# 199 Reasons NOT to vote Liberal



## simon (Nov 2, 2002)

1. Cancelling the Sea King replacement 
2. Sponsorship scandal 
3. Gun Registry 
4. HRDC boondoggle 
5. Problems with Transition Job Funds program 
6. Tainted blood 
7. Radwanski Spending Affair 
8. Pearson Airport 
9. GST Flip Flop

And 190 more .. read it here:

http://www.canadiancontent.net/forums/about9590.html


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Some of those are funny Simon. 
And some of those points happened during a Conservative government...


Now shall I go back in history and dig up Con scandals and stupidities?


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Aiya no!

No more pissing matches.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

simon said:


> 1. Cancelling the Sea King replacement


That is the number one reason? If so, someone needs to get their priorities straight.


----------



## simon (Nov 2, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> That is the number one reason? If so, someone needs to get their priorities straight.


That's not the number one reason (this isn't a top ten list) it's the first of 199 reasons. I didn't make the list and I don't vouch for it's accuracy, but it's a pretty good read.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> That is the number one reason? If so, someone needs to get their priorities straight.


Well, there is this one that I like:

"
One reason not to vote for the Conservatives and it is a biggie that shadows all 199 reasons not to vote liberal. 

Drum roll please... thank-you thank-you very much. 

And the reason is.....are you ready? you sure? well the reason is ......Stephen Harper! "
http://www.canadiancontent.net/forums/about9590.html


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> And the reason is.....are you ready? you sure? well the reason is ......Stephen Harper! "


Why because he is Christian and has beliefs and values?

Why is Paul Martin any better? He is the biggest snake in the grass, seriously during the debate I saw his forked tounge!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Why because he is Christian and has beliefs and values?


He does? 
My god why does he not speak up and say so?
What are they?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> He does?
> My god why does he not speak up and say so?
> What are they?


It's better than Martin's motto, <i>Lie, Cheat and Steal.</i>


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

My "problem" with Cons is that you ask a simple enough question but never get a straight answer. Which is ironic since most seem to be anti-gay....


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> It's better than Martin's motto, <i>Lie, Cheat and Steal.</i>


That's every politicians motto no matter what flag they're waving.

Laterz


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

Off the top of my head over eight years...

GST
Free Trade Agreement
Mulroney money hidden in Swiss Banks
Airbus scandal


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> > Originally Posted by ArtistSeries
> > And the reason is.....are you ready? you sure? well the reason is ......Stephen Harper! "
> 
> 
> Why because he is Christian and has beliefs and values?...


I don't see any reason to be slagging Christianity here...


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

nxnw said:


> I don't see any reason to be slagging Christianity here...


Except that the social conservatives use it to promote their values and get their candidates elected, and then are far more likely to try to impose these values on the rest.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Except that the social conservatives use it to promote their values and get their candidates elected, and then are far more likely to try to impose these values on the rest.


That is their job to make decitions for the people who elected them. Every politician elected imposes what they believe onto everyone, its up to all of us to decide which values they are imposing are best for Canada.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I can think of lots of reasons not to vote for the Liberals. And I certainly won't be voting for them.

But I can think of many, many more reasons not to vote for Harper's neo-conservatives. For those who are considering voting for the Cons because they don't like or want to punish the Liberals, that's just called jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

If you do so, I hope you enjoy Harper's vision of America Jr. You want fries with that?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> That is their job to make decitions for the people who elected them. Every politician elected imposes what they believe onto everyone, its up to all of us to decide which values they are imposing are best for Canada.


Funny then Jumbo, that those social conservatives running for the Cons don't want anyone to really know what they actually believe, while Harper and the Con head office are telling them to keep their traps shut on social issues.

I guess they'll then feel free to tell us what they believe after the election as they impose it on all of us.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If you do so, I hope you enjoy Harper's vision of America Jr. You want fries with that?


I think this is a little extreme. I don't believe if elected we'll turn into "America JR" in just 4 years.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I guess they'll then feel free to tell us what they believe after the election as they impose it on all of us.


Like? 

They are going to make us go to church on Sundays? Better than stealing the money out of the pockets of Canadians.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> They are going to make us go to church on Sundays? Better than stealing the money out of the pockets of Canadians.


I suspect this example is more of a joke, but I would not actually prefer that. Two bad options though, as I think we'd agree.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> I think this is a little extreme. I don't believe if elected we'll turn into "America JR" in just 4 years.


Hey Martin's already been driving us in that direction, read up on "Deep Integration" and the Republican-loving Harper will just attempt to put the pedal to the medal as much as he can get away with. If we don't become America Jr. in 4 years it won't be through lack of trying on the part of Harper and his neo-conservative brain trust.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Like?
> 
> They are going to make us go to church on Sundays? Better than stealing the money out of the pockets of Canadians.


Geez, are those my only two choices, Jumbo? Yes exactly, out of the frying pan, into the fire.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

GA I guess the marketing team for the Liberal Gov't can be sure that their scare ads have worked on someone, but I don't think the Liberals will like the ROI when it comes to decision day.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> GA I guess the marketing team for the Liberal Gov't can be sure that their scare ads have worked on someone, but I don't think the Liberals will like the ROI when it comes to decision day.


If you're referring to me, I didn't need the Liberals to tell me that the Harper Cons are pond scum. I've been looking out for these guys and their ilk for years. And they haven't "worked" on me, since I won't be voting Liberal.

By the way, have you seen all the ads (not just the stupid military one), because most of them are direct quotes from Harper. How can they be scare ads if they are just reporting what he said? Are Harper's previous statements something we should be scared of? 

And why, rather than repudiate what Harper and many of his neo-conservative and social conservative pals said in the past, does the mention of those statements just prompt the reflexive terms, fear-mongering and scare tactics.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> GA I guess the marketing team for the Liberal Gov't can be sure that their scare ads have worked on someone, but I don't think the Liberals will like the ROI when it comes to decision day.


Must be boring to watch the paint dry up there in Stoney Creek...

You are assuming that we don't like Harper because we have been brained washed.
Some can thing for themselves.

Now obviously, you have bough into the Neocon propaganda machine....


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Now obviously, you have bough into the Neocon propaganda machine....


No what I have bought onto is the fact that this country needs a change. I've bought onto the fact that I am sick and tired of the Gov't ripping off Canadians. They steal millions and nothing happens, then they dare to reasses my income tax and say I owe them $43. It cost the tax payers more than $43 to relook at my income tax and send me a bill, just bloody wastefull. 

BTW I never said who I was voting for either, but it will be anyone but the Martin gov't. My distaste for him runs as deep or even deeper than yours for Harper. I just don't see how people think that his supposed "Hidden Agenda" is any worse than what the Liberals have done to us over the past 13 years. Frankly I'm am sick of bending over and taking it.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Once again, we have this interesting assumption that if one is against the Liberals, one must therefore be for the Conservatives. Granted, neither of the other two parties have done much to change that assumption, but this is not the US. We do have more than 2 options. Maybe if we spent some more time thinking about what those other options might be, it would encourage the smaller parties to actually try and develop policies. It would sure be nice if someone would.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

RevMatt said:


> Once again, we have this interesting assumption that if one is against the Liberals, one must therefore be for the Conservatives. Granted, neither of the other two parties have done much to change that assumption, but this is not the US. We do have more than 2 options. Maybe if we spent some more time thinking about what those other options might be, it would encourage the smaller parties to actually try and develop policies. It would sure be nice if someone would.


Well in Jumbo's case is he in Hamilton East-Stoney Creek? or Niagara West Glanbroke?

If he is in Niagara West his only real alternative choice for defeating the Liberals is Dean Aliston, Conservative incumbent.

If he is in Hamilton East-Stoney Creek his only real choice to defeat the Liberal is Wayne Marstin, NDP.

Which is it Jumbo?


----------



## MacAndy (May 17, 2004)

RevMatt - my thoughts exactly. What I fear is that there will be a tide of anti-Liberalism at the voting stations just because of the Cretien legacy. I really wish Paul Martin had been given the chance to run a party without the mess left behind by that jackass. It is to Martin's credit he hasn't stated more clearly that a lot of the mess was Cretien's [and Cretien's cronies'] doing.

Unfortunately, the only other real contender is the PC party with a clearly uncharismatic leader. Not even in power and already one of their candidates is heading towards the slammer - the BC prick. So here we have a party that is slamming the Liberals when one of their own, who was a trade minister, was caught smuggling a car and boxes of booze into the country.

Wake up people, it really doesn't matter what party is elected - they're all susceptible to criminal behaviour because their given the public purse and blind power to feel they can use it as they wish.

Don't vote PC to punish the Liberals. If you must punish them, vote NDP, or green, or just plain abstain to voice your disapproval.

Regardless of who is in power, corruption will continue, and the country will continue and will grow/decline, live/die, prosper/recess all on the basis of the world economy and not just our own. Liberal, PC, green, communist even ;-)

It really boils down to what jackass you want on the cover of the paper every morning.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Ever read the National Dream? Every party since Confederation has been living with the scandals of the preceding leadership. 

At least Harper kicked the guy in Trail out of caucus (should he actually be elected) until he has faced the charges against him.

But yes - any party claiming the upper moral road is doing what I like to call 'pot/kettle'.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

MacAndy, you have to give the Cons a little credit about their candidate in BC. If he wins his seat, he will not sit as a Conservative until his legal problems are resolved. In what could be a close election, where a single seat will actually mean something, it must have been a hard decision to reject their own candidate. 

The problem with Martin is that a lot of people think he is either A) a crook that was sneaky enough to get not get caught or B) incompotent because he didn't know what was going on. 250 million is a lot of money, even as a fraction of what he had to manage. Seriously, retail clerks at Future Shop are held to a higher standard than the Finance Minister. :yikes: Martin can loose 250 million and claim ignorance, but if a Future Shop clerk is $0.10 out two shifts in a row, they get a written warning. Three warnings are they could be let go.


----------



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

"Don't vote PC to punish the Liberals. If you must punish them, vote NDP, or green, or just plain abstain to voice your disapproval." MacAndy, I would NEVER suggest abstaining from voting. I would vote for you via write-in before I ever considered abstaining from voting. Luckily, there are four choices here in St.John's East, so I don't see an "Elect MacAndy" groundswell developing this time around.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Here's a thought - vote FOR someone, not against. I asked for reasons to vote FOR parties, and got few responses. None from Liberal or Con supporters. Bah. This whole election is a waste of time.

Hrm. I think I predicted that...


----------



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

"vote FOR someone, not against". Amen, brother. This is a responsible way to vote.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> "vote FOR someone, not against". Amen, brother. This is a responsible way to vote.



So by voting Liberal it is because I am "for" their support of same sex marriage rights... and NOT because I am "against" the conservative's for wanting to get rid of same sex marriage rights.

hhhhmmmm the problem is that I am leaning more towards the NDP... however voting for them in my riding is throwing away my ability to affect change in the country.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

In the short term, maybe. But there can be no change in the long run without some risk taking now. Every party other than the Libs and Cons are essentially ignored (really ignored in the Green's case). In large part because public support for them never changes. Only by shifting those percentages can there ever be a hope of changing the overall landscape.


----------



## MacAndy (May 17, 2004)

National Dream - wasn't that about trains? ;-) Or was that "The" National Dream? The Pierre Burton Canadian railway history thing. Really enjoyed that back in '77 or '78 I think it was.

We're all in agreement they're all crocks. We just have to pick one we can put up with. Thankfully it's not Cretien any longer. I prefer a prime minister that speaks at least one official language ;-)


----------



## MacAndy (May 17, 2004)

deleted - stoopid ting posted twice


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

MacAndy said:


> Unfortunately, the only other real contender is the PC party with a clearly uncharismatic leader.


Is it charisma that matters? You go for charisma and you'll end up with Stockwell Day ... *shudders*

See, I look at what people 'say' and then what they 'do'. I'd much rather have a staid, boring leader who sincerely wants what is best for all the people in the country ... even if what they consider 'best for all' might not mesh exactly with my own methodology.

For instance: The Liberals have been campaigning for a National Childcare system for over a decade. I look for results, and see nothing but more promises.

[edit: okay, sorry - that was a negative reason.]


----------



## MacAndy (May 17, 2004)

Mugatu said:


> MacAndy, you have to give the Cons a little credit about their candidate in BC. If he wins his seat, he will not sit as a Conservative until his legal problems are resolved. In what could be a close election, where a single seat will actually mean something, it must have been a hard decision to reject their own candidate.
> 
> I do give credit to Harper for releasing him of his possibly impending duties.
> 
> ...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> "vote FOR someone, not against". Amen, brother. This is a responsible way to vote.


I would like to see the polling companies run a parallel poll asking who people are voting against. A big chunk of the electorate votes this way, yet we never ask the question.


----------



## MacAndy (May 17, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> So by voting Liberal it is because I am "for" their support of same sex marriage rights... and NOT because I am "against" the conservative's for wanting to get rid of same sex marriage rights.
> 
> Again, here I think it won't matter who is in power, this is social evolution that will occur regardless. Not that I am for or against it, but you can't ignore the acceptance of gays has improved over recent years.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

No argument here MacAndy. I'm just surprised because I'm used to Parties just waiting for it to blow over and for the population to forget. 

I'm already voting Green.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacAndy said:


> da_jonesy said:
> 
> 
> > So by voting Liberal it is because I am "for" their support of same sex marriage rights... and NOT because I am "against" the conservative's for wanting to get rid of same sex marriage rights.
> ...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

The way I look at it is that I have to vote based on the issues that effect me. Unfortunately/fortunately same sex marriages don't effect me but health care and taxes do. Even if I don't agree with how a candidate feels on a subject like same sex marriages I have to vote on the matters that do. Simple as that. And since the Liberal Gov't haven't kept a promise on the matters that do effect me since they have been elected they are not an option for me.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Okay ... can we talk about 'gay marriage'?

All Harper has said is that he wants to have a 'free vote' on the matter - believing that perhaps the real feelings of the majority of the members in house were not actually being recorded because Martin made the vote one that was along party lines, at least for the members of cabinet.

As a 'small c' conservative, I am NOT against Gay Marriage. I figure gay couples should have the same rights to be ripped off by an unfair taxation policy as anyone.

So ... reopening the subject of gay marriage isn't necessarily 'getting rid of it', but perhaps finding out what the REAL majority of the country feels about it. A free vote - not one constricted by party policies.

I, for one, will make sure my MP knows my views on the topic. After all, isn't TRUE representation about representing the views of your constituents, not the views of the party?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> The way I look at it is that I have to vote based on the issues that effect me. Unfortunately/fortunately same sex marriages don't effect me but health care and taxes do. Even if I don't agree with how a candidate feels on a subject like same sex marriages I have to vote on the matters that do. Simple as that. And since the Liberal Gov't haven't kept a promise on the matters that do effect me since they have been elected they are not an option for me.


I agree with your sentiment but not your conclusions...

Canada has done OK under the Liberals. We have been running balanced federal budgets. Interest rates are low, the dollar is strong... the economy is a good as you can expect given the global economic situation.

Healthcare, while there was a rough spot in the mid 90's (certainly caused by Liberal belt tightening and transfer payment reduction) is coming around. The reason we can spend more on healthcare now is because the budgets have been balanced and we are running at a surplus over the past few years.

As for the corruption issue. Maybe I am a pessimist, but this happens (always has always will) and it is expected to a certain degree. The previous Conservative government has it set of scandals and corruption issues. I'm not saying it is right, I am saying people shouldn't be surprised. In this case the events were found out and some of the people are being dealt with. If anything Gomery shows to me that the system for catching these issues works.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MLeh said:


> As a 'small c' conservative, I am NOT against Gay Marriage. I figure gay couples should have the same rights to be ripped off by an unfair taxation policy as anyone.


As always, your ability to form a brilliant turn of phrase makes me giggle mightily 



MLeh said:


> So ... reopening the subject of gay marriage isn't necessarily 'getting rid of it', but perhaps finding out what the REAL majority of the country feels about it. A free vote - not one constricted by party policies.
> 
> I, for one, will make sure my MP knows my views on the topic. After all, isn't TRUE representation about representing the views of your constituents, not the views of the party?


That assumes that members will attempt to represent their constituents, given a free vote, and not simply vote their own mind. But presuming that they do, we might indeed get a more accurate picture of the divided nation. 
My objection to his declartion has been the same from beginning - it is dishonest, because he is not acknowledging that a "no" vote would require the notwithstanding clause. By framing the vote in a dishonest manner, it makes the outcome suspect. Maybe he knows something about the legalities of all of this that no one else does, but if so, he should declare it. For the vote to actually mean something, people need to know what contortions would be necessary to achieve a change.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MLeh said:


> Okay ... can we talk about 'gay marriage'?
> 
> All Harper has said is that he wants to have a 'free vote' on the matter - believing that perhaps the real feelings of the majority of the members in house were not actually being recorded because Martin made the vote one that was along party lines, at least for the members of cabinet.
> 
> ...


Putting it to a "free vote" is tantamount to reopening the whole issue which in my books was put to bed. It is the disregard to the Charter, the courts and parliament which makes me concerned about the Conservatives.

When do they stop? After they are defeated (again) in a free vote in parliament (and they will be because the Bloc, the NDP and a majority of the Liberals all support same sex marriage... assuming a minority conservative win this time around) what will they do?

If someone could give me a good reason why we should reopen this issue I'm all ears. But for me it is a deal breaker and exactly why I will vote for whichever party has a chance of beating the conservatives in my riding.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Canada has done OK under the Liberals. We have been running balanced federal budgets. Interest rates are low, the dollar is strong... the economy is a good as you can expect given the global economic situation.


Why is that? Downloading costs onto Provinces, and then inturn download onto cities, and then what do we get? Higher property taxes. Any idiot can pass the buck. As well, they used the money from the GST that they promised to axe, which make you think that the originators of that tax may have been on the right track.



da_jonesy said:


> Healthcare, while there was a rough spot in the mid 90's (certainly caused by Liberal belt tightening and transfer payment reduction) is coming around. The reason we can spend more on healthcare now is because the budgets have been balanced and we are running at a surplus over the past few years.


They cut thousands of health care jobs and then re-higher a small percentage back and you think this is them doing a good job?



da_jonesy said:


> As for the corruption issue. Maybe I am a pessimist, but this happens (always has always will) and it is expected to a certain degree. The previous Conservative government has it set of scandals and corruption issues. I'm not saying it is right, I am saying people shouldn't be surprised. In this case the events were found out and some of the people are being dealt with. If anything Gomery shows to me that the system for catching these issues works.


But who caught up with this? It certainly wasn't the then Finance Minister, if he couldn't do his job then, why is he capable of doing it now?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> When do they stop? After they are defeated (again) in a free vote in parliament (and they will be because the Bloc, the NDP and a majority of the Liberals all support same sex marriage... assuming a minority conservative win this time around) what will they do?


Well, #1 - the bill wasn't passed in a 'free vote', so your use of the word 'again' is misleading.

And I think if it is defeated under a free vote then they will move on*. Believe it or not, I think most members of the Conservative party are labouring under some delusion of integrity. This whole thing is a point of principle more than anything else. Martin had said it would be a free vote and then HE changed the rules. 

(*Unlike the Parti Quebequois ... who will keep trying until the electorate says 'enough'.)


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MLeh said:


> Well, #1 - the bill wasn't passed in a 'free vote', so your use of the word 'again' is misleading.
> 
> And I think if it is defeated under a free vote then they will move on*. Believe it or not, I think most members of the Conservative party are labouring under some delusion of integrity. This whole thing is a point of principle more than anything else. Martin had said it would be a free vote and then HE changed the rules.
> 
> (*Unlike the Parti Quebequois ... who will keep trying until the electorate says 'enough'.)


He changed the rules for his cabinet only, AND i might add that Joe Comuzzi, the minister responsible for Northern Ontario, resigned from the cabinet so he could vote against the bill. So clearly if anyone was so deeply compelled against the bill there was nothing stopping them from voting against it. Remember some 30 members of the Liberal party voted against it.

The bill became law, on July 20, 2005. After being passed by the Senate, the same-sex marriage legislation received royal assent as Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, acting in her role as deputy governor general, signed it into law.

The issue should be over... done.. finito


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Here's another reason to dump these clowns.

http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/rel...earchText=false&showText=all&actionFor=575314

Earlier today we heard that a Liberal candidate in Kitchener had used the "N" word (admittedly, years ago...but it's causing quite a flap anyway).

Sooo....I guess we can now add bribery and racism to theft and corruption. The Liberal list goes on....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Martin moved fast on this one...probably the fist time he has moved that quickly on an allegation of corruption since we've known him. He's just dumped the Liberal candidate fro Abbotsford, BC (David Oliver).

Too little too late. Damage is done.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MLeh said:


> All Harper has said is that he wants to have a 'free vote' on the matter - believing that perhaps the real feelings of the majority of the members in house were not actually being recorded because Martin made the vote one that was along party lines, at least for the members of cabinet.


Don't you think this is a backhanded way of reversing a decision that has already been taken?
If you know that your members are for banning the color blue and you don't want your party to be associated with that, what's an easier way than saying "free vote" make a policy change? 






MLeh said:


> So ... reopening the subject of gay marriage isn't necessarily 'getting rid of it', but perhaps finding out what the REAL majority of the country feels about it. A free vote - not one constricted by party policies.


So this is mob rule? Individual rights have already been established. The fact that gays get married to each other does not harm society. Prejudice against gays from society hurts them.


----------



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

AS, re your fine comment that " Prejudice against gays from society hurts them", I would add to this slightly to say " Prejudice from society against other people hurts us all." Paix, mon ami.


----------

