|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 17, 2005 18:21:02 GMT -5
After watching last nights debate, it's obvious that Martin will ride the fear mongering separation card to scare the public. He jumped into an acting bit by yelling at Duceppe how Canada is HIS country and how he will not stand still for separation. Of course King Martin the POS forgot to mention that we are in this mess because they CAUSED it. Let's not even talk about how they saw this as a way to line their pockets.
What is my fear, actually my nightmare is that the Liberal fear mongering separation rhetoric will rise so high and so vehemently that it will cause even MORE alienation and anger within Quebec. After all, if Quebecers already see the Liberals for what and who they are, then the only way to escape their fear mongering, self declared entitlement grasp is to leave the ROC. On top of that, it will also fuel western alienation by once again bringing Quebec "separation threat" to the forefront. It's no secret that the West feels that Ottawa is catering to Quebec.
This nightmare may just get way worse. The rhetoric can and probably will become a self fullfilling road to nation destruction courtesy of the Liberals blind grasp for power.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 17, 2005 18:26:44 GMT -5
The US has a two party system which penalizes points of view that do not correspond to the two major parties.
Canada has a one party system which fragments Conservatives, New Democrats, Separatists, Communists and Socialists, keeping the Liberals in power. Good luck in the election and don't forget to wipe the purple from your index fingers.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 18, 2005 3:58:40 GMT -5
After watching last nights debate, it's obvious that Martin will ride the fear mongering separation card to scare the public. He jumped into an acting bit by yelling at Duceppe how Canada is HIS country and how he will not stand still for separation. Of course King Martin the POS forgot to mention that we are in this mess because they CAUSED it. Let's not even talk about how they saw this as a way to line their pockets. What is my fear, actually my nightmare is that the Liberal fear mongering separation rhetoric will rise so high and so vehemently that it will cause even MORE alienation and anger within Quebec. After all, if Quebecers already see the Liberals for what and who they are, then the only way to escape their fear mongering, self declared entitlement grasp is to leave the ROC. On top of that, it will also fuel western alienation by once again bringing Quebec "separation threat" to the forefront. It's no secret that the West feels that Ottawa is catering to Quebec. This nightmare may just get way worse. The rhetoric can and probably will become a self fullfilling road to nation destruction courtesy of the Liberals blind grasp for power. I see that your penchant for predicting calamity extends beyond the Habs... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 18, 2005 10:58:14 GMT -5
[img src="[/img] ![]() "] I see that your penchant for predicting calamity extends beyond the Habs... ;D Well, yes, it seems that I am a born cynic, a natural pessimist, and cultivated conservative. *sigh* As for "predicting calamities", how are the Hab's doing? Anywho...... Did you watch the debate? From the cheap Thespianism Martin went into, it's clear that he wants people to hear how "passionate" he is about Canada. It played really well with Ontario and for all intents and purposes, Ontario is where his power base is. Alienating Quebecers will not lose him many more seats then the few he has now. This will only make things worse for the country. Does Martin care? He only cares about power, after all, he is a Prince in waiting for several years and NO ONE and NOTHING will deny him his chance to be King.  BTW, did you look outside your window? Does the sky appear to be a little lower then usual?  |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 18, 2005 14:59:18 GMT -5
[/img] ![]() "] I see that your penchant for predicting calamity extends beyond the Habs... ;D Well, yes, it seems that I am a born cynic, a natural pessimist, and cultivated conservative. *sigh* As for "predicting calamities", how are the Hab's doing? [/quote] I didn't say you were wrong...  |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 18, 2005 15:06:25 GMT -5
As for "predicting calamities", how are the Hab's doing? Better than expected. But then I predicted a 98 point season and they are on pace for a 101 point campaign. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Dec 21, 2005 16:43:29 GMT -5
After watching last nights debate, it's obvious that Martin will ride the fear mongering separation card to scare the public. He jumped into an acting bit by yelling at Duceppe how Canada is HIS country and how he will not stand still for separation. Of course King Martin the POS forgot to mention that we are in this mess because they CAUSED it. Let's not even talk about how they saw this as a way to line their pockets. What is my fear, actually my nightmare is that the Liberal fear mongering separation rhetoric will rise so high and so vehemently that it will cause even MORE alienation and anger within Quebec. After all, if Quebecers already see the Liberals for what and who they are, then the only way to escape their fear mongering, self declared entitlement grasp is to leave the ROC. On top of that, it will also fuel western alienation by once again bringing Quebec "separation threat" to the forefront. It's no secret that the West feels that Ottawa is catering to Quebec. This nightmare may just get way worse. The rhetoric can and probably will become a self fullfilling road to nation destruction courtesy of the Liberals blind grasp for power. What I find truly amazing is that neither the Bloc nor the PQ are talking much about independance nowadays, yet the Liberals keep throwing oil on the bonfire to make sure the idea is well alive... The last time around the Liberal fear mongering strategy as well as their cheating in every possible ways, brought the country within half a percent, 30 000 votes, of being thrown apart, yet, there is still no plan B aside from trying to lure the population on what a majority is and what a question should be, despite the fact that both the majority of 50% + 1 and the question used have International precedents. Call me crazy HA, but I think both the Concervatives and the Liberals have pretty much given up on maintaining unity as both simply work on their support outside Quebec. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 29, 2005 16:37:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jan 7, 2006 13:10:24 GMT -5
After watching last nights debate, it's obvious that Martin will ride the fear mongering separation card to scare the public. He jumped into an acting bit by yelling at Duceppe how Canada is HIS country and how he will not stand still for separation. Of course King Martin the POS forgot to mention that we are in this mess because they CAUSED it. Let's not even talk about how they saw this as a way to line their pockets. What is my fear, actually my nightmare is that the Liberal fear mongering separation rhetoric will rise so high and so vehemently that it will cause even MORE alienation and anger within Quebec. After all, if Quebecers already see the Liberals for what and who they are, then the only way to escape their fear mongering, self declared entitlement grasp is to leave the ROC. On top of that, it will also fuel western alienation by once again bringing Quebec "separation threat" to the forefront. It's no secret that the West feels that Ottawa is catering to Quebec. This nightmare may just get way worse. The rhetoric can and probably will become a self fullfilling road to nation destruction courtesy of the Liberals blind grasp for power. What I find truly amazing is that neither the Bloc nor the PQ are talking much about independance nowadays, yet the Liberals keep throwing oil on the bonfire to make sure the idea is well alive... The last time around the Liberal fear mongering strategy as well as their cheating in every possible ways, brought the country within half a percent, 30 000 votes, of being thrown apart, yet, there is still no plan B aside from trying to lure the population on what a majority is and what a question should be, despite the fact that both the majority of 50% + 1 and the question used have International precedents. Call me crazy HA, but I think both the Concervatives and the Liberals have pretty much given up on maintaining unity as both simply work on their support outside Quebec. Harper's support is the Reform segment right wing capitalist group that started with the ever so strident Preston Manning whose peeling voice still makes me chuckle. Reformres who don't actually hate Quebec and Quebecers for being french, simply resent them fro having a notion that equal doesn't mean identical. Indifference is the mother of ignorance. The Bloc is who the Conservatives will have to lie down with. But lots of Canadians don't worry about that. Other thatn Team Canada once a year, who cares about Canada anyway? Nothing could please the Bloc more than right wing capitalist airheads from the west leading Canada. To think that referendums aren't on the immediate horizon is to indulge the fantastic. The Reform-inspired Conservative will allow US big corporate medical interests to gain a foothold in the vastly superior Canadian health plan, and using the Free Trade provisions, will prresent a true threat to its' continuance. We should leave that to the Reformers as well, no doubt. I hope Canadians wake up from their deep slumber, but I live on a continent that could elect a lying, war-mongering profoundly corrupt moron to the most powerful position in the world, so I tend to be more realistic than optimistic these days. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 7, 2006 19:36:45 GMT -5
What I find truly amazing is that neither the Bloc nor the PQ are talking much about independance nowadays, yet the Liberals keep throwing oil on the bonfire to make sure the idea is well alive... The last time around the Liberal fear mongering strategy as well as their cheating in every possible ways, brought the country within half a percent, 30 000 votes, of being thrown apart, yet, there is still no plan B aside from trying to lure the population on what a majority is and what a question should be, despite the fact that both the majority of 50% + 1 and the question used have International precedents. Call me crazy HA, but I think both the Concervatives and the Liberals have pretty much given up on maintaining unity as both simply work on their support outside Quebec. ......But lots of Canadians don't worry about that. Other thatn Team Canada once a year, who cares about Canada anyway? Nothing could please the Bloc more than right wing capitalist airheads from the west leading Canada. To think that referendums aren't on the immediate horizon is to indulge the fantastic. And yet, no one is proposing anything to actually make Canada work. No one is promoting a new constitution which could kill separatism without actually giving Quebec anything more than what everyone seems to think it already has. No one has anything to offer. More than enough people in Quebec would turn their back on separatism if there were a real alternative. There just isn't one. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 7, 2006 19:56:56 GMT -5
And yet, no one is proposing anything to actually make Canada work. No one is promoting a new constitution which could kill separatism without actually giving Quebec anything more than what everyone seems to think it already has. No one has anything to offer. More than enough people in Quebec would turn their back on separatism if there were a real alternative. There just isn't one. Not wanting to restart a thread or an argument . . . but can we really say "this and this and this" would end the idea of separation? Unfortunately, the pople of Quebec are right when they think that many out west [read Alberta] would say "they'll just ask for more -- they'll never be happy". |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 7, 2006 20:27:12 GMT -5
And yet, no one is proposing anything to actually make Canada work. No one is promoting a new constitution which could kill separatism without actually giving Quebec anything more than what everyone seems to think it already has. No one has anything to offer. More than enough people in Quebec would turn their back on separatism if there were a real alternative. There just isn't one. Not wanting to restart a thread or an argument . . . but can we really say "this and this and this" would end the idea of separation? Unfortunately, the pople of Quebec are right when they think that many out west [read Alberta] would say "they'll just ask for more -- they'll never be happy". Well, you can never be sure of the results of doing something, but in this case, the risks of inaction outweigh by far the risks of trying something. In this case, put together a decent constitution and you give Quebec federalists enough arguments to seriously hurt sovereinists. Right now all Charest can say is "well, things aren't that bad, you know". With a Meech-like constitution, I'm on the federalist side of things. Without, I have to go for whoever has a plan of actually doing something constructive. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 7, 2006 22:24:50 GMT -5
Suprisingly, about the only thing Martin hasn't promised is seperation. Probably the only reason he is not doing that is because he will lose more seats then he gains in ROC. Yes, I think he is a dsipicable snake that will do just about anything to be King.  |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jan 8, 2006 21:21:02 GMT -5
Suprisingly, about the only thing Martin hasn't promised is seperation. Probably the only reason he is not doing that is because he will lose more seats then he gains in ROC. Yes, I think he is a dsipicable snake that will do just about anything to be King. Martin is not my favourite liberal by any means for reasons I won't regurgitate, but I really don't get the visceral repugnance for a pretty ho-hum sort of rightist liberal. I suspect it's more of a life expectation issue. He, Martin early on, while he was heir-apparent to le petit gar, did articulate a vision albeit a pragmatic one, but certainly practical, and to ride a very old cliche, politics is the art of the possible. There is no good reason at all to criticize Martin over Gomery, which he called and for anyone who care's to level honest criticism, it was not his job to AUDIT the PMO's office's expenditures (just as it wasn't Chretien's job). Martin has at the end of the day, restored financial stability to our nation, a fact recognized internationally. That a Canadian could even consider putting in the Reform party in drag utterly staggers me. They are so DUMB, such rednecks, and so against what Canadians generally value. For me it's rather like Roman Emperors playing a circus for the dumb dumbs in the colliseum. Some have referred to Martin's desperate bids to get power. What TV station have they been watching for the last year or two? Martin WAS in power, and promised to hold an election within a month of the Gomery final report. It was the other guys who saw politifcal opportunity that even Belinda found sickening, as it can only strengthen the separatist forces. And it overwhelmingly has done exactly that. This was not the time for an election. 65% of Canadians didn't want it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 9, 2006 1:21:38 GMT -5
It never ends..... ~~~~~~~~~~~~ www.politicswatch.com/option-jan6-2006.htm~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Martin defends grant under RCMP review by Romeo St. Martin [PoliticsWatch Updated 4:16 p.m. January 6, 2006] OTTAWA — In a move reminiscent of his predecessor, Prime Minister Paul Martin used the national unity issue to defend a $4.8 million government grant that the RCMP is now examining. The Globe and Mail reported Thursday evening that the RCMP has been asking questions about a $4.8 million grant given to a group called Option Canada shortly before the 1995 referendum campaign. The RCMP is not conducting a criminal investigation, but was asked to look at the grant after officials with the Heritage department called the force because a book is about to be published about Option Canada. The paper said the RCMP is focusing on only part of the $4.8 million, perhaps $300,000. The revelation is the second bombshell to hit the Liberal campaign over the last two weeks. Last week, the RCMP announced they were conducting a criminal investigation into a possible leak of the government's November income trust announcement. The latest news about the RCMP interest again took the PM off message as he campaigned in Ontario on Friday morning. After making an announcement about helping seniors, Martin was asked almost exclusively about the $4.8 million grant. "My understanding is the accounting was done on a proper basis," the PM said in his only comment specifically about the grant. The PM chose instead to answer most questions by defending the existence of Option Canada in the context of national unity. "The Bloc has been attacking this particular group for 10 years. And they've been attacking it because it was promoting national unity," he said. "I will fight for Canadian unity. I fought for it 10 years ago and I will fight for it today." While Justice John Gomery exonerated the PM for what happened in the sponsorship program, Option Canada hits closer to home with the PM as its former president is Claude Dauphin, a former aide to Martin at finance, and Option Canada was set up by the Council for Canadian Unity where some friends of the PM were at the time. Martin defended Dauphin's character when asked by reporters about his relationship with him. "Claude Dauphin was appointed by (former Quebec premier) Robert Bourassa as the Quebec delegate to Boston. When (former Quebec premier Jacques) Parizeau came to power Mr. Parizeau asked each and every Quebec delegate to perform an act of faith in sovereignty in the separation of Quebec from Canada. And Claude Dauphin refused to do so and he resigned. While Option Canada was not part of the sponsorship program, the Bloc Quebecois has long alleged that the federal money was used to help the No side during the referendum campaign. That suspicion resulted in the little-known initiative becoming the subject of an investigation by Quebec's chief electoral officer. That investigation was disbanded after a court ruling struck down Quebec's referendum law. More........... |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Jan 9, 2006 3:53:17 GMT -5
Plus ca change...
The irony is that this sort of thing would happen no matter if it was the Conservatives, NDP, Bloc or the Judean People's Front. It's the same senior executives regardless of who is in power. The "Sir Humphreys", if you will, who will use any expedient to ensure entitlement regardless of whether it's good for the country or not. Dig deeper and you'll find more "Option Canada".
I honestly believe that most politicians start off with the best of intentions only to bend to the realities of how the country is governed. It's hard not to be cynical.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jan 9, 2006 9:29:57 GMT -5
Plus ca change... The irony is that this sort of thing would happen no matter if it was the Conservatives, NDP, Bloc or the Judean People's Front. It's the same senior executives regardless of who is in power. The "Sir Humphreys", if you will, who will use any expedient to ensure entitlement regardless of whether it's good for the country or not. Dig deeper and you'll find more "Option Canada". I honestly believe that most politicians start off with the best of intentions only to bend to the realities of how the country is governed. It's hard not to be cynical. I for one had and have no problem whatsoever with any federal government spending lots of money on raising the Canada profile when the country's very existence is threatened. That it should be spent legitimately va sans dire. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jan 9, 2006 9:39:34 GMT -5
Plus ca change... The irony is that this sort of thing would happen no matter if it was the Conservatives, NDP, Bloc or the Judean People's Front. It's the same senior executives regardless of who is in power. The "Sir Humphreys", if you will, who will use any expedient to ensure entitlement regardless of whether it's good for the country or not. Dig deeper and you'll find more "Option Canada". I honestly believe that most politicians start off with the best of intentions only to bend to the realities of how the country is governed. It's hard not to be cynical. You're spot on. It's more than passing strange to hear all the kneejerk, self-righteous blowhard comments about politicians. Most of them enter politics at a personal financial cost, work very hard, and try to bring about real goods for society. I look askance at the peanut gallery that defames, insults and derides them. I have real problems with some the policies and indeed principles of all political parties and a particularly strong antipathy to the right wing which I find the most dishonest, culpably ignorant and deceitful of the bunch, but amidst the fray, it's about what they will do. |
|
|
|
Post by The Habsome One on Jan 9, 2006 20:41:36 GMT -5
Plus ca change... The irony is that this sort of thing would happen no matter if it was the Conservatives, NDP, Bloc or the Judean People's Front. It's the same senior executives regardless of who is in power. The "Sir Humphreys", if you will, who will use any expedient to ensure entitlement regardless of whether it's good for the country or not. Dig deeper and you'll find more "Option Canada". I honestly believe that most politicians start off with the best of intentions only to bend to the realities of how the country is governed. It's hard not to be cynical. You're spot on. It's more than passing strange to hear all the kneejerk, self-righteous blowhard comments about politicians. Most of them enter politics at a personal financial cost, work very hard, and try to bring about real goods for society. I look askance at the peanut gallery that defames, insults and derides them. I have real problems with some the policies and indeed principles of all political parties and a particularly strong antipathy to the right wing which I find the most dishonest, culpably ignorant and deceitful of the bunch, but amidst the fray, it's about what they will do. Totally off the mark. Totally. I am completely disgusted with the "All politicians are corrupt... you'd be corrupt too" attitude. People must be held accountable for decisions they make. No excuses. "Well, the..the Conservatives will be even worse if they get in power. Paul told me so!" Whatever! Today's Liberals will leave behind a legacy of lies, thievery, and more lies. I may head into politics in the future, but primarily to help take down corruption such as that which has been displayed by today's federal Liberals. I think probably half of the people heading into politics go into it for greed--to make a name for themself. By the way, I know this is just the way the law is, but I find it completely ridiculous that Paul Martin merely had to hand control of his Shipping business over to his SONS in order to avoid conflict of interest. Excuse me?? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jan 9, 2006 22:41:45 GMT -5
I am completely disgusted with the "All politians are corrupt... you'd be corrupt too" attitude. People must be held accountable for decisions they make. No excuses. "Well, the..the Conservatives will be even worse if they get in power. Paul told me so!" Whatever! Today's Liberals will leave behind a legacy of lies, thievery, and more lies. I may head into politics in the future, but primarily to help take down corruption such as that which has been displayed by today's federal Liberals. I think probably half of the people heading into politics go into it for greed--to make a name for themself. By the way, I know this is just the way the law is, but I find it completely ridiculous that Paul Martin merely had to had control of his Shipping business over to his SONS in order to avoid conflict of interest. Excuse me?? Can I hug you? (You know, in a manly, European kind of way.  ) Right now, I am getting my feet wet in something I love as a retirement "career" but another alternative would be to join the Liberal party (again) if they CLEANED OUT ALL THE OLD GUARD. I am sick and tired of the old boys network and the desperation politics they adopted to keep power. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jan 10, 2006 11:33:05 GMT -5
You're spot on. It's more than passing strange to hear all the kneejerk, self-righteous blowhard comments about politicians. Most of them enter politics at a personal financial cost, work very hard, and try to bring about real goods for society. I look askance at the peanut gallery that defames, insults and derides them. I have real problems with some the policies and indeed principles of all political parties and a particularly strong antipathy to the right wing which I find the most dishonest, culpably ignorant and deceitful of the bunch, but amidst the fray, it's about what they will do. Totally off the mark. Totally. I am completely disgusted with the "All politicians are corrupt... you'd be corrupt too" attitude. People must be held accountable for decisions they make. No excuses. "Well, the..the Conservatives will be even worse if they get in power. Paul told me so!" Whatever! Today's Liberals will leave behind a legacy of lies, thievery, and more lies. I may head into politics in the future, but primarily to help take down corruption such as that which has been displayed by today's federal Liberals. I think probably half of the people heading into politics go into it for greed--to make a name for themself. By the way, I know this is just the way the law is, but I find it completely ridiculous that Paul Martin merely had to hand control of his Shipping business over to his SONS in order to avoid conflict of interest. Excuse me?? While I fail to see how I am totally off the mark, I repeat that howsoever misguided, a great many go into politics to pursue worthy goals, and a great many at a financial cost. I question the integrity and honesty of those who repeatedly smear, defame and misrepresent politicians. They are engaging in their own self deceit, but it's pretty apparent to others. For the record, Martin did all the right things when confronted with the unfortunate reality of corrupt practices. His own inquiry has fuelled his political adversaries. It is an odd coincidence, that Harpur's right-wing political buddies in the USA, have just been found to have received massive ammounts of illegal money from one of their ad,ministration stars. The post about "taking down corruption suchas today'st federal liberals" gives rise to the question. Just who are you talking about or are are you just indulging a penchant for defamation and slander. I really wonder at the lack of a sense of shame. If a person wants to present themselves or at least the image of being honorable and honest, their comments about others should reflect integrity and honesty. The initail post spoke of human fallability, a tendency for even well-intended people to lose their way: that's all. Sitting on the sidelines defaming and slandering is a case in point. The end doesn't justify the means. Far closer to the truth is that a campaign has been waged with a sea of defamatory propaganda to sway the gullible and easily manipulated. That this campaign is being run on the basis of events that occurred a decade ago is a key part of the deceit and just like the decade old deceit of some liberals, it is a simple and immoral expediency. The already weak social fabric of the country and the right -wing's black calvinistic dog-eat-dog approach to life is in the offing. For those who would label the above "fearmongering" which is a lot easier than rebuttal, and effective with the easily pleased at least, the Reform Party majority of the "Conservative" party, and Harpur's own background is that of a right wing capitalist and indeed headed up a think tank whose ambitions were (and are) to dismantle our community on exactly the same lines as the Bush crowd. That Joe Clark, former head of the Conservative party and prime Minister of Canada left the group should tell you something, and ascribing his decision to character faults is just more typical unreflective, defamation of character based upon what, priveleged access to his inner thoughts? Right. Canadian soldiers would be getting killed in a fraudulent, illegal and hence terrorist war for the Bush family oil interests, Dick Cheney's Haliburton and the likes of Enron, all tied together with a degree of corruption and global crime that beggars the imagination. That Harpur is their political ally is however just OK. Integrity? Right. Sure. |
|
|
|
Post by The Habsome One on Jan 10, 2006 18:37:42 GMT -5
Plus ca change... The irony is that this sort of thing would happen no matter if it was the Conservatives, NDP, Bloc or the Judean People's Front. It's the same senior executives regardless of who is in power. The "Sir Humphreys", if you will, who will use any expedient to ensure entitlement regardless of whether it's good for the country or not. Dig deeper and you'll find more "Option Canada". I honestly believe that most politicians start off with the best of intentions only to bend to the realities of how the country is governed. It's hard not to be cynical. You're spot on. It's more than passing strange to hear all the kneejerk, self-righteous blowhard comments about politicians. Most of them enter politics at a personal financial cost, work very hard, and try to bring about real goods for society. I look askance at the peanut gallery that defames, insults and derides them. I have real problems with some the policies and indeed principles of all political parties and a particularly strong antipathy to the right wing which I find the most dishonest, culpably ignorant and deceitful of the bunch, but amidst the fray, it's about what they will do. Are you freakin' kidding me? I dare you to back up this outrageous "finding" of yours. Totally off the mark. Totally. I am completely disgusted with the "All politicians are corrupt... you'd be corrupt too" attitude. People must be held accountable for decisions they make. No excuses. "Well, the..the Conservatives will be even worse if they get in power. Paul told me so!" Whatever! Today's Liberals will leave behind a legacy of lies, thievery, and more lies. I may head into politics in the future, but primarily to help take down corruption such as that which has been displayed by today's federal Liberals. I think probably half of the people heading into politics go into it for greed--to make a name for themself. By the way, I know this is just the way the law is, but I find it completely ridiculous that Paul Martin merely had to hand control of his Shipping business over to his SONS in order to avoid conflict of interest. Excuse me?? While I fail to see how I am totally off the mark, I repeat that howsoever misguided, a great many go into politics to pursue worthy goals, and a great many at a financial cost. I question the integrity and honesty of those who repeatedly smear, defame and misrepresent politicians. They are engaging in their own self deceit, but it's pretty apparent to others. For the record, Martin did all the right things when confronted with the unfortunate reality of corrupt practices. His own inquiry has fuelled his political adversaries. It is an odd coincidence, that Harpur's right-wing political buddies in the USA, have just been found to have received massive ammounts of illegal money from one of their ad,ministration stars. The post about "taking down corruption suchas today'st federal liberals" gives rise to the question. Just who are you talking about or are are you just indulging a penchant for defamation and slander. I really wonder at the lack of a sense of shame. If a person wants to present themselves or at least the image of being honorable and honest, their comments about others should reflect integrity and honesty. The initail post spoke of human fallability, a tendency for even well-intended people to lose their way: that's all. Sitting on the sidelines defaming and slandering is a case in point. The end doesn't justify the means. Far closer to the truth is that a campaign has been waged with a sea of defamatory propaganda to sway the gullible and easily manipulated. That this campaign is being run on the basis of events that occurred a decade ago is a key part of the deceit and just like the decade old deceit of some liberals, it is a simple and immoral expediency. The already weak social fabric of the country and the right -wing's black calvinistic dog-eat-dog approach to life is in the offing. For those who would label the above "fearmongering" which is a lot easier than rebuttal, and effective with the easily pleased at least, the Reform Party majority of the "Conservative" party, and Harpur's own background is that of a right wing capitalist and indeed headed up a think tank whose ambitions were (and are) to dismantle our community on exactly the same lines as the Bush crowd. That Joe Clark, former head of the Conservative party and prime Minister of Canada left the group should tell you something, and ascribing his decision to character faults is just more typical unreflective, defamation of character based upon what, priveleged access to his inner thoughts? Right. Canadian soldiers would be getting killed in a fraudulent, illegal and hence terrorist war for the Bush family oil interests, Dick Cheney's Haliburton and the likes of Enron, all tied together with a degree of corruption and global crime that beggars the imagination. That Harpur is their political ally is however just OK. Integrity? Right. Sure. So many words, and all you are saying is that you haven't got a clue. The Liberals can feed you any kind of propaganda and do to you whatever they want and they'll still have your vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jan 10, 2006 19:34:18 GMT -5
You're spot on. It's more than passing strange to hear all the kneejerk, self-righteous blowhard comments about politicians. Most of them enter politics at a personal financial cost, work very hard, and try to bring about real goods for society. I look askance at the peanut gallery that defames, insults and derides them. I have real problems with some the policies and indeed principles of all political parties and a particularly strong antipathy to the right wing which I find the most dishonest, culpably ignorant and deceitful of the bunch, but amidst the fray, it's about what they will do. Are you freakin' kidding me? I dare you to back up this outrageous "finding" of yours. While I fail to see how I am totally off the mark, I repeat that howsoever misguided, a great many go into politics to pursue worthy goals, and a great many at a financial cost. I question the integrity and honesty of those who repeatedly smear, defame and misrepresent politicians. They are engaging in their own self deceit, but it's pretty apparent to others. For the record, Martin did all the right things when confronted with the unfortunate reality of corrupt practices. His own inquiry has fuelled his political adversaries. It is an odd coincidence, that Harpur's right-wing political buddies in the USA, have just been found to have received massive ammounts of illegal money from one of their ad,ministration stars. The post about "taking down corruption suchas today'st federal liberals" gives rise to the question. Just who are you talking about or are are you just indulging a penchant for defamation and slander. I really wonder at the lack of a sense of shame. If a person wants to present themselves or at least the image of being honorable and honest, their comments about others should reflect integrity and honesty. The initail post spoke of human fallability, a tendency for even well-intended people to lose their way: that's all. Sitting on the sidelines defaming and slandering is a case in point. The end doesn't justify the means. Far closer to the truth is that a campaign has been waged with a sea of defamatory propaganda to sway the gullible and easily manipulated. That this campaign is being run on the basis of events that occurred a decade ago is a key part of the deceit and just like the decade old deceit of some liberals, it is a simple and immoral expediency. The already weak social fabric of the country and the right -wing's black calvinistic dog-eat-dog approach to life is in the offing. For those who would label the above "fearmongering" which is a lot easier than rebuttal, and effective with the easily pleased at least, the Reform Party majority of the "Conservative" party, and Harpur's own background is that of a right wing capitalist and indeed headed up a think tank whose ambitions were (and are) to dismantle our community on exactly the same lines as the Bush crowd. That Joe Clark, former head of the Conservative party and prime Minister of Canada left the group should tell you something, and ascribing his decision to character faults is just more typical unreflective, defamation of character based upon what, priveleged access to his inner thoughts? Right. Canadian soldiers would be getting killed in a fraudulent, illegal and hence terrorist war for the Bush family oil interests, Dick Cheney's Haliburton and the likes of Enron, all tied together with a degree of corruption and global crime that beggars the imagination. That Harpur is their political ally is however just OK. Integrity? Right. Sure. So many words, and all you are saying is that you haven't got a clue. The Liberals can feed you any kind of propaganda and do to you whatever they want and they'll still have your vote. Uh, no. I'm not freakin kidding you. I don't know what propaganda you are referring to that you fancy I'm buying. I find it a conservative trait to be able to live happily in blind contradiction, and since reality seldom impinges, it is not acknowledged. Like the whizzbang observations generally offered, you seem to be overlooking something in your perspective. Life. I don't require a political party to establish my principles. I got to hear Harpur's forerunners, the squawking Preston Manning, son of the earlier goofball. I saw the last great white hope Stockwell Day, an incredibly stupid man, in his brief tenure, and I've heard the western reformers' complete incomprehension of Quebec voiced by these goofs. I've heard the sickos looking to reintroduce the barbarism of so-called "capital punishment", and I've seen right wing laissez-faire corrupt governments attack the lifestyles of the poor while favoring the wealthy. I've seem all this with my own eyes. I've seen the great boor of the west Ralph KLein try to undermine the national treasure that is our health plan, while the federal doughboys cry for closer support for the right wing ignorant jerk who has brought the most powerful nation on earth to an illegal and immoral act of international terrorism, a fraudulent war for his family oil interests. Triple E senate anybody? How dumb do you have to be to see that as plausible in Canadian governance. Entrenching "PROPERTY" rights in the constitution. Ther is hardly a selfish kneejerk response I can think of that some conservative lip hasn't mouthed. I watch the kneejerk NRA- backed goofs huffing and puffin' so they can holster up on mian street, and I have heard all the simplistic moronicisms slopped out in defence. And, oh ya, I read. And think. I have no need of another party's platform do find the rights' intellectually and morally bankrupt and , frankly, just stupid. Save the "propaganda" tripe for a dumber audience. It's on my right. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 11, 2006 8:04:00 GMT -5
Speaking of "knee-jerk" reactions. Suppose someone can find a grain of goodness in Martin's use of the military to picture Harper as the boogeyman invading Canada? Suppose someone out there can explain to me Martin's crazy notion of removing the "notwithstanding" clause from the Contstituition?
As for the "western" idea of two-tiered health care. I am from the east and I say why the hell not! The fact is we are not all treated equally in Canada. From equalization, to rate of taxation, to representation in the Senate, (the list is endless) Canadians are not treated equally. Most tax breaks help the poorer less fortunate souls of this country, and I am not knocking that, I totally agree that the well off should help the less well off. But if the ability to pay for an operation (whether in Canada or elsewhere) is going to help save my, my wife, or my daughter's life (or make it more comfortable) than I should have that right. If I want to put myself in perpetual debt to do this, I should be able. People with money in this country are not eligible for countless monatary programs (even though they help fund it ... such as EI, Child tax credit, etc) but giving them the ability to use their benefit should not be taken from them.
The public system should not be scrapped, and it should continue to pump all the money we do into it. No one is saying, I have money I jump ahead of you in the line-up ..... no, the clinics performing procedures for money now are entirely seperate from the public system, so I dont have an issue with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jan 11, 2006 10:33:09 GMT -5
Speaking of "knee-jerk" reactions. Suppose someone can find a grain of goodness in Martin's use of the military to picture Harper as the boogeyman invading Canada? Suppose someone out there can explain to me Martin's crazy notion of removing the "notwithstanding" clause from the Contstituition? As for the "western" idea of two-tiered health care. I am from the east and I say why the hell not! The fact is we are not all treated equally in Canada. From equalization, to rate of taxation, to representation in the Senate, (the list is endless) Canadians are not treated equally. Most tax breaks help the poorer less fortunate souls of this country, and I am not knocking that, I totally agree that the well off should help the less well off. But if the ability to pay for an operation (whether in Canada or elsewhere) is going to help save my, my wife, or my daughter's life (or make it more comfortable) than I should have that right. If I want to put myself in perpetual debt to do this, I should be able. People with money in this country are not eligible for countless monatary programs (even though they help fund it ... such as EI, Child tax credit, etc) but giving them the ability to use their benefit should not be taken from them. The public system should not be scrapped, and it should continue to pump all the money we do into it. No one is saying, I have money I jump ahead of you in the line-up ..... no, the clinics performing procedures for money now are entirely seperate from the public system, so I dont have an issue with it. Nice to see a bit of substance instead of loud defamation and widescale character assassination. While I would definitely not put it past the right/fascist element of the Rerform type guys, I am not aware of any plans for Harpur to invade Canada. but I'll keep listening for intelligent comment on the issue. I can see a possible reference to Quebec separation issues and some statements made, but I speculate. It was, no doubt based upon something really stupid that Harpur or one of his wisemen had to say. THe notwithstanding clause was hotly contested when it was advanced and there are definite good and bad points about it from my inexpert opinion. As I don't think the idea was part of any divine revelation, it is open to question. Martin is not a narcissitic ideologue like the guys you admire, so it's ok to question some things. Try to get comfortable with that. As to not all being treated equally, I think you have managed to miss ALL of the relevant ideas behind the programs; quite a feat in one sentence. Equalization payments are just that people helping others--unequally by definition. LIke many, you confuse equal with identical, and think no good can be done unless all goods can simultaneously be done. That leads nowhere. THe rates of taxation are the same for all Canadians. May I suggest you really read what I just wrote, and try to avoid the obvious before you respond. Laissez-faire capitalists, who like Reform partyers like things like flat taxes and other really , really dumb things. Simplistic "solutions" appeal to the simplistic and indifferent. It's like the ever popular conservative "A bullet is cheaper" comment that these guys advance for social problems. Two tired systems of the type advanced by the right in North America are about big business, and are not even remotely interested in the health care of Canadians. It's about dog eat dog approaches to life. The conservatives are opposed in their guts to the very idea of community and people being responsible for one another. Lots of money for war and guns though. Welcome to Iraq. You resent employees getting unmeployment benefits, while owners don't? Couldn't and as is very obvious from greedy "business" men and their accountants, they lay themselves off and collect for a year or two? A financial safety net which Liberals and many others support, is meant to address the real problems that the self-employed can run into. Conservatives fight tooth and nail against the kind of thing you are suggesting. Vote Liberal if you want generally intelligent approaches to the real problems of real people. I'm afraid, you've got me on the child tax credit. People without children usually have their claims denied. Maybe we could adopt some kids and try to qualify again. With the conservatives, it's always about "ME" and "MY MONEY", usually the latter. As to your two-tiered approach as described by you and advanced by the consevatives, you and conservatives generally have completely failed to either read or understand the Romanov report on our excellent national program. You must believe that there's a box full of health specialists in the sky somewhere that will be emptied into these new private clinics of yours, and that they won't drain the public system and recruit form them. This is just so typical of conservative "thought". If Harpur and his goofs do acheive some form of government, it might be a really, really good thing. It could serve as an historical reminder of what happens when a group of knee-jerk idiots run a country. Separation is a real possibility that Harper and the conservatives ignored when he saw his chance to call an election nobody wanted. Even Stronach couldn't stomach that, and neither can I. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 11, 2006 21:27:12 GMT -5
I am not necessarily fond of the tome of your reply .... but you eloquence left me saying ...huh? Really what are you trying to say. While I would definitely not put it past the right/fascist element of the Rerform type guys, I am not aware of any plans for Harpur to invade Canada. but I'll keep listening for intelligent comment on the issue. I can see a possible reference to Quebec separation issues and some statements made, but I speculate. It was, no doubt based upon something really stupid that Harpur or one of his wisemen had to say. The commercial which I have not seen, thankfully, was hotly debated on open-line shows here and I am sure everywhere else in Canada. All I know is that the good men and women who stand up for our country are not very pleased with their dipiction in the commericial ... they are asking for an apology and one is not coming. What? Martin in the english debate said he was going to abolish the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution and said he could do so without consent from 7 of the 10 provinces because it is a federal power and doesn't affect the provinces. Why did he bring this up? Because he wants to put fear into people that Harper will use it to open the same-sex debate (even though every Conservative has stated they would not, they just want to revisit the definition without using the notwithstanding clause). It has never been used before, but it is in the Constitution as a safety-net. It should not be removed. What if the courts make an assinine decision on some issue ... without the notwithstanding clause there would be no way to reverse it. As an example ... what if a court in the future deems that life begins at conception. That would mean every abortion would than be considered murder, no matter the reason behind it. Courts are not infallable. And no government wants to wade into the "woman's right to choose" debate , because it is political suicide. . Have I now. Really. So why does every political party want to revisit equalization? Because the system is broken because of the fiscal imbalance. The rates of taxation are the same??? I think you should check your tax form. There are three tax brackets each with different rates of taxation. The more you make the more you are taxed. Where do I state I resent my employees qualifying for EI? I live in EI-heaven - Newfoundland. I dont resent the EI program at all. What I said was that it doesn't treat people equally. If you make too much money and lose your job, you may not even qualify for EI, even though you paid into it for year. Conversely, you could go your whole life and not make one EI claim, pay in over $30,000 over the course of your working life and not get it back. The EI system was not meant to make the government money ... and yet it does because every working Canadian pays too much into it. Another Liberal scam. I have a child. And one on the way. KNow how much I receive in a child tax credit? A little over 21 dollars a month. I still have the same bills associated with my child as any other canadian, and I pay my taxes. Yet I received a little over 10% of what some are getting. Again, an example of how someone with a little money (middle tax bracket) gets penalized. If anyone missed the point here it is you. My whole point is that well off people do not qualify for social programs (but pay into it), they do not qualify for GST rebates, they do not qualify for home heating rebates, they do not qualify for practically any programs .... can you n ame one where they are treated the same as all canadians .... and yet it is their money that funds these programs. The one break they may have is that they may be able to bring their sick child/relative to a clinic and pay for a costly procedure (that would not affect the avergae canadian in the public system) and yet you begrudge them this ..... why? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 11, 2006 22:55:35 GMT -5
Go to ctv.ca/mini/election2006 , click on Stepher Harpur's eyes under "Liberal ads", and see them all. The Grits are definitely a party on the run. Mr. Martin will soon be running his own steamship line . . . someone will be trying to run him out of town like he tried to run Chretien out of town. The difference? This latest coup will succeed a lot easier than the last one. |
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Jan 11, 2006 23:32:08 GMT -5
For brevity's sake 1-0 MTL,
I heard more about the pulled ad and agree with you that it was dumb.
I also agree with you on the notwithstanding clause. The supreme court has made supremely unjust and absurd decisions on abortion and the notion of "marrying" people of the same sex. Both decisions are completely opposed to the nature of life and reality as it is. It is often observed that the law is an ass, for indeed it is often a clumsy instrument and law is often the tool of profound injustice.
I think your take on Martin is spot on and he is pissing me off to no end with this ill-conceived (forgive the pun) program which I completely oppose. I would still allow that reasonable cases can be made for not having the notwithstanding clause, which as I recall Trudeau strongly opposed as a potential escape hatch for the irresponsible. To repeat, however, I prefer having it and agree with your criticism of Martin.
Incidentally, it is an extrememely obvious and incontrovertible biologial and zoological fact that human life begins exactly at conception. That is of course why I oppose abortion. Murder requires that there be foreknowledge that you are killing an innocent human bieng. And I would heartily agree that a great many of my fellow Canadians do in fact turn a blind eye to murder and are therebye morally accountable accomplices to murders on a scale similar to that of the good citizens of Germany in WW2, and other genocidal parallels.
The fifteen year old with a baby in her womb and people around her insisting that she kill the baby, may not know or be capable of fully consenting to the killing of her child. But for many other's it's as easy an acceptance as executing a man who is already behind bars. I once supported abortion myself incidentally. I was very, very wrong.
The point yuou missed in ALL of your instances from child taxes to EI are that they are geared to human need, not simple universality. I'v paid much more tax than most people I know, and it's a privelege, and a most convenient way to extend help and concern to so many. My dad used to thank God that he usually earned enough to pay a pretty fair chunk of tax. So should most of us. Any link between wealth and justice is tenuous at best. Unemployment insurance is an insurance for those who need it, not a savings plan. I don't know the stats, but a great many will pay all their lives and never collect.
They are about the general circumstances of need. You should support the guaranteed minimum income inititatives advocated by many liberals.
I did advise you to read the tax point carefully before responding with the obvious. The tax rate sytem is the same for all of us. Most of the time I pay in the top category which is exactly as it should be. I've even been pretty healthy (hockey) and I get my money's worht out of the health system by helpoing my fellow man stay healthy and his kids in school. Community. The moronic laissez-faire masurbatory fantasy of the "self-made-man" is just that, a masturbatory fantasy.
Most core conservative beliefs and interests appeal to the part of the brain that sits on top of the spinal column, the part we share with the reptile kingdom. That's why they're so concerned about "their" money, guns, armed forces, and death "penalties". That's also why they admire dysfunctional narcissists like Bush. Very fearful people; very insecure, very desperate and very selfish.
Most Canadians, roughly two thirds to seventy percent, usually because they combine at least a little compassion with intelligence, would rather have their blood drained out than vote for the neanderthals on the right. They are seen generally as a little pathetic and stunted. NDP'ers are often described accurately as Liberals in a hurry. My point is that most rational people support others, because it helps us all. It's not about me. It's not about you. It's about them; the others. People who hate paying taxes hate money going to others for other things that help us all. You think that a two tiered system would result in still having a healthy public system. This is the same argument they used in Britain. It was a disaster. You should read the Romanov report summary. I don't begrudge you anything: I just won't have you destroying a world-class health system for all of us to satisfy ill-infromed opinion and selfishness, although it is the business lobby that is pushing this cart. The conservatives are always pleading for the well-heeled.
Martin incidentally was in the process of enacting tax reductions for your income tax group when Harpur figured his last hope for power was now. Or maybe you weren't watching the monthes preceding this debacle of expediency in the face of a completely rejuvenated separatist movement. They just had to have it now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 14, 2006 23:05:36 GMT -5
I am well aware of the tax cuts proposed by Martin. And yet I dont have the stomach to vote for him. It isnt about the money to me, I just used the "inherent inequality" of our socialist system as an example. To me, continual rule by one party is not a democracy. When the Bloc became an official party, and Kim Campbell destroyed the PC party Canada became a defacto dictatorship. This is only my opinion, but now on the horizon there finally is a viable option. I am not deluded into thinking the Conservative party or any other party are a better option than Paul Martin .... but they are an option once again.
With Liberal corruption flying all over the place (the latest is that a BC candidate offered a bribe to the NDP candidate to withdraw) there is nothing there to say they have learned from their mistakes or even will learn.
Harper or Layton might be good or bad for the country but that is why we have elections .... if they are bad they will be gone in four years. The Liberals have had well over a decade and done nothing, so I say anyone can do nothing, so why not someone else.
I am all for paying my taxes and giving money to help less fortunate people. That wasn't my point. My point has nothing to do with losing money .... my point is that not everyone can afford services. And if I want to put myself in debt to pay for an operation I should be allowed. It does no one any harm. If the public health system suffers it wont be because of the private health care system it will because the government's allowed it to deteriorate. The greatest percentage of people taxes get pumped into the health care system. If there is a problem the government throws money at the health care system. It hasn't worked. We keep throwing money at it and the quality of care and the wait times keep getting worse. Something has to be done because ther eare people dying waiting for their tests and/or operations and that is criminal.
The notwithstanding clause has only ever been used once in this country I believe. I think the province of Quebec invoked there provincial notwithstanding clause over Bill 101. (might have the bill number wrong). It is a safety net that needs to be there.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 15, 2006 0:02:09 GMT -5
The one break they may have is that they may be able to bring their sick child/relative to a clinic and pay for a costly procedure (that would not affect the avergae canadian in the public system) and yet you begrudge them this ..... why? Actually, the private system would drain doctors away from the public sector, which is currently lacking docs. The best and brightest would soon only be in the private sector, and private sector salaries would drive higher salaries for public sector doctors. Also, the education system takes a hit through training all these doctors, and now it would have to train even more of them, at public expense, once again. I'm not opposed to any and all private clinics, just that before letting them take too much room you have to analyze the situation very, very carefully. |
|
)