# Bad Politics - Jack Layton



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Am I the only person disapointed with Jack Layton's recent comments?

Harper throws out a compromise saying he would work with the NDP and find common ground should they need to do so under a minority government. Layton then responds by saying it would take a major research project to find common ground and basically turfs the whole idea. 

So I guess Jack would rather Canadians head back to the polls six months from now.  

As the campaign progresses, each leader is going to have to address the minority government issue. The NDP are not off to a great start. 

Does he also not see that he could be shooting himself in the foot? This could cause bandwagon NDPers to jump ship to the Liberals.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Smilin Jack is just playing to the tiny nub of still faithful hard lefties out there. That's one of the reasons that he is so avidly pushing the "stop privatisation" thingy with regard to publicly funded health care. 

He knows this is a dead loss. A complete dead end. This has been proven over and over again in so many other countries, after all....and has been completely abandoned by even the most ardently socialist of the modern western societies...but the union types demand this sort of political stance. So he does the big sales job. And plays to the (smallish) crowd.

A you can't for ONE MOMENT expect him to agree to support the Conservatives before an important election like this can you?? This would be political death for smilin Jack! AND his party. 

Even though all indications are that he will be doing just that, right after the smoke clears. (He will support anyone he thinks he can get some sort of traction out of, once they are in power. This is standard operating procedure for a tiny party that has some seats that can be bartered in parliament, after all.)

We should note here that the NDP numbers haven't gone up a whit during all of this ongoing political turmoil. While the majors jockey for position at the top of the heap....the NDP has had to settle for the same old faithful 15 to 19 per cent of decided voters. Which is third or fourth place out of four. Depending upon what region you are talking about.

We should ALSO note that Jack himself only won his seat in the very last third of the last federal election (it was a fairly near thing with him as these things go)...and his wife Olivia Chow has made three runs at a federal seat. And lost three times.

Soooo...Jack Layton needs to walk very carefully during this campaign. If he does it just right...and says just the right things...then he may very well end up with some small measure of power in this next goverment.

If he doesn't...then he will just be another used Lada salesman in a dapper suit. Trying to sell some modified form of a now-dead leftish ideology to people who are no longer listening. A sad footnote in history, looking for a job.

Or...he could be the power broker in a brand new and very different government in a very prosperous country.

No wonder he's preaching to the Choir.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Harper scares me just as much as Bush does. Good for Layton not to let Harper brown-nose him.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Smilin Jack is just playing to the tiny nub of still faithful hard lefties out there. That's one of the reasons that he is so avidly pushing the "stop privatisation" thingy with regard to publicly funded health care. 

He knows this is a dead loss...and has been abandoned by even the most ardently socialist of the modern western societies...but the unions types demand this sort of stance. So he does the big sales job.

A you can't for ONE MOMENT expect him to agree to support the Conservatives before an important election like this can you?? This would be political death for smilin Jack! AND his party. 

Even though all indications are that he will be doing just that, after the smoke clears. (He will support anyone he thinks he can get some sort of traction out of, once they are in power. This is standard operating procedure for a tiny party that has some seats that can be bartered in parliament, after all.)

We should note here that the NDP numbers haven't gone up a whit during all of this ongoing political turmoil. While the majors jockey for position at the top of the heap....the NDP has had to settle for the same old faithful 15 to 19 per cent of decided voters.

We should ALSO note that Jack himself only won his seat in the last third of the last vote (it was a fairly near thing with him as these things go)...and his wife Olivia Chow has made three runs at a federal seat. And lost three times.

Jack Layton needs to walk very carefully during this campaign. If he does it just right...and says just the right things...then he may very well end up with some small measure of power in this next goverment.

If he doesn't...then he will just be another used Lada salesman in a dapper suit. A footnote in history, looking for a job.

No wonder he's preaching to the Choir.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

dona83 said:


> Harper scares me just as much as Bush does. Good for Layton not to let Harper brown-nose him.


You won't be saying that when the NDP only pull in 15% of the popular vote.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I certainly don't think that Harper will be "brown-nosing" Jack Layton.

Likely, it will be the other way around.

In the upcoming government we MAY have a Conservative minority (the Conservatives might just get a small majority if things keep going the way they are right now)...

Either way...it looks to me like the new Conservative government, if it is indeed a minority, will likely side with different factions in order to get a sucessful vote on each issue presented to Parliament.

-On social change and public security (gun crime) issues...like stronger sentencing for repeat offenders...they might side with the NDP. Or even what's left of the Liberals, in order to get the legislation passed.

-On government reform and accountability...and particularly on issues rising from the active prosecution of former Liberal party officials (elected or not)...

Then I think that the Parti Quebecois will be quite happy and willing to throw their fifty or so seats behind the Conservative government. The NDP may be onside with this, as well.

Just so that they can all claim that they are "actively helping to clean up the corruption" of the former ruling party.

The PQ will be trying to prove to everyone that all Quebeckers are NOT crooks and thieves (pretty much every one of the major players in all of the multitude of Liberal scandals have been Quebeckers)...and the NDP will be trying to convince voters that they are NOT anything like the now-failed Liberals. While hoping to glean a few more votes in the next election.

Bottom line here?

If Harper actually gets a minority in this upcoming federal election... then he will most likely ask for and recieve help from several different and politically opposed parties in order to actually govern. Different ones on different issues.

But I have a sneaking suspcion that he will get a smallish majority. Especially once the rest of Canada (especially the Atlantic provinces and BC) see which way the political wind is blowing.

Jan 23rd is going to be an interesting ride. I'm already warming up the popcorn machine.

And chilling the bubbly.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> But I have a sneaking suspcion that he will get a smallish majority. Especially once the rest of Canada (especially the Atlantic provinces and BC) see which way the political wind is blowing.
> 
> Jan 23rd is going to be an interesting ride. I'm already warming up the popcorn machine.
> 
> And chilling the bubbly.


It sure sounds good. It would be great for our country, but I am doubtful for a majority. Not this time anyways. I have a feeling that Canadians are willing to give the Conservatives a try, but not give them the full power of a majority government. If the polls start trending upwards of 39%, then I think people will start voting strategically. It would be a difficult barrier to surpass.

Quebec will be interesting as well. They have a tendacy to jump ship with the winner. If Quebec see the Conservatives winning the most seats across Canada, they might jump on board. 

I have three bottles of champagne waiting. If the Conservatives deny the NDP and Liberals 50% of the seats, I pop one cork. If they win more seats than the Liberals, I pop two of them. All three go off if they get a majority government.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The first results we will see will be from Atlantic Canada.

If the Conservatives maintain their current momentum then many of our fellow Canadians on the east coast will likely switch to the Harper Conservatives. They just love to have a local representative in power, after all. having an MP in opposition does them no real good at all...and many (most?) are pragmatic scots irish.

This may be the bellwether.

I can't see anyone in Quebec voting for the Liberals. Not after the shame and humiliation of the Quebec Liberals in the Sponsorship scandal.

And it sure looks like a lot of Ontarians are totally fed up with the Liberals long term "soft on crime" thing. Especially after those horrific Boxing day murders on Younge Street.

They now want a change as well.

Manitoba and Saskatchewan? Don'y know...but I suspect that they too would rather see gun laws enforced properly and they no doubt also realise that new laws or bans would have no real effect under a soft system that lets criminals walk away. New laws and bans aren't the answer. Enforcement of current laws IS the answer.

Alberta? Solidly Conservative.

BC?

From what I've seen around here, "Federal Liberal" is right up there with the worst swear words. I suspect it might just be a total wipeout here, as well.

We will have to see. But it will be a helluva good ride...however it comes out.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> We will have to see. But it will be a helluva good ride...however it comes out.


With all the three-ways in B.C. (not just the swingers!), the election results should be more suspenseful than many TV shows.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

If Layton couldn't prop up a Liberal government, what makes anyone think he'll prop up the party so against human rights?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I think the statement, "the party so against human rights", is a bit of a stretch.

Better to judge them on their record AFTER they govern for a term than to try and predict what they will do.

Parties do not always do what they say they will do, or what voters think they will do. 

Remember the Liberals and their promise to abolish the GST?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> So you're saying that Harper's promise to revisit same sex marriage even after the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter is disingenuous? How shameful!



I simply stated wait and see what they do, with nary a word about same sex marriage or any other policy.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

HowEver said:


> If Layton couldn't prop up a Liberal government, what makes anyone think he'll prop up the party so against human rights?


They are Charter rights...Canadian Charter rights. That is not the same as human rights. Some people may think same sex marriage is a human right, but that's far from agreed upon, and is also highly dependent on the circumstances. For example if government isn't involved in marriage (instead just genderless nameless contracts of financial obligations), and no local religion will marry homosexuals...how is it a human right unless you take away freedom of religion?. Human rights, at least as I see them, are more generally applicable than that.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

If it is a minority government that we end up with after jan 23rd...and most seem to think that it will be...then Jack Layton will throw his party's support behind the winner IF he thinks he can get some traction on some of his pet policies by doing so. Or can expect some future considerations on same at a later time.

And this is the crux of it. He was promised all sorts of things by the Liberals and, as is so often the case with them, these promises turned out to be jst more hot air. Which is one of the main reasons that we now find ourselves in yet another early Federal election.

My question to you, beej, is this:

If the Martin Liberals do somehow manage to squeak out another tiny minority government...then how in the world could Jack Layton possibly throw his party's support behind them? Especially given all that's happened in the past year?

In fact, anyone who still holds out faint hope for the Liberals needs to ask themselves "WHO the HECK would support them?" in any sort of a minority situation.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> My question to you, beej, is this:
> 
> If the Martin Liberals do somehow manage to squeak out another tiny minority government...then how in the world could Jack Layton possibly throw his party's support behind them? Especially given all that's happened in the past year?
> 
> In fact, anyone who still holds out faint hope for the Liberals needs to ask themselves "WHO the HECK would support them?" in any sort of a minority situation.


Nothing will be easy if the government requires Bloc support...too many perceptions clashing. Both the Cons and Libs would have a great deal of difficulty. WHO the HECK would support the Conservatives, except on the topic of the Fed-Prov power balance (Cons+Bloc), and how difficult is that to spin? Doable, but challenging. Bigger things have been pulled off in politics.

If the NDP+Libs have a majority *shudder and retch* then if the NDP gets to brag about another 'NDP budget' like they do now, they'll take it. A couple big ifs. As well, they could brag about being the only party willing to work with others. It's politics, many things that seemed politically impossible (lying about axe the tax?) become possible. Canadian voters have forgiven much more in the past. 

The next parliament, if a minority without an NDP pivot, will be interesting. If the NDP are the pivot, they'll side with Libs and play the 'pragmatic' arguement. The constant challenge will be in when the next election is and, if it's too soon (<1 year?), who gets blamed.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm still hoping for a smallish Conservative majority. And that particular outcome is not entirely impossible. Look what all of the political analysts are saying right now.

You might also want to listen to today's news. There is yet another RCMP inquiry beginning into yet ANOTHER Liberal scandal. Anyone keeping count here?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> The next parliament, if a minority without an NDP pivot, will be interesting. If the NDP are the pivot, they'll side with Libs and play the 'pragmatic' arguement. The constant challenge will be in when the next election is and, if it's too soon (<1 year?), who gets blamed.


If that happens, how long will the Liberals co-operate? Chances are they lose seats this election and will probably conclude the Bloc vote was partly a one-time protest vote. I imagine the Liberals would want to push for another election thinking they can do no worse than what they have already done. With that mentality in mind, I would imagine the Liberals going by the playbook from the last two years (i.e. promise all sorts of things, but make budget them really far in the future and never deliver).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Could be. Either way, the knives that Martin used to gain power would be sharpened and pointed at his back. You can already see the sharpening on a couple blogs...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Could be. Either way, the knives that Martin used to gain power would be sharpened and pointed at his back. You can already see the sharpening on a couple blogs...


Martin is getting pretty old now and I see this as his last election regardless of what happens. He is older than Mulroney!!

He doesn't seem to have much unity in BC. Dr. Keith Martin skipped a press conference with P. Martin about health care. P. Martin said it was a scheduling conflict and when they press put this to K. Martin, he said, "No it wasn't. I don't agree with his health care plan so I didn't attend".


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

And there was quite a discussion on one of the news programs yesterday. It was all about a known "mole" inside the Liberal party. This lurker has apparently been funnelling policy info to the Harper camp in order to undermine the already wounded Paul Martin campaign.

This mole is NOT a subversive that was planted by the Conservatives. Apparently this person is an unreformed Chretianista! A Liberal faithful who still has it in for poor old Paul...and who is working from the inside to bring him down.

The panel discussion went on and it was revealed that there are rather a lot of Chretien loyalists still embedded in the Liberal party. They hate Martin because he deposed their precious ayatollah and sent him packing. (the reality is that many have probably lost their "skim priviledges" under the new Martinistas...and they are ready to lash out at the guy who took that away from them).

One more bit of joy for Paul to chew on. No wonder he looks so old and tired these days.:yawn:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

He does have that, "deer in the headlights stare, doesn't he?"


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

He's stuttering a lot these days too. He usually does that when there is more than one RCMP investigation going on in Liberal land.

He's probably already practising his "I knew NOTHING!" mantra.:lmao: 

This party is as dead as beta. Time we all realised that and moved on.XX)


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> They hate Martin because he deposed their precious ayatollah and sent him packing. (the reality is that many have probably lost their "skim priviledges" under the new Martinistas...and they are ready to lash out at the guy who took that away from them).


Please expand on this immediately!!!
Otherwise your reputation could suffer, as people may think that you believe Martin worked towards cleaning up the Liberals. :lmao: 

'Fuel to the fire', some may say. 'Friday night entertainment', I say.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> And there was quite a discussion on one of the news programs yesterday. It was all about a known "mole" inside the Liberal party.


That makes sense. The Conservatives have trumped the Liberals time and time again.

Unity in the Liberal Party is not looking very strong.

The Liberals are starting to look desperate. They have been in power for 12 years now. They should be running on their record, but for the most part they aren’t (for obvious reasons).


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Actually, I think that Paul Martin probably DID work as hard as he could to clean up the Liberals. After all, he doesn't need to skim. ( He's already rich as hell and makes even more by dodging Canadian taxes and crew regulations on all of his ships by registering them in Barbadoes and Liberia.) 

But I doubt if Martin had a hope of ever reforming this batch of crooks. The rot runs too deep and everyone from the top down has been in on the big skim for so darned long that he'd have to gut the party and start again. No time for that what with all of those RCMP investigations and snap elections coming at him every few months.

Once the Liberals are out of power we may finally see a sweeping cleanup of the mess this party has become over the years. I expect that there will be witch hunts that will result in jail sentences for some of them.

Jean Chretien will likely flee. Watch and see.:clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacNutt said:


> Jean Chretien will likely flee. Watch and see.:clap:


I'm gonna call you on that one Gerry!

My bet is he stays put. Say, a dozen McEwan's?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yer on!

If (when) Harper wins...he will have to be seen to be cleaning up government and making everyone involved far more accountable. Rooting out the many crooks and theives in the previous scandal ridden Liberal administration will be just the ticket for this. It will be accompanied by resounding cheers all across the land and watercooler conversations will begin to trend toward "gee...I guess those guys really ARE different from the other ones".

Which will ensure re-election. And a clear majority next time out.

Harper will definitely have the Bloc onside with all of this stuff so he'll likely get it passed even if he has a small minority (the Bloc is anxious to distance themselves from the criminal activities of their fellow quebeckers. BIG TIME).

Since all roads lead back into the PMO under King Jean and all fingers point to Chretien as being the Tony Soprano of his particular criminal organisation...then it nly follows that he will be the target.

And Chretein himself set the precedent whereby an incoming party that was in opposition can actively prosecute a former Prime minister for corruption while in office (Mulroney and the Airbus affair).

Chretien will likely flee. especially when the heat gets intense and some of the smaller players begin to squawk and tell all. He will claim it is simply a long term "tour" of foreign countries as a retired elder statesman....but watch which countries he spends all his time in. Ones that do not have an extradition treaty with Canada, I'll bet.

I'm being totally serious here, BTW.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I never doubted for a moment that a Scot who thought he could win free beer would accept the challenge. Well done laddie!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You should also know that I'm not much of a gambler. But I will often put money on a sure thing.

OCH and AYE!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well, now that both we Scots have our money on a sure thing, it will be interesting to be sure! (Pardon the pun!)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I like mine room temperature. Room temperature in an Aberdeen pub in january, that is. 

That would be "well chilled" to all the rest of you heathens.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> ( He's already rich as hell and makes even more by dodging Canadian taxes and crew regulations on all of his ships by registering them in Barbadoes and Liberia.)


This one keeps popping up. This is the shipping industry and, in general, taxation. It is not a tax 'dodge'. How many people with RRSP contributions don't declare them? That's a tax 'dodge'. Any non Canadian content? Double-dodge.

Wrapping himself in the flag and demonizing Harper is duplicitous, but there is nothing wrong with an international shipping company flying different flags. With all the real dirt out there, fake dirt isn't needed. Also 'all of his ships'...really? Check it out. 

Cue script on alleged CSL improprieties...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

It may be "accepted industry practice" for shipping magnates who want to maximise their wealth while avoiding troublesome safety and crew strength regulations...and while dodging taxes...but how many of those ridiculously wealthy shipping magnates are ALSO the leader of their country? You know, the one that they chose NOT to register their Canadian ships in?

"Canadian" Steamship Lines my BUTT!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacNutt said:


> It may be "accepted industry practice" for shipping magnates who want to maximise their wealth while avoiding troublesome safety and crew strength regulations...and while dodging taxes...but how many of those ridiculously wealthy shipping magnates are ALSO the leader of their country? You know, the one that they chose NOT to register their Canadian ships in?
> 
> "Canadian" Steamship Lines my BUTT!


I have to agree. Looks very bad for PM the PM to choose a country other than Canada to register his ships. Smacks of greed, but the he WAS in finance for years!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Looks bad -- yes. Standard business practice -- yes. Excluding business people involved in international companies from office -- NDP dream.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Again...name any other wealthy shipping magnate who is also the head of a nation? One that he chooses NOT to register his ships in?

The answer should clarify things a bit for you. At least that's my hope.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

So, what direct benefit does Martin get by registering his ships outside Canada other than making money? Seems to me it is the only reason.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Crew regulations and some safety practices are apparently different for ships registered in flag of conveience countries. It's also likely that a Canadian registered ship would have to have a union crew. YIKES!

Then there's always the giant tax dodge. By a leader of a country that taxes its regular citizens almost to death.

Too bad his company does tens of millions of dollars worth of shipping for the government he runs.

Too bad for us that is. Makes us look like a banana republic to the rest of the world.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Again...name any other wealthy shipping magnate who is also the head of a nation? One that he chooses NOT to register his ships in?


Relevance? None.

Businessman legally minimizing their taxes: commonplace. Three cheers for a businessman who doesn't take every allowable tax advantage he can get, but I wouldn't expect it from them. 

Nor would I expect anyone to not take a deduction for their RRSP contributions or to have international equities in their RRSPs. Are you unfit to govern if you have international equities under your RRSP? What if you own a business that sells imported goods despite there being Canada-made alternatives?

This is a non-issue (substantially, but clearly is a perception issues) amongst many really valid criticisms of the Martin government.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay now....

If the positions were reversed, and Stephen Harper were the ridiculously wealthy shipping magnate who was running the country, and had chosen NOT to register his ships there while funnelling tens of millions of dollars worth of governemnt business into the company that he owns...

Would you THEN still say it was a "non-issue"?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

(stay tuned folks...a 'gotcha' is coming up.):heybaby:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> If the positions were reversed, and Stephen Harper were the ridiculously wealthy shipping magnate who was running the country, and had chosen NOT to register his ships there while funnelling tens of millions of dollars worth of governemnt business into the company that he owns...
> 
> Would you THEN still say it was a "non-issue"?


Funnelling government money into the company without openly competed upon contracts: issue.

Otherwise: non-issue.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> (stay tuned folks...a 'gotcha' is coming up.):heybaby:


Sorry to disappoint. An issue would be the funelling, but I'm very even handed with my economics.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

The whole CSL situation and flying flags of other nations is irrelevant every shipping company does it. Do you blame GM for making cars in Korea and some engine and drivetrain components in China nope because they have to stay competitive with there rivals even if it means upsetting the unions back in NA.

Laterz


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

My point too...waiting for CSL scandal links for MN to shift from my initial point.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

On a side note, I sent an email to the Liberal candidate in my riding a few days ago with a couple questions. I haven't gotten a response, but they threw my name on the federal Liberal email list. 

I dont want to read their propaganda, I want answers.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I tried that last election, and the only guy who got back to me was the Liberal (did not fill out my simple question sheet, but actually talked to me for 5-10 min.)...the others ignored me. More of a riding by riding thing. 

For anyone interested, the Liberal seemed to be willing to say anything he thought I wanted to hear. Nice guy, but very Liberal instead liberal.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

So do I Vandave. So do most thinking Canadians who haven't been brainwashed into supporting the unsupportable. Into re-electing the unelectable.

And my question remains unanswered:

If the positions were reversed, and Stephen Harper were the ultra rich old shipping magnate who was also the leader of Canada...would you say it was a non-issue that he chose to register his "Canadian" vessels in a foreign country to avoid Canadian taxes and Canadian regulations?

(cue the avoidance manoevers)


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The question was answered. Post 43, read and quote back how it doesn't answer your question.

You changed your wording this time (removed government funnelling concept), so clearly a non-issue. Legal business practices, even when not 'patriotic' in the NDP sense, are fine by me. You're not going socialist on us are you? 

Here's some help in crafting a better response:

Demonstrate Beej's pro-Martin bias. Good luck, but it avoids the specific topic of the exchange...no gotcha

Demonstrate Beej's anti-business bias. Good f'in luck with that one...no gotcha, but consider labelling Beej a capitalist pig until you realize further implication sof that

Demonstrate corruption (alleged) instead, but avoid topic of the exchange (legal tax minimizing)...no gotcha

Be much more creative, win a prize from Beej

Sorry to be like that, but it's Friday evening and I'm in a giggly mood. No harm intended. Smile for us.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Beej said:


> Funnelling government money into the company without openly competed upon contracts: issue.
> 
> Otherwise: non-issue.


This is post #43. In what way does it answer my question about the situation being reversed? Help me out here.

And as for your dodge about my "funnelling" comment....when asked how much business his "Canadian" Syeamship Lines does each year with the Canadian governement, Paul Martin answered something like 160 thousand dollars per year.

The real figure was more like 160 MILLION dollars per year. This was revealed via governemnt figures.

Now why do you suppose that a guy who OWNS a shipping company and also runs a country, doesn't actually KNOW (or chooses to minimise) the amount of business that his company does with the company that he owns? 

And you don't suppose that the Liberals...who are known for their skims and scams and their outright theft of Canadian tax dollars...would not actually be guilty of funnelling government contracts into the company that their leader owns?

Duh.

Now...you can choose to actually answer the question about Harper being in Martin's position...or you can ignore it and dodge it if you like.

Either will do. 

Awaiting your carefully considered reply.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> This is post #43. In what way does it answer my question about the situation being reversed? Help me out here.
> 
> And as for your dodge about my "funnelling" comment....when asked how much business his "Canadian" Syeamship Lines does each year with the Canadian governement, Paul Martin answered something like 160 thousand dollars per year.
> 
> ...


So sad, but I signed up for the whole MacNutt experience, and damned if I'm not getting my money's worth! :lmao: 

If Harper was the ultra rich old shipping magnate who was also the leader of Canada it would be a non-issue to me that he chose to register his "Canadian" vessels in a foreign country to avoid Canadian taxes and Canadian regulations. This is the topic...check back and you'll see.

If any corruption were involved (not just getting government contracts...otherwise we've got presumed guilt for anyone with ownership in a large company) then it would be an issue to me. There may be an issue for Martin, but I never saw proof, just allegations (What were the results of the criminal investigation?). This is the topic I expected you to shift to...check back and you'll see. 

If Martin was a small business owner who only sold Canadian-made products and overpaid his taxes just in case, but got corrupt government contracts, that would be an issue for me.

Legal tax minimization is not an issue for me, whether it's Harper or Martin, involves international employees or only domestic employees, flying foreign flags or not, involves RRSP deductions, or involves advertising on ehMac. It's the legality that matters to me.

You may continue shifting...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Good. Then I can use that statement as a quote in upcoming threads.

It's obviously not an ethical question at all for you. Just a simple business practice that is common...but NOT universal...amongst ridiculously wealthy shipping magnates. Everyone does it. So it's okay.

Even when said shipping magnate is actually the leader of a nation. 

Correct?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Yep, and it has been answered. 

I used the wording from your second version (not sure why you changed it) because the funnelling reference was not included, so I wouldn't have to use a conditional...which may confuse some. That way I clearly stated my stance so you couldn't target the condition as distorting your question.

Nice chatting with you. If you're having trouble seeing my answer, not just trying to cover up not getting a much desired gotcha by acting like you don't see it, I'm sure someone here can help you. We have a couple teachers I believe...

[Edit: MacNutt, you editted your previous post completely, why didn't you just post anew?]


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm enjoying this exchange.

Macnutt, your turn . .


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Bear with me SINC. I have a plan.

But I don't think he sees it. Good...that means we can still play a bit longer.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> I don't know about anyone else, but I'm enjoying this exchange.
> 
> Macnutt, your turn . .


That's what I thought, but he editted his previous post. Is it my turn or his? I wouldn't want to cut in line or anything.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

It turns out that rather a lot of people here seem to be watching this exchange. Or so I am told.

I will take this moment to let any and all prospective Liberal apologists read and re-read the above answer to my question. And then ponder this.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

yawn


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Beej said:


> That's what I thought, but he editted his previous post. Is it my turn or his? I wouldn't want to cut in line or anything.


I was quoting my original question again just to remind you. But you posted your reply before it appeared so I deleted it and went ahead with the rest of what I'd planned to say.

Bravo, by the way. Many would have just vanished rather than admit what you just have.

In front of a lot of impressionable types. Who all have a vote.
:clap: :clap:

Now do you see where I'm headed? :heybaby:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> Be much more creative, win a prize from Beej


I think he's going for the prize! Will I get burned and have to mail something to B.C.? Will our fearless hero overcome the odds and be victorious? Tune in to find out!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Beej said:


> I think he's going for the prize! Will I get burned and have to mail something to B.C.? Will our fearless hero overcome the odds and be victorious? Tune in to find out!


You've already done my work for me. Thanks.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> I was quoting my original question again just to remind you. But you posted your reply before it appeared so I deleted it and went ahead with the rest of what I'd planned to say.
> 
> Bravo, by the way. Many would have just vanished rather than admit what you just have.
> 
> ...


Do I have to answer this question repeatedly also? 

Reveal your secrets, MagicNutt! We are all waiting (just Sinc and me?)


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> We are all waiting (just Sinc and me?)


No, I just got home from work and I am waiting as well sipping a bowl of Pho. I hope this raw beef is OK to eat.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

An audience? I'll get a beer and settle in. Must be fun for some to watch alleged neocons go at it...I hope you all enjoy the show!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Okay now....
> 
> If the positions were reversed, and Stephen Harper were the ridiculously wealthy shipping magnate who was running the country, and had chosen NOT to register his ships there while funnelling tens of millions of dollars worth of governemnt business into the company that he owns...
> 
> Would you THEN still say it was a "non-issue"?


Speaking of which... I think Harper should play on his being a 'regular' Canadian, like the rest of us a bit more. One who actually uses our health care system and wasn't born into the Liberal mafia like Martin.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Speaking of which... I think Harper should play on his being a 'regular' Canadian, like the rest of us a bit more. One who actually uses our health care system and wasn't born into the Liberal mafia like Martin.


Pre FRIGGIN cisely, Vandave!! Right on...knew you'd get it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

And we wait...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Still not seeing it Beej?

I bet several others are....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm still waiting aren't I? Eager to be shocked and awed...but hopefully not disappointed with some topic-shifting corrupto-rant. I also hope not to run out of beer tonight.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I don't have any beer at home but had two at work.

I think I will have to have some wine with my raw beef Pho.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I don't have any beer at home but had two at work.


Aren't you an engineer? Remind me to avoid those bridges...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay Beej...I'll let you in on it...

The very fact that you DON'T see any sort of ethical problem in the leader of a country owning a massive shipping line (with that country's name prominently featured in it's title, no less) that has all of it's ships registered in offshore tax dodge countries, speaks volumes.

And it also may help to explain to some people out there just where the apologists for the scandal ridden Liberals stand on simple questions of ethics and reality. On really basic stuff.:clap:

Which might explain why these criminals have lasted in power for so very long.

Congratulations beej....I bet you've made a few converts tonight. Not for the Liberals, either.  

Also...once Stephen Harper is PM of Canada, he will no doubt be under constant assault from disgruntled supporters of the former regime. They will be looking for any possible breach of ethics while trying to discredit him.

I plan to use your above statements in quotes on many occasions once this begins to happen. It should make for some spirited moments in the near future. You gave me more than I wanted tonight. This is what is known in debating circles as a "two-fer".:clap: :lmao: 

Muchas gracias amigo. It's been a blast!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Okay Beej...I'll let you in on it...
> 
> The very fact that you DON'T see any sort of ethical problem in the leader of a country owning a massive shipping line (with that country's name prominently featured in it's title, no less) that has all of it's ships registered in offshore tax dodge countries, speaks volumes.
> 
> ...


That's it? Just identifying a reason why I don't identify with the same conservative grassrooters that split up the PCs and that brought us Mr. Day? That's not 'Episode I disappointing' but it's up there. :lmao: 

No prize for you...well, you did at least try: here's a big hug from a free-market leaning, strong social safety net, small government elitist... *hug*.

Oh well, cheers MacNutt. I'm glad I could help out.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> that has all of it's ships registered in offshore tax dodge countries


Sidenote: not relevant to your point, but I'm not sure that all of the ships are registered offshore. All of the international unit of CSL, but I think there are Canadian ships in the domestic unit. Can't say I'm sure, just going by memory.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Aren't you an engineer? Remind me to avoid those bridges...


Yup, but I don't build bridges.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I have three bottles of champagne waiting. If the Conservatives deny the NDP and Liberals 50% of the seats, I pop one cork. If they win more seats than the Liberals, I pop two of them. All three go off if they get a majority government.


And here they are. I start on the left and move to the right, because better things are on the right.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Only a true Con would try to pass Sparkling Wine as Champagne....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Only a true Con would try to pass Sparkling Wine as Champagne....


Wine snob.

Until the Germans and Spaniards invade France they are stuck with with the term Sparkling Wine. The Piper is from the correct region of France and is a real Champagne.

Actually, I don't like Champagne that much and this was all gifted to me. I never buy it myself. Just reds and now and then some white.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060107/DOUG07/TPColumnists/

(subscription)

Good article in the Globe and Mail about 'Pink' Conservatives -- a Conservative shift/communications-strategy that shares more with parties like the NDP than others. 

In some countries it may be real, in others just words, but the basic concept is there. The Reform/Alliance party, as seen in B.C., didn't just draw from the traditional right...recall the low NDP vote base of the 1990s. It's an interesting article that discusses, in a little more detail and with a slant, the glimpse seen in this thread.

[Edit: excerpt
You could hear Mr. Harper turning pink this week when he denounced the corporate agenda of the Prime Minister's private-sector career, as the chief executive of Canada Steamship Lines. Suggesting that Mr. Martin is a corporate robber baron is a line of argument that has been popular on the left for years, but it is one that even Mr. Layton, seeking credibility as a potential national leader, has avoided. It sounds too conspiratorial and anti-capitalist for the modern NDP, but it was fine for Mr. Harper on Wednesday:

"I don't know any party leader in the history of this country, other than Mr. Martin, who ever aspired to be prime minister who ran his life under the flag of Barbados and Liberia and tried to avoid paying taxes in this country," the Conservative Leader said
]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Harper, like most modern conservatives, has rather a lot of sympathy for good social policies. Most of us would describe ourselves as fiscally conservative but socially liberal.

The biggest difference between "us" and "them" is the fact that we want these social policies and programs to be SUSTAINABLE. 

If social programs are not sustainable then they are pure folly. And the political leaders who have made us promises that are unsustainable are crooks who will say anything just to get elected. It's high time that Canadian voters began to ask themselves just who can give us the social policies that we truly want and expect...and who is full of empty unsustainable promises. 

And...just to get back to the original subject of this thread...it's also high time that we all realised that some political leaders from smallish parties (who will never ever hold real power in this country) will say anything and back anyone, while trying to piggyback themselves onto the big table.

Layton is a whore. No wonder some of the biggest Unions are no longer backing his party. No wonder he seems to be stalled at the same numbers he had going into this.

"Bad Politics" indeed. Wonder if Smilin Jack can get himself re-elected this time around?

You can decide for yourselves if he deserves it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacNutt said:


> Layton is a whore.


Not a term of description that I would use, buy hey, to each his own.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Harper, like most modern conservatives, has rather a lot of sympathy for good social policies. Most of us would describe ourselves as fiscally conservative but socially liberal.


MacNutt, do you even read what your "leader" has to say:


> The rediscovery of the conservative agenda requires us to maintain the coalition of ideas that is the heritage of enlightenment liberalism and Burkean conservatism. Yet contemporary reality requires us to re-emphasize the Burkean tradition as a key part of our conservative agenda. In other words, while retaining a focus on economic issues, we must give greater place to social values and social conservatism, broadly defined and properly understood.


http://www.ccicinc.org/politicalaffairs/060103.html

Get it right MacNutt, the article is all about the Right Agenda, rather scary....


----------

