|
Post by Cranky on Nov 30, 2006 19:06:35 GMT -5
Huh? Are they a joke? Does ANYONE take the Liberals seriously anymore?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 30, 2006 19:07:54 GMT -5
Huh? Are they a joke? Does ANYONE take the Liberals seriously anymore? Admit it -- you're just jealous because you haven't been able to wear a pair yet. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 30, 2006 19:11:55 GMT -5
Huh? Are they a joke? Does ANYONE take the Liberals seriously anymore? Admit it -- you're just jealous because you haven't been able to wear a pair yet. ;D I'm afraid that if I wear them even ONCE, I will be as impotent as the Liberals....
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 30, 2006 19:18:59 GMT -5
I'm afraid that if I wear them even ONCE, I will be as impotent as the Liberals.... Yet nothing like a beautiful woman to raise those flagging spirits . . . and whatever else is flagging.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Nov 30, 2006 19:44:22 GMT -5
I'm afraid that if I wear them even ONCE, I will be as impotent as the Liberals.... Yet nothing like a beautiful woman to raise those flagging spirits . . . and whatever else is flagging. Wise to remember that loose hips have sunk many ships.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 30, 2006 19:55:14 GMT -5
So, tell me guys ... would you trust a party run by Bob Rae? How about Ken Dryden?
The Liberals should be toast in the next election but the province of Ontario will no doubt get them close or at worse, a minority.
People in this province could care less where their money went I guess.
I sure do!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Nov 30, 2006 22:22:56 GMT -5
I must admit, that I just can't stand the conservatives. My dilemna is that the Liberal party has become a party that supports abortion and the homsexual political agenda, both of which are fundamentally at variance with natural law and basic justice. ( I have nothing against homosexually acrtive or inactive people, but hold that the behaviours are not genetically predetermined and are seriously destructive of themselves and of the human community by extension.)
The right wingers, most of whom are wingbats, often are opposed to these practices are usually nearly completely indifferent to anybody but themselves. Moralistic, not moral.
My local Liberal MP is in agreement with me on these issues as well, so I can support him, but I do feel largely disenfranchised.
I think the candidtate I like most, paradoxically with the exception of key issues, would be Bob Rae. I like Kennedy too while Dion may be the actual best guy for PM potential performance.
Ignatief I just don't like. He's clever but often not intelligent or wise.
I may have to get a card and raise some ship.
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 1, 2006 17:38:33 GMT -5
So, tell me guys ... would you trust a party run by Bob Rae? How about Ken Dryden? Bob Rae? Do you think that I have forgotten the miserable "made in Ontario" recession he caused? I rather vote Green then Parachute Rae. And you know how I love Greenies......
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 1, 2006 17:43:38 GMT -5
I must admit, that I just can't stand the conservatives. . I think that the Liberal party is without any vision and moraly bankrupt, so much so that I voted Conservatives for the first time in my life. An issue of lesser evils.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 2, 2006 1:02:26 GMT -5
Stephen Harper at least has the guts and a conscience, unlike the last two Liberal Prime Ministers. Leave it to the Liberals to either elect a socialist or another Quebecer. They just don't get it. When Stephane Dion was elected, he was never nominated in his riding, but appointed by Jean Chretien. I disagree with any party doing this, because it flies in the face of the grass roots of the party. Michael Ignatieff also was appointed, but by Paul Martin, in his Toronto area riding. Where does he get off thinking that he has a right to lead this country, since he was parachuted in to the leadership, after living in the United States and teaching at Harvard, during the last 30 years. At least Harper is not a rich elite who got to the top with help from the political elite that have run this country, the last 35 years. Bob Rae? Please let him win, so Ontario will finally drive the dagger through the heart of the Liberal Party. It only took 8 years of Mike Harris cuts to straighten out the damage that Rae created in his 5 years in office, here in Ontario.
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Dec 2, 2006 6:05:11 GMT -5
Dion is the best man of the bunch, which is one of the reasons he won't win.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 2, 2006 9:13:49 GMT -5
This: Stephen Harper at least has the guts and a conscience, Does not jive with this: They just don't get it. When Stephane Dion was elected, he was never nominated in his riding, but appointed by Jean Chretien. I disagree with any party doing this, because it flies in the face of the grass roots of the party. Michael Ignatieff also was appointed, but by Paul Martin, in his Toronto area riding. The first thing Mr. Harper did after he was elected leader was to accept a floor-walker into his caucus . . . this after bemoaning the fact that this was an unparliamantary/proper thing to do (Belinda?). The second thing Mr. Harper did after he was elected was to appoint a man to the Senate and then to his caucus . . . this after bemoaning the fact that the Senate was nothing but a political plum and that he was going to change thngs. Mr. Harper is not a white knight . . . he is proving himself to be more of the same. Politicians of any sort . . . plus ça change . . .
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 2, 2006 9:55:57 GMT -5
Mr. Harper brought David Emerson to the government side for three reasons. First, by adding one Liberal MP to the government side, he effectively cut the Liberals out of any deal he may need to make with one of the other opposition parties. At the time, it would have required one more vote, to make a deal with the NDP, instead of the Liberals.
Two, David Emerson was a member from Vancouver and the Conservatives had no members of parliament from Vancouver, after the election. This was very important, with the Olympics coming there in the not to distant future.
Three, David Emerson had worked on the Softwood lumber dispute with the U.S. government. The last 13 years of Liberal governments were very anti-American and they could not get the deal done. With Emerson, and a more U.S. friendly government in power, the deal got done. Did we get 100% of the Tariff money back? No, but we got the best deal possible. If the Liberals had been in power, this money would have not gotten back to the industry that needed it and belonged to.
On that Senate appointment, that was an opportunity to add a cabinet minister from Montreal, since there were no Conservatives elected from Montreal, and there needed to be representation from the Montreal area. It was a compromise that needed to be done, for the good of Montreal and the country. Harper done, what needed to be done for Quebec's largest city. This Senator plans to run in the next election.
Belinda Stronach? Addition through subtraction.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 2, 2006 10:53:23 GMT -5
Mr. Harper brought David Emerson to the government side for three reasons. On that Senate appointment It was a compromise I guess you can try to spin it any way you want to, but your word sums it up best: compromise. Mr. Harper said that he would bring integrity back into politics, and his first acts belied that promise. Mr. Martin introduced Ms. Stronach to the Liberal Party as "best for the country", and the Conservatives derided that act. Mr. Harper does the same and thinks he can get away with it with impunity? I think not. Mr. Harper and the Conservative Party also mocked the Liberal Party for their Senate appointments for purely political purposes. Hypocrasy in the worst degree here, no matter if "Montreal needed a voice". There would have been nothing wrong with having Mr. Fornier as an advisor, but Mr. Harper brought him into the cabinet as an unelected member, meaning that someone who "fought the good fight" was pushed aside. So much for reform and integrity. It's only wrong when you do it . . .
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 2, 2006 20:12:37 GMT -5
Mr. Martin brought in Stronach to save his government. She was not qualified for a cabinet post but got one anyway. Emerson was a cabinet minister and was privy to the inner workings of the Softwood lumber negotiations. A good move for Canada. 13 years of futile negotiations by the Liberals, corrected in less than 6 months. The senate appointment of Mr. Fournier was for the betterment of Montreal and Quebec. Another good move for Canada. I'm sure that Mr. Harper would have appointed an elected official from Montreal, if one were available. It wasn't the Liberals that the Conservatives feared, but the Bloc.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 3, 2006 3:37:56 GMT -5
Stephen Harper at least has the guts and a conscience, unlike the last two Liberal Prime Ministers. Leave it to the Liberals to either elect a socialist or another Quebecer. They just don't get it. When Stephane Dion was elected, he was never nominated in his riding, but appointed by Jean Chretien. I disagree with any party doing this, because it flies in the face of the grass roots of the party. Michael Ignatieff also was appointed, but by Paul Martin, in his Toronto area riding. Where does he get off thinking that he has a right to lead this country, since he was parachuted in to the leadership, after living in the United States and teaching at Harvard, during the last 30 years. At least Harper is not a rich elite who got to the top with help from the political elite that have run this country, the last 35 years. Bob Rae? Please let him win, so Ontario will finally drive the dagger through the heart of the Liberal Party. It only took 8 years of Mike Harris cuts to straighten out the damage that Rae created in his 5 years in office, here in Ontario. Stop the presses! I'm agreeing with Princelh for the first time! Personally I think they just chose Celines brother because he's a celibrity. It's been done before.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Dec 3, 2006 8:57:59 GMT -5
Stephen Harper at least has the guts and a conscience, unlike the last two Liberal Prime Ministers. Leave it to the Liberals to either elect a socialist or another Quebecer. They just don't get it. When Stephane Dion was elected, he was never nominated in his riding, but appointed by Jean Chretien. I disagree with any party doing this, because it flies in the face of the grass roots of the party. It's not just the Liberals that do this. The provincial Conservatives in Ontario have done something like this in my riding in order to get a leader in via a "safe" seat. The sitting MLA was shoved out so Ernie Eves could run. His connection to the riding - his companion has a country house in the area. Conservatives can be just as cynical as Liberals.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 3, 2006 10:16:35 GMT -5
One of my best friends has always been a staunch PC supporter, til this run. He says this PC party is a far cry from the one he used to support.
It's basically the result of the Reform/Alliance/Coalition/New Conservative Party of Canada evolution (a decade or more of development after Mulroney left the PCs with 2 seats). They HAD to get the PC brand back to please the voters' palates. From Preston Manning to Stockwell Day to Peter McKay to Stephen Harper.
The Reform/Alliance venture is ultra-right wing....which would explain why they are so tight with the Bush administration.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 3, 2006 10:29:42 GMT -5
Ultra Right Wing? Not! It seems that anything right of centre is Ultra Right Wing or U.S. Republican, in the eyes of a Liberal. Seems to me, that Harper has instituted many centre oriented programs, since he was sworn in as Prime Minister. If you think tax cuts and healthcare dollars being spent is ultra right wing, then I guess that they can sign me up. Wasn't a keynote speaker at the Liberal Leadership convention a U.S. Democrat fundraiser, Vermont Senator, Howard Dean? I don't know where the Liberals went wrong, but they sure are showing what they really are, a Secularist Party, like the Democrats in the United States. If elected, and they follow the Democrats script, we'll be paying for entitlement programs and run up a monstor debt, just like the United States. Liberals = Tax & Spend. Period!
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 3, 2006 14:10:00 GMT -5
Ultra Right Wing? Not! It seems that anything right of centre is Ultra Right Wing or U.S. Republican, in the eyes of a Liberal. Seems to me, that Harper has instituted many centre oriented programs, since he was sworn in as Prime Minister. If you think tax cuts and healthcare dollars being spent is ultra right wing, then I guess that they can sign me up. Wasn't a keynote speaker at the Liberal Leadership convention a U.S. Democrat fundraiser, Vermont Senator, Howard Dean? I don't know where the Liberals went wrong, but they sure are showing what they really are, a Secularist Party, like the Democrats in the United States. If elected, and they follow the Democrats script, we'll be paying for entitlement programs and run up a monstor debt, just like the United States. Liberals = Tax & Spend. Period! In other words: CONSERVATIVES.....CANADA'S PARTY!
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 3, 2006 17:50:45 GMT -5
D'accord![/size][/b]
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 4, 2006 0:27:47 GMT -5
Ultra Right Wing? Not! It seems that anything right of centre is Ultra Right Wing or U.S. Republican, in the eyes of a Liberal. Seems to me, that Harper has instituted many centre oriented programs, since he was sworn in as Prime Minister. If you think tax cuts and healthcare dollars being spent is ultra right wing, then I guess that they can sign me up. Wasn't a keynote speaker at the Liberal Leadership convention a U.S. Democrat fundraiser, Vermont Senator, Howard Dean? I don't know where the Liberals went wrong, but they sure are showing what they really are, a Secularist Party, like the Democrats in the United States. If elected, and they follow the Democrats script, we'll be paying for entitlement programs and run up a monstor debt, just like the United States. Liberals = Tax & Spend. Period! North American culture relative to most western democracies is very right wing. Bush, the paranoic dry drunk who instantiates Conservatism in all its simplistic, self-absorbed sociopathological fear, has absolutely ruined the US economy, running massive, I repeat massive deficits, after inheriting surpluses from Clinton. You will also continue to pay for this sociopath, the next time you gas up. Harpur admires and emulates this clod. in war and environment issues. Bush's corruption, personal (Saudi) and administration (Cheney) is as far as I know, unparalleled. Molroney remains the most hated figure in Canadian political life. Most conservatives also sell out on abortion, for the heart of Conservatism is a narrow survivalism, a pointless irrational fear-centred ethos of selfishness. That is why Canadians almost always elect Liberal governments. The place to our south, that place of violence, rogue nationalism, racism, gun-toting, gated communities and extreme social injustice with one of the highest infant mortality figures in the world is an excellent example of conservatism at work. The right wing yahoos who are the core constituency of Harpur are an embarassingly stupid stupid bunch.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 4, 2006 19:22:11 GMT -5
Yes, to the south and not in Canada. Harper has nothing to do with what that wannabee conservative Bush is doing. If your talking about Afghanistan, then that's different. That was originally a Liberal deal and Harper is backing up our integrity with Canadian guts and valor.
If you want to talk Liberalism, than let's look at their warts too. Pierre Trudeau brought us to the brink of civil war and also took us from a surplus country to a debtor nation. His idea of some kind of Utopia has brought us nothing but debt and constitutional squabbling. In 13 years of recent Liberal rule, can you point out to me three significant achievements that the Liberals performed for the betterment of Canada? I'm still looking for one. Balancing the books on the deficit doesn't count, because it was Mulroney's government that set up free trade with the U.S. and instituted the GST. All we got from 13 years of Liberal rule, were lies, taxes and corruption. Love him or hate him, Mulroney actually had the guts to make changes in the way this country does business. His groundwork and taking the flack for changes, have made Canada more prosperous. The only thing the Liberals did, with Mulroney's gift, was pocket as much money for themselves and their elitist friends. Income trusts with the bougolais mon ami?
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 4, 2006 22:22:50 GMT -5
I am no Liberal, nor a Conservative ... opportunist is more like it ... but the only leagacy of Chretien's reign (if you are looking for one good thing the Liberals did) was not invading Iraq. (and I have to admit at the time I was in favour of doing it)
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 4, 2006 23:08:37 GMT -5
Yes, to the south and not in Canada. Harper has nothing to do with what that wannabee conservative Bush is doing. If your talking about Afghanistan, then that's different. That was originally a Liberal deal and Harper is backing up our integrity with Canadian guts and valor. If you want to talk Liberalism, than let's look at their warts too. Pierre Trudeau brought us to the brink of civil war and also took us from a surplus country to a debtor nation. His idea of some kind of Utopia has brought us nothing but debt and constitutional squabbling. In 13 years of recent Liberal rule, can you point out to me three significant achievements that the Liberals performed for the betterment of Canada? I'm still looking for one. Balancing the books on the deficit doesn't count, because it was Mulroney's government that set up free trade with the U.S. and instituted the GST. All we got from 13 years of Liberal rule, were lies, taxes and corruption. Love him or hate him, Mulroney actually had the guts to make changes in the way this country does business. His groundwork and taking the flack for changes, have made Canada more prosperous. The only thing the Liberals did, with Mulroney's gift, was pocket as much money for themselves and their elitist friends. Income trusts with the bougolais mon ami? In other words: CONSERVATIVES.....CANADA'S PARTY Let me save you some time: Sir John A. Macdonald: Conservative 1867–73....Awesome Alexander Mackenzie: Liberal 1873–78.......Terrible Sir John A. Macdonald: Conservative 1878–91.....Glad he's back Sir John J. C. Abbott: Conservative 1891–92....Great job Sir John S. D. Thompson: Conservative 1892–94.....A Three-peat! Sir Mackenzie Bowell: Conservative 1894–96.....No complaints here Sir Charles Tupper: Conservative 1896....Wow, drive for 5 complete. Sir Wilfred Laurier: Liberal 1896–1911....Boooooo!!! Sir Robert L. Borden: Conservative/Unionist 1911–20....Okay, except for the Unionist part. Arthur Meighen: Conservative 1920–21...Here we go, baby! W. L. M. King: Liberal 1921–26....Cross-dressing freak! Arthur Meighen: Conservative 1926...At least he wears MEN'S clothes. W. L. M. King: Liberal 1926–30....Not Nancy again!!!!! Richard B. Bennett: Conservative 1930–35....Bennett's the man! W. L. M. King: Liberal 1935–48...He'll blow the budget on a new wardrobe. Louis St. Laurent: Liberal 1948–57....Two in row...unbearable! John G. Diefenbaker: Progressive Conservative 1957–63...Yeah..Dief the Chief! Lester B. Pearson: Liberal 1963–68....Probably wants an airport named after him..... Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Liberal 1968–79....Charisma? I don't see charisma. Joseph Clark: Progressive Conservative 1979–80....Now THERE'S charisma. Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Liberal 1980–84...Talk about non-confidence! John Turner: Liberal 1984....The worst week in office ever! Brian Mulroney: Progressive Conservative 1984–93...Best PM ever! Kim Campbell: Progressive Conservative 1993...Give the lady a chance! Jean Chrétien: Liberal 1993–2003...In Trudeau's cabinet...'nuff said. Paul Martin: Liberal 2003–6....In Chretien's cabinet...'nuff said. Stephen Harper: Conservative 2006–.....Happy days are here again.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 4, 2006 23:27:01 GMT -5
But that is not an achievement. It is a decision to do......nothing! It goes to show, that the Liberals achieved nothing of significance in 13 years. I do remember a 63 cent dollar and the high cost of imports for Canadians. I also remember a Prime Minister that went AWOL when the country was at stake during the second Quebec referendum. I also remember 10's of thousands of regular Canadians heading to Montreal to rally the No side. No help from Chretien, or Martin, or Dion. It was Jean Charest who helped keep Quebec in Canada. Another AWOL situation happened on September 11th. Nothing from the Canadian government, not even a visit to the decimated area of Manhattan. I do remember regular Canadians giving blood and helping with the rescue operation, in Manhattan, however. Chretien and the Liberals were just terrible to our United States neighbours, not just their government. You don't have to agree with the U.S. government policies to treat them with respect. These people have done nothing but make our country rich and protected our sovereignty, when our government did nothing. The Liberals cut our military and put our armed forces personnel at risk. I still remember that Canadian warship heading for the Persian Gulf with a 40 year old Sea King helicopter on it's deck. Then a few days later, coming home with it laying on it's side when it tried to take off and crashed down on to the ships deck. This is the legacy of the Liberal government in Canada, along with the out and out theft of taxpayers money. Stephane Dion was part of that government and should be implicated with the rest of the ring leaders of that scandal.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2006 7:47:30 GMT -5
But that is not an achievement. It is a decision to do......nothing! It is still an acievement ... it kept Canada strong, proud, righteous, and noble in the eyes of many. It also showed the world one thing - that there is a little brother that is willing to challenge big brother when he is wrong. I am not sure if any representatives visited New York in the aftermath of the destruction or not. I would be suprised if they didnt ... but let's remember that new York was trying to keep people out so they could do their jobs. I am willing to bet someone, whether it was the ambassador or the PM, visited during the month of September to show solidarity. But I disagree that the Canadian government was AWOL during 9-11. The Canadian government actually took steps to save ten of thousands of lives. Ever wonder why so many planes landed in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia during 9-11? It had absolutely nothing to do with trans-atlantic flights or proximity. It was a Canadian policy put into effect. Planes were diverted that were over land. If the planes had enough fuel, they were told not to land in Dorval, or Pearson and head east to Halifax and Newfoundland. Why? Because the risk was less. If a terrorist tried to crash a plane out east there were less people, less tall/important structures, and a emergency response network in place to handle it. This was an amazing feat put of by Transport Canada and who knows how many lives could of been/were saved. It was a catch-22 for Chretien on 9-11 and the days after. Does he handle the emergency issues at home (ie Gander with a population of 5000 people, had 8000 unexpected visitors ... and that needed money ASAP to cope) ... or does he leave the country to show support for his American neighbours. I would have stayed home too ... and I am sure Bush and Chretien spoke on the phone.
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on Dec 5, 2006 9:02:29 GMT -5
Leave it to the Liberals to either elect a socialist or another Quebecer. I'm not really into politics, but I was reading this thread out of curiosity; I am not sure why, but when I read that comment, I felt a bit offended (and it's not because I am separatist cause I am not). I live in Ontario, but my heart will always remain "Quebecois" and I suspect that it's comments like this that help fuel the separatist movement. It's probably just a misunderstanding so maybe you would care to explain. Because the way I read it, you don't seem to think that "Quebecer" are qualified to run this country...
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 5, 2006 9:16:35 GMT -5
It's probably just a misunderstanding so maybe you would care to explain. Because the way I read it, you don't seem to think that "Quebecer" are qualified to run this country... I always thought that one only had to be Canadian to qualify -- last time I looked it didn't matter where one lives as long as it was here.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 5, 2006 9:18:22 GMT -5
Leave it to the Liberals to either elect a socialist or another Quebecer. I'm not really into politics, but I was reading this thread out of curiosity; I am not sure why, but when I read that comment, I felt a bit offended (and it's not because I am separatist cause I am not). I live in Ontario, but my heart will always remain "Quebecois" and I suspect that it's comments like this that help fuel the separatist movement. It's probably just a misunderstanding so maybe you would care to explain. Because the way I read it, you don't seem to think that "Quebecer" are qualified to run this country... Absoluement. The statement is a perfect example of what I was saying about the radical right which thinks a person can make ethmic comments like these which are nothng but typical of the Reform / Alliance supporters and still believe that they are standing up for Canada. They actuall believe that they are. Spooky. As Dion says of them, they don't intend wrong, it is just the results of their policies that are destructive. Bush thinks he's a "freedom" fighter. HAHAHAHAHAAA!
|
|