The Liberals can a LOT MORE more damage to unity

[Cranky]

skilly said:

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.

From a personal point of view, I like the idea of private medical insurance but the way it stand right now, all you are buying is BS policies for a lot of money. The only viable option is to leave Canada for a US clinic. What bothers me a lot is the mentality of SOME of those who can't afford to do that. There are people who want others to wait 6 to 9 months for elective surgery or months for required surgery just because they have to. Why? It's not like those who ALREADY paid into the system are not paying twice. If we force everyone to suffer equally then that would make things better? Is it the fault of those who are already paying more then their FAIR share that the system is not working well?

This reminds me of an old Russian saying: "God must kill your 5 cows because I have only 2 cows".

For SOME, there is an underlining mentality that anyone who makes more money must be stealing it or stepping on the poor and the downtrodden. For SOME there is no such thing that there are people who are smarter and harder working then themselves. THOSE people would rather complain then pull up their sox.

Long story...........

I had an uncle in Greece who I can best define as a "cafe communist". Back then, people did not have cars and trucks so they relied on man with tricycle pick up trucks to get their heavier goods moved around. The pick up truck drivers waited by the local cafe so people could find them and get their services. Well, my uncle was one of those drivers. One day, he took me with him to show me what he did and teach me about life. At 12 years old, that was an exciting day. So, Uncle picked me up at 9 in the morning to start his day. When I asked him if he always started at 9 his reply was, that the morning fares were not that good and the wheather was cooler. We arrived at the cafe, and waited for fares. people would walk up to him and ask him what the fare was to take them here or there, he would ask them how much they had and he would give them a price. Funny thing was that by 11 he still did not have any fares meanwhile every other driver in the cafe where picking up their SECOND fare. By noon he had his first fare and we were back within an hour. By 4 he had his second fare and that was it for the day. While he did HIS 2 fares the other drivers averaged 4 to 5 fares.

Do you know what he did most of the day? He railed against the "Americans", he railed against the drivers who would take slightly cheaper fares, he railed against the government for not GIVING him a better tricycle, he railed against the customers for not paying higher fares and him having to work so hard for his measly TWO fares. He even railed against his two brothers who went to "America" to wash dishes and eventually open their own restaurant and made a good living. He slung his beads around, drank his Turkish coffee and railed. Everything from HIS point of view was about inequality and unfair treatment. Not ONCE did he reflect on what he did.

To be honest, he taught me a GREAT lesson that day. He taught me what I did NOT want to be.

You know what's sadder? This is a true story.

Anywho.....

Our country works if there is some balance in it. There will be rich people and there will be poor people. There will be smart people and there will be stupid people. There will be healthy people and there will be sick people. We need to balance the demands of all of them otherwise things will not work for ANYONE. If the less fortunate people think that they can strip the wealthier people of all they have then those wealthy people will move their money out of the country. If the rich people think that they can horde their money then they will create a society around them that is so unequal that it no longer safe for their existence. And so it goes.

What we need are goverments who are more concerned about running the country then manipulaing the economy to garner votes. Giving a $200 million grant to a car plant to buy 5,000 votes is not democracy, it's corruption. If our country is run right, then we will not have 9 months for elective surgery or people waiting for life saving surgery or people with money going out of the country. Our medical system should not be a game for politicians to garner votes. "Vote for ME and I will stop those evil, unfair, blood sucking RICH people from getting special treatment" scream the NDP and Liberals. Meanwhile, Jack Layton and Paul Martin go to private clinics and get special treatment.

Balance and good government, that's the key to our society.

[franko]

habsaddict said:

Balance and good government, that's the key to our society.

Would you quit making so much sense? It annoys those of us who have are willingly blinded by rhetoric. ;D

[Toronthab]

pth said:

skilly said:

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.

Quite right. That is exactly what happened in Britain and it wrecked their national health plan. We have a right as a nation to determine how we will run our society even if right -wingers can't make as much money from it. The idea that a second tier private source would not wreak havoc in the public system is just irresponsible indifference.

[Toronthab]

machabby said:

habsaddict said:

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

What a nice turn of phrase. I wish I could be pithy.

[Toronthab]

habsaddict said:

skilly said:

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.

From a personal point of view, I like the idea of private medical insurance but the way it stand right now, all you are buying is BS policies for a lot of money. The only viable option is to leave Canada for a US clinic. What bothers me a lot is the mentality of SOME of those who can't afford to do that. There are people who want others to wait 6 to 9 months for elective surgery or months for required surgery just because they have to. Why? It's not like those who ALREADY paid into the system are not paying twice. If we force everyone to suffer equally then that would make things better? Is it the fault of those who are already paying more then their FAIR share that the system is not working well?

This reminds me of an old Russian saying: "God must kill your 5 cows because I have only 2 cows".

For SOME, there is an underlining mentality that anyone who makes more money must be stealing it or stepping on the poor and the downtrodden. For SOME there is no such thing that there are people who are smarter and harder working then themselves. THOSE people would rather complain then pull up their sox.

Long story...........

I had an uncle in Greece who I can best define as a "cafe communist". Back then, people did not have cars and trucks so they relied on man with tricycle pick up trucks to get their heavier goods moved around. The pick up truck drivers waited by the local cafe so people could find them and get their services. Well, my uncle was one of those drivers. One day, he took me with him to show me what he did and teach me about life. At 12 years old, that was an exciting day. So, Uncle picked me up at 9 in the morning to start his day. When I asked him if he always started at 9 his reply was, that the morning fares were not that good and the wheather was cooler. We arrived at the cafe, and waited for fares. people would walk up to him and ask him what the fare was to take them here or there, he would ask them how much they had and he would give them a price. Funny thing was that by 11 he still did not have any fares meanwhile every other driver in the cafe where picking up their SECOND fare. By noon he had his first fare and we were back within an hour. By 4 he had his second fare and that was it for the day. While he did HIS 2 fares the other drivers averaged 4 to 5 fares.

Do you know what he did most of the day? He railed against the "Americans", he railed against the drivers who would take slightly cheaper fares, he railed against the government for not GIVING him a better tricycle, he railed against the customers for not paying higher fares and him having to work so hard for his measly TWO fares. He even railed against his two brothers who went to "America" to wash dishes and eventually open their own restaurant and made a good living. He slung his beads around, drank his Turkish coffee and railed. Everything from HIS point of view was about inequality and unfair treatment. Not ONCE did he reflect on what he did.

To be honest, he taught me a GREAT lesson that day. He taught me what I did NOT want to be.

You know what's sadder? This is a true story.

Anywho.....

Our country works if there is some balance in it. There will be rich people and there will be poor people. There will be smart people and there will be stupid people. There will be healthy people and there will be sick people. We need to balance the demands of all of them otherwise things will not work for ANYONE. If the less fortunate people think that they can strip the wealthier people of all they have then those wealthy people will move their money out of the country. If the rich people think that they can horde their money then they will create a society around them that is so unequal that it no longer safe for their existence. And so it goes.

What we need are goverments who are more concerned about running the country then manipulaing the economy to garner votes. Giving a $200 million grant to a car plant to buy 5,000 votes is not democracy, it's corruption. If our country is run right, then we will not have 9 months for elective surgery or people waiting for life saving surgery or people with money going out of the country. Our medical system should not be a game for politicians to garner votes. "Vote for ME and I will stop those evil, unfair, blood sucking RICH people from getting special treatment" scream the NDP and Liberals. Meanwhile, Jack Layton and Paul Martin go to private clinics and get special treatment.

Balance and good government, that's the key to our society.

So, you now manufacture railings? Are you sure you didn't get a little more from your uncle than you think? I'm saying our health plan is good, very good as is known around the world. It needs help, which was underway when Harpur saw his chance.

It's Harpur's Reform crowd that has been railing for decades, agoinst Quebec, immigrants, our health plan, you name it. With reasonned arguments one doesn't have to indulge penchants for calamity and extremist rhetoric.

Are you honestly saying that Martin didn't ressurect the economy in Canada? Where have you been and next time you go there, bring a radio or something.

Lastly for those of you who really just don't get it in your rush to slander people, The Gomery inquiry found problems in funds under the control of the PMO (Prime Minister's Office). Martin was the Minister of Finance. The PMO does not come under the review of the Finance Minister (the country does!) and Martin and Chretien were hardly communicating as they were rivals.

Chretien himself does not do receipt collections and invoicing on PMO funds. WHen he found out about it he is no record as supporting appropriate investigations and charges against malfactors.

He is now suing Gomery for defamation.

Martin called for the inquiry to air all matters, and Gomery, who at least presumably knows the organization of financial responsibilities found Maritn completely in the clear.

Dishonest and deeply uninformed people are not happy with this. They want to use this to bring down a government for their own purposes. Slandering and defamation is second nature to lots of folks and appeals to aspects in their character.

Honest and intelligent critique takes a little effort, and doesn't immediately satisfy the emotions.

[Cranky]

I am getting tired of reminding SOME to stick to critisizing the content, not the poster.

[Toronthab]

habsaddict said:

I am getting tired of reminding SOME to stick to critisizing the content, not the poster.

Much of the campaign waged by the Consevatives has been to tarnish the whole liberal party with Gomery. These ten year old events were not at all the work of the party but a segment of it. A lot of people have been slanderded in this ploy for political gain.

[Skilly]

toronthab said:

pth said:

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.

Quite right. That is exactly what happened in Britain and it wrecked their national health plan. We have a right as a nation to determine how we will run our society even if right -wingers can't make as much money from it. The idea that a second tier private source would not wreak havoc in the public system is just irresponsible indifference.

The solution is not to have two-tiered salaries for doctors. There are hundreds of doctors trying to gain canadian citizenship to work in this country and there are hundreds of doctors trying to leave Canada to work elsewhere ...... the medical school here actually reserves a good percentage of the admission positions for non-Canadians. Imagine that. Americans being trained in Canada and then leaving and working home ... and taking Canadians with them.

If all doctors in Canada were paid the same then there would not be a problem off draining doctors away from the public system. Doctors are like most, they just want to work. Just because a clinic is private does not mean that we allow the doctor to be paid privately. The government can easily legislate the salary of doctors, citing it is in the best interest of the country.

This is a solution just of the top of my head and maybe not well researched but there are solutions to such a problem to ensure the growth and existence of both systems. All it takes is people willing to listen to both sides and not be close-minded about any and all suggestions.

[Skilly]

toronthab said:

So, you now manufacture railings? Are you sure you didn't get a little more from your uncle than you think? I'm saying our health plan is good, very good as is known around the world. It needs help, which was underway when Harpur saw his chance.

Actually the only people who consider Canada's health care system the best in the world are Canadians. Canadians experience one of the longest waiting times for surgery and cancer treatments of the industrialized countries. The only feather in the cap of our system is that it is free ..... what is the old saying "You get what you pay for"

Now lets look at a little recent history. On June 9, 2005, the Supreme Court struck down a Quebec law that prohibited people from buying private health insurance to cover procedures already offered by the public system.

"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," two of the justices wrote in their decision.

The federal and Quebec governments asked the court to suspend this decision for 18 months, the Supreme Court gave them 12 months. June 9, 2006 may be one of the most important date in Canadian history and open the door to provate health care in this country. Martin, the great defender of the Constitution, can not take away my right to access to health care. It is my right in the Constitution.

Are you honestly saying that Martin didn't ressurect the economy in Canada?

This is the arguement that really gets in my "craw" (to quote Max Smart's nemesis). Yes the economy flourished under Martin, but how did it flourish? It flourish by robbing Canadians blind - where do you think those surpluses came from? It flourished by not eliminating the GST (a conservative policy, that the Liberals said they would eliminate), it flourished by raising taxes (a conservative policy), it flourished by cutting services to the point where the education system, the health care system, and others are now on life support.

Yes the economy got better under the Liberals but the standard of living did not, and all this was accomplished through non-Liberal policy. Go figure.

Lastly for those of you who really just don't get it in your rush to slander people, The Gomery inquiry found problems in funds under the control of the PMO (Prime Minister's Office). Martin was the Minister of Finance. The PMO does not come under the review of the Finance Minister (the country does!) and Martin and Chretien were hardly communicating as they were rivals.

Chretien himself does not do receipt collections and invoicing on PMO funds. WHen he found out about it he is no record as supporting appropriate investigations and charges against malfactors.

He is now suing Gomery for defamation.

Martin called for the inquiry to air all matters, and Gomery, who at least presumably knows the organization of financial responsibilities found Maritn completely in the clear.

Are you seriously telling me that the finance minister or his sub-ordinates did not notice hundreds of millions of dollars missing from the public coffers??? I work in a government position. I could give you a ball-park figure of what our budget will be from year to year, and you are telling me that the finance department could not? Let me tell you how government works. The grunts (aka people like myself) propose work that they feel need to be done in a given year (typically in the form of a 4 or 5 year plan). Then estimates are devised which go up the line to the executive (Assistants to the minister). They go to Treasury Board with the wish list, and then a budget is approved for each department and any over-run on this budget has to go through Treasury Board for approval. Treasury Board is controlled by the finance department. So Treasury Board knows exactly, down to the penny, how much money was approved for spending and where it was allocated. You ar enot going to convince me that Treasury Board did not know that the PMO had hundreds of millions of dollars that they were spending, or that the PMO got this money without approval or knowledge of the finance department.

Martin called for the Gomery Inquiry much to late for my liking. If he was such the honest man searching for the truth why didnt he call for it earlier.

Dishonest and deeply uninformed people are not happy with this. They want to use this to bring down a government for their own purposes. Slandering and defamation is second nature to lots of folks and appeals to aspects in their character.

Honest and intelligent critique takes a little effort, and doesn't immediately satisfy the emotions.

To quote the clown ...... this is all a matter of public record. No one is making any of this up.

[PTH]

skilly said:

.....

If all doctors in Canada were paid the same .....

The fact that this is seen as a federal level is also a major cause for concern IMO. Health care is supposed to be a provincial responsibility. The federal government should butt out.

[franko]

toronthab said:

habsaddict said:

I am getting tired of reminding SOME to stick to critisizing the content, not the poster.

Much of the campaign waged by the Consevatives has been to tarnish the whole liberal party with Gomery. These ten year old events were not at all the work of the party but a segment of it. A lot of people have been slanderded in this ploy for political gain.

Much of the campaign waged by toronthab has been to tarnish the whole Conservative party with Reform. A lot of people are being slandered in this ploy for political gain (ie: to make the Liberal Party look better -- a difficult task at best).

[PTH]

habsaddict said:

I am getting tired of reminding SOME to stick to critisizing the content, not the poster.

franko said:

Much of the campaign waged by toronthab has been to....

Hmm.....

[Skilly]

pth said:

skilly said:

.....

If all doctors in Canada were paid the same .....

The fact that this is seen as a federal level is also a major cause for concern IMO. Health care is supposed to be a provincial responsibility. The federal government should butt out.

Agreed. But even the provincial governments have legislative powers. The federal governments could have a blanket legislation regarding doctor's salaries .... and still leave the health care running, policy, and everything else to the provinces. I am not saying I agree with such a proposal as I put forth .... I am just trying to say that we shouldn't just reject private health insirance or clinics without a sound, rational, and civil debate by all the parties. I don't like just saying no right away to any proposal, and Martin saying his daddy and Tommy Douglas would roll over in their graves is not a good enough rebuttal in my opinion. I have a right to access to health care .... and a right to pay for that access if I want it.

[franko]

pth said:

habsaddict said:

I am getting tired of reminding SOME to stick to critisizing the content, not the poster.

franko said:

Much of the campaign waged by toronthab has been to....

Hmm.....

My apologies . . . I didn't mean it to sound like that. I was attempting (alas, it seems again, poorly) to take a statement and show that the same has been done (going the other direction) on an ongoing basis.

So let me rephrase:

Much of the campaign waged by some posters one poster . . .

Ahem: once again, perhaps:

In reference to one person who shall remain anonymous (or shall remain as anonymous as possible on this board), who . . .

or maybe better, In reference to this anonymous statement:

said:

Much of the campaign waged by the Consevatives has been to tarnish the whole liberal party with Gomery. These ten year old events were not at all the work of the party but a segment of it. A lot of people have been slanderded in this ploy for political gain.

It seems to me that there has been a campaign waged to tarnish the whole Conservative party with Reform. A lot of people are being slandered in this ploy for political gain (ie: to make the Liberal Party look better -- a difficult task at best).

Est-ce que c'est meilleur?

[Toronthab]

franko said:

pth said:

Hmm.....

My apologies . . . I didn't mean it to sound like that. I was attempting (alas, it seems again, poorly) to take a statement and show that the same has been done (going the other direction) on an ongoing basis.

So let me rephrase:

Much of the campaign waged by some posters one poster . . .

Ahem: once again, perhaps:

In reference to one person who shall remain anonymous (or shall remain as anonymous as possible on this board), who . . .

or maybe better, In reference to this anonymous statement:

said:

Much of the campaign waged by the Consevatives has been to tarnish the whole liberal party with Gomery. These ten year old events were not at all the work of the party but a segment of it. A lot of people have been slanderded in this ploy for political gain.

It seems to me that there has been a campaign waged to tarnish the whole Conservative party with Reform. A lot of people are being slandered in this ploy for political gain (ie: to make the Liberal Party look better -- a difficult task at best).

Est-ce que c'est meilleur?

When we're electing a government to run the country, focussing on a ten year old scandal not connected to those running is disingenuous. I get a little tired of the hysterical leger de main in this regard. Our health plan is more important.

Interesting that you consider the obvious fact that the Reform party took over the Conservative party, which every commentator in the land knows, a slander against the "Conservative party.

I admit, that if someone were to call me a Reformer type, I would indeed feel grossly insulted, and I suppose I should view it as progress that you view such an association as slanderous.

That the Reform party controlling this new version is fully recognized as about nobody but themselves and their money, is just the way it is. Even the support for the so-called "social issues" is moralistic. To oppose abortion, you have to be there to help people in trouble, not just moralize and condemn them. Harpur's commons vote on the definition of marriage is also a window dressing. He's backing away just like everybosy else. With the Bloc, NDP and those who don't want to make Martin look like the jerk he was to introduce this dumb legistration imposed from a court, there will be no worthwhile outcome to this .

That I portray the right wing of the Conservatives as rather stunted human beings, is only because, they are rather stunted human beings. A lot of them are themselves likely the victims of earlier physical and emotional abuse, common histories for people who go for authoritarian types as typify the far right. That's where we get our fascists and Davidians.

They don't view democracy and the institutions of civlilization as goods that help life and community to flourish, but rather, as evil forces out to get them. Cartoon stuff. Lots of people see human life and community as a dog eat dog battle for survival. It never occurs to these people that while it is to them, a whole great bunch of people aren't dogs like them, and look on in horror as they tear at each other for scraps.

[franko]

I don't know why I get drawn in like this, but I just can't let it go for some reason. But here goes:

When we're electing a government to run the country, focussing on a ten year old scandal not connected to those running is disingenuous.

Mr. Martin is running on the Liberal record, not his own. He is saying that the Liberal Party is best suited to run the country. If so, then the Liberal record is on (for lack of a better word) trial. And the Liberal record fails.

If it were the one problem (called Adscam - where do they come up with these names?) that would be one thing . . . but every week, something else; much from his year in "leadership": the democratic deficit (but making his party vote as he dictates, Michael Ignatieff), his party members speaking out (Carolyn Parrish) or being involved in questionable ethics (Judy Sgro), the ongoing cost of the gun registry . . . I don't have time to list everything. No party is immune from mistakes and foibles . . . the question asked is "Do we need change?". Many people think "yes.

Our health plan is more important.

That's a ten year old scandal itself. It was Mr. Martin as finance minister that gutted the system in the first place. He might be able to point to balance budgets while he was in office, but on our backs.

Interesting that you consider the obvious fact that the Reform party took over the Conservative party, which every commentator in the land knows, a slander against the "Conservative party.

You read too much into what I said. I merely tried to point out that you continue to call the Conservative Party the Reform Party (there was a merger, just in case you weren't aware). FYI, I think that the Reform Party had some good ideas and some poor ones. I think that the Conservative Party has some good ideas and some poor ones. Heck, I even I think that the NDP has some good ideas (though outweighed by poor ones). But many have been brainwashed to close their eyes to truth and only hear the Liberal party line that "only they can save Canada" and "only they are worthy of leading the country". Hate to say it, but they haven't done a great job of saving Canada thus far.

I admit, that if someone were to call me a Reformer type, I would indeed feel grossly insulted, and I suppose I should view it as progress that you view such an association as slanderous.

Again you misread. I would not feel insulted at all to be called one who recognizes that change and reform is needed in our political system.

That the Reform party controlling this new version is fully recognized as about nobody but themselves and their money, is just the way it is.

While I might disagree I'll just ask this: is the Liberal Party above all of that? They merely have the good of the country at heart? Bribing Belinda was not just to hopefully stay in power?

To oppose abortion, you have to be there to help people in trouble, not just moralize and condemn them.

And where do you see the condemnation, pray tell?

Harpur's commons vote on the definition of marriage is also a window dressing. He's backing away just like everybosy else. With the Bloc, NDP and those who don't want to make Martin look like the jerk he was to introduce this dumb legistration imposed from a court, there will be no worthwhile outcome to this

Is not all of politics window dressing? Why can the Liberals do so but not the other parties? The gay marriage issue is going to continue in the minds of many people (and not just from the west) until there is a free vote. Once there has been a vote (there will be, and it will fail) that will be it.

That I portray the right wing of the Conservatives as rather stunted human beings, is only because, they are rather stunted human beings. A lot of them are themselves likely the victims of earlier physical and emotional abuse, common histories for people who go for authoritarian types as typify the far right. That's where we get our fascists and Davidians.

Who is the extremist here? What an extremist comment (PTH: this OK? Questioning the comment, not the commentator). And what a lot of BULL! I don't know where to begin. Is this suggesting that only Conservatives are victims of some sort of abuse? Is this suggesting that Conservatism is some sort of escape from abuse?

And is this suggesting that the Conservative Party's policies are far right? If so, you haven't read the policy but just what those who continue to fear-monger have written about it.

I have an idea: Let the Liberals stand on their record, not on instilling more fear (drum drum drum) on the public.

Final thought: it would appear that you are going to vote for the Liberal Party again, which is your right in this free and democratic society (and in fact I hope you do vote - too many people don't). Just wondering if you'll be voting for yourself - you are so strong for the Liberal Party I'm beginning to wonder if you are running for them somewhere!

And if you have the same questions for me, the answers are no. I am not running for the Conservatives. I do not have a Conservative banner on my front lawn snow bank nor a tattoo on my chest. In fact, I will not be voting Conservative. Not sure why I've taken up their cause here other than the fact that I like a little truth mixed in with the constant rhetoric spewed against them (I'd like to think I'd do the same with the NDP, though that would be much harder for me)

[Toronthab]

Too big to quote and I'm still not good at breaking up paragraphs, but

But for Gomery, there is little of a moral nature to complsin about wiht the Liberals. Sure they screw up execution on some things, who doesn't but it is what they attempt for the country that concerns me. When Stockwell Day is a cabinet minister which is likely, I won't beef at how he wants the state to kill citizens with capital punishment, but THAT he wants to. The Liberal record over more than a decade is pretty good. It is well recognized internationally, while Harpur wanted to be shoulder to shoulder with Bush in Iraq and saw him as a model for us all.

I don't mind you trying to defend the above, but there is no denying it.

I thinjk if none of you will read the Romanov report summary, and critique it as the most fact-based analysis of our health plan, you are bing consistent with the conservatives.

Maybe you really don't know that the right wing and far right which includes Harpur's constituency in laissez-faire capitalism, and that dog-eat- dog "rugged individualism" is a hallmark of the far right. What can I say? I can't help that.

No not all politics is window dressing. Most of it is not at all that. My point on Harpur's free vote stands and you confirm it. Why bother?


Where is the condemnation on abortion? Are you kidding?? Ever hear of Jerry Falwell and the other right wing moraistic herd who ride herd on the poor and won't lift a finger to help them? The canadian right is the same stuff, which is why they admire the fraud in the white House......untill very...very recently. Defend if you can, but don't deny the too obvious.

I very much do view the right side of the political spectrum, especially the Reform and Harris right wing types as deformed human beings who haven't quite learned the difference between being human and being inhuman.

I mention the fascist and Branch Davidian elements in Reform, and the Alliance, because they echo,he government as the stealing lying enemy position and carry it to its logical conclusion. Do you deny the far right in Canada is a part of your support, just as far lefties often vote NDP? Defend if you like, but you can't honestly think it's not true, can you?

What I said about right wing Conservatives being attracted to narcissistic authoritarian types due to effects of emotional and physical abuse is a psychological truism. The abused become the abusers.

[Toronthab]

Oh, I forgot one. I am not a Liberal. I am voting liberal despite my real objections to particularly basic positions taken by the Liberals because no one else will dare touch them and Liberals generally remember the little guy, that we are Canadian, not American and they carry the vestiges of a time-honoured practical concern for their fellow man, unlike the right and more intelligently than the left.

That I am prepared to fight for this vision should surprise no one. The new coat of paint and the new clothes on the emperor may have some truth behind it, but we're still going to have a cabinet of right-wing jerks like Stockwell Day. A really disgusting thought.

[franko]

toronthab said:

When Stockwell Day is a cabinet minister . . . I won't beef at how he wants the state to kill citizens with capital punishment, but THAT he wants to.

Link?

The Liberal record over more than a decade is pretty good. It is well recognized internationally, while Harpur wanted to be shoulder to shoulder with Bush in Iraq and saw him as a model for us all.

You conveniently forget that if Martin would have been PM at the time Canada would have joined the US, also shoulder to shoulder with Bush in Iraq. It is now more politically expedient for him to forget that and to join the US-bashers.

• “There is no doubt in my mind that if Paul Martin had been the leader, we would have gone to Iraq with the United States.” – Former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps (Worth Fighting For, 2004, pp. 182)]
  
• “When the Liberal government had to make a decision on Iraq, Mr. Martin did not speak. Those of us on the inside knew that he had been working very hard to get Prime Minister Chrétien to join the Americans in the war.” – Former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps (Worth Fighting For, 2004, pp. 211)]
  
• “Prime Minister Martin said that he was thinking of putting troops into Iraq to help train Iraqi security forces. The very first person to raise objections was Stephen Harper. The Prime Minister ended up beating a hasty retreat and said that the Canadian military trainers would only do their job outside of Iraq.” - Former U.S. Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci (Unquiet Diplomacy, 2005, pg. 165)]
  
• “I think we made the wrong decision in not supporting them, and we’re obviously encountering the fallout from that in terms of various aspects of Canadian-American relations, which is not healthy.” - Former Liberal Defense Minister under Paul Martin, David Pratt, (Hansard, March 29, 2003)
  

I thinjk if none of you will read the Romanov report summary, and critique it as the most fact-based analysis of our health plan, you are bing consistent with the conservatives.

The Supreme Court disagrees with parts of the Romanov report, in that The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday that the Quebec government cannot prevent people from paying for private insurance for health-care procedures covered under medicare. CBC news Interestingly enough, the only way that the Federal government can ignore this ruling is to use the notwithstanding clause.

Maybe you really don't know that the right wing and far right which includes Harpur's constituency in laissez-faire capitalism, and that dog-eat- dog "rugged individualism" is a hallmark of the far right. What can I say? I can't help that.

THe reference is always to "the far right". Surely the 38% of Canadian voters who have indicated that they will vote Conservative are not part of the "far right"? Have they just been duped?

No not all politics is window dressing. Most of it is not at all that. My point on Harpur's free vote stands and you confirm it. Why bother?

Not sure what is meant here. That Harper saying he'll allow a free vote is window dressing and a lie? What of Martin's promise to eliminate the democratic deficit and allow free votes on everything that is not a financial matter and not doing so?

Where is the condemnation on abortion?

There is no condemnation: Harper has repeatedly said that a Conservative government would have no plans to change Canada's abortion laws.

Ever hear of Jerry Falwell and the other right wing moraistic herd who ride herd on the poor and won't lift a finger to help them? The canadian right is the same stuff, which is why they admire the fraud in the white House......untill very...very recently. Defend if you can, but don't deny the too obvious.

The obvious is that I am a member of a conservative-evangelical church, and that we take very strongly the admonition to feed the hungry, help the poor, set the captives free . . . and if I recall, the Roman Catholic church as a rather strong stand on abortion and homosexuality . . . and on the ordination of women, birth control, and a number of other social issues that we are seen to be too liberal on. Hmm . . . go figure. So let's not bring up a few twits in the US who claim to speak for the mainstream but are marginalized by many more conservative types.

I very much do view the right side of the political spectrum, especially the Reform and Harris right wing types as deformed human beings who haven't quite learned the difference between being human and being inhuman.

Glad there is no moral superiority showing. (OK, that was a slam). This is a totally unjustified stereotyping that broadly paints everyone of a more conservative nature as uncaring selfish louts and does nothing to help dialogue. More like I'm right, you're wrong, shut up and go away.

I mention the fascist and Branch Davidian elements in Reform, and the Alliance, because they echo,he government as the stealing lying enemy position and carry it to its logical conclusion.

I'd like a link here, too. Branch Davidian? I'll accept it as hyperbole, but . . . man!

Do you deny the far right in Canada is a part of your support, just as far lefties often vote NDP? Defend if you like, but you can't honestly think it's not true, can you?

Of course not (and again, not my support.

And I'm still waiting for the rant against the NDP as being godless communists. After all, there are bound to be one or two of them around too.

What I said about right wing Conservatives being attracted to narcissistic authoritarian types due to effects of emotional and physical abuse is a psychological truism. The abused become the abusers.

Link? Proof? Proof that people who have been abused only vote Conservative and will have nothing to do with any other political party or philisophical bent?

[Skilly]

Franko ... if I had a beer emoticon I'd give you one and we could sit on the deck, have a few swalleys, say "Serenity now" a bunch of times and debate some religious matter for laughs ..... ahhh good times. I got your back, but I am going to the sidelines ...

[Cranky]

habsaddict said:

I am getting tired of reminding SOME to stick to critisizing the content, not the poster.

Why is what I said so confusing?

Every time we quote someone and start with "YOU believe" then denigrate whatever that opinions, invariably we have tempers flying.

Here is one statement......

"So many words, and all you are saying is that you haven't got a clue."

Another statement......

"Save the "propaganda" tripe for a dumber audience. (While quoting a poster)

Guys, it's pretty simple.

A long time ago, the forum had 30 people and they all knew each other. There was an unwritten code of behaviour amongst us that set the standard for civil discussion on ANY discussion board, ANYWHERE. When Spiro opened this site, he appointed several moderators and at that time, we knew that the place will grow and have more posters. What we were afraid off was that we would lose our standard of civility so we came up with a Code of Conduct. Actually, BC wrote it and it was accepted by all.

Two of the most important sections........

Section 4:
4. Please refrain from personal insults.

Section 5:
5. By definition, an opinion can never be wrong. Do not say it is.

Some of the most heated discussions center around religion and politics. We MUST adhere as closely as possible to those rules in order to keep any civilized discussion going.

Within reason, say what you want against any political leader or other public figure but be very cautious when you are directing your comments against fellow posters. This is one of the most civil and intellegent discussion boards on the net and YOU guys are the reason. This post is just a reminder.

Now, back to our political discussion..............only 6 more days!

[Toronthab]

franko said:

toronthab said:

When Stockwell Day is a cabinet minister . . . I won't beef at how he wants the state to kill citizens with capital punishment, but THAT he wants to.

Link?


You conveniently forget that if Martin would have been PM at the time Canada would have joined the US, also shoulder to shoulder with Bush in Iraq. It is now more politically expedient for him to forget that and to join the US-bashers.

• “There is no doubt in my mind that if Paul Martin had been the leader, we would have gone to Iraq with the United States.” – Former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps (Worth Fighting For, 2004, pp. 182)]
  
• “When the Liberal government had to make a decision on Iraq, Mr. Martin did not speak. Those of us on the inside knew that he had been working very hard to get Prime Minister Chrétien to join the Americans in the war.” – Former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps (Worth Fighting For, 2004, pp. 211)]
  
• “Prime Minister Martin said that he was thinking of putting troops into Iraq to help train Iraqi security forces. The very first person to raise objections was Stephen Harper. The Prime Minister ended up beating a hasty retreat and said that the Canadian military trainers would only do their job outside of Iraq.” - Former U.S. Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci (Unquiet Diplomacy, 2005, pg. 165)]
  
• “I think we made the wrong decision in not supporting them, and we’re obviously encountering the fallout from that in terms of various aspects of Canadian-American relations, which is not healthy.” - Former Liberal Defense Minister under Paul Martin, David Pratt, (Hansard, March 29, 2003)
  

The Supreme Court disagrees with parts of the Romanov report, in that The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday that the Quebec government cannot prevent people from paying for private insurance for health-care procedures covered under medicare. CBC news Interestingly enough, the only way that the Federal government can ignore this ruling is to use the notwithstanding clause.


THe reference is always to "the far right". Surely the 38% of Canadian voters who have indicated that they will vote Conservative are not part of the "far right"? Have they just been duped?


Not sure what is meant here. That Harper saying he'll allow a free vote is window dressing and a lie? What of Martin's promise to eliminate the democratic deficit and allow free votes on everything that is not a financial matter and not doing so?


There is no condemnation: Harper has repeatedly said that a Conservative government would have no plans to change Canada's abortion laws.



The obvious is that I am a member of a conservative-evangelical church, and that we take very strongly the admonition to feed the hungry, help the poor, set the captives free . . . and if I recall, the Roman Catholic church as a rather strong stand on abortion and homosexuality . . . and on the ordination of women, birth control, and a number of other social issues that we are seen to be too liberal on. Hmm . . . go figure. So let's not bring up a few twits in the US who claim to speak for the mainstream but are marginalized by many more conservative types.


Glad there is no moral superiority showing. (OK, that was a slam). This is a totally unjustified stereotyping that broadly paints everyone of a more conservative nature as uncaring selfish louts and does nothing to help dialogue. More like I'm right, you're wrong, shut up and go away.


I'd like a link here, too. Branch Davidian? I'll accept it as hyperbole, but . . . man!


Of course not (and again, not my support.

And I'm still waiting for the rant against the NDP as being godless communists. After all, there are bound to be one or two of them around too.

What I said about right wing Conservatives being attracted to narcissistic authoritarian types due to effects of emotional and physical abuse is a psychological truism. The abused become the abusers.

Link? Proof? Proof that people who have been abused only vote Conservative and will have nothing to do with any other political party or philisophical bent?

Ok>

Sockwell Day is still a force in the right wing Alberta base Harpur comes from. He is a longtime supporter of capital punishment.

"'His comments often suggested an authoritarian streak. In March 1994, for example, Day supported the call of Red Deer South MLA Victor Doerksen that John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men be removed from schools because of its profane language. In another example, in April 1995, Day supported a proposal to drop abortions from the list of services insured by Medicare, arguing "the medical evidence is clear that abortions are not medically required." (Klein stared Day and others down on the issue, much to Day's apparent displeasure.) Along the way, Day also advocated work camps for young offenders and supported capital punishment, even for teenagers convicted of first degree murder. He also argued for the banning of sex education in schools (unless it could be proven it did not increase the incidence of sexually transmitted disease and teenage pregnancy),31 called for increased private school funding, justified the government's frequent use of closure, and called the policy of official bilingualism an "irritant."

One of his more unguarded comments came at Calgary's Roots of Change conference in October 1997. Day chaired the conference and during one discussion suggested the following way of dealing with serial child killer Clifford Olson: "People like myself say, 'Fix the problem. Put [Olson] in the general [prison] population.' The moral prisoners will deal with it in a way which we don't have the nerve to do." ""

www.web.net/blackrosebooks/requiem2.htm

Day is a real possiblility as a cabinet minister. God help us.


You are right about Martin's position on Iraq. As I have often said, he is not my idea of aan ideal liberal. That is no reason to put in a whole troup of right wingers.

The supreme court did not disagree with the Romanov report, rather it advanced the view that if there were a real health risk an individual could buy care elsewhere. It rather ignored the impact on society as a whole, and a lot of folks myself included, thought it was a surprisingly stupid decision. It did not challenge any of the report of Romanov however, but rather failed to understand its implications.

The Liberal wait itme response deals were on track when the plug was pulled.

I never said the 38% were right wingers. I never said Joe Clark or the old progressive Conservatives were right wingers, but and I don't know why this is resisted, Harpur, Day, Klein and the Alberta clan that supports them are about as far right as you can get without joinig the Branch Davidian.

The referenced article on Day, unsurprisingly enough also points out his "authoritarian" nature which does indeed appeal to abused abusers.the other phenomenon I alluded to.

Day manifests a bunch of the classic behaviours of the narcissist, the mask covering the inner fear of vulnerablity and insecurity. It is the same appeal (to some) that Bush holds (to some).

I do view the far right, and you don't get much more antisocial and far right than Harpur's political camp, the Reform Party as not just uninformed, but a little deformed in their spiritual/psycho/social makeup. It is refelcted in the causes they espouse.

The NRA, and a lot of the right -wingers (And Harper will kill lun control along with the Kyoto Accord) really are missing somethihng human.

Psychology abounds with studies showing the relationship between being emotionally and /or physically abused and finding a comfort level in authoritarian structures and persons. It's what they have learned. Many took the admonition to spare the rod and spoil the child literally, as if it really meant to hit children with rods. It of course refrred to the rod of discipline, not physical violence.

The right wing is about money. Theirs. There are indeed evangelical Christians who do indeed give a damn about the poor, but the right wingers that are usually suppoted by the right are, like Harpur, Bush types. For the well heeled and the better heeled. The kill a commie for Christ crowd. They invariably, as Bush has just done, lead to recession, depression and war.

My point on Harpur's free vote is that everyone on the planet knows it will not pass and so does he. He is backing off on his beliefs in this just as Martin has run from the responsibility of office on these issues as well. I am particuarly chagrinned and embarasssed in that he considers himslelf to be a Catholic amidst his inconsistencies.

Harpur has made the same trade for power, and engineered an election when the federal option is weakest in Quebec, something that shows, not only Stronach but lots of folks just how much he loves Canada. Love means responding to the real needs of the people, the nation.

Carve it up as you will, the right, and that includes the "Christian" right, supports the interests of the haves over the have-nots. There are no doubt a few Catholics in that mix as well, but they are probably more than a little unfamiliar with the social teachings of the church they belong to. Traditionally, Catholics are liberals and democrats.

Enough rant and counter rant for tonight. Glad we both got to enjoy the game tonight. Yahoo! (That was a cheer, not a desccriptor)

[Toronthab]

"Save the "propaganda" tripe was a response to being labelled as propagandized...what you are supposedly opposing here. I was not labelling back, though we can get a little worked up indeed. I'm sure I've provided better examples of a lack of charity along the way however.

I think you make a good point in that this board does to a considerable degree and within its human frailties, make some room for a little heat and a little light.

[Skilly]

I am sure that any cabinet that Harper forms will closely resemble his shadow cabinet. Stockwell Day was the critic of the foreign affairs department in the shadow cabinet. So it is likely he would be Minister of the Department of Foreign Affairs ....... and I am not going to get upset about that.

[franko]

Read an interesting article the other day (sorry, can't find it) that suggests that the Tories are going to have a difficult time appointing people to the cabinet.

Quebecers that win automatically get cabinet seats.
East Coasters (see -- I didn't say Maritimers) ditto, for the most part.
Ontario -- gotta keep us happy.
That leaves . . . the west. Unhappy. Becasue they know already that even though they have given their blood sweat and tears to the Party there are only so many posts to go around. Rahim Jaffer may be out, as will other Albertans -- can't put all 28 in now, can he?

[Skilly]

franko said:

Read an interesting article the other day (sorry, can't find it) that suggests that the Tories are going to have a difficult time appointing people to the cabinet.

Quebecers that win automatically get cabinet seats.
East Coasters (see -- I didn't say Maritimers) ditto, for the most part.
Ontario -- gotta keep us happy.
That leaves . . . the west. Unhappy. Becasue they know already that even though they have given their blood sweat and tears to the Party there are only so many posts to go around. Rahim Jaffer may be out, as will other Albertans -- can't put all 28 in now, can he?

Interesting.

But he will only win one or two seats in Quebec if any. Off the three seats he will win in Newfoundland only one will get a cabinet post. Harper may have difficulties with naming Hearn or Doyle to the cabinet after the Atlantic Accord fuss ..... Hearn and Doyle were not allowed to vote for the budget and essentially against the Atlantic Accord, but don't think they didnt have objections. That leaves Fabian Manning - and all I have to say about him is leave it to him to land in a barrel of "she - it" and come out smelling like roses.

I can see Mckay as the only NS representative. NB will have one or 2 to show their thanks to Bernard Lord. Not sure if PEI will get one, or who?

So there will be about 20 seats (maybe more) for Conservatives from Ontario and Western canada.

This is all assuming they win of course and Harper doesn't do like he did last election and say two days before the vote "Western Canada's day has come!"

[franko]

Why oh why oh why isn't there a game tonight? For the first time in how many nights things are shut down and I am at home . . . the remote control in my hand . . . and what's on? Nadda. Diddly. Squat. American Idol? Skating with Celebrities? The Biggest Loser? (and here I thought that the election wasn't until next Monday).

But . . . semi-saved by The Rick Mercer Report .

Look at "Rick's Rant" and the "Message from the Liberal Party of Canada". And the rest of it. All good.