embarrassment for Harper at all.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> I'm sure it will all come out in the wash. Not an embarrassment for Harper at all.


What is an embarrassment for Harper in your opinion MacFury?


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> What is an embarrassment for Harper in your opinion MacFury?


Failing to close his zipper before addressing an event.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Failing to close his zipper before addressing an event.


Well until that happens, think of how much time you'll save now not having to post in this thread!


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Well until that happens, think of how much time you'll save now not having to post in this thread!


No, I need to check each of these entries and grade them.


----------



## CubaMark

*Harper suffering case of Air Force One envy*












> For the last two years the Privy Council Office -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper's department -- reportedly has been waging an internal battle with Defence Minister Peter MacKay over the paint job on the military's VIP Airbus.
> 
> According to newswire reports, the PCO has requested that the Canadian Forces' one VIP Airbus -- used by the Prime Minister in his travels -- be painted a distinguished white and red.
> 
> The CF, backed by MacKay, wants the Airbus to remain its current military grey. That's because it's one of only five Airbus transports in the CF fleet. When not on VIP duty it can be deployed for other duties, such as transporting troops.
> 
> MacKay, along with senior military officers, has reportedly suggested that the PCO's requested paint scheme would make the plane too visible when operating in unfriendly areas of the globe.


(More on this story: The Whig)


----------



## Lawrence

Well...I'm "Not" voting this spring.


----------



## arminia

*PMO ordered Oda to alter document: Rae*

CBC News - Politics - PMO ordered Oda to alter document: Rae


----------



## screature

arminia said:


> CBC News - Politics - PMO ordered Oda to alter document: Rae


PMO ordered Oda to alter document: Rae

Yeah 'cause Bob Rae would know.... typical FUD.


----------



## jimbotelecom

She should change her last name to Odour!

Harper smells as usual. Looking forward to kickin' da bum out.


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> She should change her last name to Odour!
> 
> Harper smells as usual. *Looking forward to kickin' da bum out.*


I think you are going to have to wait a while for that to happen.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> PMO ordered Oda to alter document: Rae
> 
> Yeah 'cause Bob Rae would know.... typical FUD.


Agreed. Bob Rae smells Iggy's seat... err.


----------



## jimbotelecom

screature said:


> I think you are going to have to wait a while for that to happen.


Looks like it but you never know


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> Looks like it but you never know


Indeed... But something bigger and more significant than this issue that matters to a broad base of Canadians is going to have to happen to changes things significantly.

This kind of issue only matters to the government's opposition not their supporters, who currently significantly out number the supporters for the opposition (in a plurality)... 

Effectively it really 'tis but a scratch and will soon enough fad into obscurity (and this is what Harper is betting on and I think his bet is a good one), even if Harper asks for Oda's resignation (basically making her take one for the team), which may well come to pass...


----------



## jimbotelecom

screature said:


> Indeed... But something bigger and more significant than this issue that matters to a broad base of Canadians is going to have to happen to changes things significantly.
> 
> This kind of issue only matters to the government's opposition not their supporters, who currently significantly out number the supporters for the opposition (in a plurality)...
> 
> Effectively it really 'tis but a scratch and will soon enough fad into obscurity (and this is what Harper is betting on and I think his bet is a good one), even if Harper asks for Oda's resignation (basically making her take one for the team), which may well come to pass...


I agree. I think there is a larger stink regarding the sole source jet fighter arrangement.
I'm sure there is more to come. Regardless we're in for more minority govt's for the foreseeable future. Not a bad thing.


----------



## Ottawaman

Secrecy blinding Parliament on budget, watchdog warns




> Parliamentarians are losing their ability to assess government measures because of the Harper Conservatives’ secrecy, says Canada’s budget watchdog.
> 
> Kevin Page told a House of Commons committee Tuesday that secrecy has been on the rise, and that MPs are losing their ability to do their constitutionally mandated jobs because they lack the information needed to cost new initiatives.
> 
> “There is a genuine concern that Parliament is losing control of its fiduciary responsibilities of approving financial authorities of public monies as afforded in the Constitution,” he said.
> 
> Page noted that MPs were asked to approve new crime legislation “without financial information or knowledge of monies set aside” for the changes.
> 
> He estimated one bill in particular — the so-called Truth in Sentencing law — could cost upwards of $1 billion a year over five years, but is not included in the government’s fiscal projections.


More transparency - Harper style.


----------



## i-rui

transparent / opaque.... same thing right?


----------



## mrjimmy

Even the righties want Oda out.

National Post editorial board: Bev Oda should resign … or be fired | Full Comment | National Post


----------



## Dr.G.

mrjimmy said:


> Even the righties want Oda out.
> 
> National Post editorial board: Bev Oda should resign … or be fired | Full Comment | National Post


I have really been surprised at the extent of the support she has gotten from the Conservatives, in light of what she did ............. and then lied about this act.


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> I have really been surprised at the extent of the support she has gotten from the Conservatives, in light of what she did ............. and then lied about this act.


It makes me wonder if this Minister really made the "tough" decision or this Minister just covered up the decision to write in "not" and is now wearing the resultant mess. 

To take one for the team if you will, so far the team is behind her and who knows the promise of "parting gifts" may also be included with the teams support.


----------



## kps

I only have a problem with the obfuscation of the issue and lying to parliament, not with the withdrawing of funding by CIDA. This is one of those "what were they thinking" moments.

As far as I'm concerned, tax exempt religious groups sponsoring missionaries overseas have no claim to tax payer funding. None, period.


----------



## screature

kps said:


> I only have a problem with the obfuscation of the issue and lying to parliament, not with the withdrawing of funding by CIDA. This is one of those "what were they thinking" moments.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, tax exempt religious groups sponsoring missionaries overseas have no claim to tax payer funding. None, period.


Agreed. I don't know why they just didn't fess up to begin with, if you believe the decision to be the right one then stand behind it and take the heat. They would have taken a lot less heat in the end if they were just straight up to begin with.


----------



## eMacMan

kps said:


> I only have a problem with the obfuscation of the issue and lying to parliament, not with the withdrawing of funding by CIDA. This is one of those "what were they thinking" moments.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, tax exempt religious groups sponsoring missionaries overseas have no claim to tax payer funding. None, period.


Out of curiosity why is it considered OK for politicians to lie to us every time their lips move but lying to a parliament brim full of similar individuals is somehow a heinous crime?

Politicians are by definition liars, sadly to expect more of them is probably futile.


----------



## kps

eMacMan said:


> Out of curiosity why is it considered OK for politicians to lie to us every time their lips move but lying to a parliament brim full of similar individuals is somehow a heinous crime?
> 
> Politicians are by definition liars, sadly to expect more of them is probably futile.


Honour amongst thieves and liars...I'd figgure you'd know that by now.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

eMacMan said:


> Out of curiosity why is it considered OK for politicians to lie to us every time their lips move but lying to a parliament brim full of similar individuals is somehow a heinous crime?
> 
> Politicians are by definition liars, sadly to expect more of them is probably futile.


Parliament is a legal body and functions on certain levels as a court (I am not a lawyer, of course, so I can't enumerate the differences). It's the place that decides our laws, so I think it is very important that someone lying directly to Parliament should definitely be sanctioned with a contempt charge, which the Speaker has the power to levy.

The bigger question here is, was Ms. Oda lying of her own volition or taking the fall for the PMO's decsion to defund the organization? Someone should ask her that in Parliament, although I doubt she will be standing up and speaking for a while. It is well known that Stevie allows little latitude for his Ministers to act on their own. There was a belief among the Government that this organization was rabble-rousing against Israel, even though this was later disproven. But Jason Kenney repeated the allegation at a later point and it was clear that the Cons had it in for this group.

I'm looking for the Cons to sacrifice Oda if it looks like a contempt charge will succeed and attempt to quickly sweep this matter away.

Regarding politicians lying in general, I've often thought, although I don't know if it would be practical or legally enforceable, that politicians when running for office and when in office should be legally required to have any public statements they make considered to be made under oath.

If this was feasible, I don't know if it would make any difference. Politicians are usually quite good and well practised at speaking in a way that doesn't pin them down to anything specific and this might cause them to just get better at it. Most of them are lawyers after all.


----------



## Max

it's also silly that we would expect _an_y of our leaders to be better at us, in terms of refraining from lying or otherwise smudging the truth.


----------



## BigDL

eMacMan said:


> Out of curiosity why is it considered OK for politicians to lie to us every time their lips move but lying to a parliament brim full of similar individuals is somehow a heinous crime?
> 
> Politicians are by definition liars, sadly to expect more of them is probably futile.


Politicians in my experience are less liars and more about saying what they think you want to hear.

If that is less than truthful then it's the public's fault. People that answer polling questions over the phone are catering to this deceit. 

As for Parliament, it is the supreme body to approve the operation of government. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet control the day to day operation, but it is Parliament's duty to check and approve the expenditures, the formation of laws and regulation that the government operates with.

The term honourable suggests dealing with others in a decent and ethical manner according to the Dictionary that came with my Mac.

Since all members of the house are Honourable except some who are Right Honourable to lie or mislead is acting in a manner which is neither decent or ethical, then this is horrendous breach of conduct.


----------



## eMacMan

Max said:


> it's also silly that we would expect _an_y of our leaders to be better at us, in terms of refraining from lying or otherwise smudging the truth.


True; but it is not unreasonable to expect them to be as good as us. By a certain age most of us have discovered that lying requires way too much energy and then more or less abandon the art as not worthy of the mental gymnastics it requires. From that point on ones lies tend to be of the; "No it does not make you look fat!" variety.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Max said:


> it's also silly that we would expect any of our leaders to be better at us, in terms of refraining from lying or otherwise smudging the truth.


Actually Max I was going to add something along those lines. I don't think politicians in general are bigger liars than what might be found among the general population on average. Speaking in huge generalities of course. That said, they often seek power with much enthusiasm and huge ambition and when they hold that power they should be subject to higher ethical standards. We do expect them to be better and I think that's only natural. Would we want a politician caught in a lie to just laugh and shrug it off, "Hey, who's never lied, eh?"

And with that said I find that going after leaders for their little personal issues, love affairs and the like, to be going over the top. That stuff should be none of our business.


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> Agreed. I don't know why they just didn't fess up to begin with, if you believe the decision to be the right one then stand behind it and take the heat. They would have taken a lot less heat in the end if they were just straight up to begin with.


Probably the Cons believed they could get away with it, this is usually why people do stupid acts.

If you believe you will get caught it is a huge deterrent, however Harper seems to be of the opinion he can control all information and this is a huge problem for this Government.

Cabinet confidentiality seems to be the mantra of the Harper Cons. The PMO believes it is not responsible to Parliament. 

Must be a hang over from their Reform days when they seemed to have absolutely no respect for the institution of Parliament.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> Probably the Cons believed they could get away with it, this is usually why people do stupid acts.
> 
> If you believe you will get caught it is a huge deterrent, however Harper seems to be of the opinion he can control all information and this is a huge problem for this Government.
> 
> Cabinet confidentiality seems to be the mantra of the Harper Cons. The PMO believes it is not responsible to Parliament.
> 
> *Must be a hang over from their Reform days when they seemed to have absolutely no respect for the institution of Parliament.*


Uhhh...? Examples please.


----------



## Max

eMacMan said:


> True; but it is not unreasonable to expect them to be as good as us. By a certain age most of us have discovered that lying requires way too much energy and then more or less abandon the art as not worthy of the mental gymnastics it requires. From that point on ones lies tend to be of the; "No it does not make you look fat!" variety.


I disagree. It's a false notion - the one which holds that all our lies tend to amount to little white lies, the very type you cite. We just don't want to admit it. People lie about all sorts of very deep, innermost things - about career, about family, about desires, about ambition. But above all, and perhaps most egregiously, they lie to themselves, time and time again.


----------



## Max

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Actually Max I was going to add something along those lines. I don't think politicians in general are bigger liars than what might be found among the general population on average. Speaking in huge generalities of course. That said, they often seek power with much enthusiasm and huge ambition and when they hold that power they should be subject to higher ethical standards. We do expect them to be better and I think that's only natural. Would we want a politician caught in a lie to just laugh and shrug it off, "Hey, who's never lied, eh?"
> 
> And with that said I find that going after leaders for their little personal issues, love affairs and the like, to be going over the top. That stuff should be none of our business.


GA, I don't disagree with your opinion. I just think it's hypocritical of the public - us - to expect our political leaders to live up to a standard of comportment which we ourselves are not ready to uphold. It makes a mockery of our own mocking of politics, if you will.

Agreed about certain things regarding love affairs and respecting the privacy of the bedroom - but then again, there's the sort of sick example that a knave of a politician like Berlusconi leaves... which naturally makes it hard for people to support him. All of which suggests this sort of stuff is rarely black and white.


----------



## Lawrence

The latest on Ms. Oda is she has been caught having a smoke with her dark glasses on,
Next you'll be seeing editorial cartoons of her doing just about anything for a cigarette.


----------



## screature

dolawren said:


> *The latest on Ms. Oda is she has been caught having a smoke *with her dark glasses on,
> Next you'll be seeing editorial cartoons of her doing just about anything for a cigarette.


In today's world that will make her a pariah more than lying...


----------



## Max

That image of her _does_ make her look like some furtive mafioso angrily awaiting trial.


----------



## Lawrence

Max said:


> That image of her _does_ make her look like some furtive mafioso angrily awaiting trial.


I'm sure the smokers advocate will love that shot,
Then again, It might be an embarrassment for the image of Health Canada,
It's not a good example for a minister to be caught having a smoke break.

What will the kids think?

Bev Oda takes a smoke break on Parliament Hill on Wednesday.

Source:
Pm's Tactic: Ignore, Hope It Goes Away


----------



## Dr.G.

dolawren said:


> I'm sure the smokers advocate will love that shot,
> Then again, It might be an embarrassment for the image of Health Canada,
> It's not a good example for a minister to be caught having a smoke break.
> 
> What will the kids think?
> 
> Bev Oda takes a smoke break on Parliament Hill on Wednesday.
> 
> Source:
> Pm's Tactic: Ignore, Hope It Goes Away


This picture should be put on the pack of cigs ........... or used as a big poster on Times Square, much like the Marlboro Man.


----------



## Rps

Max said:


> That image of her _does_ make her look like some furtive mafioso angrily awaiting trial.


Hi Max, I actually thought that picture was Yoko Ono on a good hair day.


----------



## Lawrence

Maybe she'll go into hiding and move to Cornwall.
(She could go into the cigarette business)


----------



## jimbotelecom

That isn't a cigarette.


----------



## Dr.G.

jimbotelecom said:


> That isn't a cigarette.


XX)

And the Conservatives just passed their "get tough on crime" legislation with the help of the Bloc.


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> That isn't a cigarette.


If that were the case her popularity would rise dramatically in certain circles.


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> If that were the case her popularity would rise dramatically in certain circles.


:lmao::lmao::lmao:

That would certainly hinder the Odagage investigation.


----------



## Macfury

Even if Oda is guilty of this, Harper has very little to gain from just firing her, considering the way that the Opposition parties will exploit such a decision.



> "The Harper model, when it comes to ministerial resignations, is very similar to the Chretien one," said political strategist Tim Powers, vice-president of Summa Communications. "To use the hockey parlance, they 'rag the puck'" until the intensity of the controversy dies down.
> 
> Former prime minister Jean Chretien essentially mastered the art of survival, and capitalized on the strategic merit of resisting* resignations that, by their very nature, signal wrongdoing and admit defeat*.


Pm's Tactic: Ignore, Hope It Goes Away


----------



## Max

Rps said:


> Hi Max, I actually thought that picture was Yoko Ono on a good hair day.


Hey, Rps. Actually, I never understood all the anger directed at Yoko. I mean, John was a very independent-minded fellow and he made his choice. It's not as if he was hoodwinked - he loved her, full stop.

Anyway, Bev Oda does indeed belong to that class of contemporary pariahs, the smokers. And I can't blame the papers and sites for publishing those pics - hell, that stuff is media gold. She doesn't exactly look as if she's _enjoying_ that smoke, does she?


----------



## eMacMan

That picture reinforces the saying; 
"If you wanna make a woman look really ugly, stick a cigarette in her mouth."


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> That picture reinforces the saying;
> "If you wanna make a woman look really ugly, stick a cigarette in her mouth."


Well I don't think she was exactly known for her good looks before the addition of the cigarette.... just sayin'.


----------



## Max

eMacMan said:


> That picture reinforces the saying;
> "If you wanna make a woman look really ugly, stick a cigarette in her mouth."


Gotta disagree. Some women look terrifically hot posing with a cigarette - it's just that, these days it ain't politically correct. I'm thinking of some dames from film noir days. Steamin'!


----------



## SINC

Max said:


> Gotta disagree. Some women look terrifically hot posing with a cigarette - it's just that, these days it ain't politically correct. I'm thinking of some dames from film noir days. Steamin'!


Gotta go with Max on that one:


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Gotta disagree. Some women look terrifically hot posing with a cigarette - it's just that, these days it ain't politically correct. I'm thinking of some dames from film noir days. Steamin'!


I absolutely agree on this. A lot of guys look cool with cigarettes as well: Bogart for sure, and Rod Serling. I really enjoy that Goofy cartoon where he's a basketball coach--the smoking affectation works perfectly.


----------



## MannyP Design

Macfury said:


> I absolutely agree on this. A lot of guys look cool with cigarettes as well: Bogart for sure, and Rod Serling. I really enjoy that Goofy cartoon where he's a basketball coach--the smoking affectation works perfectly.


Classic Disney!


----------



## Macfury

MannyP Design said:


> Classic Disney!


I crack up eveeytime they show the slow-motion tip-off, with the players slapping and gouging each other as they battle for the ball.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> I absolutely agree on this. A lot of guys look cool with cigarettes as well: Bogart for sure, and Rod Serling.


James Dean should be included in that group too.


----------



## Max

And The Marlboro Man! No, I'm not kidding.

That Dean shot is classic, Sinc.


----------



## Macfury

Yeah, Marlboro Man!


----------



## screature

Max said:


> I disagree. It's a false notion - the one which holds that all our lies tend to amount to little white lies, the very type you cite. We just don't want to admit it. People lie about all sorts of very deep, innermost things - about career, about family, about desires, about ambition. But above all, and perhaps most egregiously, they lie to themselves, time and time again.


Sorry Max I didn't comment on this post before...

You are bang on... and the reason why I said Oda being caught smoking will make her more of a pariah than lying.

*Everyone* lies... not everyone smokes. We tend to forgive those with the same weaknesses of ourselves than we forgive those who "sin" in a manner in which we don't.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Yeah, Marlboro Man!


Right on, Macfury. That's the man.

Of course, the original Marlboro Man died a horrible death from lung cancer, but at least Bev Oda has a fine medical plan as an MP.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## jimbotelecom

The largest oda emanates from our A-hole of a PM.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> Right on, Macfury. That's the man.
> 
> Of course, the original Marlboro Man died a horrible death from lung cancer, but at least Bev Oda has a fine medical plan as an MP.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


Actually as an MP she has no better or worse health care plan than any other civil servant. That is a fact. Just so you know.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> I absolutely agree on this. A lot of guys look cool with cigarettes as well: Bogart for sure, and Rod Serling. I really enjoy that Goofy cartoon where he's a basketball coach--the smoking affectation works perfectly.


You tell 'em, Macfury. Of course, I think that Bogart and Serling might have wished for a longer career had it not been cut short by smoking related cancer and heart disease. 

WhyQuit's Famous Young Smoking and Tobacco Victims


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> The largest oda emanates from our A-hole of a PM.


Buda bump bump....


----------



## Dr.G.

screature said:


> Actually as an MP she has no better or worse health care plan than any other civil servant. That is a fact. Just so you know.


Interesting. Hopefully, she has a better pension than most, since smoking related disease can prove expensive as to what is covered and what is not covered with medical treatments and medications.


----------



## SINC

jimbotelecom said:


> The largest oda emanates from our A-hole of a PM.


Oh, that was classy. Apparently it takes one to know one.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Right on, Macfury. That's the man.
> 
> Of course, the original Marlboro Man died a horrible death from lung cancer...


Yes, Dr.G., but did he have to inhale?


----------



## Ottawaman

SINC said:


> Oh, that was classy. Apparently it takes one to know one.


Irony, thy name is Sinc.


----------



## SINC

Ottawaman said:


> Irony, thy name is Sinc.


Show me once where I ever called any leader an A-hole. Just once.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Yes, Dr.G., but did he have to inhale?


Yes, it was in his contract. XX)XX)


----------



## jimbotelecom

SINC said:


> Show me once where I ever called any leader an A-hole. Just once.


He's been called worse


----------



## Macfury

Funny, but all of these so-called embarrassments have amounted to a hill of beans in a remarkably stable minority government. Kudos to Harper for having the chutzpah and political acumen to pull it off.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Funny, but all of these so-called embarrassments have amounted to a hill of beans in a remarkably stable minority government. Kudos to Harper for having the chutzpah and political acumen to pull it off.


Careful, Macfury, in that in Yiddish, the word "chutzpah" can cut both ways. You would not want to be saying that our Prime Minister had a great deal of gall to try and "pull it off". Shalom, my friend.


----------



## Max

Then MF put it very well, Doc G. I believe Harper is walking along a knife edge.


----------



## groovetube

yes he did put it well eh? 

careful OM, next you'll be asked to provide the duel guns. 40 paces and...


----------



## jimbotelecom

Dr.G. said:


> Careful, Macfury, in that in Yiddish, the word "chutzpah" can cut both ways. You would not want to be saying that our Prime Minister had a great deal of gall to try and "pull it off". Shalom, my friend.


Oy vey! To that "end", maybe I should have called him a tuchus!


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Careful, Macfury, in that in Yiddish, the word "chutzpah" can cut both ways. You would not want to be saying that our Prime Minister had a great deal of gall to try and "pull it off". Shalom, my friend.


As the other members recognize, I meant _chutzpah_ in the fullest sense of the word!


----------



## Dr.G.

jimbotelecom said:


> Oy vey! To that "end", maybe I should have called him a tuchus!


:lmao::lmao:

Better that than the "s" word, which would have resulted in getting you banned for a week.


----------



## jimbotelecom




----------



## dona83

Jimbo, use Photobucket, flickr, etc. to post images, not Rapidshare. It shows up as a broken link because you have to go through the process of downloading.


----------



## jimbotelecom




----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


>


This is your most poignant post yet... :clap:


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> This is your most poignant post yet... :clap:


And BigDL likes it!


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> And BigDL likes it!


I wouldn't know as I have used the code posted by JC and I don't have to suffer any of that High School s**t.


----------



## groovetube

CBC News - Politics - $42M glass dome approved for Parliament

wow. 42 million bucks. Man they sure do know how to spend it.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> CBC News - Politics - $42M glass dome approved for Parliament
> 
> wow. 42 million bucks. Man they sure do know how to spend it.


Yeah, it works out to about $1.30 per Canadian to ensure a continuing venue for ANY party to govern. Outlandish!


----------



## CubaMark

$42-million is the lowest figure in that article... why am I not surprised that supporters of the Conservative Party, which touts itself as the party of economic responsibility, have no problem with this? Hard to believe there was no less-expensive alternative. Ah, but in the words of the _"architect Linda Dicaire, who said the spectacular dome is necessary to “provide parliament with a dignified chamber and quality facility worthy of Canada's most democratic institution."_


----------



## Ottawaman

I'd be happier if someone would provide Canada with a dignified parliament worthy of Canada's most democratic institution.


----------



## Macfury

Would have been better to have renovated the Parliament Buildings when they started to fall apart during the Trudeau years.


----------



## groovetube

CubaMark said:


> $42-million is the lowest figure in that article... why am I not surprised that supporters of the Conservative Party, which touts itself as the party of economic responsibility, have no problem with this? Hard to believe there was no less-expensive alternative. Ah, but in the words of the _"architect Linda Dicaire, who said the spectacular dome is necessary to “provide parliament with a dignified chamber and quality facility worthy of Canada's most democratic institution."_



they have absolutely no problem, with anything CM. As long as it's their party, they will excuse, and defend anything. The lying of the minister recently, whatever. This government promised to be open accountable, transparent, they said they would make government more efficient, and be better than the liberals. Instead we have a bloated government who is totally comfortable with flagrant lying, (recall Harper adamantly PROMISING not to tax income trusts), having exploded the size of government to a huge size now, appointing plum senator spots to an individual who apparently intends to run in the next election, the ist, is endless.

Yet you see the same ones jumping to their defence, after we listened to them rail on and on about the liberals.

It kind of makes you just shake your head.


----------



## groovetube

ahhh, it was only a few posts before one invoked the "Trudeau!" defence.

Trudeau!!!!!! (thunder lighting crashes effects...) Truuuuuuuuu *DEAUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!*


arrrrrgghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Macfury

khannnnnnnnn!


----------



## kps

_Looks_ like you two are suffering from the online version of Tourette's. flol


----------



## Dr.G.

"Fuddle duddle". We just passed the 40th anniversary of this famous phrase.


----------



## Lawrence

If the USA can charge $5.50 for security checks on Canadians,
Then perhaps Harper should charge $10. for security checks on Americans visiting Canada,
That could pay to fix the Parliament buildings,
Considering we already have an infrastructure program to fix the roads.(Unlike the USA)

But...Then again, They could also stop making their "Iggy commercials"
That could save billions.


----------



## Dr.G.

dolawren said:


> If the USA can charge $5.50 for security checks on Canadians,
> Then perhaps Harper should charge $10. for security checks on Americans visiting Canada,
> That could pay to fix the Parliament buildings,
> Considering we already have an infrastructure program to fix the roads.(Unlike the USA)
> 
> But...Then again, They could also stop making their "Iggy commercials"
> That could save billions.


I was joking about this with my wife the other day, who suggested the same counter charge, in that as an American citizen, I have to use my US passport to enter the US .......... but as a Canadian citizen, I use my Canadian passport to come back into Canada. So, I said that I would not have to pay either way. 

As for political commercials, I tend not to watch them and am certainly not swayed by them.


----------



## Silverado

groovetube said:


> they have absolutely no problem, with anything CM. As long as it's their party, they will excuse, and defend anything. The lying of the minister recently, whatever. This government promised to be open accountable, transparent, they said they would make government more efficient, and be better than the liberals. Instead we have a bloated government who is totally comfortable with flagrant lying, (recall Harper adamantly PROMISING not to tax income trusts), having exploded the size of government to a huge size now, appointing plum senator spots to an individual who apparently intends to run in the next election, the ist, is endless.
> 
> Yet you see the same ones jumping to their defence, after we listened to them rail on and on about the liberals.
> 
> It kind of makes you just shake your head.



This is exactly the case regardless of which party controls the government of the day. It would be easy to find fitting examples of identical behaviour from the Chretien/Martin Liberals.

Whether your politics run left or right, it's what makes the small percentage of Canadians who still pay attention quite cynical about the whole mess.


----------



## Ottawaman

yup


----------



## Rps

dolawren said:


> If the USA can charge $5.50 for security checks on Canadians,
> Then perhaps Harper should charge $10. for security checks on Americans visiting Canada,


It's been awhile since I've had anything to do with customs and NAFTA, but wouldn't a surcharge to enter the U.S. be considered a non-tariff trade barrier?


----------



## groovetube

Silverado said:


> This is exactly the case regardless of which party controls the government of the day. It would be easy to find fitting examples of identical behaviour from the Chretien/Martin Liberals.
> 
> Whether your politics run left or right, it's what makes the small percentage of Canadians who still pay attention quite cynical about the whole mess.


this is very true. No question.

However, currently, we have a government which campaigned strongly on accountability, transparency, and being the 'new' government that would not be as bad as the previous. 

People still, think they're better. Even in the face of the lying, secrecy, and just pure slaps in the faces of Canadians. It boggles the mind.

The only defence I've heard, is "well the liberals....[fill in excuse]

This says it all basically.


----------



## screature

dolawren said:


> *If the USA can charge $5.50 for security checks on Canadians,*
> Then perhaps Harper should charge $10. for security checks on Americans visiting Canada,
> That could pay to fix the Parliament buildings,
> Considering we already have an infrastructure program to fix the roads.(Unlike the USA)
> 
> *But...Then again, They could also stop making their "Iggy commercials"
> That could save billions.*


We don't know if this will happen yet, just conjecture at this point.

These ads are paid for by the CPC Party *not* by the Government, they aren't public funds.


----------



## groovetube

who is paying for the incredibly incessant "canada's action plan' ads?

Bet that costs a real serious penny.


----------



## groovetube

groovetube said:


> who is paying for the incredibly incessant "canada's action plan' ads?
> 
> Bet that costs a real serious penny.


got real quiet all of a sudden.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> got real quiet all of a sudden.


Because it was a non-starter. All governments tout their own brilliant plans.


----------



## groovetube

a non starter.

All governments. Hmmm. The admission that this government is no different than others comes at the oddest of times.

All this talk that the, "new" conservatives are better with our money, better for the country's finances, is just a pile of crap, for the gullible.


----------



## Macfury

Imagining that Conservative voters see their party of choice as perfect is also a non-starter.

That's because few supporters of the Conservatives think of the party as _infinitely_ better than the runner-up. Most people see them as marginally better for various reasons, and are comfortable enough in that support to want them re-elected. It does not mean that they receive blanket approval for all policies.

While some supporters of the Conservatives may have been doubtful about increased government spending, that doubt was soon erased by both Layton and Ignatieff who threatened to topple the government for the express purpose of spending even more. Had these two stalwart gentlemen demanded Harper hold the line on spending, I could see your point.


----------



## eMacMan

I do see Harpo's thumbing his nose at Egypt's struggle towards democracy as a real embarrassment. Supporting a rather brutal dictator when three million people in Cairo are rallying against him just does not cut it in my books. 

Looks like we learned nothing from what happened in Iran back in 1979.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> I do see *Harpo's thumbing his nose at Egypt's struggle towards democracy* as a real embarrassment. Supporting a rather brutal dictator when three million people in Cairo are rallying against him just does not cut it in my books.
> 
> Looks like we learned nothing from what happened in Iran back in 1979.


Uhhh?


----------



## MacDoc

and Canadians don't want him....



> Only about 26 per cent of Canadians say they would be comfortable with the Conservatives winning a majority after the next election, according to a new poll conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV by Nanos Research.
> 
> *That number is lower than in any other Nanos survey that asked the same question.* About 30 per cent are decidedly uncomfortable with the prospect of a Conservative majority, with the rest responding “somewhat” one way or another.


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> and Canadians don't want him....


Horsepucky:

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2011

Who Would Make The Best Prime Minister? 

Iggy Scores 13.6%



> *In a recent poll by Nanos, when Canadians were asked who would make the best Prime Minister, Iggy scored a miserable 13.6%. Stephane Dion was popular by comparison.* All that money spent on those country tours, all that crying wolf over faux controversies, and what has that delivered for the Liberal leader? Not much. In fact, it seems to have hurt. Better to keep Ignatieff indoors, away from ordinary Canadians and TV cameras, because he has been doing himself more harm than good.
> 
> Nanos has the Tories at nearly 40%.


The Iceman: Who Would Make The Best Prime Minister? Iggy Scores 13.6%


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Horsepucky:
> 
> MONDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2011
> 
> Who Would Make The Best Prime Minister?
> 
> Iggy Scores 13.6%
> 
> 
> 
> The Iceman: Who Would Make The Best Prime Minister? Iggy Scores 13.6%


How does not wanting the Liberal Leader as Prime Minister make any difference with regard to the lack of popularity for Harper as Prime Minister with a majority Government?


----------



## SINC

Did you miss all the ongoing polls that show that Harper is preferred as PM by Canadians, far and away ahead of Iggy or Layton?


----------



## groovetube

They once preferred Chretien.

Says it all right there.


----------



## groovetube

oooouuuccch.

Conservative officials face Elections Act charges - CTV News


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> oooouuuccch.
> 
> Conservative officials face Elections Act charges - CTV News


Why is this an ouch? Do you think an election will turn on it?


----------



## MacDoc

Harper IS an embarrassment to Canada - full stop
a pox on them all.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Harper IS an embarrassment to Canada - full stop
> a pox on them all.


In order to receive full grades for this assignment, you must flesh out your idea.


----------



## groovetube

oh it's no ouch! Nothing to see here.

Wow if it were the liberals, the holy terror mother of christ screaming would be absolutely deafening.

In fact some even continue to invoke Trudeau to this day, even though the prime minister after him was actually worse.


----------



## SINC

I'm always amused by anyone using the terms screaming and deafening on this site. Heck, it doesn't even have background muzak, never mind deafening screaming.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> I'm always amused by anyone using the terms screaming and deafening on this site. Heck, it doesn't even have background muzak, never mind deafening screaming.


I guess it's the soundtrack that the politically unaffiliated groovetube imagines accompany his constant defenses of Liberals of the past 50 years.


----------



## eMacMan

MacDoc said:


> Harper IS an embarrassment to Canada - full stop
> a pox on them all.


As compared to the Cretin???? or Trudeau?????????????????


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> In order to receive full grades for this assignment, you must flesh out your idea.


Didn't you know... if Mac Doc says so... it *is* so.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> I'm always amused by anyone using the terms screaming and deafening on this site. Heck, it doesn't even have background muzak, never mind deafening screaming.


as someone who shouts adscam anytime criticism is made of the conservatives, yes indeed, it is amusing.


----------



## SINC

See, there you go again. There is no sound here. 

The net equivalent of shouting is typing in caps. I've not seen any of that either.


----------



## Macfury

SINC: It must be awful to imagine people are shouting at you all day. Would make one a nervous wreck, I'll bet.


----------



## groovetube

nothing to see here.

The conservative mantra.


----------



## BigDL

*Harper can't always get what he wants*

But sometimes he gets what he needs

Globe and Mail

and a view from people in them Excited States


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> But sometimes he gets what he needs
> 
> Globe and Mail
> 
> and a view from people in them Excited States





> *Political dialogue in Canada is marked by civility, modesty, honesty, collegiality, and idealism* that have pretty much disappeared on the U.S. airwaves. *When Stephen Harper moved to abolish anti-lying provision* of the Radio Act, Canadians rose up to oppose him fearing that their tradition of honest non partisan news would be replaced by the toxic, overtly partisan, biased and dishonest news coverage familiar to American citizens who listen to Fox News and talk radio. Harper's proposal was timed to facilitate the launch of a new right wing network, "Sun TV News" which Canadians call "Fox News North."


They clearly have no problems with lying in the US media. tptptptp


----------



## Rps

One small point, isn't the, now bought out, Huffington Post the liberal equivalent to the conservative Fox News, so, really, isn't this one form of partisan bias against another? As for civility, I don't think we've had that since the days of Michael Starr or Stephen Lewis.....


----------



## jimbotelecom

Love this from Kennedy - "Harper, often referred to as "George W. Bush's Mini Me," is known for having mounted a Bush like war on government scientists, data collectors, transparency, and enlightenment in general. He is a wizard of all the familiar tools of demagoguery; false patriotism, bigotry, fear, selfishness and belligerent religiosity."

I've never heard Steve referred to as "Bush's Mini Me"...Bush's Blow Hole Plug maybe...but not mini me. Otherwise a fine statement.


----------



## Ottawaman

Former integrity commissioner swept aside disclosures of wrongdoing


I'm looking forward to Ms. Ouimet testifying before a committee before the next election.


----------



## groovetube

Ottawaman said:


> Former integrity commissioner swept aside disclosures of wrongdoing
> 
> 
> I'm looking forward to Ms. Ouimet testifying before a committee before the next election.


nothing to see here 

The liberals MADE them do it.


----------



## Macfury

I wonder which Conservative will be Prime Minister when the testimony occurs?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

groovetube said:


> nothing to see here
> 
> The liberals MADE them do it.


The all-purpose Conservative spin bumper-sticker.


----------



## Macfury

Could have done a better job on that one 'sauce. That isn't even close to the dimensions of a bumper sticker and having two comments in quotes is overkill.


----------



## Ottawaman

Macfury said:


> Could have done a better job on that one 'sauce. That isn't even close to the dimensions of a bumper sticker and having two comments in quotes is overkill.


Yes, for inspiration just look at one of those Government of Canada cheques with the Conservative logo


----------



## BigDL

So do you feel very ethnic or very slighted and ignored by Jason Kenney?

The ins and outs, Oda and now Kenney are all embarrassments for Harper yet all meet the PM's approval. I guess it would only occur to a Progressive Conservative PM like Mulroney to fire people that get caught doing such egregious acts.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> So do you feel very ethnic or very slighted and ignored by Jason Kenney?
> 
> The ins and outs, Oda and now Kenney are all embarrassments for Harper yet all meet the PM's approval. I guess it would only occur to a Progressive Conservative PM like Mulroney to fire people that get caught doing such egregious acts.


Good point, BigDL. We have an candidate here in NL who ran for the Conservatives in a traditionally Liberal riding. Still, she was well known and liked. She received $300,000 from the federal Conservative party for her election bid in the morning, and had all the money taken back by 5PM. She lost by a handful of votes, and felt that this money might have helped her win a seat for the Conservatives in the House.


----------



## CubaMark

*Integrity watchdog left with $534,000*



> Canada's former public sector integrity commissioner is walking away with more than half a million dollars in salary and benefits, newly released documents show.
> 
> Christiane Ouimet, who quit last fall in the middle of an audit of her office by Auditor General Sheila Fraser, is getting a package worth 25 months salary, plus benefits and whatever remaining holiday time she had.
> 
> Ouimet's Oct. 14, 2010, departure agreement shows she got a separation allowance of $354,000, equal to 18 months salary, $53,100 in foregone benefits, pension and other claims, and another 28 weeks of salary, worth $127,000, plus her remaining vacation leave.
> 
> That works out to about $534,100.


(CBC)


----------



## Dr.G.

CM, don't complain, since she earned it ....................... or better still, we earned the money with our work in order to pay taxes which was used to pay for her benefits. So, I guess one could say that we earned the money for her to take for not doing her job. tptptptp


----------



## groovetube

they're entitled, to the entitlements.

Love the gag order portion of the agreement.


----------



## Ottawaman

Kenney uses his federal post to promote his party politics 





> political staffers in ministers’ offices are prohibited from using departmental resources to engage directly in party activities, and any work they do for the party must be on their own time.
> 
> Mr. Nejatian broke several rules when he used Mr. Kenney’s MP’s office letterhead for an appeal to Conservative MPs to raise $200,000 for an ad blitz in opposition-held ridings with large ethnic communities.
> 
> And he compounded his error by sending the whole package, including a detailed presentation on how the Conservatives would woo immigrant Canadians, to NDP MP Linda Duncan, when no doubt he intended it for Conservative MP John Duncan.
> 
> In doing so, Conservatives quietly seethe, Mr. Nejatian inadvertently handed opposition parties invaluable information about the party’s election advertising outreach plans for new Canadians.
> 
> The particulars include target ridings, sample scripts, the TV stations where ads would be placed and even the programming – such as cricket matches or news – where the Tories intend to deploy ads.
> 
> The opposition protested conflict of interest, and Mr. Kenney fired Mr. Nejatian and apologized. But the incident highlights the absolute centrality of immigrant voters to the Conservatives’ election strategy, and the vital role Mr. Kenney’s office plays in that strategy.


Kenney should resign.


----------



## groovetube

it was someone else's fault.

It's astounding, how well the harpies have not only learned from the liberals, but have one upped them in the execution of these shenanigans. Conservatives everywhere, bewildered as to what people are upset about.


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> *Integrity watchdog left with $534,000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada's former public sector integrity commissioner is walking away with more than half a million dollars in salary and benefits, newly released documents show.
> 
> Christiane Ouimet, who quit last fall in the middle of an audit of her office by Auditor General Sheila Fraser, is getting a package worth 25 months salary, plus benefits and whatever remaining holiday time she had.
> 
> Ouimet's Oct. 14, 2010, departure agreement shows she got a separation allowance of $354,000, equal to 18 months salary, $53,100 in foregone benefits, pension and other claims, and another 28 weeks of salary, worth $127,000, plus her remaining vacation leave.
> 
> That works out to about $534,100.
> 
> 
> 
> (CBC)
Click to expand...

Harpo has certainly cracked down on MPs that dare to violate ethics codes. Course abandoning ethics codes altogether has pretty much eliminated the problem.


----------



## Dr T

*Embarrassments for Harper?*



CubaMark said:


> *First:* [Canada loses..."[/I].


Surely it is time to end this thread. 

Events of these past many months, indeed years, have demonstrated that nothing that might embarrass a normal human embarrasses Adolf Harper (as we out this way call the Great Leader of the Harper Government). The only possible embarrassment for Adolf was finding himself being referred to as the leader of the government of Canada, a nation that he has always despised. But he has now eliminated even that...


----------



## jimbotelecom

^^^^^

Naw this really has to continue until election day when the cons get the boot.


----------



## SINC

jimbotelecom said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> Naw this really has to continue until election day when the cons get the boot.


I can hardly wait until the opposite happens and you have to eat all these comments.


----------



## JAMG

*PMO apologizes for dismissing media before Ignatieff’s speech*

PMO apologizes for dismissing media before Ignatieff?s speech - thestar.com

The prime minister’s office has apologized for a strange incident that occurred in Gatineau, Quebec Friday night. It happened an event hosted by the Indian High Commission to launch “The Year of India in Canada.”
Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff were both there to give speeches.
Harper delivered a short address, but before Ignatieff got his turn at the podium, a P-M-O staffer hustled all the attending reporters and camera crews out of the building.
The journalists had known Ignatieff would be there, but it hadn’t been confirmed that he’d be speaking—so they left without question.
Ignatieff’s communications director, Leslie Church, was incensed, furiously protesting what he called an appalling abuse of P-M-O power.
Harper spokesman Andrew MacDougall later apologized for the incident, putting it down to either a staff misunderstanding, or “over-zealousness.”


----------



## i-rui

^^ It's Easier To Ask For Forgiveness Than Permission.


----------



## jimbotelecom

SINC said:


> I can hardly wait until the opposite happens and you have to eat all these comments.


Tisk tisk. So malicious. 

I can understand your frustration given the cons propensity for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory: every time they seemingly surge in the polls the cons shoot themselves in the foot and the possibility of a majority dwindles. I'm looking forward to Canada's first peace time coalition government putting an end to this sham.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> I can hardly wait until the opposite happens and you have to eat all these comments.


oooooh yeah the cons just can't wait to STICK IT to Canadians. The politic os screw you I'll show you... "when we're done with Canada you won't recognize it!"

As I said, I actually like Canada quite a bit.


----------



## Macfury

I love the spin in this thread. How does a humiliation for Iggy on that stage turn into an embarrassment for Harper? If Iggy slipped and fell on his ass, skating on the Rideau,, you'd probably post it in this thread.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Steve | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> I love the spin in this thread. How does a humiliation for Iggy on that stage turn into an embarrassment for Harper? If Iggy slipped and fell on his ass, skating on the Rideau,, you'd probably post it in this thread.


Your spin is even more entertaining. It wasn't a humiliation for Iggy at all, it was the schoolyard bullying tactics of the 'overzealous' staffers of the PMO. Another case of employees 'going rogue', taking their orders from no one (or no one who will admit it anyway).

Also, I think you'd be hard pressed to find many Liberals or 'lefties' who actually like Ignatieff. More the case, it's a dislike of Harper. I guess it's easier to put a face on it but in fact I personally want to see him go almost as much as Steve.


----------



## groovetube

Just as a heads up, be careful what is said here. Because the Harper thugs are monitoring what is said on social media about them, and have minions combing and "correct what it perceives as misinformation."

Feds eyeing online forums to correct 'misinformation' - CTV News

We won't recognize Canada when they're done. Of that, I have no doubt...


----------



## Macfury

You may not like the method by which he was humiliated, but the humiliation was all Iggy's, standing there alone without a podium and nobody to cover his speech.


----------



## Max

Really, people are surprised by such court intrigues? I expect nothing less from HarperCo. Now, there's a fellow who lives by the sword. Karma gonna bite his posterior one fine day.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> You may not like the method by which he was humiliated, but the humiliation was all Iggy's, standing there alone without a podium and nobody to cover his speech.


What's to like about being silenced? Regardless of your political stripes, this 'tactic' should be considered unacceptable to all Canadians. It is censorship. 

As for humiliation? I don't think so. This was no fault of Iggy's. Does the PMO come off looking good? Not at all.


----------



## Dr.G.

Max said:


> Really, people are surprised by such court intrigues? I expect nothing less from HarperCo. Now, there's a fellow who lives by the sword. Karma gonna bite his posterior one fine day.


Good point, Max. Of course, we all know what happened to Louis XIV when he boldly declared "L'Etat c'est moi". We shall see.


----------



## Max

We shall! I have a healthy respect for Harper's wily ways - the man has a fair teflon factor - but his capacity for treacherous duplicity is something I personally abhor. Since he's content to show such disrespect for democracy now that he's in the big chair, I can only hope that he falls victim to the very tactics he has championed.


----------



## Dr.G.

Max said:


> We shall! I have a healthy respect for Harper's wily ways - the man has a fair teflon factor - but his capacity for treacherous duplicity is something I personally abhor. Since he's content to show such disrespect for democracy now that he's in the big chair, I can only hope that he falls victim to the very tactics he has championed.


Again, I agree with your perspective, Max. I actually met PM Harper in the Calgary airport, and had a short chat with him. This was when he was leader of the newly created Conservative Party. It was back in early May, just before the dissolution of the House of Commons and the subsequent election of 2004. He struck me as a humble and honest man back then. I actually voted for him because I like the Conservative candidate who was running in my riding, Norman Doyle. 

I wish I could say that I held the same opinion of him today.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Really, people are surprised by such court intrigues? I expect nothing less from HarperCo. Now, there's a fellow who lives by the sword. Karma gonna bite his posterior one fine day.



Sure, but--let's face it--if it does so, Karma will bite him for HUMILIATING Iggy.


----------



## jimbotelecom

There are a fair number of civil servants who have a muzzle on them thanks to Steve.....Karma will bite Steve for them too. Then of course there is the matter of not seeking the $2M plus interest payment that former Con PM Bullroney owes the CDN taxpayers. We can go on and on.


----------



## Macfury

jimbotelecom said:


> There are a fair number of civil servants who have a muzzle on them thanks to Steve.....Karma will bite Steve for them too. Then of course there is the matter of not seeking the $2M plus interest payment that former Con PM Bullroney owes the CDN taxpayers. We can go on and on.


Let's also face it--anyone in power will collect many such grievances as they continue to hold power. Harper's success in holding onto the PM seat simply means he will accumulate more of them over time.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Sure, but--let's face it--if it does so, Karma will bite him for HUMILIATING Iggy.


In your mind only MF.


----------



## mrjimmy

groovetube said:


> Just as a heads up, be careful what is said here. Because the Harper thugs are monitoring what is said on social media about them, and have minions combing and "correct what it perceives as misinformation."
> 
> Feds eyeing online forums to correct 'misinformation' - CTV News
> 
> We won't recognize Canada when they're done. Of that, I have no doubt...


GT, who do you think might be the 'mole' in our little community?


----------



## groovetube

hmmmm. given the prompt waving of the hands, and a 'good explanation' served up by several, it;s hard to say.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> GT, who do you think might be the 'mole' in our little community?


In order to be a successful mole, the person would have already established an identity at EhMac long ago...


----------



## Max

I disagree, MF. Iggy is responsible for his own failures. Don't confuse them with Harper's failings. Stephen Harper will be bested by his own inclinations. But if you wish to wallow in joy at Iggy being supposedly humiliated, well - hey, if that's your thing, go nuts.

And while we're on the topic of Facebook and it being cynically used by Harperite stooges to project and protect the party line, does anyone seriously doubt the other parties are doing the same thing? Seems to me it was only a matter of time before FB became a common vehicle for political propaganda - it's cultural importance is too great to ignore.


----------



## Dr.G.

mrjimmy said:


> GT, who do you think might be the 'mole' in our little community?


Good question, mrj. Who amongst us would be the most likely to be seen as the least likely person to support PM Harper? It would most likely be someone from a province that does not have a single Conservative MP from that province, someone even being in a riding that has a solid NDP MP who will most likely retain that seat in the next election. Someone who no longer supports PM Harper. Someone ............................ wait, that describes someone just like me?????????

Never mind. Continue to openly and freely discuss your views. Paix, mes amis.


----------



## Max

Dr. G, I am sure Stephen Harper the man is a very pleasant, affable fellow, and that his wife and kids think the world of him. I'm really talking about the figurehead who heads up the country - and let's allow that that fellow is probably just great too - provided he thinks you're one of the flock.

The best thing about him is that he simply cannot rein in his worst impulses. For that I remain grateful.

Like, paix, eh!


----------



## Dr.G.

Max said:


> Dr. G, I am sure Stephen Harper the man is a very pleasant, affable fellow, and that his wife and kids think the world of him. I'm really talking about the figurehead who heads up the country - and let's allow that that fellow is probably just great too - provided he thinks you're one of the flock.
> 
> The best thing about him is that he simply cannot rein in his worst impulses. For that I remain grateful.
> 
> Like, paix, eh!


Amen, Brother Max. Amen. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> I disagree, MF. Iggy is responsible for his own failures. Don't confuse them with Harper's failings. Stephen Harper will be bested by his own inclinations. But if you wish to wallow in joy at Iggy being supposedly humiliated, well - hey, if that's your thing, go nuts.


I thought it was funny... not joyful.


----------



## JAMG

Iggy is irrelevant in this story... Humiliated or not,

Team Harper has demolished their reputation with the national press. What self respecting journalist will ever walk away again cause a con flunky says shows over. 

Iggy can milk this slap in the face throughout the entire election and make significant hay with it. But the fact remains, either man must win a majority in order to keep their job. Harper has to show that he is not "Damaged Goods" and Iggy has to show that more than a few care...

I think a new minority govt (probably Con) is coming followed by at least 2 leadership conventions (Hostile) maybe 3 if Jack continues to fizzle.

New blood will be thwe mantra across the board.


----------



## Max

Agreed. Seems like a stalemate these days. The polls always promise a lead, then the lead fizzles out. The electorate likely wishes to see new leaders of each party, if only to ease the brittle tedium and break up the logjam that is the new reality on Parliament Hill - seemingly perpetual minority rule.


----------



## Macfury

JAMG said:


> Iggy can milk this slap in the face throughout the entire election and make significant hay with it.


In which alternate reality does this become a major plank of the election?


----------



## groovetube

Max said:


> Agreed. Seems like a stalemate these days. The polls always promise a lead, then the lead fizzles out. The electorate likely wishes to see new leaders of each party, if only to ease the brittle tedium and break up the logjam that is the new reality on Parliament Hill - seemingly perpetual minority rule.


a real overview of the polls pretty much agrees with you I think.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Agreed. Seems like a stalemate these days. The polls always promise a lead, then the lead fizzles out. The electorate likely wishes to see new leaders of each party, if only to ease the brittle tedium and break up the logjam that is the new reality on Parliament Hill - seemingly perpetual minority rule.


Still far happier with that logjam than seeing Ignatz or Layton making merry with the budget.


----------



## groovetube

it's truly quite a thing, to see a libertarian quite content, with a government that ramped up spending grew government, even BEFORE, the recession, and the calls for stimulus spending. 

Apparently, all you have to do, is -say- you're conservative. 

Labels are everything.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> it's truly quite a thing, to see a libertarian quite content, with a government that ramped up spending grew government, even BEFORE, the recession, and the calls for stimulus spending.
> 
> Apparently, all you have to do, is -say- you're conservative.
> 
> Labels are everything.


I doubt that Layton could have done any worse budget wise. This even though his basic math skills are nearly non-existent. At least he would have saved us some dough by bring our boys home from Afghanistan.

It amazes me how so-called conservatives become blatant spendthrifts once voted into office. We have Harpo, Raygun and two Shrubs as grand illustrations of that fact. I have learned when any of these bums promise to restrain spending it usually refers to mine, as they intend for me to have nothing left to spend when they leave office.

Too bad we can't vote them into a penitentiary.beejacon


----------



## JAMG

Macfury said:


> In which alternate reality does this become a major plank of the election?



Does not have to be a campaign plank... any time the cons bring up integrity or professionalism, or trust or transparency, or etc... slap n the face.

Elections are not about agendas or planks...most voters don't see a big picture. We digest the babble and decide who we want to pretend to trust. We pick those we like and think won't screw us too badly.

Don't agree, name a successor for either leader who will win hands down...yawn...
Trudeau is a decade away from being a national leader (if ever) Rae (bwahahahahahaha)
tumbleweed..... (and I consider myself Liberal)

Tony Clement...any Harper Flunky... snore...


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> It amazes me how so-called conservatives become blatant spendthrifts once voted into office. We have Harpo, Raygun and two Shrubs as grand illustrations of that fact. I have learned when any of these bums promise to restrain spending it usually refers to mine, as they intend for me to have nothing left to spend when they leave office.


And we have Ignatz on record demanding the government spend more--and Obama to the south,putting them all to shame. Your story doesn't hold water.



groovetube said:


> it's truly quite a thing, to see a libertarian quite content, with a government that ramped up spending grew government, even BEFORE, the recession, and the calls for stimulus spending.


Haven't been satisfied at all--and I tell them so every time they come barking for donations. I am only content that the Conservatives are spending less than Iggy demanded. 

Having lived through the hell of Bob Rae's Ontario, the NDP doesn't look like a good bet for me. I've read the federal NDP platform and it's rife with increased spending (code word "investment"), regulation and economic intervention. Balancing the budget is to be achieved through taxation. No thanks.


----------



## Macfury

JAMG said:


> Does not have to be a campaign plank... any time the cons bring up integrity or professionalism, or trust or transparency, or etc... slap n the face.


I'd love to see the campaign ad that tries to leverage this into Liberal votes--but I guess all of the cameras that might have captured the moment had already left the building when the slight occurred.


----------



## Dr.G.

Max said:


> Agreed. Seems like a stalemate these days. The polls always promise a lead, then the lead fizzles out. The electorate likely wishes to see new leaders of each party, if only to ease the brittle tedium and break up the logjam that is the new reality on Parliament Hill - seemingly perpetual minority rule.


Valid points, Max. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## JAMG

Macfury said:


> I'd love to see the campaign ad that tries to leverage this into Liberal votes--but I guess all of the cameras that might have captured the moment had already left the building when the slight occurred.



I never said the next campaign will be pretty...
As to leverage, the only thing Iggy gets is that the Conservatives actions are indefensible,
and petty...much like peroging parliament...twice.

Call it what you will, Harper took his ball and ran home...twice.
Damaged Goods...Next!


----------



## Max

Macfury said:


> Still far happier with that logjam than seeing Ignatz or Layton making merry with the budget.


Not me... haven't decided which is the greater evil... a bunch of budget-trashing wastrels in office, or a group of budding fascists in suits pretending to be real conservatives.... who _still_ manage to waste public money... come to think of it, what's the difference?


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Not me... haven't decided which is the greater evil... a bunch of budget-trashing wastrels in office, or a group of budding fascists in suits pretending to be real conservatives.... who _still_ manage to waste public money... come to think of it, what's the difference?


Fascists?? Come now, Max...


----------



## Max

Like, what-evah! Please don't go trying to defend Harper's obsession for media control and internal discipline, MF. It suits you ill. The dude's sinister and that's that.


----------



## Dr.G.

This would be a great fund raising "tactic" if it were not for the fact that the extra money given to these campaigns in the form of reimbursements did not come from Canadian taxpayers. tptptptp

"Elections Canada reimburses all candidates 60 per cent of their eligible expenses if they meet a certain threshold of votes. The money comes from the public purse.

Another riding that appears to have received some of that money is the Conservative riding association in Hull-Aylmer, Que.

That association spent only about $12,000 of its own money in the 2006 election, according to numbers from Elections Canada, but received almost $34,000 in reimbursements because of the "in-and-out" tactic."

In-and-out worth $100,000 in payouts - Canada - CBC News


----------



## Max

Why am I not surprised by this little turn of events?

As always, when it's the other guys, it's corruption. When it's your own team, it's time to circle the wagons, deflect, dissemble, deny.


----------



## groovetube

This is why, we have bad government, it's because we allow them to.

When the liberals were thumbing their noses at us, they were turfed. The level of outrage I witnessed here and IRL was deafening. The moral superiority was at it's peak, the conservatives, campaigning on truth, honesty, accountability, transparency. You'd have to be a complete liar to say this is what we got in any shape or form.

And the response has now gone to, well the other guy... woulda..

there's that woulda again. And after all that bald faced lying, kick in the face nonsense from the Harpies, I hear supporters shrieking to hand them absolute power in a majority. What happened, to this moral superiority? In MF's case, here's a guy who says he's a libertarian, against this, 'nanny state', but is willing to side with a government that actually -did- spend themselves silly well before the opposition called for stimulus spending. Actually did grow government to a ridiculous bloat. No woulda there!

I have no doubt Iggy will be his own crapshow. Unfortunately, he's simply lying in wait, until Harper has finished shooting himself in both feet. That's how Harper got in..


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Why am I not surprised by this little turn of events?
> 
> As always, when it's the other guys, it's corruption. When it's your own team, it's time to circle the wagons, deflect, dissemble, deny.


C'mon. I never thought or implied that Chretien was a fascist. The over-reaching powers granted by Canadians to their governments breeds corruption. Anyone with the power to look after all of your needs has the power to turn on you on a dime.

Harper's only saving grace here is that Iggy has threatened to spend more than him. I don't need any more reason to stick with Harper than that. I WILL defend him if the allegations are ridiculous--like calling him a fascist. If he were to develop a form of authoritarianism that superceded an election, I might cut you some slack.


----------



## Max

Faith and begorah! Never said you said Chretien or any other Liberal was fascismo, so I don't know where you're coming from there. Settle down, it's Monday morning, we're just getting started.

And thanks, but I'd rather not you offer to cut me any slack. Too many strings attached. You know what they say about friends and enemies!

If you're happy that Harper is a secrecy nut bent on creating an utterly opaque, rigidly conformist, media-terrified gubbmint beastie, good on ya! As long as it saves money, you're good to go, right?

For a so-called libertarian you appear to harbour a curious fondness for draconian father figure types.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> For a so-called libertarian you appear to harbour a curious fondness for draconian father figure types.


No fondness at all. I would vote for a woodchuck if it promised to spend less than the other candidates.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> No fondness at all. I would vote for a woodchuck if it promised to spend less than the other candidates.


Problem is this woodchuck promised to spend less, then spent more. I try to ignore the 5h!7 dribbling out of the corners of their mouths and look at what they do. 

So far the current government of cons is about on a par with the Fiberal performance.


----------



## BigDL

One of the issues of Government today is the rise in power of the Office of the Prime Minister.

Non elected partisans run things. Members of Parliament have less power today than these partisan cronies. This in my opinion is patently wrong.

In Canada the PM is just a member of the House of *Commons*. The citizens in general do not vote for our “Leader.” The Leader is only the leader in the House of Commons.

The Cabinet is designed to be the power in Canada, not a crew of toadies in consort with the Prime Minister.

I think Canadians should be demanding more authority and influence for MP's in Parliament. The MP’s and in particular the Opposition’s duty to hold the Government “to Account.”

All spending documents should be readily available to House committees, all information on Government action should be subject to review by the MP’s.

When a political party holds the Majority of seats in Parliament they control the committees and their agenda, in a minority Parliament the opposition control the committees and thereby the agenda. The Government is held to closer scrutiny and control. I see this situation as being more democratic.

Why citizens and especially those citizens that feel government could not ever spend a penny correctly desire a majority parliament boggles my mind. 

I believe minority Parliament provide us with the greatest democracy, and provides the best chance of a centrist government that Canadians seem to truly desire.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL, that sounds like you are advocating a form of republic for Canada. As a constitutional monarchy, that could be seen as treason. While I would like to see Canada become a republic, shedding itself of the Queen, along with the unelected Senate and GG, I would NEVER say so in public. As well, advocating taking power away from the PM is asking for trouble. People have been sent to "re-education camps" for saying far less.

So, take care, mon ami. Moncton has seen far too much snow this winter, and they need every able-bodied person to help out with shoveling.

Paix.


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> BigDL, that sounds like you are advocating a form of republic for Canada. As a constitutional monarchy, that could be seen as treason. While I would like to see Canada become a republic, shedding itself of the Queen, along with the unelected Senate and GG, I would NEVER say so in public. As well, advocating taking power away from the PM is asking for trouble. People have been sent to "re-education camps" for saying far less.
> 
> So, take care, mon ami. Moncton has seen far too much snow this winter, and they need every able-bodied person to help out with shoveling.
> 
> Paix.


I am quite opposed to the prospect of a Republic. I do think that the Constitutional Monarchy is an organic model of Government, evolving through consensus and convention. 

The Republic model of government is a construct that tries to cover all contingencies with no hope of ever of succeeding.

Then there is the arguing of what the founders were thinking dilemma. I should pass on that prospect thanks.

I have been dodging the re-education camps for years now, perhaps I shall prevail into the future as well. I agree with you on the ever present danger.

Thank you for your wise council, I do appreciate your concern.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> I am quite opposed to the prospect of a Republic. I do think that the Constitutional Monarchy is an organic model of Government, evolving through consensus and convention.
> 
> The Republic model of government is a construct that tries to cover all contingencies with no hope of ever of succeeding.
> 
> Then there is the arguing of what the founders were thinking dilemma. I should pass on that prospect thanks.
> 
> I have been dodging the re-education camps for years now, perhaps I shall prevail into the future as well. I agree with you on the ever present danger.
> 
> Thank you for your wise council, I do appreciate your concern.


I see your point, BigDL. Still, I am in favor of Canada becoming a republic, which will not happen without a constitutional amendment, which won't happen. 

Thus, I guess the only way to get any change from the instances of corruption in government is to vote and try and elect those who are not corrupt. This is why I voted for the Conservative Party in the 2006 election, in that the sitting MP, Norman Doyle, promised to donate his provincial pension for all the years he was in our House of Assembly, back to charity should he be elected MP. When he won his seat, he published his quarterly donations of his entire pension to various charities in NL. He did what he said he was going to do, and for this, earned my vote.


----------



## Dr.G.

Wow, now even the Green Party in getting into attack ads. Of course, their ads attack the whole concept of attack ads, so I guess that is technically a non-attack attack ad.

Greens to air attack on ads - Canada - CBC News

The Green party is going on the attack — against attack ads.

Party leader Elizabeth May has unveiled a 30-second spot that spoofs political attack ads, complete with a militaristic drum roll and ominous voice-over.

"Tired of the name-calling? Smear campaigns? Mudslinging? Are you disgusted with the state of Canadian politics?" the narrator intones. "This does not represent our Canada. It doesn't have to be like this."


----------



## Max

Sounds good; I salute the Greens. It probably won't work, though. The rabble loves attack ads. Gives 'em something to chew on.

It can't be too hard to spoof your typical attack ad; that brand of spin delivery vehicle is already pretty over the top. Just push nudge it a little further into the red zone and you're there.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Sounds good; I salute the Greens. It probably won't work, though. The rabble loves attack ads. Gives 'em something to chew on.
> 
> It can't be too hard to spoof your typical attack ad; that brand of spin delivery vehicle is already pretty over the top. Just push nudge it a little further into the red zone and you're there.


I love the U.S. attack ads on radio:

_Someone reads a hideous piece of news in the newspaper
_

Person 1: Oh no, they're closing down our local hospital!!
Person 2: They can't. Why mom's life was saved there last year. If she had traveled any farther, she would have died.
Person 1: Well that's what Evil McNasty wants to do if he's elected.
Person 2: Well, I know that Ed Goodfellow stands behind out hospitals!
_
Rousing patriotic music._

"Yes, Ed Goodfellow.... "


My favourite dramatic radio ad posited a future in which a dying child is cruelly turned away from the emergency room because of budget cuts proposed by the McNasty Party--the doctor even tells them who to blame.


----------



## Dr.G.

Max said:


> Sounds good; I salute the Greens. It probably won't work, though. The rabble loves attack ads. Gives 'em something to chew on.
> 
> It can't be too hard to spoof your typical attack ad; that brand of spin delivery vehicle is already pretty over the top. Just push nudge it a little further into the red zone and you're there.


When they start to spend money and attack Elizabeth May and the Green Party, then we know that we are in "the red zone". Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> I love the U.S. attack ads on radio:
> 
> _Someone reads a hideous piece of news in the newspaper
> _
> 
> Person 1: Oh no, they're closing down our local hospital!!
> Person 2: They can't. Why mom's life was saved there last year. If she had traveled any farther, she would have died.
> Person 1: Well that's what Evil McNasty wants to do if he's elected.
> Person 2: Well, I know that Ed Goodfellow stands behind out hospitals!
> _
> Rousing patriotic music._
> 
> "Yes, Ed Goodfellow.... "
> 
> 
> My favourite dramatic radio ad posited a future in which a dying child is cruelly turned away from the emergency room because of budget cuts proposed by the McNasty Party--the doctor even tells them who to blame.


Good one, Macfury. Yes, we have come a long way from the "I like Ike" cartoons. Of course, the "Daisy ad" which ran once, started the subliminal attack ads back in 1964. I spoke to voters who were on the fence and saw or heard of that ad, started to think of some of the things Goldwater said, and decided to vote for LBJ. The amazing thing is that there are still some very good things that came from the LBJ landslide back in 1964, which are, to this day, still helping people and showing what America truly is all about in reality. Sadly, Vietnam ruined his Great Society. The rest, as they say, is history.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## CubaMark

(Bruce MacKinnon, Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


----------



## Dr.G.

CubaMark said:


> (Bruce MacKinnon, Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


Old news, CM. It is now the "Harper Government". The branding of the Conservative logo is so last week.


----------



## BigDL

CubaMark said:


> (Bruce MacKinnon, Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


Must say MacKinnon is rather pithy or is it droll perhaps a little of column "A" and column "B."


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Must say MacKinnon is rather pithy or is it droll....


Prole?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

CubaMark said:


> (Bruce MacKinnon, Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


That's some kick-ass cross-hatching ... and he likes to skewer Harper too. What could be better? 

Thanks for the link to the cartoonist's site. I enjoyed this one which relates to the subject of this thread.


----------



## screature

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.





Same as it ever was...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

screature said:


> Same as it ever was...


Ah yes, old Jean. What a charmer he was, eh? "Pepper on my plate. Next."

Of course the fact that Chretien was an authoritarian jerk doesn't really excuse Steve does it now? Just another instance of the standard, all-purpose Conservative defence, "But the Liberals did it too!"










And Chretien's Peppergate didn't really measure up to Harper's billion-dollar jackboot extravaganza. So it's more like, "The Liberals did it, so we did it bigger and better!"


----------



## BigDL

Did the opposition finally get its act together this week? 

The Speaker twice ruled in favour of Liberal motions a) that the Government breached privilege and b) Minister Oda caused confusion to Parliament, then the next day the Parliamentary Budget Officer says the Government low balled the cost of the F-35 jets. The Bloc withdraw support for the purchase of the F-35 jets.

Then there was the Christiane Ouimet severance pay debacle.

Perhaps the Japanese earthquake and tsunami may change the channel on these embarrassments for Harper in the minds of Canadians.


----------



## screature

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Ah yes, old Jean. What a charmer he was, eh? "Pepper on my plate. Next."
> 
> Of course the fact that Chretien was an authoritarian jerk doesn't really excuse Steve does it now? Just another instance of the standard, all-purpose Conservative defence, "But the Liberals did it too!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Chretien's Peppergate didn't really measure up to Harper's billion-dollar jackboot extravaganza. So it's more like, "The Liberals did it, so we did it bigger and better!"


No excuses for Harper... just the last cartoon reminded me of the "Pepper Gate" incident...

Same as it ever was.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

screature said:


> No excuses for Harper... just the last cartoon reminded me of the "Pepper Gate" incident...
> 
> Same as it ever was.


Maybe the Harper Government©®™ should adopt that as their new campaign slogan:










They could license the old Talking Heads song for their ads:

"You may find yourself ... living with a Harper Gov
....

And you may ask yourself ... 'MY GOD! WHAT HAVE I DONE!!'

...

Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was."


----------



## groovetube

ha ha ha, good one.

It amuses me to no end to watch the con supporters tripping over themselves desperately trying to conjure up various chretien/martin misdeeds to try and smokescreen the nonsense their pals in government have been spewing.

same as it ever was indeed.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> No excuses for Harper... just the last cartoon reminded me of the "Pepper Gate" incident...
> 
> Same as it ever was.


not even close to the same thing. The APEC summit was a *single* incident on a campus. an overreaction by the RCMP to protestors tearing down a barricade where pepper spray was used and under 50 people arrested.

the G20 was a planned security strategy, sanctioned by various levels of government, at a cost of over a $billion dollars, shutting down an entire city, where pepper spray was the least offensive thing done, and over a thousand people were arrested.

to compare the two is laughable.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> not even close to the same thing. The APEC summit was a *single* incident on a campus. an overreaction by the RCMP to protestors tearing down a barricade where pepper spray was used and under 50 people arrested.
> 
> the G20 was a planned security strategy, sanctioned by various levels of government, at a cost of over a $billion dollars, shutting down an entire city, where pepper spray was the least offensive thing done, and over a thousand people were arrested.
> 
> to compare the two is laughable.


that is beyond laughable, but hardly surprising given some of the things I've read lately.

I hear Doris Day, Strahl, and another con MP are fleein' the ship


----------



## BigDL

Seems some raaa err caucus members are bailing on the ol' Harper"s New Ship of State©®™ .

Stockwell (call him Doris) Day, Chuck Strahl and MP John Cummins are not offering in a possible up coming election. 



CBC News said:


> Two federal cabinet ministers — Treasury Board President Stockwell Day and Transport Minister Chuck Strahl — announced Saturday that they're leaving federal politics.
> 
> Day and Strahl, both members of Parliament from British Columbia, said they won't run in the next election, which many observers expect is coming soon.


Stockwell Day, Chuck Strahl to quit politics

Remember the old curse "may your time be interesting."


----------



## bryanc

BigDL said:


> Stockwell (call him Doris) Day ...[is]... not offering in a possible up coming election.


I can only see this helping the Conservatives. Doris was one of the easiest targets for people wanting to lampoon the Harper team, and I don't doubt keeping him muzzled has been quite a drain on Harper's media relation's people. Cutting him loose is nothing but win for the Cons.


----------



## Dr.G.

bryanc said:


> I can only see this helping the Conservatives. Doris was one of the easiest targets for people wanting to lampoon the Harper team, and I don't doubt keeping him muzzled has been quite a drain on Harper's media relation's people. Cutting him loose is nothing but win for the Cons.


A valid point, bryanc. It also rids PM Harper of any potential candidates who might threaten his hold on he prime minister's position should there be a loss at the polls in the next election.


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> A valid point, bryanc. It also rids PM Harper of any potential candidates who might threaten his hold on he prime minister's position should there be a loss at the polls in the next election.


I do wonder if these are some of the people(and other resent departures) are putting distance between themselves and Harper so as to take a run at Harper (When The Night of the Long Knives or whatever they call) the Conservative Palace coup d'état to replace our most glorious leader.

I do suppose Harper shall insist upon a new patented phrase though. 

Do you think anyone will a write song like "Steve will be the control freak again?" Are there any groups like the Stringband out there today that would care?


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> I can only see this helping the Conservatives. Doris was one of the easiest targets for people wanting to lampoon the Harper team, and I don't doubt keeping him muzzled has been quite a drain on Harper's media relation's people. Cutting him loose is nothing but win for the Cons.


that's something I've not thought of before. I'm sure Harper is well aware of the fact that the only way to appeal to Canadians broadly, is to ditch the real right wing people/policies. It seems to me most successful prime ministers realized this very thing.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> I do wonder if these are some of the people(and other resent departures) are putting distance between themselves and Harper so as to take a run at Harper (When The Night of the Long Knives or whatever they call) the Conservative Palace coup d'état to replace our most glorious leader.
> 
> I do suppose Harper shall insist upon a new patented phrase though.
> 
> Do you think anyone will a write song like "Steve will be the control freak again?" Are there any groups like the Stringband out there today that would care?


Interesting points, BigDL. What is the mood towards an election in NB? Here in NL, many don't want an election, but most are ready for one and willing to go to the polls in the Spring. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC

Seems to me there is little taste for an election in any part of the country. That's likely because most people see an election as changing nothing with yet another Conservative minority.


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> Seems to me there is little taste for an election in any part of the country. That's likely because most people see an election as changing nothing with yet another Conservative minority.


I have a feeling that things will be shifting a bit in the four Atlantic provinces, Sinc. Still, it shall be Ontario that will determine who is our next PM. We shall see.


----------



## groovetube

how do you see things shifting there?


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> how do you see things shifting there?


All four premiers of the four Atlantic provinces have requested Ottawa to back the undersea transmission route for Labrador power to flow to all the four provinces. Quebec is against this route, so Ottawa is stalling at the approval of backing the loan. This backing shall get NL and NS a lower interest rate. Ottawa did this with the Hibernia project and so far has not lost a dime and actually made over one billion dollars of profits over and beyond what they laid out as grants. Grants are not even being requested, just a backing of the loans which will be sought to pay for this project. 

There were to be four Atlantic ferries for all four Atlantic provinces to be built in NB, NL and NS, but this was scrapped by the federal government.

Harper's recent trips to the four Atlantic provinces have been "in and out" (no pun intended) photo op events, with the presentation of money for Conservative riding districts. 

From various people in each of these four provinces I have heard that we are just being ignored by Ottawa .......... that we don't really count. A loss or gain of X number of seats in the House of Commons from these four provinces is not as important as Battlefield Ontario, as well as in Quebec, to a lesser extent. The feeling is that they can keep a minority with or without the Atlantic provinces, but can't get a majority government without the big gains to be had in Ontario.

This is where I feel the "shift" is coming from in terms of the current political climate. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> not even close to the same thing. The APEC summit was a *single* incident on a campus. an overreaction by the RCMP to protestors tearing down a barricade where pepper spray was used and under 50 people arrested.
> 
> the G20 was a planned security strategy, sanctioned by various levels of government, at a cost of over a $billion dollars, shutting down an entire city, where pepper spray was the least offensive thing done, and over a thousand people were arrested.
> 
> *to compare the two is laughable.*


Who said anything about a comparison... the cartoon brought to mind Chretien's comment on "Pepper Gate". Same as it ever was, was relevant to the cartoon and the comment in that the blase attitude of heads of government when it comes to putting down protesters are the "same as it ever was". And yes it was meant to be laughable....


----------



## screature

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Maybe the Harper Government©®™ should adopt that as their new campaign slogan:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They could license the old Talking Heads song for their ads:
> 
> "You may find yourself ... living with a Harper Gov
> ....
> 
> And you may ask yourself ... 'MY GOD! WHAT HAVE I DONE!!'
> 
> ...
> 
> Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was."


:lmao: Good one GA.


----------



## Ottawaman

John Ibbitson said it's the first time the government of Canada has been found in contempt of Parliament (not once, but twice), is this true?


----------



## Macfury

Ottawaman said:


> John Ibbitson said it's the first time the government of Canada has been found in contempt of Parliament (not once, but twice), is this true?


Based on this, I'm certain that it won't be the last. It has now descended to a level of common tool to show the opposition's displeasure and has been robbed of its gravity.


----------



## Ottawaman

> It was the second time in just under a year Mr. Milliken has been obliged to make the point that Parliament has an unconditional right to demand information from the cabinet. The first time involved documents requested by a parliamentary committee relating to the military’s transfer of Afghan detainees. Mr. Milliken wound up quoting his own ruling from last April: “No exceptions are made for any category of government documents. . . . it is perfectly within the existing privileges of the House to order production of the documents in question.” How many more times will he have to repeat himself?
> 
> The issue goes beyond a particular law or set of laws. Those are important enough in themselves – the possibility that billions of dollars will be spent to put more people in prison would be a gargantuan waste, especially at a time of massive deficits. But it is the idea that the government would ask Canadians and their elected representatives to go blindly into the future that is disturbing. As Mr. Milliken said, it “goes to the heart of the House’s undoubted role in holding the government to account.”
> 
> If the government is so uncomfortable with its law-and-order agenda that it has to hide the costs, it might as well scrap the program. It is unacceptable that the government needs to be lectured by the Speaker on how to live within the rules of Canadian democracy.


A government in contempt, no doubt - The Globe and Mail


----------



## groovetube

see, it's the oppositions fault. It's now a 'tool', for the opposition.

That's just ridiculous macfury.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> see, it's the oppositions fault. It's now a 'tool', for the opposition.
> 
> That's just ridiculous macfury.


Mark this post and tell me if I'm not correct three years from now. I'll buy you a cup of something dreadful if I'm wrong.


----------



## groovetube

it's amazing, how conservative supporters continually circle things, to make it about the opposition! Do you really think, the opposition made the cons pull these misdeeds? You may not like the methods to bring them to light and recognize them as 'misdeeds', but it's the government namely, Harper and his crew, who should be accountable for these actions, and that seems almost unfathomable to conservative supporters everywhere.

When it's the liberals, they're being arrogant criminals. When it's the conservatives, it's the arrogant opposition. The same tune here is being played. Somehow, despite the grand pronouncements on how government should be accountable, it actually meant, blame the liberals for everything we do wrong.

You didn't want an accountable government, you simply wanted a conservative one. That sums it up right there.


----------



## Dr.G.

"The Conservative government's big Economic Action Plan ad campaign is costing taxpayers $26 million — for three months.

A marketing specialist says the federal outlay is more cash than a big advertiser like Procter and Gamble would spend in a year in Canada.

The massive TV and radio buy is shared among three federal departments for slick ads that began airing Jan. 11 and wrap up by March 31."

Tories' economic action ads cost $26M - Politics - CBC News

tptptptp


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> When it's the liberals, they're being arrogant criminals. When it's the conservatives, it's the arrogant opposition. The same tune here is being played. Somehow, despite the grand pronouncements on how government should be accountable, it actually meant, blame the liberals for everything we do wrong.
> 
> You didn't want an accountable government, you simply wanted a conservative one. That sums it up right there.


I was pretty quiet when the Liberals were pulling run-of-the-mill crap. I'm no more likely to jump on this then I was on Chretien or Martin.


----------



## groovetube

run of the mill crap?

I don't recall 'quiet' at all with the liberals stupidity and lying. And nor should it be either.


----------



## groovetube

here's some, "run of the mill crap".

26 million bucks of taxpayers money buying some really high priced ad time to push the action plan that was totally forced on Harper by the opposition.
Harper government's ad buy costs taxpayers $26M - CTV News


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> here's some, "run of the mill crap".
> 
> 26 million bucks of taxpayers money buying some really high priced ad time to push the action plan that was totally forced on Harper by the opposition.
> Harper government's ad buy costs taxpayers $26M - CTV News


Beat you to it, gt. Check out posting #1129. Still, it is worth repeating.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> here's some, "run of the mill crap".
> 
> 26 million bucks of taxpayers money buying some really high priced ad time to push the action plan that was totally forced on Harper by the opposition.
> Harper government's ad buy costs taxpayers $26M - CTV News


Are you angry that they're spending advertising money--common for all parties? 

At least you finally admit that the action plan was totally forced on them.


----------



## groovetube

are you really, that beaten down macfury, that you're sitting, practically comatose, to mutter, "common for all parties"? Really?

So, really, in conclusion, the Harper crew, is no better than the liberals, at all. Status quo, "common to all parties", nothing to see here.

The forced thing was sarcastic macfury. As one could only be with that sort of delusion. I'm well aware this isn't the first time a party over spent on something, but I just find it fascinating, to see the total lethargy amongst conservatives now that their party, is even outdoing the arrogant "spend spend spend" liberals! With, if only meek little whimpers of "Iggy said he woulda...".

Funny stuff this back and forthing about a couple political parties.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> are you really, that beaten down macfury, that you're sitting, practically comatose, to mutter, "common for all parties"? Really?


Yes. They're all bad this way. The only thing that graces the Conservatives is that they spend less than Iggy wants to.


----------



## groovetube

that seems to be your mantra macfury. oooh they woulda I tell ya! I'm sure of it!

it's amazing what you can get people to believe. Even, if it has never even occurred. That seems to be far scarier, that what is actually happening right now.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> that seems to be your mantra macfury. oooh they woulda I tell ya! I'm sure of it!
> 
> it's amazing what you can get people to believe. Even, if it has never even occurred. That seems to be far scarier, that what is actually happening right now.


Yes it IS scarier. I'm glad you're finally getting this.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Yes. They're all bad this way. The only thing that graces the Conservatives is that they spend less than Iggy wants to.


That's only true if you don't count the corporate welfare the Conservatives dole out to their business friends.

I'm certainly no fan of the Liberals, but to give the Conservatives a pass because they "don't spend as much as some other party might" while they create loopholes for corporations to avoid taxes is silly.


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> Interesting points, BigDL. What is the mood towards an election in NB? Here in NL, many don't want an election, but most are ready for one and willing to go to the polls in the Spring. We shall see.
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


 Sorry for the delay with this reply, today was a work day and I have just reviewed the posing in this thread today.

Around Moncton people I have spoken with aren't particularly focused on a potential election. Most people are focused on the rains and mild weather dropping the height of the snow banks finally.

People have noticed the effects of having an opposition to the government though.

The last time there was any opposition to Harper was Danny's anybody but Harper Campaign. This past week people have paid attention especially to the cost of new jets.

I think that the election of a PC Government in NB and the problems with power rates may translate and will be blamed on Harper even though it not his fault.

I also concur with your assessment that the Atlantic region will not make much of a difference in an election. Ontario will the decide the kind of government we shall have. 

Without Danny's campaigning against the Conservative do you suspect the incumbents will prevail? Is there a great yearning in NL to have a member of a possible Conservative Government, that at least one Conservative candidate is elected?

I know there are still many voters here who hold a grudge against Harper for his "culture of defeat comment" and will not forgive him and will have that grudge carry on from beyond the grave.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> That's only true if you don't count the corporate welfare the Conservatives dole out to their business friends.


No, the money doled out to corporate welfare is included in the budget.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Yes it IS scarier. I'm glad you're finally getting this.


Macfury, -what-... is scarier? 

We have, a government spending themselves into oblivion right now. But that doesn't seem to register at all on you. 

You're babbling about what someone might do according to you? There seems to be quite the disconnect here.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Macfury, -what-... is scarier?
> 
> We have, a government spending themselves into oblivion right now. But that doesn't seem to register at all on you.
> 
> You're babbling about what someone might do according to you? There seems to be quite the disconnect here.


No, groovetube, you admitted yourself that the spending plan was forced on the Conservatives--you were only angry that they took credit for it in those ads.


----------



## groovetube

In the real world, the reference to the 'forcing' was sarcastic in the face of a government spending a ridiculous amount of money on ads with taxpayers money. Only a fool would think the opposition could force anything. Did we not hear so many times, about how Harper was ruling "as if he had a majority", and how ineffectual the opposition was, simply rubber stamping everything because they were afraid of an election? My how stories change, with the wind as it suits.

As for anger, well, I'm more than disappointed that a party that promised fiscal conservatism, accountability etc., lied and did the the total opposite. I'm quite amazed at your indifference to a government who is actually spending and wasting taxpayers money at an alarming rate, being a libertarian and all.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> In the real world, the reference to the 'forcing' was sarcastic in the face of a government spending a ridiculous amount of money on ads with taxpayers money. Only a fool would think the opposition could force anything. Did we not hear so many times, about how Harper was ruling "as if he had a majority", and how ineffectual the opposition was, simply rubber stamping everything because they were afraid of an election? My how stories change, with the wind as it suits.
> 
> As for anger, well, I'm more than disappointed that a party that promised fiscal conservatism, accountability etc., lied and did the the total opposite. I'm quite amazed at your indifference to a government who is actually spending and wasting taxpayers money at an alarming rate, being a libertarian and all.


I'm offended by all of the parties currently in power anywhere in Canada. All of their incompetence being equal, I will vote for the ones who attempt to do the least, while spending the least money. I might test another party, but I refuse to test the Liberals whose platform states that the Conservatives have not spent enough.

"Try them, try them, you will see," says groovetube. Nope. I'm afraid they WILL keep their promises.


----------



## Dr T

Macfury said:


> I'm offended by all of the parties currently in power anywhere in Canada. All of their incompetence being equal....


Hey, I thought this thread was devoted to embarrassments to the supreme leader of the Harper Government, not to all parties currently i power everywhere. How about starting another thread for that, so we can get back to focussing on the outrageous antics of the boss of the so-called Conservative Party in Ottawa?


----------



## Macfury

Dr T said:


> Hey, I thought this thread was devoted to embarrassments to the supreme leader of the Harper Government, not to all parties currently i power everywhere. How about starting another thread for that, so we can get back to focussing on the outrageous antics of the boss of the so-called Conservative Party in Ottawa?


Things were getting a little spare after the latest outrage, so I thought I would answer groovetube's question.


----------



## Dr T

*Spendthrift Harper*

Privatization by stealth, or "outsourcing" as it is called by the Harper Govt, is on the rise and contributing to a crisis of overspending.

fwd:

"The 'shadow public service': Outsourcing costs soar as feds slash budgets
By The Canadian Press March 3, 2011 08:34 am
printemailshare
A new study is urging the federal government to take a critical look at its outsourcing costs if it wants to get serious about spending controls.

The study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says the "growing and concentrated nature" of outsourcing has created a shadow public service that is immune to the hiring practices and transparency requirements of the real public service.

The study's author, research associate David Macdonald, says personnel outsourcing costs have risen 79 per cent in five years.

Macdonald says that while federal departments have had their budgets capped, spending on outside consultants has not been touched and exceeds $1 billion annually.

Contractors used to be hired for a week or so to do some filing, he says, but now they are being hired on contract for years at a time.

Four large departments — Public Works and Government Services Canada, National Defence and Canadian Forces, Human Resources and Skills Development, and Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness — comprise half of all federal government outsourcing.

Macdonald says their payrolls increased only nine per cent since 2005-06, but their personnel outsourcing costs exploded, rising 100 per cent.

"Without prompt corrective action, outsourcing costs will continue to soar," Macdonald says. "With the federal government running a significant deficit, it is more important than ever to examine measures that offer potential savings while maintaining services.""

The 'shadow public service': Outsourcing costs soar as feds slash budgets :: The Hook


----------



## Macfury

Outsource by all means, by-passing the unions, but make the accounting transparent. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives are union shills, so I would look very carefully at the way they calculate their figures, however.


----------



## BigDL

But...But... Harper has to slop them hogs, don't he?

Good Post Dr T.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> But...But... Harper has to slop them hogs, don't he?
> 
> Good Post Dr T.


Sure you have to slop the existing union hogs, but you don't have to engage new union hogs on contract--you just have to pay them the going rate and let them go when the job is finished.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives are union shills.




The Fraser Institute are corporate shills... the AAAS are Pinko Evilutionitsts... the Nobel Prize committee are Communists!

Nothing like a good ad hominem to avoid having to address the argument.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

bryanc said:


> The Fraser Institute are corporate shills... the AAAS are Pinko Evilutionitsts... the Nobel Prize committee are Communists!
> 
> Nothing like a good ad hominem to avoid having to address the argument.


No bryanc, you don't understand. It's OK when MF does it because he has far too many threads to snipe against to take the time to make proper arguments. beejacon


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The Fraser Institute are corporate shills... the AAAS are Pinko Evilutionitsts... the Nobel Prize committee are Communists!
> 
> Nothing like a good ad hominem to avoid having to address the argument.


Har! I don't need ad hominem: they're self-described as an"independent, non-profit research organization, to promote research on economic and social policy issues from a progressive point of view." 

They could no more publish research that promoted non-union employment, than fail to celebrate May Day!


----------



## Dr T

Macfury said:


> Har! I don't need ad hominem...!


Okay, let's just stick to substance:

"It will cost close to $30 billion to buy and maintain 65 F-35 fighter jets according to Parliament's budget watchdog — billions more than estimates given by the Conservative government. ... "I'm not going to get into a lengthy debate on numbers," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said at a news conference in Toronto. "

This from a url posted in another thread.
F-35 jets cost to soar to $29B: watchdog - Politics - CBC News


But this extravagant expenditure still qualifies as an embarrassment for Harper (or would if he wasn't utterly shameless, as you can see from the way he treats questions about it), and so warrants repeating in this thread.


----------



## Macfury

Dr T said:


> Okay, let's just stick to substance:
> 
> "It will cost close to $30 billion to buy and maintain 65 F-35 fighter jets according to Parliament's budget watchdog — billions more than estimates given by the Conservative government. ... "I'm not going to get into a lengthy debate on numbers," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said at a news conference in Toronto. "


In fact, we don't know this to be true. This is the opinion of one PBO officer.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> In fact, we don't know this to be true. This is the opinion of one PBO officer.


Almost double the unsubstantiated Con estimates there fore almost certainly low by a factor of at least 5. 

Based on past experience ~$150 Billion is the marker I would be betting on.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Almost double the unsubstantiated Con estimates there fore almost certainly low by a factor of at least 5.


The PBO numbers are also unsubstantiated, then.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> In fact, we don't know this to be true. This is the opinion of one PBO officer.


+1 The cost seems to be a moving target.

All we know for sure is that if we cancel the contract that the Libs agreed upon and the Cons followed through on it will cost Canadian taxpayers money... Whether or not that cost is greater or less than signing a new contract with someone else no one knows...

The Libs are being opportunistic here... they believed that the F-35 was the plane for Canada when they were in power, now that they are in opposition, they can scream about the deficit that they would have created themselves as the reason not to support the purchase... kinda like having your cake and eating it too... that is the luxury of being in opposition.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> In fact, we don't know this to be true. This is the opinion of one PBO officer.


So we all know the Government's numbers are correct not an estimation like the PBO officer (must be an echo in here) and these numbers are beyond reproach and questioning by anyone especially those trolls in opposition questioning the integrity of the government indeed and who is this PBO officer (there's that damn echo again) butting his nose in where it doesn't belong. Why doesn't he get back to get some of his work done.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

BigDL said:


> So we all know the Government's numbers are correct not an estimation like the PBO officer (must be an echo in here) and these numbers are beyond reproach and questioning by anyone especially those trolls in opposition questioning the integrity of the government indeed and who is this PBO officer (there's that damn echo again) butting his nose in where it doesn't belong. Why doesn't he get back to get some of his work done.


Dontcha know. Harper doesn't have to tell Parliament anything about numbers or any other thing, because the "people of Canada" elected him PM. Or listen to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, even though he brought him in for the sake of "transparency".

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. I think in Harperland, PM = Primary eMperor. The Harper Government©®™ means, the Government that Harper owns and can do with as he pleases.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Dr.G.

I know that this may sound crass, but I would rather have seen the $23 million spent at food banks and homeless shelters in Toronto and Vancouver, Montreal and Quebec City, where the Conservatives want to win seats, than on those ads. At least real people with real problems might have gotten some help, albeit temporary.


----------



## CubaMark

But Dr.G., from the Conservatives' point of view, that would be a huge waste of money. Everybody knows that homeless people don't vote....


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> All we know for sure is that if we cancel the contract that the Libs agreed upon and the Cons followed through on it will cost Canadian taxpayers money...


why would it cost us money? from what i understand, we haven't fully signed off on any contract.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> In fact, we don't know this to be true. This is the opinion of one PBO officer.


it's the opinion of an expert who looks at data, records and the history of similar situations and costs. It is backed by evidence. It may not be exact, but it is based on the most credible information that can be found.

The Harper government has *nothing* to back back up their costs. it's just a number they picked out of their heads.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> why would it cost us money? from what i understand, we haven't fully signed off on any contract.





> The Liberals have said that they would cancel the acquisition phase of the F-35 MOU that we have entered into and hold a competition and they say that there would be no consequences of doing that. What nonsense! We would have to negotiate our way out of the MOU at a potential cost of up to $551 million. We cannot compete the MOU deal for the F-35 against an FMS deal for a Super Hornet. We would be buying the F-35 directly from the U.S. Government on an FMS case with a take-it-or-leave-it price. We would lose our spots on the production line and we would be running a serious risk of a capability gap if we have to retire the CF-18 before the new aircraft is on the line. With all the information that we have on cost, capability, industrial opportunities, etc., the answer would still be F-35 and we would have lost time, money, jobs and international respect.


Forum: F-35 Lightning II


----------



## Dr.G.

CubaMark said:


> But Dr.G., from the Conservatives' point of view, that would be a huge waste of money. Everybody knows that homeless people don't vote....


True, but it's the optics of this act. A party committed to fiscal conservatism, willing to spend billions on new jet fighters and a couple of conferences in ON ................. not known for its social conscience, turns around and helps people who might not vote, or who might not vote for them in the next federal election. It would make me think twice about the Conservative Party of Canada and the Harper Government.

Still, the money has been spent on the ads, so that is not going to happen. Hasta luego, mi amigo. Paz.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> it's the opinion of an expert who looks at data, records and the history of similar situations and costs. It is backed by evidence. It may not be exact, but it is based on the most credible information that can be found.
> 
> The Harper government has *nothing* to back back up their costs. *it's just a number they picked out of their heads.*


That's just plain silly.


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> I know that this may sound crass, but I would rather have seen the $23 million spent at food banks and homeless shelters in Toronto and Vancouver, Montreal and Quebec City, where the Conservatives want to win seats, than on those ads. At least real people with real problems might have gotten some help, albeit temporary.


That would involve the PMO, or The New & Improved Harper's Conservative Headquarters Government©®™ knowing, they aren't just too lazy to walk to the grocery store, or aren't too lazy or inept to call the fuel delivery company to have heating fuel oil or propane delivered to heat their homes. 



BlablaBlaw Reporter said:


> The New & Improved Harper's Conservative Headquarters Government©®™ believe "...[if]*THEY* are that useless couldn't *THEY* at least heat with natural gas to take the burden of thinking away. Goodness some mother's children really."
> 
> According to a spokesperson from The New & Improved Harper's Conservative Headquarters Government©®™ who would not provide a name nor confirm a gender "The point that The New & Improved Harper's Conservative Headquarters Government©®™" ..."is trying to get across to people so inept" [that] *"...[for] THOES* that can't even arrange food, heat and shelter by themselves" ...well don't you understand how many times we the The New & Improved Harper's Conservative Headquarters Government©®™" "...have to repeat a message to make it true...," money well spent according to The New & Improved Harper's Conservative Headquarters Government©®™.


 I agree with the The New & Improved Harper's Conservative Headquarters Government©®™ you can't trust the National Media to get the truth out there.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> Forum: F-35 Lightning II


oh great. a post on a forum, quoting an email from a conservative mp.

must be true. 

lol.




screature said:


> That's just plain silly.


I watched the interview with Kevin Page (the PBO) where he stated *repeatedly* that whenever he asked the Harper Government to show paper backing up their numbers they couldn't show him *anything*.


----------



## Ottawaman

Harper links Japanese quake, opposition threat of snap election


Translation, if you vote me out Canada will suffer. Linking the Canadian political situation with the tragedy in Japan is insensitive.


----------



## groovetube

my god. I thought you were joking.


----------



## Macfury

Get a grip boys. That was pretty mild stuff.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

"As well, one day the Earth will fall into the sun. Everyone, everywhere should think very carefully if they want to trigger an election during this dangerous time with this disaster only billions of years away." the Prime Minister added. At which point he was handed a guitar and belted out a heartfelt version of "Give Peace a Chance".


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> "As well, one day the Earth will fall into the sun. Everyone, everywhere should think very carefully if they want to trigger an election during this dangerous time with this disaster only billions of years away." the Prime Minister added. At which point he was handed a guitar and belted out a heartfelt version of "Give Peace a Chance".


Was this when Iggy took his bus tour of the solar system?


----------



## Dr.G.

Sounds like this is turning into another "Magical Mystery Tour". Maybe it is time for the Canadian voters to step in and have their say. We shall see.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Get a grip boys. That was pretty mild stuff.


hey everyone no worries, macfury says is nothing, that our prime minister publicly compares the tragic deaths to iggy being a dink. So it must be true!

Hey that's what Canadians are known for! Well at least we are now...


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> hey everyone no worries, macfury says is nothing, that our prime minister publicly compares the tragic deaths to iggy being a dink. So it must be true!
> 
> Hey that's what Canadians are known for! Well at least we are now...


This is in today's ehMacLand Gazette --

Dear Editor—

I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Harper Government. Papa says, “If Macfury says it is so, it’s so.” Please tell me the truth, is there a Harper government?

Virginia O’Hanlon

Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Harper government. It exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there was no Stephen Harper! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Stephen Harper! You might as well not believe in fairies. You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the polling booths on election day to catch those not voting for the Harper government, but even if you did not see a Harper government majority, what would that prove? Nobody sees the Harper government, but that is no sign that there is no Stephen Harper The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

No Stephen Harper! Thank God! he lives and lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood ........ when he finally forms a majority government.

Respectfully submitted,
Jason Jinglestars
Editor
The ehMacLand Gazette


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> hey everyone no worries, macfury says is nothing, that our prime minister publicly compares the tragic deaths...


This is what I find so fascinating. In groovetube world, there's an article in which the PM glowingly speaks about the deaths of Japanese citizens, instead of pointing out that the world economic recovery is fragile enough that even a natural disaster can affect it. 

In your world, groovetube, does Bizarro Superman patrol the skies?


----------



## groovetube

Dr.G. said:


> This is in today's ehMacLand Gazette --
> 
> Dear Editor—
> 
> I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Harper Government. Papa says, “If Macfury says it is so, it’s so.” Please tell me the truth, is there a Harper government?
> 
> Virginia O’Hanlon
> 
> Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
> 
> Yes, Virginia, there is a Harper government. It exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there was no Stephen Harper! It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.
> 
> Not believe in Stephen Harper! You might as well not believe in fairies. You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the polling booths on election day to catch those not voting for the Harper government, but even if you did not see a Harper government majority, what would that prove? Nobody sees the Harper government, but that is no sign that there is no Stephen Harper The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
> 
> No Stephen Harper! Thank God! he lives and lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood ........ when he finally forms a majority government.
> 
> Respectfully submitted,
> Jason Jinglestars
> Editor
> The ehMacLand Gazette


:lmao:


----------



## Macfury

groovetube, I want you to know that Dr. G. did not make that up in its entirety. It's an adaptation of a very famous letter you may not have heard of.


----------



## groovetube

well gee macfury, thank you, thank you for that incredibly enlightening information.

The world according to macfury, is quite the resource it seems!


----------



## Macfury

I am always here to help.


----------



## whatiwant

Macfury said:


> In your world, groovetube, does Bizarro Superman patrol the skies?


In your world, MF, are people too oblivious to identify subtle fear-mongering?


----------



## Macfury

jawknee said:


> In your world, MF, are people too oblivious to identify subtle fear-mongering?


It certainly didn't make me feel afraid, but I may be more impervious to this sort of thing than EhMacers with less well-developed emotional defenses.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> groovetube, I want you to know that Dr. G. did not make that up in its entirety. It's an adaptation of a very famous letter you may not have heard of.


gt not heard about Santa Claus??? 

gt, where have you been living all these years???


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> I am always here to help.


Good for you, Macfury. "We stand on guard for thee." Paix, mon ami.


----------



## whatiwant

Macfury said:


> It certainly didn't make me feel afraid, but I may be more impervious to this sort of thing than EhMacers with less well-developed emotional defenses.


I see you can identify and utilize subtle insults...


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> oh great. a post on a forum, quoting an email from a conservative mp.
> 
> must be true.
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the interview with Kevin Page (the PBO) where he stated *repeatedly* that whenever he asked the Harper Government to show paper backing up their numbers they couldn't show him *anything*.


I trust will Laurie Hawn on this issue over Kevin Page any day of the week. Just in case you don't know who Hawn is, as it appears that you don't,



> Laurie D. Hawn PC CD MP (born May 11, 1947 in Winnipeg, Manitoba) is a retired Lieutenant Colonel of the Royal Canadian Air Force, later the Canadian Forces Air Command (1964-1994) , business person, and federal politician from Edmonton, Alberta. In the session of Parliament following the 39th general federal election of January 23, 2006, he is the Member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre and was sworn in on February 6, 2006. On October 10, 2007 he was appointed *Parliamentary Secretary to Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence.*...
> 
> Laurie Hawn joined the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1964 and received his pilot wings and Queen’s Commission in Gimli, Manitoba in January 1967. He flew the T-33 Silver Star as an Instructor Pilot and as a Tactical Fighter Pilot and Instructor on the CF-104 Starfighter and CF-18 Hornet.
> 
> In thirty years in the Air Force, Laurie rose to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel and he served an additional five years as Honourary Colonel of 417 Combat Support Squadron. Laurie held many high profile senior staff positions, commanded a CF-18 Tactical Fighter Squadron and was the operational commander at 4 Wing Cold Lake, supervising six squadrons, 1,800 personnel, multi-million dollar budgets, and multi-billion dollar assets. He has served in Europe, the United States and throughout Canada.


He is a highly respected Parliamentarian even among the opposition for his straight talk and integrity.


----------



## i-rui

and i trust a *non-partisan* budgetary watchdog over a *conservative* MP when it comes to spending (and pretty much everything else).


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> and i trust a *non-partisan* budgetary watchdog over a *conservative* MP when it comes to spending (and pretty much everything else).


Especially when they say what you want to hear!


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Especially when they say what you want to hear!


the irony of your statement is that I remember *you* pointing to a report
by the *very same* PBO Kevin Page saying there wasn't any wrongdoing in the 1.2 billion dollar G20 security budget*

funny how that works.



*although he also said the government could've saved hundreds of millions by using the military, and that there was still a large portion of the budget that government had not released a cost break down of.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Especially when they say what you want to hear!





i-rui said:


> the irony of your statement is that I remember *you* pointing to a report
> by the *very same* PBO Kevin Page saying there wasn't any wrongdoing in the 1.2 billion dollar G20 security budget*
> 
> funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> *although he also said the government could've saved hundreds of millions by using the military, and that there was still a large portion of the budget that government had not released a cost break down of.


Ohh SNAP!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

The Businessman, the Girlfriend, the Water Deal and the PMO



> OTTAWA — A former top adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper was lobbying the Indian Affairs Department earlier this year for a water filtration company involved in a multi-million dollar deal in which his fiancée, a former upscale call girl from Ottawa, stood to gain a lucrative commission.
> 
> The revelation of Bruce Carson’s activities prompted the Prime Minister’s Office to ask the RCMP this week to investigate allegations of influence-peddling.
> 
> Michele McPherson’s name appears as an “agent” of the water company, according to the contract first reported by the Aboriginal Peoples’ Television Network. And Carson, one of Harper’s longtime advisers, told APTN that he had witnessed the contract to sell water-filtration units to First Nations reserves.
> 
> Carson and his escort-turned fiancée own a house together near Kemptville, south of Ottawa. They purchased the house in December, according to land registry documents that list both as co-owners.





> (from the Globe and Mail)
> 
> It’s not the first time Mr. Carson has had a run-in with the law. He was disbarred in 1981 and sentenced to 18 months in jail in 1983 after pleading guilty to two counts of theft over $200. The charges apparently related to a real-estate deal gone bad.
> 
> He also has a long career in Conservative politics dating back to former leaders Joe Clark and Jean Charest. Around Ottawa. Mr. Carson is known as “the Mechanic” because, as he told an Alberta magazine earlier this year, “I fix things.”
> 
> The members of Mr. Harper’s inner circle were well aware of his criminal background when he became part of the transition team after Mr. Harper took office in 2006. But they felt he had paid his dues. “His advice was valued, there is no doubt about that,” a Conservative official said.


No this isn't the "In and Out" scandal. That was last month. I think this one might have a little to do with Viagra though. Really -- a trusted Harper advisor who spent 2 years hanging around the PMO, is lobbying for his 22-year-old escort fiancee? 

Now THIS is a good old-fashioned political scandal.


----------



## Macfury

The Prime Minister's office requested the investigation--why is this an "Embarrassment for Harper?"


----------



## kps

You can hate Harper and his government all you want, but I see him as a far better choice than Iggy and his ilk. I didn't see the sky falling since he has been PM and I don't see it happening if he gains a majority...reform skeletons notwithstanding.

Opportunists like Ignatieff and Justin Trudeau have no place in my Canada. I would rather have Martin or even Chretien back rather that what the Liberal Party has to offer these days.The Liberals are a train wreck, the Jack Layton NDP are a zero, the Greens...non-existent.

If the people of Ontario were smart...they would vote in centrist "red" Tories to off set the imbalance, but I don't hold my hopes up. I'll settle for another minority.


----------



## SINC

^

Great assessment kps, and exactly why another election might just give the Conservatives a majority. One thing is for sure, an election would be the death knell for Iggy and yet another setback for the Liberals that would add many more years to any hope of their regaining power.


----------



## groovetube

kps said:


> You can hate Harper and his government all you want, but I see him as a far better choice than Iggy and his ilk. I didn't see the sky falling since he has been PM and I don't see it happening if he gains a majority...reform skeletons notwithstanding.
> 
> Opportunists like Ignatieff and Justin Trudeau have no place in my Canada. I would rather have Martin or even Chretien back rather that what the Liberal Party has to offer these days.The Liberals are a train wreck, the Jack Layton NDP are a zero, the Greens...non-existent.
> 
> If the people of Ontario were smart...they would vote in centrist "red" Tories to off set the imbalance, but I don't hold my hopes up. I'll settle for another minority.


wait a second, are you actulay trying to imply that Harper is _not_ an opportunist? If ne believes that, no offence but you're a victim of paid advertisements.

Harper is as much an opportunist as any of them, he simply wants you believe itherwise. I have no doubt Iggy is an opportunist, but come on.

Harper is on his best (not so good) behaviour simply because he has to, he has a minority. If did as he would have with a majority so far, he would not have a chance in hell of getting a majority.


----------



## jimbotelecom

kps said:


> If the people of Ontario were smart...they would vote in centrist "red" Tories to off set the imbalance, but I don't hold my hopes up. I'll settle for another minority.


That's if you can find a red Tory...unfortunately Steve has routed the sensible wing of the Con party and made sure that his fundamentalist views are adhered to. Give this regime a majority and we'll re-open abortion, bibles, and other unsavory items. Thank goodness a majority of Canucks see this as a Con job.


----------



## kps

Well, if we're going to generalise and paint all politicians with the same characteristics, then sure, we can say they're all opportunists. Individually, there's no comparison.

As far as the fear of a Con majority is concerned, I think it's unfounded. I don't believe Harper to be a foaming at the mouth right wing nut bar who will destroy Canada at first opportunity if he gains a majority. I also think Harper is a strong enough leader to curb some of the extreme Reform elements in his party and if Eastern Canada votes in enough centrist Tories it would be a non issue.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> the irony of your statement is that I remember *you* pointing to a report
> by the *very same* PBO Kevin Page saying there wasn't any wrongdoing in the 1.2 billion dollar G20 security budget*
> 
> funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> *although he also said the government could've saved hundreds of millions by using the military, and that there was still a large portion of the budget that government had not released a cost break down of.


Yep, but based on the price of recent G20 meetings in other countries. I have no idea what the airplanes will eventually cost, so to claim special knowledge that either the government's numbers or the CBO's numbers are the accurate figures makes no sense. We have no basis with which to compare the CBO's numbers with the government's numbers.


----------



## adagio

jimbotelecom said:


> That's if you can find a red Tory...unfortunately Steve has routed the sensible wing of the Con party and made sure that his fundamentalist views are adhered to. Give this regime a majority and we'll re-open abortion, bibles, and other unsavory items. Thank goodness a majority of Canucks see this as a Con job.


Why bring up the abortion issue? The PM has repeatedly said over and over again that status quo remains. The only ones fixated on this seem to be the Liberals. They like to trot out this boogyman when they know damn well it's a crock.


----------



## Macfury

The whole notion of finding Red Tories is also a crock. Few Liberals would support a Red Tory, but it would make Liberals feel better if they were running.


----------



## i-rui

the PBO is basing their numbers on *current* projections of cost and historical trends. The Harper government is basing their costs on numbers bandied about at the initial phase (i.e the *sales pitch*) .





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






the US NAVY is currently projecting the cost at twice what the Harper Government says it will be. like come on.


----------



## i-rui

The Harper Government is also low balling the public on their super prison costs.

Why do we need to spend billions of dollars creating super prisons? Does anyone actually feel unsafe walking the streets with crime down year after year? This is a pressing need for Canadians? we should be spending our limited resources on something like this?


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> Why do we need to spend billions of dollars creating super prisons?


They have to be large enough to house NDP voters. This will act as a warning to supporters of the Liberals.


----------



## i-rui

if only there were *that* many NDP voters...


----------



## Max

When they've done super-imprisoning the NDP, and then the Liberals, they will commence to eat their own. But not before they unleash mandatory loyalty oaths and those smart new SuperCon™, HarperCo™ armbands for everyone.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> the PBO is basing their numbers on *current* projections of cost and historical trends. The Harper government is basing their costs on numbers bandied about at the initial phase (i.e the *sales pitch*) .


Nope, the government is basing its numbers on the Pentagon's Selected Acquisition Report, issued quarterly. The Canadian numbers are lower because:



> —Canada is buying just 65 jets out of nearly 3,000 Lockheed Martin hopes to sell, and Canada has arranged to take delivery on them during the sweet spot in the production run, from 2016 to 2022, when manufacturing costs should be far lower than for the early sales. (The few F-35s made and sold so far have gone for about $140 million a pop.)
> 
> —Canada’s deal as part of the F-35 consortium shields it from paying for escalating research and development costs, which are being shouldered overwhelmingly by the U.S. It’s those R & D overruns that are the main reason overall F-35 costs have soared beyond early forecasts.
> 
> —Canada is purchasing only the “Conventional Take-off and Landing” version of the F-35, the cheapest of the three versions of the Joint Strike Fighter, and the model with by far the fewest design, development and testing problems. But U.S. reports on the F-35 generally cite the average cost per jet spread across all the three variations.


The F-35 jet cost controversy: now we’re getting somewhere - John Geddes - Macleans.ca


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> When they've done super-imprisoning the NDP, and then the Liberals, they will commence to eat their own. But not before they unleash mandatory loyalty oaths and those smart new SuperCon™, HarperCo™ armbands for everyone.


Can you produce art in the Constructivist style?


----------



## i-rui

> —Canada’s deal as part of the F-35 consortium shields it from paying for escalating research and development costs, which are being shouldered overwhelmingly by the U.S. It’s those R & D overruns that are the main reason overall F-35 costs have soared beyond early forecasts.


if you watch the interview Kevin Page says they *are not* including the soaring r&d costs into their report.

it's incredible that the cons pushed for more transparency when the liberals were in office, created the Federal Accountability Act because it was so important that the government be accountable. the Federal Accountability Act in turn created the PBO as an impartial and professional service to keep government budgets in check, and now all of a sudden (when Harper doesn't like it) the PBO's numbers are meaningless?

What exactly was the point?

It'd be laughable if it wasn't *our* money..


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> if you watch the interview Kevin Page says they *are not* including the soaring r&d costs into their report.


That's right, because according to the contract, the US is shouldering the R&D costs.

Unfortunately, such deals span a decade or more and at this point, the contract is binding, regardless of who is in power. You can choose to reduce the order, see per plane prices leap and pay a huge penalty or let the order be filled. You could also cancel the contract, pay a monstrous penalty and have no planes.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> That's right, because according to the contract, the US is shouldering the R&D costs.
> 
> Unfortunately, such deals span a decade or more and at this point, the contract is binding, regardless of who is in power. You can choose to reduce the order, see per plane prices leap and pay a huge penalty or let the order be filled. You could also cancel the contract, pay a monstrous penalty and have no planes.


AFAIK the contract hasn't been signed off on. All talk of cancellation fees seems to be a lot of Conservative rhetoric and scare tactics.

It'd be nice if our government was transparent enough so Canadians could actually see the full details of whats involved.


----------



## Max

Macfury said:


> Can you produce art in the Constructivist style?


If I can't, it's off with my head! The coming HarperCanada has no need for artsies, pansies, intellectuals and other touchie-feelie culture-lubbin' flotsam 'n jetsam.


----------



## Dr.G.

Max said:


> If I can't, it's off with my head! The coming HarperCanada has no need for artsies, pansies, intellectuals and other touchie-feelie culture-lubbin' flotsam 'n jetsam.


Very true, Max. Here in St.John's we have a "re-education camp" being constructed up in Pippy Park. It looks somewhat ominous, but we are being told not to worry, it will be fully paid for by Harper Government, and might even result in more people coming to our province to "live". We shall see.


----------



## Max

Dr. G, it's been swelling trading ideas with you. Gotta go now - I see some armed men in suits and glossy silver Harperite hair are breaking in to the building and coming for m


----------



## Dr.G.

Max said:


> Dr. G, it's been swelling trading ideas with you. Gotta go now - I see some armed men in suits and glossy silver Harperite hair are breaking in to the building and coming for m


What has been "swelling" is your file of anti-Harper Government comments. See, you should have been nicer to our friend, Macfury. Should they ever come for him, then we are ALL in big trouble.

As for me, I don't worry, since my last line of defense is my "panic room" upstairs, which is guarded by my trusted dachshunds, who have a motto that they live by -- "Death before Dishonor". Thus, I am safe and free to say whatever I want to in defence and support of our illustrious leader, the Right Honorable Prime Minister, Stephen X. Harper. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## eMacMan

Dr.G. said:


> What has been "swelling" is your file of anti-Harper Government comments. See, you should have been nicer to our friend, Macfury. Should they ever come for him, then we are ALL in big trouble.
> 
> As for me, I don't worry, since my last line of defense is my "panic room" upstairs, which is guarded by my trusted dachshunds, who have a motto that they live by -- "Death before Dishonor". Thus, I am safe and free to say whatever I want to in defence and support of our illustrious leader, the Right Honorable Prime Minister, Stephen X. Harper. Paix, mon ami.


:clap:
Most clever. I can see that any one in full body army would certainly fail to see the trap, stumble onto the guard and tumble down the stairs to their demise.


----------



## Macfury

Max and Dr. G: You have remained on my "good" list. There will always be a place for you in the new system.


----------



## Max

MF: I'd shake your iron fist, but for the shackles binding me to this clammy dungeon floor.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> MF: I'd shake your iron fist, but for the shackles binding me to this clammy dungeon floor.


Hmmm. Perhaps that IS your place in the new system.


----------



## Dr.G.

eMacMan said:


> :clap:
> Most clever. I can see that any one in full body army would certainly fail to see the trap, stumble onto the guard and tumble down the stairs to their demise.


True. And should that fail, my last line of defence .............. Semper fidelis.


----------



## Dr.G.

Max said:


> MF: I'd shake your iron fist, but for the shackles binding me to this clammy dungeon floor.


"Stone walls do not a prison make,
Nor iron bars a cage."

"Two men looked out through prison bars,
One saw earth, 
The other saw stars."

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."

Keep the Faith, mon ami. Paix.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Max and Dr. G: You have remained on my "good" list. There will always be a place for you in the new system.


Thank you, Comrade Macfury. I appreciate that ......... as do my wife, son, and doxies. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature

kps said:


> Well, if we're going to generalise and paint all politicians with the same characteristics, then sure, we can say they're all opportunists. Individually, there's no comparison.
> 
> As far as the fear of a Con majority is concerned, I think it's unfounded. I don't believe Harper to be a foaming at the mouth right wing nut bar who will destroy Canada at first opportunity if he gains a majority. I also think Harper is a strong enough leader to curb some of the extreme Reform elements in his party and if Eastern Canada votes in enough centrist Tories it would be a non issue.


The Reformers are almost extinct in the CPC party now, certainly in Cabinet at any rate and their numbers can only contiue to fall.


----------



## Max

Macfury said:


> Hmmm. Perhaps that IS your place in the new system.


Spoken like a true anonymous functionary of the state. Where's Ayn Rand when you need her?


----------



## Dr.G.

Max said:


> Spoken like a true anonymous functionary of the state. Where's Ayn Rand when you need her?


"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

Ayn Rand


----------



## Max

Great quote! Not sure I understand it but it has some cojones.

Never liked Rand the fiction writer but I can applaud some of her notions regarding liberty, independence and self-reliance.


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> Very true, Max. Here in St.John's we have a "re-education camp" being constructed up in Pippy Park. It looks somewhat ominous, but we are being told not to worry, it will be fully paid for by Harper Government, and might even result in more people coming to our province to "live". We shall see.


I understand Harper's New Conservative Government have wisely only budgeted Capital Costs for the "re-education Camp(s)" and have no operating budgets as it will left to the "so you think your so smart, you figure out how to feed yourself" intelligentsia err internees errrr aaah students that's it students.


----------



## jimbotelecom

Macfury said:


> The whole notion of finding Red Tories is also a crock. Few Liberals would support a Red Tory, but it would make Liberals feel better if they were running.


I have no problems supporting a red Tory like Steve's replacement in waiting Mr. Prentice. Alas he chose to resign rather than serve under the shackles of Steve.


----------



## Max

I believe it's all too easy for Stephen Harper to suspect that the people working beneath him have "obedience issues." The man may appear to be somewhat stiffly phlegmatic in public but behind closed doors he's a control freak.


----------



## jimbotelecom

More info on the Cons and "hookergate"

Carson's recruiters knew of PMO aide's criminal past - Politics - CBC News


----------



## screature

Max said:


> Great quote! Not sure I understand it but it has some cojones.
> 
> Never liked Rand the fiction writer but I can applaud some of her notions regarding liberty, independence and self-reliance.


+1 Agreed a great quote.


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> More info on the Cons and "hookergate"
> 
> Carson's recruiters knew of PMO aide's criminal past - Politics - CBC News


Hooker Gate? Really??? 

As far as the "criminal record" goes... I thought Libs and the left were all about rehabilitation and redemption... apparently not... at least not when you can use someone's criminal past against them for political gain.   

From the article you posted:



> ....The chair of the Canada School of Energy and Environment's board of directors defends the organization's decision to hire the former senior prime ministerial aide despite his brush with the law in 1982.
> 
> "Absolutely, we've reviewed that," Brian Heidecker told CBC News.
> 
> "That's a very serious situation, but 25 years of unblemished service after that, we seem to have the opinion he had learned his lesson."
> 
> Heidecker stressed Carson pleaded guilty, served his jail time and was granted a pardon.
> 
> "We decided the past was the past and that we would recruit him and retain him," he said in a phone interview from Edmonton.
> 
> Carson stepped aside late Wednesday from his leadership role until any potential RCMP review is concluded....





> ...Heidecker praised Carson's work with the Canada School of Energy and Environment over the last three years.
> 
> "He has been able to cause a lot of very, very good conversations in the whole area of energy and environment," he said.
> 
> Heidecker, who also chairs the U of A's board of governors, denied that Carson's longtime conservative political connections played a role in his 2008 appointment to the school, which received millions of dollars in federal funding.
> 
> "Mr. Carson has phenomenal contacts within the private sector, within the public sector — and it was that ability to know people and access people... [that] we hired him," says Heidecker...


----------



## jimbotelecom

Actually I couldn't care less but it's great to see the holier than thou element of the cons getting nervous about one of their own and escorts. Forgive and forget. Wasn't Mary a hooker too?


----------



## screature

jimbotelecom said:


> I have no problems supporting a red Tory like Steve's replacement in waiting Mr. Prentice. Alas he chose to resign rather than serve under the shackles of Steve.


Ahh, glad you brought up Mr. Prentice... I think he is a leader in waiting but for him he saw that it would be easier to run for leadership out of Cabinet rather than being in Cabinet. I could of course be completely wrong but that is what my gut tells me. Time will tell....


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Unfortunately, such deals span a decade or more and at this point, the contract is binding, regardless of who is in power. You can choose to reduce the order, see per plane prices leap and pay a huge penalty or let the order be filled. You could also cancel the contract, pay a monstrous penalty and have no planes.


Funny how when Mayor Ford proposed to cancel the transit city LRT contracts you were dancing with glee, despite there being KNOWN fees for breaking the deals.

But now, just potentially paying a cancellation fee (one that still hasn't been confirmed and most likely is non-existent) your argument becomes we must forge ahead with the contract lest we be faced with these monstrous penalties.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> Funny how when Mayor Ford proposed to cancel the transit city LRT contracts you were dancing with glee, despite there being KNOWN fees for breaking the deals.
> 
> But now, just potentially paying a cancellation fee (one that still hasn't been confirmed and most likely is non-existent) your argument becomes we must forge ahead with the contract lest we be faced with these monstrous penalties.


Something you fail to address and so do the opportunistic Libs is the issue of interoperabilty.

We are members of Norad and Nato, with whom we mostly engage with in terms of joint operations. If we have a different fighters from the rest of them procurement and logistical problems can and often do arise... It is better that we are "on the same page" with our allies... operationally and politically....

It is simply a fact... If we are seen to be "cheaping out" on our military investment our commitment to our allies comes into question.

Sure we could go this route, but don't doubt for a second that there isn't a price/cost associated with that as well. 

Our national defence from foreign threats since WWII has never come into question and then only ever in minor terms. For many of the other nations with whom we are allies it is not the case. So if we only invest in programs that are relative to only our own needs how good an ally are we really....

I mean really... the investment in the F-35's is the cost of being involved with allies who will have our back and reciprocally ours theirs.


----------



## Ottawaman

> Report says government is in contempt
> 
> Reading this...
> 
> and I wondered...
> 
> Can you name a government, in the history of Canadian governments, that was more corrupt than the current one?
> 
> Government MP's arrested with cocaine, unlawful lobbying, meetings with busty hookers, top advisors selling First Nations water contracts to prostitutes in exchange for sex, ministers of the Crown forging documents and submitting them to Parliament, government ministers deliberately withholding information requested by Parliamentary motion on the cost of legislation, ministers lying about advice on the census leading to deputy minister's resignation...
> 
> Oh, and now four of the government's top men are facing charges for electoral fraud for acts committed during the election they won on a platform of "accountability." What could be more farsical?
> 
> Forget the Pacific Railway scandal, forget the Gomery Inquiry, forget Mackenzie Bowell - whose funeral was not attended by a single member of the government. I defy anyone, name a government more corrupt than this lot - then tell me, did they promise to elimate corruption when they were elected?
> 
> I am alarmed. One thing alarms me more, however, which is that the polling numbers haven't moved, which suggests that Canadians are overwhelmingly comfortable with a completely corrupt regime in Ottawa, laughing at democracy and driving up record debts.


Bowie's Blog: Report says government is in contempt

I find it interesting that when the Liberal party was involved in Adscam, the voters who traditionally voted Liberal, withdrew their votes. In effect, they were punishing the LPC. I also find it interesting that the "Harper Government" has demonstrated just as bad, if not worse ethics, but Harper supporters seem to become more pro Harper as he devolves into scandel after scandel.


----------



## groovetube

Ottawaman said:


> Bowie's Blog: Report says government is in contempt
> 
> I find it interesting that when the Liberal party was involved in Adscam, the voters who traditionally voted Liberal, withdrew their votes. In effect, they were punishing the LPC. I also find it interesting that the "Harper Government" has demonstrated just as bad, if not worse ethics, but Harper supporters seem to become more pro Harper as he devolves into scandel after scandel.


that'll simply fall on deaf ears OM.

oh. ADSCAM!


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> that'll simply fall on deaf ears OM.
> 
> oh. ADSCAM!


The "vox populi" should never fall on "deaf ears". We shall see.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> The Prime Minister's office requested the investigation--why is this an "Embarrassment for Harper?"


Except that the story broke before the investigation was requested. Then the Harper Government©®™ moved with lightning speed to do the right thing. Their request is only standard damage control. No such requests were made by the Harper Government©®™ when the lobbying occurred last summer and fall.



screature said:


> Hooker Gate? Really???
> 
> As far as the "criminal record" goes... I thought Libs and the left were all about rehabilitation and redemption... apparently not... at least not when you can use someone's criminal past against them for political gain.
> 
> From the article you posted:


I thought the Cons and the right were all about "lock 'em up and throw away the key" ... apparently not ... at least not when you can use someone's criminal chops for political gain.   I guess two can play the straw man game, eh?

No one would be talking about Carson if he hadn't been in Harper's inner circle and then used that connection to repeatedly lobby Federal agencies for the financial benefit of his 22-year-old fiance's new found interest in a company providing water purification for remote First Nations settlements, while transitioning from her current career as a popular Ottawa escort.

"The Mechanic", as Carson was known, because of ability to "fix things", has had a long history with Conservative governments from Mulroney through Mike Harris and to Harper. This history started almost immediately after he left jail. What exactly his great skills were that endeared him to these politicians one can only speculate on.

But, the real scandal here is that a former member of the PMO can so easily get away with breaking the Harper Government's©®™ supposedly comprehensive and ironclad rules against lobbying.

"We must clean up corruption and lift up the veils of secrecy that have allowed it to flourish. We must replace the culture of entitlement with a culture of accountability." — Stephen Harper, 2005. 

So with much solemnity and moral certitude Canada's New Government©®™, as the Harper Government's©®™ was then known passed the new Federal Accountability Act in 2006, put in place to stop just this sort of thing. The Harper Government's©®™ was supposed to be nothing at all like the corrupt, scandal-ridden Lieberals. Then reality overtook rhetoric. The "culture of accountability"? That's only for public consumption.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> Funny how when Mayor Ford proposed to cancel the transit city LRT contracts you were dancing with glee, despite there being KNOWN fees for breaking the deals.
> 
> But now, just potentially paying a cancellation fee (one that still hasn't been confirmed and most likely is non-existent) your argument becomes we must forge ahead with the contract lest we be faced with these monstrous penalties.


Because the Toronto Transit money was being devoted to the wrong project.

We have NATO and NORAD commitments that must be met by _some_ jet fighter, but I've seen no indication that any other fighter would provide a better option.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> We are members of Norad and Nato, with whom we mostly engage with in terms of joint operations. If we have a different fighters from the rest of them procurement and logistical problems can and often do arise... It is better that we are "on the same page" with our allies... operationally and politically....
> ....
> I mean really... the investment in the F-35's is the cost of being involved with allies who will have our back and reciprocally ours theirs.


there are 28 nations in NATO. Are you honestly suggesting that all of them will be buying F-35's? Do you think Albania is going to break their nations bank just so they can play with the same toys? Greece is going to forget about being bankrupt and splurge on $140 million dollar planes?

NATO will work with what we have.




Macfury said:


> Because the Toronto Transit money was being devoted to the wrong project.
> 
> We have NATO and NORAD commitments that must be met by _some_ jet fighter, but I've seen no indication that any other fighter would provide a better option.


Super Hornets would be a much more sensible buy at a fraction of the cost.


----------



## screature

Ottawaman said:


> Bowie's Blog: Report says government is in contempt
> 
> I find it interesting that when the Liberal party was involved in Adscam, the voters who traditionally voted Liberal, withdrew their votes. In effect, they were punishing the LPC. I also find it interesting that the "Harper Government" has demonstrated just as bad, if not worse ethics, but Harper supporters seem to become more pro Harper as he devolves into scandel after scandel.





> *Government MP's arrested with cocaine*


Not true no Government MP was arrested for possession of cocaine... never happened.



> *unlawful lobbying,*


Is is not a crime of the government only the lobbiest... never happened not true.



> *meetings with busty hookers*


Nothing to do with the government.



> *top advisors selling First Nations water contracts to prostitutes in exchange for sex*


Nothing to do with the government... what an individual does once they are not associated with the government is not the governments responsibility.



> *ministers of the Crown forging documents and submitting them to Parliament*


Not true no document was ever "forged"

The only things in this whole list that hold any waterare:



> government ministers deliberately withholding information requested by Parliamentary motion on the cost of legislation, ministers lying about advice on the census leading to deputy minister's resignation...


Yep these things are truly scandalous. 

*Our federal politicians are mired in trivia*
Chantal Hébert



> This was the week when the opposition parties had hoped to focus public attention on the Conservative government’s cavalier approach to Parliament.
> 
> Instead they unwittingly ended up providing voters with another vignette of the growing disconnect between parliamentarians and the public.
> 
> In a week when most Canadians wondered how the country would cope with a crisis on the scale of that which has befallen Japan, the merits of funding sports arenas and the relative crudeness of the wording of an updated citizenship guide were uppermost on the mind of some of Canada’s leading politicians.
> 
> *Against the backdrop of a potential nuclear disaster in the immediate vicinity of Tokyo, the main federal attractions featured a government on a publicly funded vote-shopping spree and three opposition parties engaged in a procedural inquisition.*
> 
> There is no doubt that some situations are so dire that they dwarf every other debate in sight and the Japan developments certainly rank among those.
> 
> *But even when there is not a mega-humanitarian or international crisis to eclipse Parliament, the emphasis in the House of Commons is increasingly on the menial to the exclusion of the essential.*
> 
> *A federal debate that is more often than not divorced from the central preoccupations of Canadians has now become an ongoing feature of the country’s political scene*
> 
> In the ’80s and ’90s, the main thread in the conversation of successive Parliaments involved core issues such as Canada’s relationship with the United States or national unity and the House of Commons was a stage where different visions were articulated and debated.
> 
> *These days, the most striking differences between Canada’s two main parties centre on matters such as the future of the gun registry, the public funding of sports facilities or the rate of taxation of corporate Canada.
> 
> On the larger issues, the line between the two is blurred, when it exists at all. Earlier this week, pollster Frank Graves suggested that the Liberals and the Conservatives could be natural partners in a coalition and he was not speaking totally in jest.*
> 
> One could argue that there were more major policy differences between the Tories and the Canadian Alliance prior to their 2003 merger than there are between today’s Liberals and Conservatives.
> 
> They have walked in lockstep on Afghanistan for almost a decade, with the Liberals in opposition acting as the driving force behind the current plan for a post-2011 military training role.
> 
> Ditto on Canada/U.S. relations: Recently the Liberals have made noise over the opacity of the Conservative bid for the Canada-U.S. perimeter but they have yet to shed enough light on their own approach to the issue to know how it would be distinguishable from that of the government.
> 
> *On the economy, there is little evidence that the Liberal approach to the recession would have been substantially different from that of the Conservatives — except in label.*
> 
> With Stéphane Dion’s carbon tax out of the Liberal picture, the difference between the two parties’ climate change approach increasingly comes across as more rhetorical than substantial.
> 
> And then there is the deafening common silence on the future of medicare. Health care sits at the top of the issues the public cares about. With the current funding arrangements for the system about to expire, its sustainability is a matter of growing concern for the provinces and health-care providers.
> 
> It is the source of much debate in all public policy venues ... except the House of Commons.
> 
> Many MPs worry that Canadians have stopped caring about Parliament. But over their time in federal politics, this generation of politicians has reversed a fundamental tenet of democratic life.
> 
> *It used to be that Parliament was meant to tend to the issues that mattered most to voters. But now voters are being called upon to tend — through their votes — to the issues that matter most to parliamentarians. As the events of this week have demonstrated, the two are not necessarily synonymous.*


----------



## screature

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> *I thought the Cons and the right were all about "lock 'em up and throw away the key" ... *


See that is your first mistake...


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> there are 28 nations in NATO. Are you honestly suggesting that all of them will be buying F-35's? *Do you think Albania is going to break their nations bank* just so they can play with the same toys? *Greece is going to forget about being bankrupt* and splurge on $140 million dollar planes?


Are Albania or Greece in the G8 or in the G20... Phullease you can make a beter argument than that...


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> Super Hornets would be a much more sensible buy at a fraction of the cost.


Yeah and you would know over countless military experts who disagree. Sure there are military experts who think the Super Hornets would be "fine" But don't try and come off like an expert yourself... If it is up for debate among the experts, I doubt you hold the definitive position on the matter. And neither do I.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> Are Albania or Greece in the G8 or in the G20... Phullease you can make a beter argument than that...


Germany & France are G8,G20 & NATO countries that aren't buying any F-35s.

So what exactly is your point?


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> Germany & France are G8,G20 & NATO countries that aren't buying any F-35s.
> 
> So what exactly is your point?


Playing in the "Big Leagues" doesn't come cheap. We will have to agree to disagree as neither of us are going to change each others mind on this point.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

screature said:


> GratuitousApplesauce said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the Cons and the right were all about "lock 'em up and throw away the key" ...
> 
> 
> 
> See that is your first mistake...
Click to expand...

screature, I'm sure you know that the part of the post you quote is out of context and doesn't reflect my opinion. Just to be sure let me repeat it so you and our audience can see where you've either misunderstood it or knowingly taken it out of context.



screature said:


> As far as the "criminal record" goes... I thought Libs and the left were all about rehabilitation and redemption... apparently not... at least not when you can use someone's criminal past against them for political gain.





GA said:


> I thought the Cons and the right were all about "lock 'em up and throw away the key" ... apparently not ... at least not when you can use someone's criminal chops for political gain. I guess two can play the straw man game, eh?


Of course I was using "lock 'em up and throw away the key" as a straw man, just as you used your straw man previously. I don't believe all conservatives subscribe to this idea, although some clearly do.


----------



## kps

Macfury said:


> The whole notion of finding Red Tories is also a crock. Few Liberals would support a Red Tory, but it would make Liberals feel better if they were running.


I was thinking more in terms of those who only vote Liberal because they have some unfounded fear of the Harper Reform skeletons. I really don't expect 'lifer' Liberals switching overnight....although seeing Rocco Rossi's recent bid, one never knows. lol

P.S. Man, it's hard to keep up with this thread.


----------



## groovetube

it's interesting how the cons are so quick to pull out as much of Iggy's history as they can, yet the "reform skeletons", well, they're just... skeletons.

Nothing to see here.


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> it's interesting how the cons are so quick to pull out as much of Iggy's history as they can, yet the "reform skeletons", well, they're just... skeletons.
> 
> Nothing to see here.


"You must remember this 
A kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh. 
The fundamental things apply 
As time goes by.

It's still the same old story 
A fight for love and glory 
A case of do or die. 
The world will always welcome lovers 
As time goes by."


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> it's interesting how the cons are so quick to pull out as much of Iggy's history as they can, yet the "reform skeletons", well, they're just... skeletons.
> 
> Nothing to see here.


Unfortunately, Iggy isn't quite a skeleton--he's still alive and spewing!


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> Playing in the "Big Leagues" doesn't come cheap.


F-18's (or other alternatives) would never be "cheap". But that doesn't mean you have to spend 2-5 times as much to get a fighter jet.

Your premise that Canada would have to get F-35's because NATO will be using F-35's is utter nonsense. There are 28 countries in NATO. The *vast majority of them WILL NOT be getting F-35's*. Most of the countries that were initially part of the JSF project and were penciled in to buy the F-35 are now seriously looking to cancel their contracts. It's not just Canada that see's this jet as a huge waste of money.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> F-18's (or other alternatives) would never be "cheap". But that doesn't mean you have to spend 2-5 times as much to get a fighter jet.
> 
> Your premise that Canada would have to get F-35's because NATO will be using F-35's is utter nonsense. There are 28 countries in NATO. The *vast majority of them WILL NOT be getting F-35's*. Most of the countries that were initially part of the JSF project and were penciled in to buy the F-35 are now seriously looking to cancel their contracts. It's not just Canada that see's this jet as a huge waste of money.


Of course, the vast majority of them are "clingers' who don't really meet much of their NATO obligations. If you are arguing that Canada should quit NATO, then make that point. In the meantime, the question is whether the original deal "penciled in" by the Libs is going to deliver at one price or another.


----------



## bryanc

*deciding not to splurge on F-35's != quitting NATO*

Canada is a small country (by population and GDP) compared to some of the other NATO nations, and we do more than our share WRT treaty obligations. I see no reason we should be plumping for shiny new technology when other more parsimonious solutions are available.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Canada is a small country (by population and GDP) compared to some of the other NATO nations, and we do more than our share WRT treaty obligations. I see no reason we should be plumping for shiny new technology when other more parsimonious solutions are available.


Again, vote in someone other than the Liberals or Conservatives and you'll probably get your wish of seeing Canada join the slacker nations in failing to meet its treaty obligations.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Of course, the vast majority of them are "clingers' who don't really meet much of their NATO obligations. If you are arguing that Canada should quit NATO, then make that point. In the meantime, the question is whether the original deal "penciled in" by the Libs is going to deliver at one price or another.


i'm not making that point, and i don't see how anyone could think i was. I was simply pointing out that any argument that we must purchase F-35s to "fit" in with NATO holds absolutely no water. *Zero*.

Being part of NATO does *NOT* mean we have to buy the same planes that the US and UK will be using. We should be buying planes that are in Canada's best interest, not what our neighbours to the south are pushing us to buy.



Macfury said:


> In the meantime, the question is whether the original deal "penciled in" by the Libs is going to deliver at one price or another.


the liberals never "penciled in" any deal. that's 100% incorrect. They invested in the JSF program, which in turn chose the f-35. They invested in the program with the idea it would help the Canadian aerospace industry. The liberals never agreed to any deal to buy f-35s, that is all on the Harper government (and of course their deal gives no guaranteed business to Canadian aerospace industry...negating the whole point of being involved with the JFS program in the first place!)


----------



## jimbotelecom

The least the cons could have done would have been to put the acquisition of new planes to tender which surely is a tenant of good fiscal management. Mind you they're also hiding costs with building new prisons too. Then of course there's the 2 million that former PM Bullroney owes the tax payers plus interest. Beats me how anyone can vote for these scoundrels.


----------



## Macfury

jimbotelecom said:


> The least the cons could have done would have been to put the acquisition of new planes to tender which surely is a tenant of good fiscal management. Mind you they're also hiding costs with building new prisons too. Then of course there's the 2 million that former PM Bullroney owes the tax payers plus interest. Beats me how anyone can vote for these scoundrels.


Yes, and don't forget Diefenbaker!


----------



## i-rui

jimbotelecom said:


> The least the cons could have done would have been to put the acquisition of new planes to tender which surely is a tenant of good fiscal management. Mind you they're also hiding costs with building new prisons too. Then of course there's the 2 million that former PM Bullroney owes the tax payers plus interest. Beats me how anyone can vote for these scoundrels.


The Harper government should've just re-branded themselves as "The Corporate Government". There is absolutely nothing fiscally conservative about them. It's horrible that the people who voted them in can't see this.

Any spending cuts made by this government ultimately goes to corporate tax cuts, or massive over spending like the F-35's. There is no savings to the tax payer, and ultimately costs them more for less service.

I've never understood how corporate dollars were able to so easily hijack the right side of politics. It's even worse in the states where the least debt was created under Clinton & Carter, and the most under Reagen & Bush sr/jr. And yet (somehow ) they're considered "conservative"?


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> t's even worse in the states where the least debt was created under Clinton & Carter, and the most under Reagen & Bush sr/jr. And yet (somehow ) they're considered "conservative"?


Obama is the worst in history. Oops--there goes that theory!

I'm sure Conservative voters would be much more likely to vote Liberal if the party was not currently run by someone who has gone on record saying he would spend more than the Conservatives. Makes the voting pretty easy.


----------



## Max

I agree! Likewise, I'm sure Liberal voters would be much more likely to vote Conservative if the party was not currently run by someone who has made it his mission to rebrand the federal government as HarperCo. Makes the voting pretty easy.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Obama is the worst in history. Oops--there goes that theory!
> 
> I'm sure Conservative voters would be much more likely to vote Liberal if the party was not currently run by someone who has gone on record saying he would spend more than the Conservatives. Makes the voting pretty easy.


Nope the Bankster Bleed and the War Hemorrhage are directly attributable to the Bush Gang.

While he has certainly failed to staunch the bleeding the corporate masters are indeed in charge no matter who is president.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> I agree! Likewise, I'm sure Liberal voters would be much more likely to vote Conservative if the party was not currently run by someone who has made it his mission to rebrand the federal government as HarperCo. Makes the voting pretty easy.


It makes your voting easy, I'll bet. But if the issue is overspending, then I accept Iggy's premise that he wants to spend more. If you think he'll be a kinder, gentler autocrat, you're welcome to him!


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Nope the Bankster Bleed and the War Hemorrhage are directly attributable to the Bush Gang.
> 
> While he has certainly failed to staunch the bleeding the corporate masters are indeed in charge no matter who is president.


Nope. The numbers don't add up. The Bush deficit includes the full cost of the Middle East wars. Obama is the undisputed king of deficits--and is accelerating the process it appears.


----------



## groovetube

except, Obama didn't create the mess that led to deficit spending.

Bush did, pure, and simple, despite the desperate pleas that it was someone else's fault that wasn't in power for nearly a decade. The the idiot tea baggers, screeching about spending, are nothing but a bunch of pawns.

Obama also hasn't wasted nearly 3 trillion dollars on a useless war based on total lies, knowingly.


----------



## Max

Macfury said:


> It makes your voting easy, I'll bet. But if the issue is overspending, then I accept Iggy's premise that he wants to spend more. If you think he'll be a kinder, gentler autocrat, you're welcome to him!


You're jesting, of course! If the kinder, gentler autocrat ever came into power, you'd be whining at gale force - there'd be nothing 'welcoming' about your response at all.

The issue of overspending is but one of many. I am familiar with your focus on government waste, but there are always other issues with which to take the measure of any given gubbmint.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> You're jesting, of course! If the kinder, gentler autocrat ever came into power, you'd be whining at gale force - there'd be nothing 'welcoming' about your response at all.


Not if they spent far less.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> except, Obama didn't create the mess that led to deficit spending.
> 
> Bush did, pure, and simple, despite the desperate pleas that it was someone else's fault that wasn't in power for nearly a decade. The the idiot tea baggers, screeching about spending, are nothing but a bunch of pawns.
> 
> Obama also hasn't wasted nearly 3 trillion dollars on a useless war based on total lies, knowingly.


But the Weee-pubwicannnnnns........!


----------



## Silverado

eMacMan said:


> Nope the Bankster Bleed and the War Hemorrhage are directly attributable to the Bush Gang.
> 
> While he has certainly failed to staunch the bleeding the corporate masters are indeed in charge no matter who is president.


As I understand it, the rules requiring banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them started with the Clinton administration.


----------



## Macfury

Silverado said:


> As I understand it, the rules requiring banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them started with the Clinton administration.


Yes it did. But the folks here will tell you that poor Bill was forced into it, and only made that speech declaring it to be a great idea because he didn't really know what he was signing. The Community Reinvestment Act? A mere trifle. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? Repeated efforts to overhaul them during the Bush era were repeatedly over-ruled by Democrats because the ideas were conceived by mean-spirited people.

So you see, Obama and the Democrats are in the clear.


----------



## eMacMan

Silverado said:


> As I understand it, the rules requiring banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them started with the Clinton administration.


The practice of kiting the mortgages back and forth, bundling them together then selling them ten or a hundred times over was the cause of the crash. The banksters had to repossess in order to further confuse the paper trail and keep their a55e5 out of the can. 

The Shrub pushed the bailouts. 

The world would have been much better off had the banksters been pushed over the cliff. Instead the taxpayers and homeowners took the dive.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> The practice of kiting the mortgages back and forth, bundling them together then selling them ten or a hundred times...


...could not have been achieved without the complicity of the enormous and far too powerful Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, who laundered each of these crap mortgages white as snow before they were bundled.


----------



## eMacMan

> ...could not have been achieved without the complicity of the enormous and far too powerful Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, who laundered each of these crap mortgages white as snow before they were bundled.


Yep and the Republirats are just as anxious as the Democans to retroactively legalize those crimes. Neither party is pushing for a full scale forensic audit.

The corporate masters are still in control.

Notice with all the wailing about the gargantuan deficit. Neither party is willing to stop funding the war efforts or stop funneling money to the Military Industrial Complex.

Given the Great Bankster heist, Congress would certainly be justified in refusing to pay interest on the national debt until all the culprits are in jail.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Notice with all the wailing about the gargantuan deficit. Neither party is willing to stoop funding the war efforts or stop funneling money to the Military Industrial Complex.


Not entirely true--but there are not enough Tea Party members available to overturn the insane spending. Marco Rubio has certainly been vocal about it though.


----------



## smashedbanana

screature said:


> Playing in the "Big Leagues" doesn't come cheap. We will have to agree to disagree as neither of us are going to change each others mind on this point.


The F-35 is not a suitable plane for us. It has poor range, handling is inferior to Gen 4.5 planes (notably rafale, eurofighter, and the saab grippen), and has only a single engine. For a long time national defence has said duel engine is essential to operations in the arctic where sovereignty missions must be flown. 

Not to mention that we have no idea what it will cost. It might be $90 million/plane (which the government hopes, but is unlikely) or the might go as high as $180 million. No one knows.

The only significant benefits are stealth (who are we fighting anyways?), but the russians already have a radar that defeats it, and not to mention once you add external drop tanks to increase the pitiful range the stealthiness goes away..

And the new avionics / helmet HUD (can't remember what it's called). But similar avionics are available on the F-15SA and F-16 Block 60.


What we really should be doing is holding an open competition (like we did for what became the CF-18 (F-14/F/15/F-16/F/A-18/Tornado, etc.) and then license building whatever plane here in Canada (like we did with the F-5 aka CF-116) that would lead to a definitive economic benefit to Canadian industry. 

Both eurofighter and SAAB have said they are open to license production...


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> But the Weee-pubwicannnnnns........!


i donno, you brought up the comparison.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Not if they spent far less.


it is pretty amazing that having government actually spend way more than anyone, grow government rather than reduce it's size, and waste huge sums of money on quite a number of things, that you would hang on to a belief that the other guy 'woulda' spent more.

Regardless of whether you like Iggy, or not, that really isn't the issue here. It's your total lack of any criticism whatsoever of the wasteful and out of control spending that is actually occurring right now, that's interesting.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> iRegardless of whether you like Iggy, or not, that really isn't the issue here. It's your total lack of any criticism whatsoever of the wasteful and out of control spending that is actually occurring right now, that's interesting.


What's even more interesting is that you would make these statements when I have made statements addressing exactly that in the past few weeks here.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> What's even more interesting is that you would make these statements when I have made statements addressing exactly that in the past few weeks here.


Macfury and groovetube are in agreement. Let us prepare the fatted calf and declare a holiday for this truce and mutual accord. We all knew that deep down, you two would become friends and be in agreement with issues that really mattered.

Let the celebrations begin now that an era of peace and civility are upon us here in ehMacLand.

Seriously, rational discussions and civility are good things to have here, or in any other thread.

Paix, mes amis.


----------



## Macfury

Dr. G: I would have kudos even for President Obama, had he been more careful with money!


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Dr. G: I would have kudos even for President Obama, had he been more careful with money!


This is Jason Jinglestars of the St.John's Paramedic Division. Dr. G. went into cardiac arrest at reading this comment from a Mr. Macfury. We used the paddles and have shocked him back to life. I request that you don't make such comments in the immediate future as to avoid the recurrance of this situation.

Respectfully submitted,
Jason Jinglestars
Paramedic
St.John's Paramedic and Abulance Service


----------



## i-rui

smashedbanana said:


> The F-35 is not a suitable plane for us. It has poor range, handling is inferior to Gen 4.5 planes (notably rafale, eurofighter, and the saab grippen), and has only a single engine. For a long time national defence has said duel engine is essential to operations in the arctic where sovereignty missions must be flown.
> 
> Not to mention that we have no idea what it will cost. It might be $90 million/plane (which the government hopes, but is unlikely) or the might go as high as $180 million. No one knows.
> 
> The only significant benefits are stealth (who are we fighting anyways?), but the russians already have a radar that defeats it, and not to mention once you add external drop tanks to increase the pitiful range the stealthiness goes away..
> 
> And the new avionics / helmet HUD (can't remember what it's called). But similar avionics are available on the F-15SA and F-16 Block 60.
> 
> 
> What we really should be doing is holding an open competition (like we did for what became the CF-18 (F-14/F/15/F-16/F/A-18/Tornado, etc.) and then license building whatever plane here in Canada (like we did with the F-5 aka CF-116) that would lead to a definitive economic benefit to Canadian industry.
> 
> Both eurofighter and SAAB have said they are open to license production...


in addition to all of that the f-35 doesn't even meet the "criteria" that the DND laid out for a replacement jet. In their own words a replacement fighter would have to be 'operational' before even being considered, and of course the F-35 is years away from that.

There is obviously (at the very least) some serious lobbying and diplomatic arm twisting going on that is NOT in the best interest of Canada. I wouldn't rule out outright bribes taking place.

Something is definitely not right in this whole process. Otherwise why wouldn't the government just come clean on all the specific details, or even better hold an actual competition for a new jet?


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> Something is definitely not right in this whole process. Otherwise why wouldn't the government just come clean on all the specific details, or even better hold an actual competition for a new jet?


Which jet would fit the bill again?


----------



## FeXL

Dr.G. said:


> Jason Jinglestars
> Paramedic
> St.John's Paramedic and Abulance Service


Kewl! You guys have St. John's Ambulance in...St. John's?


----------



## Dr.G.

FeXL said:


> Kewl! You guys have St. John's Ambulance in...St. John's?


No, but we do have St. John Ambulance here in St.John's. Now, don't stress me as I try to get back to my "brave new world" of Macfury and groovetube as friends, common travelers and political bedfellows.


----------



## smashedbanana

Macfury said:


> Which jet would fit the bill again?


In my opinion their are two practical choices 1. F/A-18 Super Hornet

We already have the training facilities, we have dual-seat training aircraft (with good life left), we have facilities for these aircraft, we have ordinance for them, and most importantly we are familiar enough with the current version that the changeover would be significantly easier.

Or the 2. Eurofigher Typhoon

Especially if we can license build them. 
These planes have the dual-engines.
Their performance (except Stealth) is superior to the F-35
They are cheaper
They are on the 3rd revision (Tranche 3) and have airtime and experience..

---

In a completely apolitical world I would say the Sukhoi SU-30, but there is NO chance of that happening.

---

Specifications aside it is crazy we are spending more money than we did in the cold war on fighter aircraft (the CF-18 procurement cost without support was $6.7 billion <adjusted for inflation> and we got almost 150 aircraft)

Their was a recession right /


----------



## screature

smashedbanana said:


> In my opinion their are two practical choices 1. F/A-18 Super Hornet
> 
> We already have the training facilities, we have dual-seat training aircraft (with good life left), we have facilities for these aircraft, we have ordinance for them, and most importantly we are familiar enough with the current version that the changeover would be significantly easier.
> 
> Or the 2. Eurofigher Typhoon
> 
> Especially if we can license build them.
> These planes have the dual-engines.
> Their performance (except Stealth) is superior to the F-35
> They are cheaper
> They are on the 3rd revision (Tranche 3) and have airtime and experience..
> 
> ---
> 
> In a completely apolitical world I would say the Sukhoi SU-30, but there is NO chance of that happening.
> 
> ---
> 
> Specifications aside it is crazy we are spending more money than we did in the cold war on fighter aircraft (the CF-18 procurement cost without support was $6.7 billion <adjusted for inflation> and we got almost 150 aircraft)
> 
> Their was a recession right /


Just curios what is your background for holding this opinions?

What say you to this:



> There is a lot of misinformation out there about the F-35 program. This is going to be long, but it’s important that you have the whole story. This is the biggest military program in our history as was the NFA program back in its day. Some of the same type of people are saying some of the same things now that they were saying 30 years ago.
> 
> The concept of ops for the CF-18 was to operate the aircraft for phase-in plus 15 years, at which time we would be in the process of acquiring our next fighter. That would put that action at 2003. It made perfect sense for the Liberals to sign onto the JSF MOU in 1997 and to up the ante in 2001. We upped it again in 2006 and made the formal decision to acquire the F-35 under the MOU in July 2010. For the Liberals to say now that they had no intention of buying the aircraft is absolute nonsense. We are buying an aircraft to fly until at least 2050.
> 
> Let's take process first. We've had subject matter experts, military and civilian, studying the JSF programs and other options for years at a very highly classified level. We have highly experienced fighter pilots and engineerson the military side, many of whom I have known for decades. On the civilian side, we've got people like BGen (ret) Dan Ross, ADM (Mat) for the past five years and a guy who has helped reduce acquisition times from over 100 months to less than 50 months. We also have a guy named Mike Slack, who has been exclusively involved with JSF for close to ten years, and who knows the nonsense that former ADM (Mat) Alan Williams is spreading. We initially looked at F-22, F-35, F-18E/F, Typhoon, Gripen and Rafale. F-22 was eliminated right away, because it would not be for sale to anyone other than the U.S. After analysis, the Gripen and Rafale were eliminated as not having any performance advantage over our current CF-18. A more extensive evaluation of the F-35, F-18E/F and Typhoon was conducted. The conclusion was that the F-35 is the only aircraft that meets the mandatory high level capabilities and the more specific operational requirements, and at the best cost with the best industrial opportunities. The same process was followed in the U.S., U.K., Australia, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Italy, and Turkey within the MOU. Israel is on board outside the MOU and Japan, South Korea and others are poised to follow suit. There is a definite trend here and maybe we should listen to our own subject matter experts and all these people from so many countries
> 
> Comparisons done by others, such as Wg Cdr Mills, RAAF, have one major flaw. They are based on 3rd or 4th generation fighter knowledge and very limited understanding of the real difference to 5th generation capability. There is a very limited number of people anywhere who are fully read-in to the classified details and capabilities of the F-35. I'm not one of them (and I guarantee Mills isn't either), but I know what I don't know. Also, my only agenda and that of the CF and other militaries is to get the best piece of kit for our folks. So, my question to Mills and others would be "How do you know?" and "What is your agenda?”. Despite their lack of truly current information, Mills and another guy named Peter Goon seem to have found a receptive audience in other parts of the world, whose agenda may also be different than ours.
> 
> The F-35 is not a turn-and-burn king (dog fighter) compared to pure air superiority fighters, like the F-22 and some of the new Russian aircraft. It is on par with the Hornet, but becomes clearly superior with 5th generation technology. That has proven out in various simulator exercises and we have had a number of current CF-18 pilots involved. The other basic question is, is it superior to available 4th generation fighters. To a remarkable degree the answer is yes. In basic areas of range, endurance, payload, turn, etc., the F-35 is at least equal to the other options. In other more high-tech areas related to 5th generation unique capabilities, there is no comparison. One of our handicaps is that we can’t explain all the reasons why, because of the very highly classified nature of some of the information. One of the bottom lines is that we don’t want an aircraft at the end of its development cycle and at the end of its production. We want one that is at the start of its development cycle and one that will be in production for at least the next 25 years.
> 
> Let’s talk about interoperability. We had problems in Kosovo because our Hornets lacked the communications necessary to be part of many packages. Our allies had to be dumbed down, so that we could play. It is more than radios and data-link, when we talk about interoperability between 4th and 5th generation aircraft. If you have a package of F-35s with a package of CF-18E/F tagging along, we would stick out to enemy defences like a sore thumb and endanger the whole package. We would be relegated to decoy status and soak up a lot of unfriendly stuff. Without going into exact numbers, an F-35 can kill a CF-18 at many times the range that the CF-18 will even see the F-35.
> 
> The Super Hornet production line closes in 2014 and the USN will retire the aircraft by 2025. We would be on our own after that and any software upgrades, system changes, R&D, test and evaluation, etc. would be on our hook for our fleet of 65 aircraft. That’s not very cost effective. The U.S. Government makes the decision on when to shut down the production line and a big chunk of the equipment is owned by them. The only way that the production could continue is with more off-shore sales. That doesn’t appear to be happening and we would still be orphaned after 2025. Boeing will cite the Aussies buying 24 Super Hornets (at a hefty price). The Aussies are very clear that those aircraft are a ten-year bridge from the F-111 to the F-35.
> 
> Many people express concern about the single-engine configuration, and I was one of those. When I took a closer look at current engine technology, I was satisfied that the risk is very well mitigated by new materials, blade and engine design, and the level of redundancy. You can throw a lot of stuff down the intake and it will be spit out by the very thick and tough blades and the high by-pass. We should also remember that trans-oceanic commercial flights were restricted to four-engine aircraft. Now two engines is the norm.
> 
> Let's look at cost. If we translate the $16,090,000 that we paid for each CF-18 in 1980 dollars to 2016, they would then cost $63 million. Our price for the F-35 will be between $70 - $75 million, for a quantum increase in capability. That's not bad. You hear a lot about cost escalation and there is truth to that, as there is for any leading edge technology program. The cost-per-jet numbers you're hearing are the progressive average cost of the early aircraft, the very first of which cost $249 million. We are buying our aircraft starting in 2015 / 2016 at the peak of production and lowest cost. You may have heard that Norway has delayed their acquisition. That was done to follow our example and get the aircraft at the cost sweet spot of the production cycle. Despite all their economic woes, the U.K. is continuing their program to acquire F-35s. The U.S. Government is underwriting any increase in R&D costs and the program is outperforming current cost curve projections. The Congressional oversight that is being exercised in the U.S. is good news for us and other members of the MOU. It’s about the reporting system in place at Lockheed Martin, not the aircraft itself. There is automatic triggering of Congressional measures at certain levels. That is based on forecast costs and does not take into account the very high costs of the early aircraft. Nevertheless, this process does put pressure on Lockheed Martin and that is good for all of us.
> 
> Let's look at the breakdown of the $16 billion you hear quoted. About $5.5 billion is for the aircraft. About $3.5 billion is for simulators, training, infrastructure, spares, etc., much of which will come to Canadian industry. The other $7 billion is a very educated estimate of what it will cost to support the aircraft for 20 years, the majority of which will come to Canadian industry. None of this is "borrowed"; it is all within the programmed funding envelope of the Canada First Defence Strategy.
> 
> You will hear Boeing say that they can beat the price of the F-35. The number they quote is in 2009 dollars and does not include such niceties as external fuel tanks, pylons, helmet-mounted sight system, targeting pod, missile launchers, radar warning receivers, self-protection jammers, active self-protection counter measures (chaff and flares) and the GUN! Great for cross-countries and airshows, but not much else. Add $8 - $9 mill per aircraft to do the job. When we do an apples-to-apples cost comparison between F-35, F-18E/F and Typhoon in production year dollars, the F-35 is by far the cheapest. I can’t give you the exact numbers, but they are contained in government-to-government documentation between PMA 265 and DND. There will be 560 Typhoons worldwide, 500 Super Hornets and 3000 – 5000 F-35s. The economies of scale not only for initial purchase under a multi-national MOU, but also for spares, are pretty obvious.
> 
> Let's look at the value of being part of the MOU. Every member of the MOU has one vote. Within the MOU we are exempt from Foreign Military Sales fees and that saves us about $850 million on the cost of the aircraft. For every FMS sale outside the MOU (e.g. Israel), we get a portion of the royalties. As part of the MOU, we also have the right to use all the classified intellectual property. We would lose that outside the MOU. As part of the MOU, we have guaranteed spots on the production line. This is critical to the timing of bringing the F-35 into service and phasing out the CF-18 before it dies a fatigue life death.
> 
> Let's talk about industrial opportunities as part of the MOU. As an aircraft acquirer within the MOU, our industry has favoured treatment for contracts for the global supply chain for between 3000 and 5000 aircraft. That global supply chain is being established as we speak, and that was one of the reasons for the decision in July. Although our companies could still technically participate under the MOU if we were still members but not acquiring aircraft, business realities would clearly say otherwise. For example, Pratt and Whitney makes engine components in Montreal and Turkey. If Turkey is acquiring aircraft under the MOU and Canada is not, guess where P&W will put the business. We have opportunities for at least $12 billion in business. If we are outside the MOU, we would lose that ground floor advantage for next generation technology and whatever comes after that. Now that we have activated the procurement provisions of the MOU, the negotiated Industrial Participation Plans (IPP) kick in and it is under those that Canadian companies have signed hundreds of millions worth of contracts since July. If we withdraw from the MOU to conduct a competition, our participation in the IPPs ceases. Canadian industry knows that and they are putting a lot of pressure on the Liberals to do the right thing.
> 
> The Liberals have said that they would cancel the acquisition phase of the F-35 MOU that we have entered into and hold a competition and they say that there would be no consequences of doing that. What nonsense! We would have to negotiate our way out of the MOU at a potential cost of up to $551 million. We cannot compete the MOU deal for the F-35 against an FMS deal for a Super Hornet. We would be buying the F-35 directly from the U.S. Government on an FMS case with a take-it-or-leave-it price. We would lose our spots on the production line and we would be running a serious risk of a capability gap if we have to retire the CF-18 before the new aircraft is on the line. With all the information that we have on cost, capability, industrial opportunities, etc., the answer would still be F-35 and we would have lost time, money, jobs and international respect.
> 
> In no other MOU partner is the political opposition taking such a position and it is having an impact on the credibility and confidence that our allies have in Canada. It absolutely will cost jobs if they don’t stop very soon. We have seen this partisan political movie before in 1993. Seventeen years and close to a billion dollars later, we're still waiting for the first Sea King replacement. The implications of this one are infinitely greater.
> 
> When this all started, I was a Super Hornet fan. Everything that I have seen, read and heard since has convinced me that the F-35 is the answer. No one who has studied the options with adequate information in at least ten countries has reached any different conclusion. It is not risk free; no new program is. There are echoes of the New Fighter Aircraft Program here, and that program turned out just fine. We need to get on with it.


Laurie Hawn on the F-35 Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence

And why should I believe your opinion more than his, given his experience and credentials: 



> Hawn joined the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1964 and received his pilot wings at Gimli, Manitoba in January 1967. He flew the Canadair T-33 Silver Star as an instructor pilot and as a tactical fighter pilot and instructor on the Canadair CF-104 Starfighter and the McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornet fighters. In thirty years in the Air Force, Hawn rose to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel and he then served an additional five years as Honourary Colonel of 417 Combat Support Squadron. Hawn commanded a Hornet equipped tactical fighter squadron at Cold Lake.


----------



## i-rui

wikileaks showed that the Lockheed Martin was using it's connections to the US government to pressure & sell Norway into choosing the f-35 over a SAAB jet 

Diplomats Pimping Planes: Dirty little Wikileaks secrets of the Bush Administration | Crooks and Liars

can anyone actually doubt that the very same thing is happening now?


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> wikileaks showed that the Lockheed Martin was using it's connections to the US government to pressure & sell Norway into choosing the f-35 over a SAAB jet
> 
> Diplomats Pimping Planes: Dirty little Wikileaks secrets of the Bush Administration | Crooks and Liars
> 
> can anyone actually doubt that the very same thing is happening now?


In your world clearly no....


----------



## FeXL

screature said:


> What say you to this:


I say quote a brief precis and put the rest of the damn thing into a link instead of posting the contents of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica...


----------



## screature

FeXL said:


> I say quote a brief precis and put the rest of the damn thing into a link instead of posting the contents of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica...


Yah, I know what you are saying but I wanted it to be all there for all the debaters to see as I thought the content to be excellent. Sorry for pulling a MacDoc but it was a measured decision and one I viewed necessary as all too often people only read "headlines" and for me this issue is far from being about headlines. Sorry FeXL for the vertical scrolling....


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> In your world clearly no....


yes, the real world. 

not the one where we bury our heads in the sand to ignore fact & reason just because a conservative mp tells us to.


----------



## FeXL

screature said:


> Sorry FeXL for the vertical scrolling....


Wasn't the vertical scrolling. You hang a nude in a post like that, I'll scroll all day...


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> wikileaks showed that the Lockheed Martin was using it's connections to the US government to pressure & sell Norway into choosing the f-35 over a SAAB jet
> 
> Diplomats Pimping Planes: Dirty little Wikileaks secrets of the Bush Administration | Crooks and Liars
> 
> can anyone actually doubt that the very same thing is happening now?


nothing to see here i-rui, them wikileaks folks are noting but a bunch of socialist mouthpieces...


----------



## Macfury

It's nice to see someone else other than Cubamark is hooked on that pitiful _Crooks and Liars_ site.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> It's nice to see someone else other than Cubamark is hooked on that pitiful _Crooks and Liars_ site.


and the particular site that the link leads to changes the fact that the US diplomatic arm was lobbying for Lockheed Martin how?

here's some other links if it makes you feel better :

Norway in F-35 ?Price is Right? squeeze / News / The Foreigner — Norwegian News in English.

Wikileaks reveals intense PR push to sell US war planes | Reality Bites

How the US got Norway to buy Joint Strike Fighters | Embassy - Canada's Foreign Policy Newspaper


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> yes, the real world.
> 
> not the one where we bury our heads in the sand to ignore fact & reason just because a conservative mp tells us to.


Please.... What you consider to be "facts" are just as much opinion and more so than someone like Laurie Hawn who has actually flown the CF-18 and knows a thing or two or a 1000 times more about the actual operational needs of the Air Force from first hand experience than any of your references.

Real world... the world of Wikileaks and Crooks and Liars and tin hat wearers and chemtrail believers... next you will be telling me that the X-Files were based on fact... no thanks.

If my head is in the sand yours is in the clouds...


----------



## i-rui

how about a retired ADM Materiel from DND? he's certainly more qualified than Laurie Hawn to judge if the f-35 is a smart purchase (and there isn't any *obvious conflict of interest*, as there is with a conservative mp trying to hard sell the canadian public on a multi-billion dollar brain fart)

"Neither the best plane nor the best price.

The report of the Parliamentary Budgetary Office confirmed that the government's contention that "the F-35 is the best plane at the best price" is categorically false. It is certainly not the best plane as it is currently in development and as of today has no operational capability. It is certainly not the best price as the government clearly has no idea what is the price of the F-35 nor does it know what would be the price of any of its competitors. It's time the government treated Canadians with respect and provided us with fact not fabrication.

Alan Williams, Ottawa

Mr. Williams is a retired former ADM Materiel at DND. In 2002 he signed the memorandum of understanding committing Canada to the second phase of the Joint Strike Fighter program."

Read more: Neither the best plane nor the best price


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Canadians don't share Harper's zest for fighter jets, or debt reduction, poll shows - The Globe and Mail



> Sixty-eight per cent of Canadians agreed that “now is not a good time” to proceed with the $16-billion purchase of the F-35 fighter aircraft to replace the aging fleet of CF-18 fighters
> --------
> Even a majority (56 per cent) of voters who identified themselves as Conservative supporters oppose the acquisition. And three out of four undecided voters are opposed.
> 
> Only 27 per cent of those surveyed thought the federal government should “purchase now to prepare for the future.”


----------



## smashedbanana

I read Mr. Hawn's article.

1. I would like to know how the Eurofighter, Rafale and Viggen got dismissed with no explanation. And I don't buy the quick comment that they aren't better than the current C/F-18. The C/F-18 was made in 1983, does he seriously want us to believe that? And what about customization? We don't have to buy those planes as-is. They can even be further customized (as we did with the C/F-18).

Further to that. Do we need better? Where is the C/F-18 lacking?
His point about communication in Kosovo is his departments fault. They did't upgrade the Nato communications package until 2005. That's 23 years after the plane was introduced. They messed up there, it should have been done earlier in order to maintain their Nato obligations. Does he expect us to believe that in 23 years the F-35 will not need a communications refit. Come on!

2. The single engine still bugs me. Yes lots of planes have single engines now, and the reliability is vastly increased. But how many of those planes are brand new and the engine is also brand new with no combat or arctic experience? AND cost more than any other plane!!! Keep in mind the single engine was not a design feature, it was a cost saving measure (see the F-22 with the as designed 2-engines). 

3. I understand that their is stealth and/or top secret features of this plane. That is very nice. But it's a tough pill to swallow (due to cost) given economic circumstances and no clear picture of who we will be fighting.

4. The MOU stuff is interesting, but not enough to sway me. Good job guys you negotiated a good spot in production and some ancillary returns. What you failed to do is secure a price for the aircraft or an sense of support and maintenance costs. If this ends up in the $30-$40 billion dollar range (planes and support) should we be happy that we got the planes quicker and a cut of every Israeli F-35 purchased?

5. What about second hand planes? Many nations take advantage of countries upgrading (i.e. Turkey, Greece, Saudi Arabia). If there really are 3000-5000 F-35 sales it stands to reason there will be some Tornados, F-15, F-16, F-18 available for sale. We could send them directly to factory for refit. Production would be a non-issue. Terms could be quite nice...

For me it just seems that DND has fallen in love with this plane and is scrambling to explain it. If it really is better how about some transparency? Or a competition. If it's that much better it will hold up.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> how about a retired ADM Materiel from DND? he's certainly more qualified than Laurie Hawn to judge if the f-35 is a smart purchase (and there isn't any *obvious conflict of interest*, as there is with a conservative mp trying to hard sell the canadian public on a multi-billion dollar brain fart)
> 
> "Neither the best plane nor the best price.
> 
> The report of the Parliamentary Budgetary Office confirmed that the government's contention that "the F-35 is the best plane at the best price" is categorically false. It is certainly not the best plane as it is currently in development and as of today has no operational capability. It is certainly not the best price as the government clearly has no idea what is the price of the F-35 nor does it know what would be the price of any of its competitors. It's time the government treated Canadians with respect and provided us with fact not fabrication.
> 
> Alan Williams, Ottawa
> 
> Mr. Williams is a retired former ADM Materiel at DND. In 2002 he signed the memorandum of understanding committing Canada to the second phase of the Joint Strike Fighter program."
> 
> Read more: Neither the best plane nor the best price


A life time civil servant and paper pusher.... that's the best you've got. 

Oh and I didn't know there was a "conflict of interest" involved with an elected Member of Parliament and a 30 year veteran of the Air Force trying to make the right decision for what is best for the forces that he commanded and was responsible for and for the country they serve and their commitments to their allies. 

Your notion of "conflict of interest" is just a tad skewed and distorted due to your anti anything a conservative says rhetoric. There would only be a conflict of interest if he stood to gain financially or materially from the procurement of the F-35, not because he believes in the plane and is an MP for for the governing party. 

If you actually read what he says, that he started out as a proponent of the Super Hornet and the more he knew about the F-35 the more he believed it was the right plane.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> A life time civil servant and paper pusher.... that's the best you've got.
> 
> Oh and I didn't know there was a "conflict of interest" involved with an elected Member of Parliament and a 30 year veteran of the Air Force trying to make the right decision for what is best for the forces that he commanded and was responsible for and for the country they serve and their commitments to their allies.
> 
> Your notion of "conflict of interest" is just a tad skewed and distorted due to your anti anything a conservative says rhetoric.


screature, you've forgotten to say that your conclusions are perfectly clear and airtight, and that only a fool could fail to acknowledge their correctness. Then call the Liberals scoundrels. 

Seems to be enough for the other side of the debate anyway.


----------



## CubaMark

_Realizing that they have irreparably damaged Canada's image abroad, the Conservatives aren't even going to try for a seat on the U.N. Security Council. Sad, sad, sad.... (see previous entries in this thread on last year's defeat)_

*Canada won't try again for Security Council seat*



> The Harper government will not mount another campaign for a seat on the United Nations Security Council after Canada's historic defeat last year, says Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird.
> 
> "It's not something I envisage," Baird told The Canadian Press when asked whether he planned another bid for a two-year, temporary term on the powerful council in the coming years.





> Canada was trounced by Portugal last year for the second of two temporary two-year, non-veto-wielding seats on the UN's top body. It was the first time in the six-decade history of the UN that Canada failed to win a seat for which it made a bid.


(CBC)


----------



## BigDL

Internationalism is much over rated. 

Living up to the expectations of them foreigners is not in our interests any longer.

With Baird at the forefront, Canada shall henceforth, be kicking a$$ and taking names.

If you can't smart bomb the bejezzzes out of $h!t, it hardly worth the effort of leaving the country.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> _Realizing that they have irreparably damaged Canada's image abroad, the Conservatives aren't even going to try for a seat on the U.N. Security Council. Sad, sad, sad.... (see previous entries in this thread on last year's defeat)_


_

Realizing they have no interest in the seat, they are not lobbying for it. Fine by me. The UN is as corrupt as hell,_


----------



## kps

+1 on the corruption in the UN.

Not only should Canada give them the middle digit, they (we) should stop all financial support.


----------



## FeXL

Yup.


----------



## SINC

I was nine years old when Dag Hammarskjöld became one of the most respected Sec.-Generals of the UN. That was when it carried clout and dignity. It has since deteriorated to a crappy, useless and nearly defunct pool of corrupt countries. Respectable members will continue to snub it and leave it. Watch as it dies the death it should.


----------



## kps

Found this rather interesting:

Stephen Harper isn't changing Canada. He's demonstrating that Canada has changed | Full Comment | National Post


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> _Realizing that they have irreparably damaged Canada's image abroad, the Conservatives aren't even going to try for a seat on the U.N. Security Council. Sad, sad, sad.... (*see previous entries in this thread on last year's defeat)*_
> 
> *Canada won't try again for Security Council seat*
> 
> (CBC)


Exactly... the reasons are still the same as to why the UN is a corrupt (and becoming an increasingly ineffective and meaningless) political body... it's days of relevance, if it really ever was (Cyprus anyone) have come and gone.

The only thing they are good for is sanctioning military intervention when needed and even when they do it is only willing partners that can and do (sometimes) make a difference. They did in Libya not at all in Cyprus or the Balkans or in Rwanda where they stood idly by while 800,00 were massacred. 

Good riddance I say, maybe when the UN becomes officially defunct something actually effective will take its place.


----------



## eMacMan

Given that most of the nations that make up the UN are corrupt from the top down, it would be impossible for the UN to be otherwise.

Even the good old USA sees almost all of its legislation written by and for major corporations, witness the so called healthcare bill and the SOPA measures.

One major reason why I vehemently oppose the so-called New World Order. The bigger it is and the farther away it is, the more corrupt it is.


----------



## BigDL

Seems the UN, for some supporters, distinctly taste those sour grapes. :clap:


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Seems the UN, for some supporters, distinctly taste those sour grapes. :clap:


What does that sentence mean?


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> What does that sentence mean?


I wondered that myself. In its current form, nothing.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> I wondered that myself. In its current form, nothing.


Whatever it is, it's applauding itself.


----------



## screature

SINC said:


> I wondered that myself. In its current form, nothing.


+2 it makes no sense...


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> Seems the UN, for some supporters, distinctly taste those sour grapes. :clap:


Well you got them really scratching their heads eh! :baby:


----------



## BigDL

eMacMan said:


> Given that most of the nations that make up the UN are corrupt from the top down, it would be impossible for the UN to be otherwise.
> 
> Even the good old USA sees almost all of its legislation written by and for major corporations, witness the so called healthcare bill and the SOPA measures.
> 
> One major reason why I vehemently oppose the so-called New World Order. The bigger it is and the farther away it is, the more corrupt it is.





screature said:


> Exactly... the reasons are still the same as to why the UN is a corrupt (and becoming an increasingly ineffective and meaningless) political body... it's days of relevance, if it really ever was (Cyprus anyone) have come and gone.
> 
> The only thing they are good for is sanctioning military intervention when needed and even when they do it is only willing partners that can and do (sometimes) make a difference. They did in Libya not at all in Cyprus or the Balkans or in Rwanda where they stood idly by while 800,00 were massacred.
> 
> Good riddance I say, maybe when the UN becomes officially defunct something actually effective will take its place.





SINC said:


> I was nine years old when Dag Hammarskjöld became one of the most respected Sec.-Generals of the UN. That was when it carried clout and dignity. It has since deteriorated to a crappy, useless and nearly defunct pool of corrupt countries. Respectable members will continue to snub it and leave it. Watch as it dies the death it should.





groovetube said:


> Well you got them really scratching their heads eh! :baby:


Yes! Yes I did. 

As we can see above, when you can't have your security seat, perhaps much like the loss of your security blanky, it must leave you with a sour gripes...errr... sour grapes attitude?


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> Yes! Yes I did.
> 
> As we can see above, when you can't have your security seat, perhaps much like the loss of your security blanky, it must leave you with a sour gripes...errr... sour gapes attitude?


Well that one flew right over your head didn't it? The seat has bugger all to do with it. The UN is a lame duck, rotten to the core group that deserves little regard. Trying to pin our comments on not having a seat is an incredible stretch. Surely you must have better things to do?

You might begin by tracking the slow, steady decline and decay of the UN itself.


----------



## BigDL

Sure, sure. What would the attitude be if OGL had saved the day by winning a seat? 

Wouldn't a tainted organization therefore not taint any activity it gave its blessing to engage in?  Why was doing the bidding of the UN in Libya, a campaign to be celebrated in the Red Chamber lead by OGL?


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Sure, sure. What would the attitude be if OGL had saved the day by winning a seat?


Probably silence. Who cares?


----------



## groovetube

Nothing to see here! Quick! Wave your hands in the air! It'll go away!

See all you have to do is simply declare its not worth anything, and bam! It's done! Everyone automatically should immediately assume this is all true, or you'll be sent to the re-education camps! See dr. G for details.


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> Nothing to see here! Quick! Wave your hands in the air! It'll go away!
> 
> See all you have to do is simply declare its not worth anything, and bam! It's done! Everyone automatically should immediately assume this is all true, or you'll be sent to the re-education camps! See dr. G for details.


Please don't drag me into this debate .............. I am still trying to get them to turn off my light here in room #101 at Re-education Camp #13 .................. must try to sleep ............ must try to sleep ................


----------



## groovetube

I was a special case so they sent me south. Thankfully it's warm down here, but they are far more brutal down here. I must....resisit... Fight the power G, don't give in. Oh no I hear some clinking must go.


----------



## Macfury

I have no idea why anybody who supports the NDP would be considered a candidate for re-education. Soylent Green would be my suggestion.


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> I was a special case so they sent me south. Thankfully it's warm down here, but they are far more brutal down here. I must....resisit... Fight the power G, don't give in. Oh no I hear some clinking must go.


"Stone walls do not a prison make, nor iron bars a cage." Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> I have no idea why anybody who supports the NDP would be considered a candidate for re-education. Soylent Green would be my suggestion.


I trust that you are NOT calling me an NDP supporter? I support the leader of the Harper Government of Canada, PM Stephen Harper ........... I would support Ron Paul in the US (although he is a bit moderate for me) ........... and I support you. Thus, I trust you were speaking to groovetube. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> Thus, I trust you were speaking to groovetube. Paix, mon ami.


Uh, no.


----------



## eMacMan

Dr.G. said:


> ... I support the leader of the Harper Government of Canada, PM Stephen Harper ........... I would support Ron Paul in the US (although he is a bit moderate for me) ........... and I support you. Thus, I trust you were speaking to groovetube. Paix, mon ami.


Sieg Heil, Papier Bitte!


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Uh, no.


You directed that insult to me????  I, who have supported you to the end could say such a thing about me ................ the NDP?????????? For shame, mon ami.


----------



## MacDoc

article made this worth revival

The myth of Tory economic performance - The Globe and Mail

summary



> In this context, let’s recall a few things. Let’s recall the two-point GST cut that tore a giant hole in the revenue base, accounting for a good deal of the deficit. Let’s recall the prerecession spending – *having inherited a $13-billion surplus, the Harper/Flaherty team spent so excessively that we were close to a deficit by the time the recession began.* Let’s recall the slashing of corporate tax rates and the government’s easing of mortgage rules and backing of risky loans that further bled the treasury.
> 
> Put it all together and what it shows is that, with more prudent fiscal management from the same guy who lectured other countries on debt in Davos, we could have coped with the recession without driving our treasury into a large deficit hole.
> 
> Some other things should be recalled. In the fall of 2008, when the economic crisis hit, was the dynamic Harper/Flaherty duo on top of things? Or were they still saying that the budget would remain in balance and that there was no need for stimulus spending, and bringing in a foolhardy budget update that almost brought their government down?
> 
> With the opposition parties putting a gun to their head, they introduced a stimulus package that virtually every other country was doing. With the exception of Tory logos on cheques and Tony Clement’s G8 spending boondoggle, it was not badly administered.
> 
> Jim Flaherty has performed more ably in the past couple of years. But what’s in his record that makes him the greatest finance minister in the world?
> 
> Given the coming squeeze the Tories talk about on health care and Old Age Security, is it smart economic management to commit a staggering $30-billion to increasingly discredited F-35 warplanes? It’s nice that, on trade diversification, the government is waking up to China. But how many years did Ottawa ignore it?
> 
> *I was talking to a plugged-in guy at the Finance Department the other day and asked him what the Tories have done that’s so wonderful. “The PR,” he responded.*
> 
> *Hard not to agree. It’s been a great shell game.* Their propaganda has masked a middling economic performance.


to give Harper one small kudo amongst many disses....he finally "gets it" with China.
On China visit, Harper picks up where Trudeau left off - The Globe and Mail

the fake immigrant debacle tho is simply only too typical...

Fake citizenship ceremony may have violated Privacy Act - The Globe and Mail

both of Sun and Harpo et al. XX)


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> You directed that insult to me????  I, who have supported you to the end could say such a thing about me ................ the NDP?????????? For shame, mon ami.


A scarlet letter, Dr. G.


----------



## BigDL

When your position is so weak, is making over the top pronouncements, the best idea? 



CBCNews said:


> Online surveillance critics siding with child porn: Toews
> 
> "He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers," Vic Toews said of Liberal public safety critic Francis Scarpaleggia during question period on Monday, after Scarpaleggia asked about a bill expected to be tabled Tuesday.


Toews Inserts Foot in Mouth


----------



## i-rui

the entire harper cabinet needs to be vaccinated for foot-in-mouth disease.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> A scarlet letter, Dr. G.


I am no Roger Chillingworth, nor am I Arthur Dimmesdale.

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." -- Abraham Lincoln


----------

