|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 2, 2011 10:38:54 GMT -5
BTW... I was out last night and I have to say.......canvassing SUCKS. It's not about the issues, it's about making people feel good. It's about selling them how the party loves them, not about what the party can do or has done for them. I felt like a freaken body guard with a fake smile. Next time, if there is a a next time, I'm wearing a mini-skirt and bringing cookies and flowers. Just haven't decided on the lipstick...... My idea of canvassing? Bring two bags. Knock on the door and ask them politely who they are voting for. They say Liberal. You pull out the head of Liberal from Bag Number One. They say NDP. You bring out the head of NDP'er from Bag Number Two. Then you ask them again.... politely. Of course, if they say Green, you ask them to step to the side of the road and burn down their house. If they ask why, "it's returning the land to Mother Nature". Note, everything has to be done politely...... (I'm joking. No really, I'm joking.)  |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 2, 2011 10:51:53 GMT -5
Then there is the military. We are now a respectable player on the world community versus a bit of a delusional one playing referee. Decades of "peacekeeping" in Cyprus was sold to Canadians by Liberal governments as "serious" duty....while the locals laughed. We're not heading the Libyan mission by accident. Not sure on your definition of "locals" mate. Are you referring to the host nation peoples we provided peacekeeping to, or are you referring to the Canadian locals here at home. Having served in Cyprus and the Golan Heights, I can tell you that no one was ever laughing at us. Canadian soldiers were very well respected as professionals by the "locals' and the biggest thing they liked about us was our attitude. We brought that Canadian mindset with us wherever we went. Where the Liberals lost their focus on their military was their mindset. Chretien basically employed the strategy that, "why should we spend billions on this and that when the other nations can provide it for us?" That paraphrase basically doomed our military on many different levels. It even got so bad that whenever the Liberals needed money they tapped it from the already severely depleted military budget. At one point there wasn't even enough money to purchase paint for rusting vehicles or to buy blank ammunition for exercises and maneuvers. Picture a bunch of grown men, professional soldiers, who are running around in full fighting order (with weapons) assaulting a position while saying, "bang, bang, bang!" THAT'S how bad is was for my unit at one point under the Liberals. Everything was running fine under the past government. No scandals, no petty political bravado kind of BS. Now we're at the polls again. BS! Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 2, 2011 11:11:28 GMT -5
Not sure on your definition of "locals" mate. Are you referring to the host nation peoples we provided peacekeeping to, or are you referring to the Canadian locals here at home. Having served in Cyprus and the Golan Heights, I can tell you that no one was ever laughing at us. Canadian soldiers were very well respected as professionals by the "locals' and the biggest thing they liked about us was our attitude. We brought that Canadian mindset with us wherever we went. . We were and are as serious as heart attacks but UN peacekeeping is not taken seriously. It only effective IF the locals are tired of war. And then, it's more of a damper then a deterrence. UN was in Cyprus in '64 but it didn't stop what happened in '74. Again, nothing to do with our military, but rather, it's the nature of the role and it's restrictions Peacekeeping under the Liberals was a cheap way to be minimalist relevant on the world stage. Where the Liberals lost their focus on their military was their mindset. Chretien basically employed the strategy that, "why should we spend billions on this and that when the other nations can provide it for us?" That paraphrase basically doomed our military on many different levels. It even got so bad that whenever the Liberals needed money they tapped it from the already severely depleted military budget. At one point there wasn't even enough money to purchase paint for rusting vehicles or to buy blank ammunition for exercises and maneuvers. Picture a bunch of grown men, professional soldiers, who are running around in full fighting order (with weapons) assaulting a position while saying, "bang, bang, bang!" THAT'S how bad is was for my unit at one point under the Liberals. . To comment on what you wrote would be inappropriate for this forum. I despised petty Chretien and his band of Liberals. On the flip side, they permanently stomped out any Liberal leaning I had. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 2, 2011 11:26:33 GMT -5
Everything was running fine under the past government. No scandals, no petty political bravado kind of BS. Now we're at the polls again. BS! Cheers. Oh come on Dis ... no scandals? Really? And I am not even talking about the all the stuff going on now. If you are fine with the Canadian government lying about how many Afghan prisoners we had turned over to us, and then lying about not knowing the tactics OUR military was using on those prisoners; intentionally handing over prisoners to people they knew were going to torture them. If that's not a military scandal, what is? Oh yeah, the opposition tried to call the government on it, but then parliament was prorogued so the Canadian public would forget about it .... seems like that trick kinda worked. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 2, 2011 11:37:53 GMT -5
Everything was running fine under the past government. No scandals, no petty political bravado kind of BS. Now we're at the polls again. BS! Cheers. Oh come on Dis ... no scandals? Really? And I am not even talking about the all the stuff going on now. If you are fine with the Canadian government lying about how many Afghan prisoners we had turned over to us, and then lying about not knowing the tactics OUR military was using on those prisoners. If that's not a military scandal, what is? Which Canadian jail did you want them to be put in? And which trial court? Canadians were INVITED to a country have no "right" to jail and prosecute their countryman in our country. We are not occupiers and we will not have any "prisoner camps"......or run private jails. I rather we stay home then have Canadian sanitized versions of Gitmo or Abu Ghraib. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 2, 2011 13:20:40 GMT -5
Oh come on Dis ... no scandals? Really? And I am not even talking about the all the stuff going on now. If you are fine with the Canadian government lying about how many Afghan prisoners we had turned over to us, and then lying about not knowing the tactics OUR military was using on those prisoners. If that's not a military scandal, what is? Which Canadian jail did you want them to be put in? And which trial court? Canadians were INVITED to a country have no "right" to jail and prosecute their countryman in our country. We are not occupiers and we will not have any "prisoner camps"......or run private jails. I rather we stay home then have Canadian sanitized versions of Gitmo or Abu Ghraib. we signed on to the Geneva Convention the least we can do is live up to it ... you don't hand priosners over who you know are going to get tortured. And you don't lie about the numbers and the fact the government knew it was going on in the House of Commons |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 2, 2011 14:23:29 GMT -5
Not sure on your definition of "locals" mate. Are you referring to the host nation peoples we provided peacekeeping to, or are you referring to the Canadian locals here at home. Having served in Cyprus and the Golan Heights, I can tell you that no one was ever laughing at us. Canadian soldiers were very well respected as professionals by the "locals' and the biggest thing they liked about us was our attitude. We brought that Canadian mindset with us wherever we went. . We were and are as serious as heart attacks but UN peacekeeping is not taken seriously. It only effective IF the locals are tired of war. And then, it's more of a damper then a deterrence. UN was in Cyprus in '64 but it didn't stop what happened in '74. Again, nothing to do with our military, but rather, it's the nature of the role and it's restrictions Tell that to the soldiers who participated in the Battle for the Madek Pocket, mate. The problem was that, before the Afghan mission, we never celebrated any of our military successes. Instead of doing this someone, somewhere always came up with a controversy which overshadowed our successes. Yes, but it's important to remember that there were successes under the blue beret. The Liberals just never took those successes seriously. The military simply wasn't taken seriously. However, under the Tories the military has grown into an internationally respected combat force. That started in the Balkans, but the troops were still very limited in what they could do because of mandates and under-funding. That changed under the Tories. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 2, 2011 15:01:01 GMT -5
we signed on to the Geneva Convention the least we can do is live up to it ... you don't hand priosners over who you know are going to get tortured. And you don't lie about the numbers and the fact the government knew it was going on in the House of Commons Again, we were invited. We did not declare war nor granted any rights by the Afghan government to hold their citizens as prisoners. And we did ask the Red Cross to follow up on their health and welfare. Last but not least.... I Googled latest news on "conservatives taliban prisoners" and came up with ONE story about Liberals trying to make Conservatives "squirm" and how Canadians "care". The general public simply does not care about what happens to the few Taliban as long as we are not doing any torturing ourselves and helping Afghanistan create a bigger and better picture. The public cares far, far more about Canadian casualties, costs and results. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 2, 2011 15:12:18 GMT -5
Yes, but it's important to remember that there were successes under the blue beret. The Liberals just never took those successes seriously. The military simply wasn't taken seriously. However, under the Tories the military has grown into an internationally respected combat force. That started in the Balkans, but the troops were still very limited in what they could do because of mandates and under-funding. That changed under the Tories. Cheers. I vaguely remember reading about that battle. Respected combat force......that's the big picture. In my opinion, train and equip them properly for combat or don't do it at all. The military is not a glorified police force nor a "we have one too" sideshow. I don't know if you agree Dis, but that's my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 2, 2011 17:47:43 GMT -5
Yes, but it's important to remember that there were successes under the blue beret. The Liberals just never took those successes seriously. The military simply wasn't taken seriously. However, under the Tories the military has grown into an internationally respected combat force. That started in the Balkans, but the troops were still very limited in what they could do because of mandates and under-funding. That changed under the Tories. Cheers. I vaguely remember reading about that battle. Respected combat force......that's the big picture. In my opinion, train and equip them properly for combat or don't do it at all. The military is not a glorified police force nor a "we have one too" sideshow. I don't know if you agree Dis, but that's my opinion. Oh, no worries there, mate. I like the direction the Tories have taken our military. They supported Gen Rick Hillier (ret'd) in his blueprint of what the Canadian Forces should be capable of doing. And he got it done in spades if you ask me. The Pearson blueprint of UN peacekeeping was brilliant for it's time, but conflicts like Bosnia showed us that unless you're willing to make a stand, that particular blueprint simply wasn't enforceable. I'd hate to see all of that progress thwarted by the Liberals. And make no mistake, the Liberals will not take the military seriously at all. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 2, 2011 18:01:54 GMT -5
Everything was running fine under the past government. No scandals, no petty political bravado kind of BS. Now we're at the polls again. BS! Cheers. Oh come on Dis ... no scandals? Really? And I am not even talking about the all the stuff going on now. If you are fine with the Canadian government lying about how many Afghan prisoners we had turned over to us, and then lying about not knowing the tactics OUR military was using on those prisoners; intentionally handing over prisoners to people they knew were going to torture them. If that's not a military scandal, what is? Oh yeah, the opposition tried to call the government on it, but then parliament was prorogued so the Canadian public would forget about it .... seems like that trick kinda worked. Poor choice of words on my part there, Skilly. Every government has their fair share of scandals to be sure. Some are caught, others not. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 3, 2011 4:16:09 GMT -5
I'd hate to see all of that progress thwarted by the Liberals. And make no mistake, the Liberals will not take the military seriously at all. Cheers. The Libs call it "Peace dividend". That's when they strip the military and ask them to yell "bang bang" with their wooden rifles. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 4, 2011 16:42:03 GMT -5
Say what you want about the Bloc. They have a clearly defined agenda and they're working toward it. ============================================================== Bloc wants to scrap multiculturism for Quebec model
By Brigitte Pellerin, Parliamentary BureauOTTAWA - The Bloc Quebecois says Quebec should get out of multiculturalism. It wants the province to have its own "interculturalist" model instead. The separatist party claims Canada's multiculturalism "sows division within Quebec's population by splitting up society into a multitude of solitudes." In the party's platform - in a section titled "Quebec's national culture" - the Bloc says Canada's multiculturalism policies "encourage the co-existence of multiple cultures while ignoring Quebec's national culture." The Bloc tried in 2008 to exempt Quebec from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act with Bill C-505. The private member's bill, sponsored by Joliette MP Pierre Paquette, would have allowed the province to bring about its own integration model, with the French language and culture as its centrepiece. The Bloc promises to re-introduce the bill as soon as possible. Multiculturalism never enjoyed broad support in Quebec. It is often seen there as a measure imposed on Quebec by English Canada. "Interculturalism", by contrast, was promoted by the 2008 Bouchard-Taylor Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences. cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/CanadaVotes/News/2011/04/04/17870316.html (link) |
|
|
|
Post by Roggy on Apr 4, 2011 19:27:42 GMT -5
Fine, Quebec can stop pretending to care about anyone that isn't French, and the rest of Canada can stop pretending they care about Quebec.
Edit: sorry if that sounds harsh. I get riled up at the Bloc and what they stand for.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 4, 2011 20:00:17 GMT -5
gotta hand it to the Bloc, though, as they keep consistent [of course, it is easy to be consistent with a one-platform policy statement].
my problem is the "poor me" attitude that comes from them when they don't get their way. otoh it's "We don't want to be part of Canada" and on the other it's "TROC doesn't care enough/ do enough for us" . . . and when any other province *cough*Alberta*cough* starts making waves of separation get all righteously indignant. and the "send us more money, Canada, but shut down what makes the money to send us because we're superiorly green" gets to me too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 4, 2011 21:56:11 GMT -5
gotta hand it to the Bloc, though, as they keep consistent [of course, it is easy to be consistent with a one-platform policy statement]. my problem is the "poor me" attitude that comes from them when they don't get their way. otoh it's "We don't want to be part of Canada" and on the other it's "TROC doesn't care enough/ do enough for us" . . . and when any other province *cough*Alberta*cough* starts making waves of separation get all righteously indignant. and the "send us more money, Canada, but shut down what makes the money to send us because we're superiorly green" gets to me too. I'm repeating myself here but it's worth repeating..... Quebec and Ontario Liberals wet dream is to get paid for "green energy" directly from the oil sands. Part of accepting an energy contract (FIT program) is that ANY and ALL forms of green energy credits or taxation goes directly to the Ontario government. Basically, it's a direct, codified, perpetual tax on Alberta's, Saskatchewan and NFLD oil....to buy green, Ontario and Quebec votes. Legal theft by any other name. If I was Alberta's Premiere, I would announce that no one is going to steal our resources and we will shut down the oil sands long before one penny of carbon tax is paid out. THAT would send a shock wave through all of Canada, collapse the provincial and federal credit ratings, collapse the dollar and probably get Americans to start thinking about invasion and "regime change". Do you guys remember the NEP (National Energy Program)? It stole 50 to 100 billion from Alberta. This one is worse. This will also steal from Saskatchewan and NFLD. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 4, 2011 23:23:51 GMT -5
I'm curious, HA. I haven't paid that much attention to the campaign (I'm really jaded), but what is this Green Energy nonsense? I can support some Green Energy, but I know all too well what happened during the NEP. It affected Northern BC as well, basically shutting down the Oil patch almost overnight. There was a lot of hardship and it cost me personally. When I moved 7 years later, I barely got what I paid for my house, after making a lot of improvements to it.
Westerners are pretty good Canadians, but that rip-off by the then government (Trudeau is not looked at nearly so highly out here. He was a staunch Canadian but an economic idiot or worse, a thief) still rankles.
Anyway, Green Energy is wonderful, but no one is really prepared to pay what it truly costs to produce, so it ends up being subsidized, most often by taxes. What is this 'policy' about?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 5, 2011 1:16:22 GMT -5
I'm curious, HA. I haven't paid that much attention to the campaign (I'm really jaded), but what is this Green Energy nonsense? I can support some Green Energy, but I know all too well what happened during the NEP. It affected Northern BC as well, basically shutting down the Oil patch almost overnight. There was a lot of hardship and it cost me personally. When I moved 7 years later, I barely got what I paid for my house, after making a lot of improvements to it. Westerners are pretty good Canadians, but that rip-off by the then government (Trudeau is not looked at nearly so highly out here. He was a staunch Canadian but an economic idiot or worse, a thief) still rankles. Anyway, Green Energy is wonderful, but no one is really prepared to pay what it truly costs to produce, so it ends up being subsidized, most often by taxes. What is this 'policy' about? Which one? Cap an trade or Ontario Green energy program? The Ontario one is pretty simple. If you put up a "green" energy projects, Ontario hydro contracts to buy all your power for the next twenty years at exorbitant prices. Wind is about 15 cents per kilowatt, solar from 50 to 80 cents. Compare that to 3.5 cents per kw on the open market. Basically, Ontarians will pay about a 100 billion dollars more in the next twenty years in excess energy costs. This was done by the Liberals and McStupid to corner the "green" vote. Needless to say, Ontarians are starting to see what this means to their electricity rates and getting upset. They have no idea, it's only the BEGINNING of the very, very expensive pain. I'm heavily invested in wind energy. I didn't make the rules, but I rather be on the giving then the receiving end. Cap and trade can take a few forms. Basically, the idea is to charge people for their "carbon" use. Since 90% of the world energy comes from carbon (gas, oil, wood), it's a great way to introduce massive taxation under the disguise of "saving the planet". What the Liberal government of Ontario wants is a nation wide cap-and-trade producer based system. Basically, Ontario and Quebec want companies in their province that produce under their provincial self declared arbitrary carbon limits (caps) to sell their under utilized quotas to big carbon producers like the oil sands. This theft trading would be ongoing and perpetual taxation on oil err "carbon producers". So if we have a value of $100 per ton of carbon, you can imagine what kind of money we are talking about when "reductions" and 'productions" are measured in tens and hundreds of "megatons" ($100 million per megaton). Alberta produces about 120 megatons of "carbon" value in coal, oil and gas so they would be in line for a good shafting. On a different level, the provinces themselves would also put a value on carbon and tax accordingly. Gas, diesel, gasoline can all have "carbon" values and charge consumers accordingly. The beauty of this tax is that EVERYONE needs to use carbon based fuels to survive, which is the perfect tax system. This is why the sky fallering screamers are never directly challenged by politicians. Politicians on the left (LIBERALS) see it as a means to guilt tax as they see fit and spend where they see the most votes. Even better, they will buy the loyalty of poorer people through "carbon tax relief", also know as "shaft and relief". THAT is why the left elite embraced and sold global warming climate change. Private companies love it because now they can charge customers a "green tax" while gaming the system in "reductions'. Financial institutions, including the Mafia see this as a windfall in handling/trading "credits" worth billions. The Conservatives know and despise all this so they are playing a constant game of "we care" to the greenies, but making sure there is no life in carbon taxes. The federal Libs/NDP'ers love it because they see billions in sin taxes for their tax and spend coffers. No "planet saving" good will come out of this, but man-o-man, there are trillions to be stripped from sinners. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 5, 2011 5:54:42 GMT -5
the one federal politician who admitted that the "tax-and-grab" "cap-and-trade" system is no more than wealth distribution [can't remember who it was, think it may have been an NDPer] hasn't been heard from again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 5, 2011 11:18:46 GMT -5
As predicted and right on cue....Liberal McStupid is whining 'ME TOO" about the Churchill Falls project. ~~~~~~~ Ontario premier wades into federal election, demands “equal treatment” Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty waded squarely into the federal election fray on Monday, demanding that his province receive the same support for energy projects as was recently promised to The Rock by the Conservatives and Liberals. news.nationalpost.com/2011/04/04/ontario-premier-wades-into-federal-election-demands-equal-treatment/~~~~~~~~~~ Canadians have no idea of how certifiable insane politics will get in a cap and trade universe. It will create so much division and animosity between the provinces like never before. It will re-ignite serious calls for separation on every provincial beachhead. And why? To see who can strip the most from each other and YOU. . |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 5, 2011 12:51:10 GMT -5
“Ontarians should understand 40% of the federal government’s money comes directly from Ontarians, so when the Prime Minister pledges specific aid to another part of Canada for a specific multibillion-dollar project, 40 per cent of that money is coming from Ontarians,” Mr. McGuinty told reporters at Queen’s Park on Monday morning. “When it comes to support from the federal government for energy projects, Ontario is looking for equal treatment.”
Oh Donald ...
More than 40% of that power goes to Ontario and you pay less for it than anyone in Newfoundland. You are getting a bargain here my boy ... tell you what, let the government give us only 60% of a loan guarantee and we stop shipping power to Ontario ... deal?
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 5, 2011 15:01:34 GMT -5
only if we can ship him your way.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Apr 5, 2011 23:06:32 GMT -5
HA, didn't realize you were referring to those two matters. Yep, I read about the expensive green energy Ontario ideas. And of course, the Cap and trade, which would penalize oil sands hugely. I own stock in a company that would benefit from carbon credits, so I'm covering my bases.
Gotcha, I thought it was Iggie who had said something stupid (not that what comes out of most politician's mouths is very bright).
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 6, 2011 8:01:07 GMT -5
Gotcha, I thought it was Iggie who had said something stupid (not that what comes out of most politician's mouths is very bright). You wont hear much stupid come out of Harper's mouth in this election ... he pre-selects 5 questions each day that he will allow reporter's to ask. Most of the video you see of him on TV there is a teleprompter situated where none of the media can see cause he puts them in an area usually against a back wall out of the way ... ahh yes, democracy at its finest. This is why I can't trust him, what does he have to hide that he decides his own questions ... |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 6, 2011 9:21:34 GMT -5
hide? don't know, Skilly, but most elections aren't won, they are lost . . . and lost when someone opens his or her mouth. his is the classic front-runner's election . . . but even in playing it he's playing it poorly [he hasn't learned in the past few elections it seems].
as predicted, he's fighting his way from near-majority to mere-minority status. Iggy's got nothing to lose by going on the attack; Harper's got everything to lose by fighting back. and Layton continues to dream.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 6, 2011 13:00:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 6, 2011 13:06:49 GMT -5
Gotcha, I thought it was Iggie who had said something stupid (not that what comes out of most politician's mouths is very bright). You wont hear much stupid come out of Harper's mouth in this election ... he pre-selects 5 questions each day that he will allow reporter's to ask. Most of the video you see of him on TV there is a teleprompter situated where none of the media can see cause he puts them in an area usually against a back wall out of the way ... ahh yes, democracy at its finest. This is why I can't trust him, what does he have to hide that he decides his own questions ... Have you ever been in a political rally? If you had, you know it's Ambush City. And guess who leads the pack in ambushes? Reporters despise controlled environments because they can't create the "moments" that sell air time. They don';t have "and here is our very own Jane Doe asking the tough questions"......and the tough question? Boxers or briefs? After five years, there is nothing to hide....other then boxers or briefs. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 6, 2011 13:17:05 GMT -5
You wont hear much stupid come out of Harper's mouth in this election ... he pre-selects 5 questions each day that he will allow reporter's to ask. Most of the video you see of him on TV there is a teleprompter situated where none of the media can see cause he puts them in an area usually against a back wall out of the way ... ahh yes, democracy at its finest. This is why I can't trust him, what does he have to hide that he decides his own questions ... Have you ever been in a political rally? If you had, you know it's Ambush City. And guess who leads the pack in ambushes? Reporters despise controlled environments because they can't create the "moments" that sell air time. They don';t have "and here is our very own Jane Doe asking the tough questions"......and the tough question? Boxers or briefs? After five years, there is nothing to hide....other then boxers or briefs. I have no problem HA with him not talking to reporters, i do have a problem with him selecting the questions they are allowed to ask ... I'm surprised the media hasn't come out in full force against these tactics ... either stage a one day strike of covering Harper or something. They are all afraid one media outlet will get cold feet and be the one that gets the "exclusive" ... |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 6, 2011 13:24:11 GMT -5
Gotcha, I thought it was Iggie who had said something stupid (not that what comes out of most politician's mouths is very bright). You wont hear much stupid come out of Harper's mouth in this election ... he pre-selects 5 questions each day that he will allow reporter's to ask. Most of the video you see of him on TV there is a teleprompter situated where none of the media can see cause he puts them in an area usually against a back wall out of the way ... ahh yes, democracy at its finest. This is why I can't trust him, what does he have to hide that he decides his own questions ... I don't trust him because... well, he hasn't given me a reason to trust him. Sure, he promised us a loan for the Churchill Falls project. He also promised to honour the accords. We all know how that went. I don't mind the orchestrated nature of politics. Being able to come up with a non-offense answer when put on the spot is not a quality I look for in my representatives. If you think Iggy and Layton and May and Duceppe are not all preparing and rehearsing for every public appearance in their own ways (which play to their strengths) your kidding yourself. I prefer to look for more important qualities. Integrity. Honestly. A willingness to stand up for what you believe in. Which is why I won't vote for Harper or for Fabian. There are many, many words I would use to describe those two, but honest is not one of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 6, 2011 13:46:50 GMT -5
I don't trust him because... well, he hasn't given me a reason to trust him. Sure, he promised us a loan for the Churchill Falls project. He also promised to honour the accords. We all know how that went. Churchill Falls was a foolish promise. He opened the door to 20-30 billion in loans because EVERY province will get in line. The problem as always is that people want that they want. They don't see or care to see a bigger picture. Quebec City wants a stadium, You get their vote if you promise them a stadium. NFLD wants loans for Churchill Falls. You get their vote if you load them the money. And the beat goes on across the country. So we demand from them what they couldn't or shouldn't deliver and then complain about it when they can't..Should they gave promised what they know will be a problem? Of course not ......but then. they wouldn't be politicians. Perhaps we should hold vote for two parties. The Rhinoceros Party and the second runner up...... |
|
