# Martin's Speech



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

Well, what do you think?
I especially love the stall tactic....


----------



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

I'll go out on a limb and say that I am willing to give him the time to do what needs to be done. However, if he breaks his pledge, I shall not vote for him to be dog catcher, let alone PM. We shall see. 

Sadly, I feel that Paul Martin is a man of integrity that was caught in a "mess" not of his own making.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

I just don't get why he wanted to be PM so much. He looks so uncomfortable with the job, and so nervous. I get the feeling that it's just a family thing with him...trying to show dad that hey, I can do this too...
Don't get me wrong. I believe in standing behind our PM, but the structure of the Canadian system is such that his job is the most powerful, and probably the most important.... I just don't know what to make of him, or his Liberal Party. 
Then again, I'm a stalwart NDP'r and I don't know how much smiling Layton could do to get him through a public spectacle like that and still make me like him...


----------



## poisonmonkey (Sep 20, 2004)

I thought that he failed to buy any time at all. He tried to almost brush the issue to make it less of a scandal.

Was it me or did he look really scared/nervous while speaking?

Harper at least looked much more composed, although he and the other opposition leaders had less reaction to his speech than the entire ordeal in general. 

But calling the election after the report comes out at least shows that he is _willing_ to take some responsibility for the actions of his party. For the cheques that he signed... So he gets that much and not much more.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

*Here is the TEXT of the Speech*

So, that we can discuss what the guy said rather than what we _thought_ he said. 

_
Good evening.
I want to talk to you directly tonight — about the problems in the sponsorship program; about how I've responded to them as your prime minister; and about the timing of the next general election.
Let me speak plainly: what happened with the sponsorship file occurred on the watch of a Liberal government. Those who were in power are to be held responsible. And that includes me.
I was the Minister of Finance. Knowing what I've learned this past year, I am sorry that we weren't more vigilant - that I wasn't more vigilant. Public money was misdirected and misused. That's unacceptable. And that is why I apologized to the Canadian people a year ago.
But taking responsibility is about more than words. I want to tell you what I've done as Prime Minister to deal with the sponsorship scandal — to make sure it does not happen again, to make sure that those who violated the public trust will be identified and will pay the consequences.
On December 12, 2003, I cancelled the sponsorship program. It was my very first act on my very first day in office.
When the Auditor-General's report was publicly tabled, I acted immediately by ordering a fully independent commission of inquiry, under Mr. Justice John Gomery. Its mandate is to get to the bottom of what happened, and to do it in full view of Canadians. It will report before the end of the year.
And I think you'll agree — Judge Gomery is leaving no stone unturned.
In addition, I fired Alfonso Gagliano, the minister responsible for the sponsorship program, from his appointment as Ambassador to Denmark.
I put in strict new controls on spending within every single government department.
My government brought forward whistleblower legislation to ensure that when public servants and others come forward with evidence of wrongdoing, they are protected, not punished.
To recover taxpayers' money — money that went to those who did not earn it -- I ordered my government to sue 19 people and companies for more than $40-million.
I committed to acting on the recommendations of Judge Gomery when he brings forth his final report. And I myself testified before his commission, answering any and all questions.
Finally, I ordered that the Liberal party bring in auditors to conduct a forensic examination of its books - and call in the RCMP to investigate what took place during that period.
Let me emphasize that point: if so much as a dollar is found to have made its way into the Liberal party from ill-gotten gains, it will be repaid to the people of Canada. I want no part of that money.
As Prime Minister, I will never hesitate to describe what happened on the sponsorship file for what is was: an unjustifiable mess. It's up to me to clean it up. That's my job. I am cleaning it up. And I am willing to be judged on my record of action.
In recent weeks, fallout from the sponsorship inquiry has led to speculation about an election — which in turn is consuming virtually all political discussion, at least here on Parliament Hill. Initiatives to improve health care, strengthen our economy and ensure for Canada a role of pride and influence in the world are being obscured by partisan jousting.
In short, the Parliament you sent to Ottawa less than a year ago is preoccupied with election talk and with political strategy — not with the job you sent us here to do.
As people focus their attention on the commission's hearings, let's remember that the inquiry is being held in front of a judge for good reason.
There is conflicting testimony; only the judge is in a position to determine the truth. Only he can cut through the partisan politics. Only he can tell us what happened and who was responsible.
We've all heard that the opposition may defeat the government and take the country to the polls for the second time in a year.
I am prepared to face Canadians and have them judge my response to this serious test of leadership. I will be politically accountable. But I believe that before there is an election, you are entitled to answers — to the answers that Judge Gomery is working toward. I believe that Canadians deserve a full and frank accounting of all the facts. Fairness and due process require nothing less.
For that reason, I commit to you tonight that I will call a general election within 30 days of the publication of the commission's final report and recommendations. Let Judge Gomery do his work. Let the facts come out. And then the people of Canada will have their say.
If the Opposition forces an election before then, that is their choice. But I believe we can do better. I believe we can — and we should — use the coming months to pursue the public's business. To act on the issues that matter most to you and make a difference in your life.
If we are to have an election, one that will be at least in part about the work of Judge Gomery, surely that election should occur only when we have the work of Judge Gomery.
In closing, let me say this: there are people who think I was wrong to call this inquiry, wrong to expose my government to the political cost of the scrutiny that has ensued. They warn we will pay a price in the next election. And perhaps we will.
But I trust your judgment. And I will not dishonour this office by trying to conceal or diminish such offensive wrongdoing. I have too much respect for this place.
When I was young, I practically lived here in the Parliament Buildings. My father was a cabinet minister in four Liberal governments. He taught me that those who serve in public office have a duty to protect the integrity of government.
My pledge to you tonight is that I will live up to that ideal. I went into public life because I believe in the good that government can do. And I will do my all as Prime Minister to make sure that your government is worthy of your respect.
The final judgment on whether I have done that will be yours.
Thank you. And good night._


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Lame. Weak. Stupid. 

He got to speak for 6 minutes. The opposition leaders got more than 12 combined. Arrogant too, "that's what a judge is for"... hmm... but we are also the jury PM. 

The Liberals need to go


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Martin's speech was laughable, There's no place like Canada! The Bloc wants us to remember not to blame Quebec,,, I didn't really think about blaming Quebec Fedrealists, until they mentioned that... hmmmm, Ah well, I wonder how Canada East will economically diversify itself in the global economy ? All the call centres are goin to India!


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

> I feel that Paul Martin is a man of integrity


?????

Hmm...

Let's see...just scraping the *known surface....*

1. deflag your steamships so as NOT to pay any taxes

2. while you are finance minister, change laws that allow for more profitability for your steamship company

3. Fire every Canadian who laboured aboard said steamships, and replace them with much-lower-paid Filipinos and various other nationalities

And you call this clown a "man of integrity"?

We deserve him, if the majority of Canadians (assuming you are a Canadian) think like you.

Mel


----------



## Vishalca (Aug 5, 2004)

As much as I understood and interpreted the information given by all political party leaders, I just couldn't get over Gilles Ducceppe's English accent; he sounded like he was from New York! 

"fed-er-AL-ist"


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

This whole situation stinks and the Liberals stink for stealing during a period of great stress on the nation. Personally, I would have paid double and then some if it meant saving Canada from breaking up, but only if the money had been used for its intended purpose and if we had not been overcharged for every bloody thing they did. 

The opposition parties also stink. On one hand they say they respect the work of Gomery, but on the other hand they are willing to completely disregard his work in order to profit politically from the vast array of conflicting testimony. Let's also not forget that to flush the commission's work would mean more than another $100 million down the drain...that's more than what was stolen in the first place!!! 

The opposition is also constantly bitching about how nothing is getting done in Parliament. Well, they have only themselves to blame for it. Have a look at the transcripts from Question Period over the last several months...they are OBSESSED with the frickin' testimony at the commission instead of the important issues affecting the country. 

Finally, the media stinks. All they do is froth at the mouth with each new day of testimony. "It was another damning day of testimony before the Gomery Commission..." bla bla bla. They too need to move onto reporting the news of the day, not just the hearsay and bull**** of all these Liberal and ad executive yahoos. 

For the first time in my life, the Liberals didn't get my vote in the last election. However, Harper won't get it either if he robs me of my right to be completely informed when I go to the polls next time. 

Let's not throw away good money after bad. Let Gomery finish his work.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

I couldn't stand to listen to all the lipflapping, so I muted it and tried to read just the body language.

Martin - About to cry / feeble old man / someone at a parole hearing
Harper - 12 year old boy with some kind of pressed 'conservative' hair piece.
Duceppe - Looked like he was on the type of drugs that make your eyes pop-out and your lips move at near light speed.
Layton - He just looks creepy... like he just came back from Neverland Ranch and had the time of his life.

Good thing we don't vote based on how they look.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I think the Liberal Party needs to punished for its arrogance by voters this summer. I think Liberal individuals who committed criminal acts should be punished based on Gomery's findings in the fall.


----------



## poisonmonkey (Sep 20, 2004)

Mugatu said:


> I couldn't stand to listen to all the lipflapping, so I muted it and tried to read just the body language.
> 
> Martin - About to cry / feeble old man / someone at a parole hearing
> Harper - 12 year old boy with some kind of pressed 'conservative' hair piece.
> ...


I thought they were bad, but not _that_ bad... 
But the Martin description is bang on. That is exactly what I said when he came on.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I especially love the stall tactic....


so 87% of Canadians say they don't want an election before the Gomery report is complete......and it's stall tactic when the PM requests the same thing AND commits to an election. 

Martin is NOT a politician and he likely dumped the those Chret vets that had good political instincts, he called an unneeded election and got hammered for it and Harper celebrated too early and got hammered for his presumptions.

We'll see what the next poll about election timing shows. 
Some people are getting mad but it might be surprising just WHAT they are mad about.

I'm sure Duceppe is delighted. 

•••••

VG - excellent assessment. :clap:


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

VertiGoGo said:


> This whole situation stinks and the Liberals stink for stealing during a period of great stress on the nation. Personally, I would have paid double and then some if it meant saving Canada from breaking up, but only if the money had been used for its intended purpose and if we had not been overcharged for every bloody thing they did.
> 
> The opposition parties also stink. On one hand they say they respect the work of Gomery, but on the other hand they are willing to completely disregard his work in order to profit politically from the vast array of conflicting testimony. Let's also not forget that to flush the commission's work would mean more than another $100 million down the drain...that's more than what was stolen in the first place!!!
> 
> ...


Well said.

I think Martin will make some bold moves to put this issue behind us. He did the right thing by addressing the nation tonight.

I think Martin is a good guy. Better than most politicians. It's too bad that the greedy rotten ones spoil it for the rest of the nation.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Martin is NOT a politician...


 ... huh ... what? ... not a politician? Ohh... you ment that as a joke.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Bah, all his speech did was harden support on both sides. The Liberals are going down.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Martin is NOT a politician and he likely dumped the those Chret vets that had good political instincts, he called an unneeded election and got hammered for it and Harper celebrated too early and got hammered for his presumptions.


Good call.

Finally you acknowledge that Martin is toast. He was a sniveller tonight, begging for his job.

Typical Liberal though.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

IF Parliament had a snowball's chance in Hades of getting "back to work," I'd say, sure, let Gomery finish the job, and then we'll toss our ballots. But I don't think the Conservatives would let that happen - it's to their benefit to keep the heat on, even if it does force us to the polls earlier than we'd like. They will always be able to point at Sponsorship and say "that's why there's an election today."

The absolute last thing this country needs right now is a Harper regime in Parliament. Disastrous. Regressive. Not Good.

An NDP minority... a possibility... and perhaps, with the support of the Bloc and whatever Liberals manage to escape unscathed... that might be something worth seeing.

I didn't see all of Martin's, none of Layton's, none of Duceppe's performance in front of the camera tonight... I did see a selection from Harper's. Tell me - what was that little dance he was doing? He looked like "pool boy" from Mad TV... check it out during the re-runs tonight.

M


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

CubaMark, 

An NDP minority is a pipe dream. Harper isn't the evil Mr. Burns everyone paints him out to be.

But hey, since politics is all cheap shots and hype anyway, it really doesn't matter. 

I'll start the election pool predictions now; Conservative minority followed quickly by a Conservative majority. 

Liberal Party implosion. NDP continues to languish. Bloc does what the Bloc always does.


----------



## ct77 (Mar 10, 2005)

Mugatu said:


> I couldn't stand to listen to all the lipflapping, so I muted it and tried to read just the body language.
> 
> Martin - About to cry / feeble old man / someone at a parole hearing
> Harper - 12 year old boy with some kind of pressed 'conservative' hair piece.
> ...


lol


----------



## enaj (Aug 26, 2004)

Liberals need to go...but at the cost of Harper in charge. We'll be wishing for 8 Sponsorship scandals when Harper (Bush's lackey) begins to turn us into a us religious state. But hey - who's paranoid?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

NBiBooker said:


> CubaMark,
> 
> An NDP minority is a pipe dream. Harper isn't the evil Mr. Burns everyone paints him out to be.
> 
> ...


Nice to see that someone knows how it really is!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Would the inquiry actually have to stop if an election was called? Many claim it would be a waist to call an election on the assumption the enquiry would be scrapped. Is this a fact? I can't see Steven Harper calling it off if he were elected?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> Many claim it would be a waist to call an election on the assumption the enquiry would be scrapped.


Waist not, want not, I always say. What size waist are you by the way?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> He was a sniveller tonight, begging for his job.
> 
> Typical Liberal though.


You know, it's comments like that which highlight everything wrong with politics today.

Completely polarized, partisan, and prone to cheap, personal attacks.

Makes me sad.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

PosterBoy said:


> You know, it's comments like that which highlight everything wrong with politics today.
> 
> Completely polarized, partisan, and prone to cheap, personal attacks.
> 
> Makes me sad.


Me too. I hate the truth.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Dr.G, my brother, I'm with you. Let's see how all the dirt spills out from the inquiry so that this mess can be put behind us, then let an election campaign have our undivided attention.
Vertigogo, you're right....EVERYTHING sucks! The scandal sucks, the oposition circus sucks, another election sucks. All the whining and bitching sucks too. Let's move on and get some governing done so we can tell who can do a job or not. Right now, Harper's all mouth and Martin has little action.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

DOH!!!!!

waste! WASTE!

LOL!
Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> DOH!!!!!
> 
> waste! WASTE!
> 
> ...


Sorry, couldn't resist!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

SINC, Whether Martin was snivelling or not is opinion, and not truth. Making derogatory statements about an entire group of people, well, that's another thing entirely.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

PosterBoy said:


> SINC, Whether Martin was snivelling or not is opinion, and not truth. Making derogatory statements about an entire group of people, well, that's another thing entirely.


Sorry PB. I retract any statement about an entire group of people, however the comment stands for crooked Liberals. How many of them that eliminates remains to be seen.


----------



## John Neu (Jun 13, 2002)

It would seem that many of us are very upset with the mess in Ottawa. And so we should be...but...why change horses in mid-stream? Let Gomery finish, then let Martin call an election. We will then know what is what and make an informed assessment. If an election is called now I doubt if I will vote...no one looks as if they could govern the country as well as the Liberals ( and I really am sorry about that, but it's true). I only hope they will get on with the job of governing instead of a bunch of spoiled brats.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Well.... NBiBooker... having reviewed the Conservative Party's policy document, I am quite certain that the party and I have, shall we say, divergent values.

There is much of the U.S. tradition of individual rights being the ultimate consideration. I lean toward social rights. (For example, I see no reason for an individual to be able to earn millions every year when millions of Canadians live in poverty. Fiscal policies that ensure equitable protection for all - and I'm not talking about handouts here, but about protecting those who need it).

This line from the Conservative policy document is also troubling:

<i>"A belief that the greatest potential for achieving social and economic objectives is under a global trading regime that is free and fair."</i>

Translation: Open investment, open borders (for goods and services). Entrenchment of globalisation. No consideration of national interests, no consideration of the economic logic of a strong local economy upon which controlled global trade and investment is allowed. One wonders if it is a coincidence that the Conservative party colours are akin to Wal-Mart's....

And then there's the privatization game:

<i>"The Conservative Party believes that the role of government is to: ...(v) provide services to Canadians that cannot be provided more efficiently and effectively by individuals or by the private sector."</i>

Translation: The country is up for sale. The only criteria is "efficiency". No consideration for, again, national interests or security. There are instances where economic efficiency is not appropriate. Take Nova Scotia as an example. We had a publicly-owed power utility, NSPower. It was a money-making firm, with a well-trained workforce that managed to keep the power flowing even through the worst of our east coast storms, and dealt with outages promptly. Since privatization? Power prices have jumped, service <b>sucks</b>, with rural service particularly suffering. Workforce is cut to bare bones... whenever a severe storm hits, they have to bring in crews from neighbouring provinces, and in the case of Hurricane Juan, even from Maine!

"A Conservative Government will privatize crown corporations that compete directly with comparable services from existing private sector institutions."

"The Conservative Party supports relaxing foreign ownership rules on Canadian industry in concert with our major trading partners in the telecommunications, broadcast distribution, and airline industry."

If one looks at the Conservatives economic policy statement, you'll find a rehash of Reaganomics... trickle-down, free up capital for the wealthy, 'cause they know how to spend it, blah blah blah. Tax policy would be hilarious, if they weren't so close to office... cut estate tax, cut income tax, cut business tax... (and then turn around a year later to say the government doesn't have the $$ in coffers to fund social programs which are 'too expensive').

..and that's just from skimming the document (available on their website).

Pessimistic? You bet I am! I'll take another round of a corrupt Liberal government (the devil I know) than the neo-Cons under Harper.


m


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Martin called the election before Gomery even started he can't use the inquiry as an excuse now.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> "The Conservative Party supports relaxing foreign ownership rules on Canadian industry in concert with our major trading partners in the telecommunications, broadcast distribution, and airline industry."
> 
> If one looks at the Conservatives economic policy statement, you'll find a rehash of Reaganomics... trickle-down, free up capital for the wealthy, 'cause they know how to spend it, blah blah blah. Tax policy would be hilarious, if they weren't so close to office... cut estate tax, cut income tax, cut business tax... (and then turn around a year later to say the government doesn't have the $$ in coffers to fund social programs which are 'too expensive').
> 
> Pessimistic? You bet I am! I'll take another round of a corrupt Liberal government (the devil I know) than the neo-Cons under Harper.


So, CM, what Liberal loopholes afford PM the PM to make his millions with off shore registration of his shipping line and avoidance of Canadian taxes?

Sometimes, the devil you know is more of a devil than you know.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

I remember optimism and excitement when Mulroney won the election for the Conservatives. I'd just remember that before casting my ballot for the party.

If Harper is 1/4 the sellout Mulroney turned out to be, then I say it's better to stick with Martin. He at least seems to at least fight back at the Americans. 

However, if Broadbent was running the show again for the NDP... I might actually change my vote.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I love it when people bring up Mulroney and then slam Harper. In turn I'd like to say that Martin is turning out to be part of the same party of crooks as Chretien, and he's 1/4 the leader. I'd say we're screwed if we stick with him and the Liberals. 

But hey, it's a free country. Until the minority government cuts oppositions days, and of course when citizen Chretien gets Gomery tossed from the inquiry in June and the commission has to restart. Then Martin get's even more time to govern and cover up the damage the Liberals have done. 

Yeah.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

Please. We have a balanced budget, and we have much bigger fish to deal with than the 100 mil. being mentioned in this scandal. Whomever is responsible should be fired. End of story. I don't think our economy is going to take any sort of downfall over it.

If you want scandal, and ludicruous, hypocritical politicians, maybe watch the gong show that's been happening in B.C. for the past ten years at least.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Right because you know a few million here a few million there, that's how things get down in (as Steyn aptly calls it) the Demented Dominion. 

It's about accountability and its about the Liberal Party of Canada treating public money like it's own purse. 

Hm.. B.C.? Wasn't that also run by the Liberals. I think I know where this story is going...


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> Well.... NBiBooker... having reviewed the Conservative Party's policy document, I am quite certain that the party and I have, shall we say, divergent values.
> 
> There is much of the U.S. tradition of individual rights being the ultimate consideration. I lean toward social rights. (For example, I see no reason for an individual to be able to earn millions every year when millions of Canadians live in poverty. Fiscal policies that ensure equitable protection for all - and I'm not talking about handouts here, but about protecting those who need it).
> 
> ...


What a fantastic and thoughtful post CM... You put a lot of things in true perspective here.
James


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Gee I'm almost starting to feel sorry for poor Paul. He seems to be a surrounded by corruption and scandal. Now Maurice Strong, a senior advisor to Paul Martin's Prime Minister's Office, is being investigated in relation to the UN oil-for-food scandal in Iraq.

This from the CBC:
UNITED NATIONS - Maurice Strong, a long-time Canadian businessman and currently the top UN envoy for North Korea, will suspend his work for the United Nations while investigators look into his ties to a South Korean businessman accused in the UN oil-for-food scandal in Iraq.

The whole story 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

NBiBooker said:


> Hm.. B.C.? Wasn't that also run by the Liberals. I think I know where this story is going...


Majority of it has been the NDP actually. Don't confuse BC Liberals with the federal party. The federal party hasn't gotten along too well with the BC Liberals.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Excellent post CM

••••



> It's about accountability and its about the Liberal Party of Canada treating public money like it's own purse.


Yep - therein lies the perils of "too long in power". Why was that tho????

There was and still is NO MODERATE CONSERVATIVE OPTION.

Canadians were quite ready to change govs - 4 terms - way too long. WHY was there no acceptable altnernative.

NeoCon lipflappers.....look yourselves in the mirror. By failing to provide an acceptable alternative to the 70% of Canadians that did not vote for the Cons, YOU provided the opportunity.

You just don't get it.
Scandal is one factor, *Policy* is the bigger one.

You were surprised at Ontario last time......is that Ontario's fault that the Cons are not convincing as an alternative.

Canadians want and deserve a clean government.....the vast majority don't want anything to do with US style policy or politics.

I doubt ANYONE outside the Con ranks believes Harper has in anyway changed his stripes from NeoCon to moderate conservative.

CubaMark doesn't, Joe Clark doesn't, Ontario didn't.........commentator after commentator.

Guys like MacSpectrum, small business people that often embrace moderate conservative values don't want a wholesale change in Canada - there's lots good....some things need fixing, Liberal corruption is one of them.
That does NOT make the current Conservatives palatable.

Drum beaters like Klein, Harris and Manning simple give absolute credence to "Harper as NeoCon" despite his attempts to deny it.

Jack Layton was the only one to at least get part of it right......get on with governing there is a lot to do...THEN vote.

This entire last two years has been disgusting across the board. Anyone for a tax revolt????. 

Can I pay Hazel instead.???


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

*Liberals? In BC?*



> Hm.. B.C.? Wasn't that also run by the Liberals. I think I know where this story is going...


There are no Liberals in the Government of BC - just a large majority of wolves in sheep's clothing ferociously chewing apart most of what was good and fair and *ours.* The liberal facade serves only to conceal the rubbish that we call a Legislature. Can't speak of Liberals, Social Credit and Reform - they are the same. Ugh.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

LG ....May I summarize??

*A POX ON THEM ALL!!!!*...perhaps??


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

*privatization*

Macdoc - alas! - we have privatized our poxes. We can buy them back, but at exorbitant fees.  Know of any good prices on virii?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No doubt about it...Paul Martin BLEW it!

He had his chance. He could have made a bold move.

But, instead, he just whined and apologised and begged for mercy and asked for a "bit more time to sort this thing out". Yeah...that's _LIKELY_. Might happen.

NOT.

Watching his nervous twitchy performance...and looking into his eyes...reminded me of the day I watched Clinton telling the nation that "I never had sex with that woman. Not even one single time".  

It was ca-ca then and it's ca-ca now.

And Martin's political career is on a high speed express elevator to hell. A june election is a sure bet at this point. Might even be sooner, once the opposition leaders really get their teeth into him.

Both the man and his party are a dead loss. Time for a change. Let's get on with it.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

Great Post, MacDoc, well and passionately said.

you do seem married somewhat to the idea that governments are other than the agents of the dominant class. A careful analysis shows that they only really actively operate in the interests of either their own power maintenence or as a shield for the neocon agenda that is sweeping the entire world, not just Canada. The libs are just as aware of this as the Mulroney conservatives were when they jumped on the NAFTA wagon.

the real issue people should be concerned with:
two words: Deep Integration.

This should be #1 on our tongues, and it barely gets a mention...

James


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

MacNutt you are so right . Read into this.*right*


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Now James...if you could just manage to convice macdoc that there really IS a conservative wave sweeping the world...

I've been telling him that for about three years now. But he still seems to be stuck in a leftish sixties mindset. Seasoned with a nice helping of creative denial, as well. 

Do try to work on him some more. Perhaps he'll figure it out. Eventually.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

and need I mention that no-one's buying what the right has really to offer. It goes bad too quickly...


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

*macnutt's secret*



> ... opposition leaders ...


Who?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Apparently an awful LOT of people are "buying it" these days. All over the world.

And, here in Canada, the latest headlines are saying "Ontario turns Tory Blue".

Just the way it is.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

MacNutt, a Quick question:

When you think of the word 'ethics' what frameworks come to mind?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

JST There's a unspoken contract between the power elite and the populace..

_...."we know you'll often exercise power in your own interest and in return for that opportunity expect due consideration of OUR interest."_

ALL large bureaucracies and organizations have this inherent conflict - it motivates high performers and we hope as citizens the benefits to the nation outweigh the downsides.

No one EVER seems to mention Demarias and Power Corp.

Malfeasance versus policy.???

Can Ontario secede for a while please.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

Unspoken contract? I can think of a 1000 neo-marxists who have spoken about it, and loudly to boot...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

thejst...

When I think of ethics, the one thing I DON"T think of is Jean Chretiens old "ethics commissioner". You know...the guy who was appointed to the job by King Jean himself...and who only reported directly to Chretien himself?

Are we talking worldwide here?

If so...then I am fully behind any political system that has a second sober body that is seperately elected to share the power in government. Too many of todays systems are based on the flawed British model. This invites abuse.

I am also fully in favor of term limits for the top leader. Eight years or so is plenty. Any more and it invites abuse. Any less, and it may not be enough time to get things really moving.

As for the easily observable worldwide wave of conservative thinking...

It seems to be working. In ways that the old failed socilist systems never did.

Probably why it's so darned popular these days.


----------



## Greenman (Feb 22, 2003)

Well it seems I didn't miss much.....


Oh, and Leon Russell was GREAT tonight!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Nope. You didn't miss much. 

Paul Martin's almost unprecedented National emergency speech was a dead bust. He and his party are still on an express elevator to hell.

And he seems to think that we will all wait patiently until december or next january for an election call. Too funny.  

Somebody want to walk over to his Ottawa office and give the poor old guy a slap? Just to wake him up?

Current events and cruel reality are...as they say..."about to overtake him".

Trust me on this.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Nope. You didn't miss much.
> 
> Paul Martin's almost unprecedented National emergency speech was a dead bust. He and his party are still on an express elevator to hell.
> 
> ...


The speech was definately a bust. I think Layton had it right by saying this is a Liberal emergency, not a national emergency. Martin should not have gone public like this. I think he just ended up making this story bigger and bringing it to the attention of more Canadians. He definately has given it more traction.

I thought it was pretty presumptuous of him to think that he has the ability to time the defeat of his government. Canadians don't need to wait until Gomery produces his report. 

If he wanted to be Prime Ministerial and be a leader, I think he should have stepped down until the Gomery produces his report or pass the government to the Conservatives with a promise to support Harper's government. Instead, I think it is clear that he is just playing politics and postering for the next election.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

LGBaker said:


> There are no Liberals in the Government of BC - just a large majority of wolves in sheep's clothing ferociously chewing apart most of what was good and fair and *ours.* The liberal facade serves only to conceal the rubbish that we call a Legislature. Can't speak of Liberals, Social Credit and Reform - they are the same. Ugh.


The provincial Liberals are a lot more centrist than you give them credit for. They increased funding for Health Care and Education. They restored fiscal accountability in BC, reduced taxes and created the highest number of jobs in BC history along with the lowest unemployment rate in 20+ years. Sounds like good social policy to me. Employment and jobs are the best possible social policy.

What did they 'chew apart' that was so good and fair?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

This reply is to Vandave's previous post. (#61)....

My thoughts exactly.

And I STILL think Martin could have gained himself some real breathing room (and kicked the legs out from under his worst critics) by having Jean Chretien arrested for fraud and conspiracy. There is more than enough evidence to do so at this point.

There is a precedent here. Jean Chretien broke with tradition, and actively went after former Prime Minister Muroney for corruption. He failed to prove anything.

Anyone think that crooked old King Jean would get away so easily? 

Not bloody likely.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> NeoCon lipflappers.....look yourselves in the mirror. By failing to provide an acceptable alternative to the 70% of Canadians that did not vote for the Cons, YOU provided the opportunity.
> 
> You just don't get it.


Seen the polls lately? I think you need to look in the mirror. The party with the highest level of support in Canada right now is .....you guessed it.... the Conservative Party. 

What's not to get?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Face it, Vandave. Macdoc is the one who "_just DOESN'T GET IT_ ". 

He never has. He's always been stuck in some sort of R. Crumb fantasy world left over from his misspent university days back in the late sixties.

And nowadays, he's too busy "lipflapping" to bring himself up to speed with current events, I'd expect. Too bad because, other than that, he seems to be somewhat bright overall.

Sort of.


----------



## spg (Mar 30, 2005)

Good to see the partisan, Pavlovian responses come out.
Does anyone really believe that corruption in government can be eliminated by simply electing a new government? Its sad to say and I hate it as much the rest of the world, but until the populace realizes that buying into the politicians' strategies only extends the problem the only solutions will be nice, newish band-aids... maybe even with a dob of anti-septic.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

This is the standard fallback position for anyone who either supported the Liberals, or who hates the idea of a new Conservative government in Canada.

"_EEEK...ALL governments are CORRUPT!!_ EEK!!"

Well...got a news bulletin for ya here:

The current Conservative Party of Canada has very little in common with the old PC party. But it _HAS_ got it's roots solidly in the old REFORM Party of Canada .

The name REFORM was chosen by this new party in order to drive home to all Canadians that it was all about _REFORMING_ the rotten old corrupt political system that we are burdened with here in Canada.

Want to see some real changes? A REAL democracy, for the very first time in Canada?

Then there is only one choice. Unless you want some new version of the same old dreck.

And that choice will be YOUR choice to make.

Rather soon, I'd expect.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

All you people wanting to wait for the Gomery report, I ask why? All the testimony has been public. What's going to be so different once someone summarizes the testimony in a report? The election won't be forced until the last person testifies, so why wait until 2006? Are you a Liberal supporter hoping for voter amnesia?

BTW, I find it strange that people keep bringing up Mulroney. There was no proof ever that he was connected to Airbus purchases by Air Canada. Here's now days and days of people testifying under oath and for the most part corroborating a scandal of fraud that weaves into the very fabric of the governing party and its present and past leaders.

Jean Chretien won't be on any CBC "Greatest Canadian" lists for decades.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

He certainly WON'T. 

In fact, he may yet be arrested and charged for his crimes. Especially once the Liberals are out of power and no more "protection" can be extended to some of the principals in this giant scam. That's when the Liberals will be investigated by a group who is actually interested in rooting out all of the rot, so that it is exposed for all to see. And so that it never happens again.

Once this starts in earnest, and after the Liberals are gone from the scene, someone's gonna squeal. Sure as shootin. Then the whole mess will collapse into a giant cascade of angry accusations and brand new evidence of massive corruption (the "little guys" often keep very detailed records of criminal activity that they have been a party to....just to protect themselves if everything goes for a sh*t. Which is just about to happen, BTW).

We haven't even seen the real beginning of this yet. The best (worst?) is yet to come.

Bottom line? The Liberal party of Canada is DONE. Toast. Finito.

Paul Martin is about to become an historical footnote, and Jean Chretien may yet go to jail for his crimes. Or flee the country.

Either way, these are interesting times, no?


----------



## spg (Mar 30, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> This is the standard fallback position for anyone who either supported the Liberals, or who hates the idea of a new Conservative government in Canada.
> 
> "_EEEK...ALL governments are CORRUPT!!_ EEK!!"
> 
> ...


Um, as a someone who has never voted for the federal liberals and as a rabid free-market economist - I think you've pegged me wrong. I am saying that precisely your partisan attitude is what leads to problems. No one party is a panacea. Voters need to enforce responsible government, and yes that is often by voting. However, knee-jerking our way to the polls arm-in-arm with an opportunist might not get us any further ahead. Maybe if instead of trying to get into office through another's mistakes, Mr. Harper's Cons would be better served by showing the people how he can be an effective leader. Wasting time and money by arguing endlessly about the Sponsorship waste doesn't do that. Instead, get in there and force the Liberals into setting solid policy- you know, debate how to correct the many flaws that exist in our system; health care, pensions, taxes, etc... 
But then I am just a guy who thinks a true leader puts the cause ahead of himself..


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I did not mean to imply that you, yourself, were a Liberal or a sympathiser.

I DID want to point out that this is the usual fallback position for some people who are. I should have added that it's also the fallback position for people who are totally fed up with the whole politcal system as well.

I should also like to point out that I am not necessarily completely enamored with the new Conservative party's positions on several differnt issues. But I DO think that they are a much better choice than the corrupt old Liberals. (this is a no-brainer)

And I am also certain that the new Conservative Party is totally committed to cleaning up the Canadian political system, once and for all. AND to giving us a real Canadian democracy, for the very first time in our history.

If they should turn away from these goals once they attain power...if they should fall into the old Liberal mould of corruption and theft and absolute power....then I will be their very WORST critic. And their VERY loudest! Here and everywhere. 24/7.

Trust me on this.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> [The BC Liberals] reduced taxes


As a point of interest, while they did lower income taxes, in the following weeks they increased just about every tax and fee we have as I recall. They've managed to do some good, which is good, but it's not like they are without faults.

It's all well and good that they increased health care and education budgets, but they've also closed hospitals and schools all over the province. So where is the money going? We've got a big budget surplus, but we've also still got long ass line ups in hospital ERs and enormous wait lists for surgery.

I don't have very many details handy, but there's been lots of really questionable decisions made before all this good stuff started to happen.

But then, they're criticized from both ends of the spectrum, so I do agree they are more centrist than most give them credit for.


----------



## spg (Mar 30, 2005)

Fair enough; I can't argue with someone who intends to be the dog to any postman walking across his lawn.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

It always takes some serious pain in order to clean up the sort of horrific mess that was left over from the decade of NDP mismanagement in BC.

Cuts are necessary. Painful, yes...but completely necessary. And no one likes them. least of all the guys doing the cutting.

It's much the same in any sort of business, big or small.

The alternative to this is NOT making the necessary cuts and driving the whole operation into massive debt. Which eats up more and more of your operating capital in debt servicing costs (interest).

At THAT point, huge (and I mean HUGE) cuts to practically every service or branch of government become both imperative and unavoidable. Given the fact that runaway debt servicing costs eventually overwhelm the ability to pay...in both governments and in business...then this means the bankruptcy of the whole enterprise. Complete ruin. Total devastation.

Plus, you can't borrow any more money for a long time. Or you have to pay exhorbinant rates to do it if you can.

You don't want to go there. Neither does BC.

We were on the brink a few years back. Now we are back on the road to success. We are NOT about to let the Big Unions drive us back to the brink of ruin again.

BC won't be "going back to the NDP" any time soon.

In fact, I'd bet that they won't get much more than twenty seats in the upcoming election. Perhaps even less.

Watch and see.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

NBiBooker said:


> Harper isn't the evil Mr. Burns everyone paints him out to be.


Nope... he and his cronies are far scarier


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Meh. I wasn't overly impressed positively or negatively by Martin's speech, but I also wasn't impressed by any of the follow-ups. That being said, I would prefer that the Gomery Enquiry finish its work before an election is called. The thing that sticks most in my mind, and in my craw, was the following line uttered by Duceppe:

_"Our undertaking, inspired by Rene Levesque, has always intentionally been irreproachable in the area of democracy."_

_Irreproachable_, eh? 

He seems to have forgotten the many thousands of potential "No" ballots that were disallowed by cronies of the party in power at the time, who were working at certain polling stations during the 1995 referendum.


----------



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

Doug, re the follow-up speeches, they were obviously written prior to the Martin speech and made no effort to make mention of this speech. I wonder what they would have said had Martin laid a bombshell and said that he was asking Harper to take over the government. Harper would have come out with nothing prepared.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Once again PM the PM has shown his disdain for the west. He moved his speech ahead 45 minutes so we were all still at work and missed it because we expected it to be at its original advertised time.

After watching the rerun, basically all he said was, "we and I will accept blame for the Sponsorship Scandal, just not now."

Lame. Very lame.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macdoc


> Jack Layton was the only one to at least get part of it right......get on with governing there is a lot to do...THEN vote.


don't read it that way, it was spin by layton to pretend to want to help
he knows that the Libs won't take out the corp. tax cuts (gooddale already said so) and so layton pretends to want to work together, but has really made an offer that martin has to refuse
layton wants an election, but i am afraid that more % votes for NDP won't necessarily turn into more seats

macnutt
the only thing that would have satisified you was for martin to say that he will ;
kill chretien
kill himself
annoint the CON's stephen harper as PM with a majority
and he'd better be damn well quick about it too


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

PosterBoy said:


> It's all well and good that they increased health care and education budgets, but they've also closed hospitals and schools all over the province. So where is the money going? We've got a big budget surplus, but we've also still got long ass line ups in hospital ERs and enormous wait lists for surgery.


They had to close schools because of declining enrollment. It's not their fault, it's demographics. They also opened a lot of schools in districts that are growing (e.g. Surrey).

Yes, they closed some hospitals. Why should some small towns have a standalone hospital, when they are only 30 minutes away from a hospital in another town (e.g. Nelson and Castlegar)? Many people who live in Vancouver are 30 minutes away from a hospital as well. 

I think this whole surgery wait list stuff is a bit overblown. If you need serious surgery, you get it. Two people in my family recently needed serious medical attention and they both got it right away. The wait lists are made up of people that don't have dire health care needs. I am sure there are exceptions to this rule and some anecdotes could show different, but on the whole serious medicial issues are treated right away.

Ask the HEU where the health care budget is going.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Lorne Gunter Got It Right:*

Martin's pleas won't sway voters
Arrogant Liberals will soon get the drubbing they richly deserve

Lorne Gunter 
The Edmonton Journal 


Friday, April 22, 2005

Last spring, following the release of the auditor-general's report on the sponsorship scandal, Prime Minister Paul Martin commenced a cross-country tour to staunch his Liberals' precipitous fall in the polls.

Reporters nicknamed it the "mea culpa tour." It didn't work. Each day Martin was on the road, Liberal fortunes slipped.

In the same vein, Martin's nationally televised address Thursday evening should be known as the "please don't beat me speech."

It was pathetic -- pathetic because the prime minister would go to the country via television when there is no national emergency. (Sorry, Liberal crises aren't national ones, no matter what Liberals think.) Pathetic that he would go on television to defend himself and his party when he often no longer shows up in the House of Commons to face the opposition in question period. And pathetic for what he said.

Like a whipped puppy seeking reprieve from a cruel master, Martin seemed to be pleading with Canadians, "Please, please, please don't take the prime minister's job from me."

I might feel kind of sorry for him, if he hadn't done everything he could for more than a decade to force Jean Chretien out of office so the job could be his now.

And if he hadn't been the most powerful minister next to Chretien in Chretien's three governments.

Sorry, Mr. Prime Minister, your admission Thursday evening that "I am sorry ... that I wasn't more vigilant," just doesn't cut it.

You knew what was going on, or should have. You were in charge of all the government's money. You were on all the most senior government planning committees for Quebec throughout the entire Adscam period. You were a Liberal MP from Quebec throughout its six-year run. You represented a riding in the city where most of the criminality is alleged to have taken place -- Montreal.

You know almost all of the people involved.

You may not have discussed sponsorship contracts with them over lunch, but you lunched with them. You sent them greeting cards, sat shoulder-to-shoulder with them in cabinet meetings and on campaign strategy committees, bumped into them at fundraisers and social gatherings.

You might be entirely free of taint yourself -- never having accepted a dollar of sponsorship money or lobbied for a cent on behalf of others. Still, the dirty money swirled around you like dust in a whirlwind.

Some of it must have got into your eyes, unless, instead of you not being vigilant enough -- as you now claim -- you were wilfully blind.

You said "Public money was misdirected and misused." You claimed, "That's unacceptable."

Mr. Prime Minister, public money is misdirected and misused when it is wasted on useless programs; when, for instance (true story), the checks on applications are so lax that inmates in prisons and seniors wintering in Florida are paid millions in home heating grants from Ottawa.

When two billion dollars are pumped into a useless, malfunctioning gun registry, when a billion is directed into meaningless make-work projects, when hundreds of millions are poured into corporate loans that are never meant to be repaid, when tens of millions are used to give Canadians flags in the vain hope such empty symbolism will unite the country -- that is "misdirected and misused."

What happened in Adscam was theft. Public monies didn't go astray, they were stolen. That's not "unacceptable," it's criminal. And if any of the allegations being heard by Mr. Justice Gomery prove true, these were crimes being committed by people in your own party, people in close proximity to you. And if you once chose to ignore what they were doing, how can Canadians now trust you to clean up what until recently you refused to see?

Please, Mr. Prime Minister, please spare us all the sanctimony about what you have done to get to the bottom of this mess.

You resisted nearly three dozen opposition calls for a judicial inquiry before finally setting up the Gomery commission to save your political skin in the wake of the auditor-general's scathing report in February 2004.

You stuck with it when others in your party -- in your very party, Mr. Prime Minister, others you haven't even reprimanded -- were trying to shut it down this past January and February. Why? Because Stephen Harper threatened to trigger an election if you did and at the time you wanted very much to avoid an election because the same-sex marriage debate was at its height.

And you stick with it now only because closing it would be political suicide.

What's more, last spring your own MPs -- MPs acting on your orders, not Mr. Chretien's -- blocked all efforts by the House of Commons public accounts committee to get to the truth Judge Gomery is now hearing, then they voted to wrap up hearings before the most damaging witnesses could be heard -- all so you could call last year's election before your party's fortunes deteriorated further.

No, Mr. Prime Minister, you are not the diligent boy scout you would have us believe, caught up in someone else's wrongdoing.

You are a typical Liberal doing what typical Liberals do: putting party ahead of truth and country.

And it will soon be time, despite your pleas, for voters to deliver the drubbing you so richly deserve.


----------



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

Sinc, I would say that the author of this article would be in the "not voting for Martin" camp. Still, it was well written. It actually moved me more to reconsider my potential vote that all the massive amounts of words that Macnutt, et al, has sent forth. We shall see.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

The Doug said:


> I would prefer that the Gomery Enquiry finish its work before an election is called.


Again, why wait eight months? The testimony has been public record. You honestly think that Gomery is going to say 'hmmm... Sheila Fraser was wrong. Jean Chretien is a saint. Paul Martin had nothing to do with anything. Now everyone go home."??

What is so magical about his summary to come? Why is Martin deserving of eight more months of dithering?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

gmark2000 said:


> The testimony has been public record.


Testimony may be part of the public record, but Judge Gomery's verdict is *not yet rendered*. I would prefer to see due process fully observed even if it merely confirms peoples' current opinions in the end.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Martin's pleas won't sway voters
> Arrogant Liberals will soon get the drubbing they richly deserve
> 
> Lorne Gunter
> ...


That was a very good article. Thanks for the link.


----------



## spg (Mar 30, 2005)

SINC said:


> He moved his speech ahead 45 minutes so we were all still at work and missed it because we expected it to be at its original advertised time.


Actually, I asked him to move it up b/c it was going to interfer with the beginning of the OC.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

The Doug said:


> I would prefer to see due process fully observed even if it merely confirms peoples' current opinions in the end.


It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck... let's wait for eight months to find out if it's a duck. Makes a whole lotta sense... not.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

gmark2000 said:


> Makes a whole lotta sense... not.


Nobody has cornered the market on common sense here - neither myself, nor you.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

Lorne Gunter is a well known Conservative- Alliance promoter. He's sensible most of the time but has a slant on central Canada.
He doesn't pull his punches here:



> JUN. 29, 2004: MORE CANADA
> Final tally has Conservatives at 99.
> 
> Here's Lorne Gunter, an important voice from western Canada, on the election results in the Edmonton Journal:
> ...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Well said, Mr. Gunter; well posted, Sinc!


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

The Doug said:


> Testimony may be part of the public record, but Judge Gomery's verdict is *not yet rendered*. I would prefer to see due process fully observed even if it merely confirms peoples' current opinions in the end.


I have to agree; however, I wish they could conclude the inquiry sooner though. Nothing will be done for eigth months at least... and only if Mr. Martin keeps his word (shaky ground there). I wonder how many millions of dollars will be wasted over eigth months of fillibustering(sp?) compared to the cost of an election.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The oppposition parties have clearly indicated that they aren't prepared to wait for Martin to make an election call. Expect one sometime next month, followed by a late june election.

The only thing that could change this is a sudden rise in the polls for the embattled Liberals. Somehow, that seems like a remote possibility.

Call it a hunch.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Mugatu said:


> I wonder how many millions of dollars will be wasted over eight months of fillibustering(sp?) compared to the cost of an election.


That's eight months of lame duck minority government (_getting a duck theme!_) with a break in parliament scheduled from May until November. Yep! They'll get a summer vacation in Parliament as they always do that lasts that long.

Most of my visits to Ottawa (during tourist seasons), I find that Parliament is not in session.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Continuing on the duck theme...

Martin's Liberals seem less like a lame duck, and more like a freshly f*cked duck these days. And the Liberal Party is soon to be a dead duck. Plucked and pressed and dressed and hung and strung.

Now where did I leave that jar of hoi-sin sauce?


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

gmark2000 said:


> That's eight months of lame duck minority government (_getting a duck theme!_) with a break in parliament scheduled from May until November. Yep! They'll get a summer vacation in Parliament as they always do that lasts that long.
> 
> Most of my visits to Ottawa (during tourist seasons), I find that Parliament is not in session.


        

I hate politicians... just some more than others.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Continuing on the duck theme...
> 
> Martin's Liberals seem less like a lame duck, and more like a freshly f*cked duck these days. And the Liberal Party is soon to be a dead duck. Plucked and pressed and dressed and hung and strung.
> 
> Now where did I leave that jar of hoi-sin sauce?


ask mulroney
i am sure he has some left over from when he "cooked" the federal pc party into oblivion
i bet campbell tastes like that sauce if you lick her face


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The PC's are ancient history, Michael. It looks like the Federal Liberals will be too. Rather soonly, I suspect. 

Canada and it's political systems are changing for the better. Some parts take longer to change than others. Look at all of the headlines that are now saying "Ontario turns Tory Blue!"

Who'd have thunk it, just a few short years ago?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i bet campbell tastes like that sauce if you lick her face


eeeewwwwwww...


----------



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

Not much debate going on here..... Everyone seems to be posting to themselves or their like-minded posters. The key question is what "sway" voters think. With the exception of Dr. G., it seems that pretty much everyone else is sticking to their guns. My feeling is that there is a substantial shift away from the Liberals in the populace but that the Conservatives are significantly under-performing in picking up votes given what has been handed to them on a plate. Likewise for the NDP.

Harper, Layton and Duceppe have been equally dysfunctional in their inability to not kick a man when he's down and instead take the opportunity to explain to the electorate why people should vote for them. No one, NO ONE, has taken the high ground. Personally, I find this very telling of the stagnation of the whole political process in this country. There are no leading personalities who "want to make a difference". Instead, we have a group of pigs who are snorting their anticipation at getting a shot at the trough. What a sorry state of affairs..... and most of us appear to be as guilty of spewing rhetoric as the pigs on The Hill.


----------



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

Jim, re your commment "With the exception of Dr. G., it seems that pretty much everyone else is sticking to their guns.", please keep in mind that I do not want an election until the final report is in the hands of all Canadians. I would then have to make up my mind, and that decision shall be based on the report, the policies of each party and who is running in St.John's East. Thus, I keep an open mind and can be swayed by logic and a position that comes close to my own views about socio-economic-environmental-educational issues, along with health care.

There are times when I actually wish I could be as single-minded/closed-minded/simple-minded as some of the people in this forum, but I cannot. It might make my decision a bit simplier. So, I shall listen to any and all arguements and then make up my mind. I shall sway, but not break. Paix, mon ami.


----------



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

That's what I meant Dr.G., insofar as your opinion/mind is currently open rather than closed. Unfortunately, the stance you are taking (which I agree with) in wishing to hear from judge Gomery will be interpretted by others as Liberal sucking up since that is also what Martin has asked for. 

It is a lot simpler to be an idealogue and use a "look-up table" for rote decisions but that's what usually leads the world into quagmire. As a species, our survival has largely derived from our unequalled ability to adapt. If you drive in a straight line, you will inevitably hit a wall.

The problem is that all political parties represent themselves first and the people second. Some individual MPs do try to speak for their constituents, but they are invariably left on the back-benches. Only by drinking the party Cool-Aid do they get to advance hence leading to the the Party being Mightier than the People.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> It is a lot simpler to be an idealogue and use a "look-up table" for rote decisions but that's what usually leads the world into quagmire. As a species, our survival has largely derived from our unequalled ability to adapt. If you drive in a straight line, you will inevitably hit a wall.


Nice! Great analogy, and you are right, we will adapt, I think it's the Liberal attachment issues that the party is struggling with. Martin looked like he was fired, you would hink he would put on a brave face for his public! I look forward to many puzzling years to come!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

While I am trying to keep an open mind on the current situation, I cannot keep the awful smell of corruption and waste that is the Liberal party out of my nostrils.

Sponsorship Scandal aside, what about all the other wrong doing and waste?

Human resources, gun registry, or many other questionable programs, it just goes on and on.

How long can eastern Canadians continue to breath the foul stench of all that is Liberal?


----------



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

Jim, I did not want an election until the commission is done with its work long before Martin made this request. I am not ready to go to another election, in that I don't think Martin was directly related to these crimes with our tax dollars. Those are the people who should go to jail. We shall see.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

I feel very sad about the whole situation. Like his father, I suspect Paul Martin jr is a fundamentally decent man. While his father's aspirations were ruined by the promise of Trudeau, his own aspirations have been ruined by the legacy of Trudeau's acolyte... the 'little guy from Shawinigan' who proved to be devoid of principles, devoid of vision and now it seems, devoid of integrity. There's a Shakespearean quality to this tragedy and Paul Martin jr is the tragic hero; by all accounts a noble and intelligent man but one whose ambition prevented him from looking too hard into the malfeasance that he must have suspected. Watching him last night, he looks like a man whose past has caught up with him... he knows the game is up yet he soldiers on.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Hmmm... Why didn't Paul Martin, call for the enquiry before last year's election? Wasn't Sheila Fraser's report well over a year ago? I still can't believe we have $2 billion gun registry that doesn't work... Police should know which homes have weapons before they respond to a domestic disturbance.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good summary FN
It is interesting to see the growing focus on the potential for further legal action against the Teflon man himself.

The country seems to be governed by the premiers right now.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Good summary FN
> It is interesting to see the growing focus on the potential for further legal action against the Teflon man himself. .


My goodness! Even macdoc is now admitting that Jean Chretien might be arrested for his criminal activities. 

Urgent note to old King Jean: "You have now lost one of your last and most stalwart supporters.This means you are down to about three friends in the whole nation of Canada. Consider this moment, and act accordingly. Pack your bags and flee the country, poste haste! There isn't a minute to lose! Everyone wants your head on a stick. Time to de-camp and jet off to a sunnier and more friendly clime...perferably one that doesn't have an extradition treaty with Canada."

Whod've ever thought we'd see the day??   

(Well...actually _I did_...but we will save that for later.)


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

gmark2000 said:


> Police should know which homes have weapons before they respond to a domestic disturbance.


I don' recall that it was our police forces calling for a gun registry. I don't recall our police forces supporting the registry while it was under fire. The Attorney General in BC (a former policeman) thought it was stupid.

Why not listen to the experts? 

If we really had to have a registry (which we don't IMO), why not hire a private sector company to create a database? This is something that businesses do every day. To gather this relatively small amount of information and making it accessible to all police forces really isn't that complicated. I imagine one good programmer could do it on their own. The amount of money thrown into the program was an incredible waste of money.


----------



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

Vandave said:


> I don' recall that it was our police forces calling for a gun registry. I don't recall our police forces supporting the registry while it was under fire. The Attorney General in BC (a former policeman) thought it was stupid.
> 
> Why not listen to the experts?
> 
> If we really had to have a registry (which we don't IMO), why not hire a private sector company to create a database? This is something that businesses do every day. To gather this relatively small amount of information and making it accessible to all police forces really isn't that complicated. I imagine one good programmer could do it on their own. The amount of money thrown into the program was an incredible waste of money.


A number of police forces were in favour of the gun registry and continue to want more information on gun ownership.They know it won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will (and has) reduce the total number of guns in society as its a hassle to maintain the registration and a good reason to hand in any guns no longer needed or that have been replaced.

The "engineering" of gun registry database was contracted out. As was the Federal sponsorship advertizing......  The PCs in Ontario contracted out a replacement for our social security system. After a massive overspend, it had to be totally redesigned because it didn't actually do what it was supposed to. There are many instances of such incompetence (including the US). There are also privacy issues which means that the actual running of the database has to be conducted within the government.

I think Jean Chretien had a vision. His failure was that he broke rules to enable that vision. I think he is a strong Federalist who did the wrong things for the right reasons. I am in no way condoning those actions since by doing this he has severely weakened the Federalist cause and rules are there for a reason. I very much doubt he'll be charged with a criminal offence. He's one smart cookie. He got to the top by counting on people underestimating him - which they continue to do.

One last thing that I haven't seen noted anywhere. If an election is called in the next couple of weeks, the Federal budget will be in limbo. This will cause significant damage to on-going programs that depend on the budget. It doesn't matter if the other leaders say they will protect these programs - the damage will have been done. That's like telling the bailiff that the cheque is in the mail. Any responsible leader of the Opposition will ensure that the 2005 budget is passed before calling for a vote of no-confidence. We are too far into the year not to have an operating budget.


----------



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

Jim, re your comment "I think Jean Chretien had a vision. His failure was that he broke rules to enable that vision. I think he is a strong Federalist who did the wrong things for the right reasons.", I would tend to agree. It might lead to an "Does the end justify the means?" form of arguement, but at least it might lead to some understanding of the situation as it now exists. I am still in favor of letting Martin and the RCMP root out those who committed crimes and ensure that they pay the price for a violation of a public trust. We shall see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Vandave the police organizations HAVE supported the GR.



> Canadian Police Association calls attacks against gun registry 'irresponsible'
> Last Updated Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:41:23
> 
> OTTAWA - The Canadian Police Association says opponents of the gun registry program have contributed to cost overruns in the system.
> ...


----------



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

FWIW, Dr. G. I would never support idea of the end justifying the means because such thinking has lead to terrible actions in the past and the end is often tainted by the means. In this case, Chretiens actions have undoubtedly weakened Canadian Federalism. That is the crime that he committed (probably the only crime, but one that affects so many peoople).


----------



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

Jim, that would be the ultimate political irony -- in the name of saving the country, these actions actually lead to its downfall. We shall see. I, for one, want to see a united Canada.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

The Meech Lake Accord was the closest we had to unifying the country since confederation. Far more progress than Pierre Trudeau giving the Westerners the finger or signing the constitution without Québec in 1982.










In 1995, Chretien almost lost Québec. 50.7% is a pretty narrow victory for his committed Federalism. Liberals in Québec are now toast.

With Conservatives at least, the BQ might be brought back into the Tory fold if a new Meech Lake Accord (without Elijah Harper) is resurrected.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Vandave the police organizations HAVE supported the GR.


Heh.

Canadian Police Association Executive Officer David Griffin and CPA Vice President Mike Niebudek are yet more Liberal stoolies. Toss 'em out with Martin.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Mugatu said:


> Heh.
> 
> Canadian Police Association Executive Officer David Griffin and CPA Vice President Mike Niebudek are yet more Liberal stoolies. Toss 'em out with Martin.


I'm really starting to like this guy!


----------



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

"I'm really starting to like this guy!" That "guy" being Martin? Why the change in attitude, mon ami?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> "I'm really starting to like this guy!" That "guy" being Martin? Why the change in attitude, mon ami?


Hardly Martin, Dr. G.

I was referring to the author of the post to "toss Martin".


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Interesting how it used to be just us two against the whole crowd, eh SINC?

Now we are seeing more and more like voices being raised around here. Bout time too.


----------



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

Sinc, one is able to hope, n'est pas? Yes, your views about Martin were understood. I was just having a little fun with you to lighten the mood somewhat. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah, the old "lighten the mood trick", as Maxwell Smart would say.


----------

