I doubt Harper is going to win, but if he does...

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Apr 23 2005, 06:15 PM

I'm pretty sure the old jeeps were purchased during the Mulroney years.

Possibly, but the point was that the Liberals sent our soldiers over in vehciles that were known to be flawed, into a situation where that flaw was likely to be exploited.


Hakan - I wasnt arguing the merits of gay marriage vs military funding. I was pointing out to the argument that the government needs to do what is "right", even if it isnt popular.

A majority of Canadians think redefining marriage is wrong, but the government is doing what isnt necessaraly popular because it believes it is right.

The military was bled dry because it was unpopular to spend money on it.

It's the hypocricy of picking and choosing which "right" actions to take that I was arguing against, not the merits of each case themselves.

Show me why I should vote for the Conservatives. I mean, if corruption and wasted money is your litmus for approval then the Mulroney debacle comes to mind easily.

Indeed. Mulrooney wasnt half as corrupt as Chretien, and yet the PCs were decimated and ultimately destroyed. One would think Canadians would treat the Liberals the same way.

[duncan]

Originally posted by Sammie@Apr 23 2005, 03:59 PM


Provincial NDP governments in BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario confirms how badly the economy has been managed by the NDP in the past. Where is the evidence that the Conservatives will hinder the social agenda and what constitutes setting back that agenda? Also, who's agenda are we talking about?

The NDP has held one term in Ontario in their history, and unfortunately for them, it was during a recession. If you ask 90% of the people of Ontario, they would rather have Bob Rae back, than a day with Mike Harris or Ernie Eves as Premier. The Provincial Tories in Ontario hold the distinction of one of the worst governments in Ontario history. Lets look at their record;

1. Cuts to public services, namely Lab Workers, ministry of Health & Ministry of the Environment, led to the tragedy in Walkerton and the near tragedy in Alvinston/Wallaceburg
2. Severe cuts to health care led to closed hospitals, long emergency room lines, and contributed to the lengthy problems with containing the SARS virus.
3. Cuts to Teachers College enrollment led to a teacher shortage
4. Increased tuition fees, and cap on Docter's wages, led to severe docter shortage.
5. Sale of Ontario Hydro led to closure of Reactors at Darlington and Bruce Nuclear, which led to higher rates and contributed to blackouts
6. Sale of 407 highway tolls, led to tripling of rates
7. Cuts to public services, namely meat inspectors led to Aylmer meat scandal
8. Creation of Ontario Power Group, headed by Tory supporters, with executive wages from $300 000 to $1M/ year
9. Hidden $5B defecit, while profesional sports teams got tax breaks, and Harris' buddies (Northern heritage Foundation) were given millions of dollars to build private golf courses in his riding.
10. single mothers, pensioners and welfare recipients had incomes cut, while MPPs gave themselves a 37.5% raise
11. Public servants such as; jail guards, nurses, psychiatric hospital orderlies, snowplow operaters, meat inspectors, probation/parole officers, etc. had pension income freezes, while MPPs granted full pensions for themselves after a single term.
12. Tory cabinet members using public funds for european Vacations
13. Granting contracts to supporters for advertising, road maintanance, construction, etc.

The Harris Tories were a nightmare, that will be hard to forget. They were cruel, arrogant and corrupt.

The NDP in BC had a 10 year run, that improved Social Services and raised the quality of life. Since the liberals took over in 2001, it is slowly sliding back.

[Hakan]

Another interesting fact about the BC NDP was that the Liberals, along with the entire CanWest machine, went balls to the wall in the last election campaign about the 'fudge-it budget' when, it turned out that not only was the last NDP budget balanced but had a small surplus. Not to be outdone, the right-wing Liberals promptly instituted a huge tax cut which lead to the larger budget deficit than any year of NDP governance.

The hate the NDP gets is completely uncorroborated sometimes. Most people read and hear crap from giant media conglomerates who have a discerned financial interest in maintaining a right of centre government and then these people vote in complete conflict with their economic interests.

[duncan]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Apr 24 2005, 01:34 AM

A majority of Canadians think redefining marriage is wrong, but the government is doing what isnt necessaraly popular because it believes it is right.

The definition is being changed, not because the Liberals think it is right, but because it is currently discrimintory.

[Hakan]

Hakan - I wasnt arguing the merits of gay marriage vs military funding. I was pointing out to the argument that the government needs to do what is "right", even if it isnt popular.

Perhaps I should have made myself more clear. There was NOTHING the government could have done about gay marriage. Therefore, a government could ethically pass legislation that was unpopular if it was consitutionally necessary.So to compare it to funding the military is disingenuous. The government has the option to fund the military or not, whereas the SC decided that gay marriages were legal. The two are apples and oranges. Also, it's debatable how unpopular gay marriage actually is.

[Blaster86]

When you ask most Canadians what would they rather have, Social Conservatives or Thieves they will ALWAYS take the thieves.

Harper is a loon. If he gets a government it will be a minority and will last only until they present a budget, then the government would come down. Harper is too far to the right to survive in Canada's socially left society. The only place he will get a lot of support is Alberta, and even with all that oil it's not enough. Ontario decides who wins and loses and Ontario will probably never vote conservative to give them a Majority.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by duncan+Apr 23 2005, 06:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (duncan @ Apr 23 2005, 06:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Snakeeye@Apr 24 2005, 01:34 AM

A majority of Canadians think redefining marriage is wrong, but the government is doing what isnt necessaraly popular because it believes it is right.

The definition is being changed, not because the Liberals think it is right, but because it is currently discrimintory. [/b][/quote]
That is debatable, and also immaterial.

The Liberals think it is the "right" thing to do because it is apparently discrimintory.

Six years ago, the Liberals thought it was "right" to unanimously oppose redefining marriage, though that is also immaterial.

The argument, for the third time, is about picking and choosing what the "right" thing is to do - partially based on popularity.

[Blaster86]

Originally posted by Snakeeye+Apr 23 2005, 06:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ Apr 23 2005, 06:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

The definition is being changed, not because the Liberals think it is right, but because it is currently discrimintory.

That is debatable, and also immaterial.

The Liberals think it is the "right" thing to do because it is apparently discrimintory.

Six years ago, the Liberals thought it was "right" to unanimously oppose redefining marriage, though that is also immaterial.

The argument, for the third time, is about picking and choosing what the "right" thing is to do - partially based on popularity. [/b][/quote]
Isn't that what a government should do? What the people want?

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Hakan@Apr 23 2005, 06:55 PM
Hakan - I wasnt arguing the merits of gay marriage vs military funding. I was pointing out to the argument that the government needs to do what is "right", even if it isnt popular.

Perhaps I should have made myself more clear. There was NOTHING the government could have done about gay marriage. Therefore, a government could ethically pass legislation that was unpopular if it was consitutionally necessary.So to compare it to funding the military is disingenuous. The government has the option to fund the military or not, whereas the SC decided that gay marriages were legal. The two are apples and oranges. Also, it's debatable how unpopular gay marriage actually is.

We are not debating the legality of gay unions though. We are debating the definition of a word.

I dont think anybody is arguing that gay unions should have the same rights as a heterosexual marriage or common-law union does, merely that the word "marriage" be reserved for a union between a man and a woman.

Personally, I think the entire gay marriage thing is a tempest in a teapot, and more than likely a good deal of political opportunism by the Liberals, rather than a genuine attempt at fixing a mythical imbalance.

I'd like to see the government simply strike the word "marriage" from the books altogether. Just pull this silly argument right out from under the opportunists trying to push their agenda.

Leave it up to the people themselves to decide what they think is and is not a marriage. The only thing that truely matters is how one type of union is handled legally and economically compared to another.

The latest poll I've seen is an Environics poll that put opposition to redefining marriage at 52%, compared to 44% support. A very slim majority, but a majority none the less.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Blaster86@Apr 23 2005, 07:00 PM
Isn't that what a government should do? What the people want?

And if people want to keep the definition of marriage as it is now?

Further: people want unlimited health care with no waiting lists.

People dont want to be taxed.

So, should government quadruple funding to health care while cutting taxes to 0%?

It's what the people want.

[duncan]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Apr 24 2005, 01:58 AM
That is debatable, and also immaterial.

The Liberals think it is the "right" thing to do because it is apparently discrimintory.

Six years ago, the Liberals thought it was "right" to unanimously oppose redefining marriage, though that is also immaterial.

The argument, for the third time, is about picking and choosing what the "right" thing is to do - partially based on popularity.

It is neither debatable or immaterial. The Human Rights Code clearly states the areas for discrimination, and the Charter of Rights and freedoms backs that up thus it is law, not debatable. It is definitely not immaterial, since your argument was they were making a choice because they think it is right.

less than two years ago, Harper stated he didn't care if Quebec, or for that matter, the maritimes left Canada. Now he waxes his desire for a unified country. Positions change, as we learn.

[Blaster86]

Originally posted by Snakeeye+Apr 23 2005, 07:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ Apr 23 2005, 07:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Blaster86@Apr 23 2005, 07:00 PM
Isn't that what a government should do? What the people want?

And if people want to keep the definition of marriage as it is now?

Further: people want unlimited health care with no waiting lists.

People dont want to be taxed.

So, should government quadruple funding to health care while cutting taxes to 0%?

It's what the people want. [/b][/quote]
Now to clarify: I am a card carrying Federal Liberal (quite literally, I pay the membership dues and everything)

An NDP government probably would do something as you described.

Now both the Income Tax and the GST were supposed to be temporary so when Canadians ask for less tax they have a right.

In the perfect governmental system what the people want is what the government should want. But last I checked there was no clear majority in favor or against gay marriage. In that case go with what is socially and morally right. Morales state equality, not descriminate against sexuality.

[longsuffering]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Apr 23 2005, 06:34 PM

It would be likely, because unlike Canada, when curruption pokes it head out of the ground, for the most part that person actually either loses his job or goes to jail, and isn't awarded another term in office because people like "his platform"

People are losing their jobs and people will likely go to jail. The former PM - the PM who is responsible for this scandal, may even be one of them. At the very least, his 'legacy' will be this scandal.

I've said before that I can't agree with those who paint this as a Liberal Party scandal. The 'program' in question was controlled by a small group led by Chretian. Do you have any idea how easy (relatively) it is for a small unified group to keep knowledge of their actions confined to their group?

In response to your question about corruption:
Pretty good compared to who? All we've had in this government is scandal after scandal and most of them revolve around wasted government funds.

Well, according to Transparency International, Canada has it 'pretty good' as regards to corruption. Better than the US even. Imagine that. Canada has fallen from somewhere like #3 down to #12 (as the least corrupt countries) as a result of this scandal, but is still judged to be less corrupt than the US, Germany, France and Japan.

I agree with the poster who voiced his concerns about the Conservative parties desire to become a lap dog to the U.S. Being an independent country means developing an independent foreign policy. That includes standing up for the values you believe in. The Conservatives seem too eager to appease the US no matter where their disasterous foreign policy takes them because they don't want to risk our business relationship. History tells us that appeasement isn't a good idea.

Martin's government is not Chretian's government. Its as simple as that. I support letting the Gomery inquiry play out. When the FACTS are in, I will make an informed decision.

[Hakan]

*clapping icon*

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Blaster86@Apr 23 2005, 07:56 PM
Harper is a loon.

What an idiotically stupid comment!

[CaptainCrunch]

People are losing their jobs and people will likely go to jail. The former PM - the PM who is responsible for this scandal, may even be one of them. At the very least, his 'legacy' will be this scandal.

Big deal, in the end the people that deserve to lose thier jobs will be protected by the judges that they appointed. Mark my words, some disposible yeoman in a red uniform will take a fall for this, and while the real perpetrators are allowed to retire with thier full pensions and benefits we'll watch the Liberals crow that they cleaned this mess up, until next time.

I've said before that I can't agree with those who paint this as a Liberal Party scandal. The 'program' in question was controlled by a small group led by Chretian. Do you have any idea how easy (relatively) it is for a small unified group to keep knowledge of their actions confined to their group?

then the scandals under the conservatives weren't party scandals and therefore they can't be judged against them. And I disagree with you on this anyways, if the head of the party was doing this, then it is a Liberal party scandal, and if its that easy to dupe your finance minister on this, overspending on the gun registry, the HRDC scandal etc etc, then that person shouldn't be the Prime Minister at this particular time. Its one or the other with Martin, either he's incompetant or he knew about it and tried to cover it up, it can't be any other way.

Well, according to Transparency International, Canada has it 'pretty good' as regards to corruption. Better than the US even. Imagine that. Canada has fallen from somewhere like #3 down to #12 (as the least corrupt countries) as a result of this scandal, but is still judged to be less corrupt than the US, Germany, France and Japan.

If your talking about the 2004 list it was compiled before the the gomery hearing adjourned which would probably move us back down that list beyond the U.S. and most other industrial nations, but we'll have to wait til 2005's list comes out. Canada has also slid steadily downwards on this list since the Liberals retook power.


agree with the poster who voiced his concerns about the Conservative parties desire to become a lap dog to the U.S. Being an independent country means developing an independent foreign policy. That includes standing up for the values you believe in. The Conservatives seem too eager to appease the US no matter where their disasterous foreign policy takes them because they don't want to risk our business relationship. History tells us that appeasement isn't a good idea.


I don't really buy this whole Conservatives want to become the lapdogs of the Yankee Imperialist swines. However I see nothing wrong with working with the American's on areas of common interests. But thats a whole different kettle of fish here.

Martin's government is not Chretian's government. Its as simple as that. I support letting the Gomery inquiry play out. When the FACTS are in, I will make an informed decision.

Your right Martin's government is not Chretian's government, but its equally as bad since most of the members of Chretian's senior cabal are still in key positions in running this country, and Martin is one of them. I don't really want to wait for the Liberals to try and buy thier way out of this mess over the next 8 months, because thats what they'll do, and they'll also start thier fear campaign and thier BS. If Martin was a honourable guy, he'd march over to the GG office and disolve parliment and let this go to a vote. But then again, the Liberals in Canada over the last 10 years and longer have never been honourable or truthful.

And that as Forest Gump would say, is all I have to say about that.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

I'm absolutely stunned at how may people will defend this Libs on this.

It shouldn't matter whether you're politcally just left of David Suzuki or just right of Attila the Hun - this is a party that stole our money. And not a couple questionable lunch receipts, but millions of dollars.

I don't care if other countries are worse - they stole our money.

I don't care if other Canadian governments have done the same thing - this one stole our money.

Perhaps next time I want a new car I should walk into a dealership and just never come back from the test drive. I'll tell the judge 'lots of people steal, and in some places, they steal even more.' I'm sure he'll let me off then.

Support the Greens, NDP, conservative, BQ - whatever you like. But to continue to support the liberals is pathetic. Democracy has a way of ensuring we get exactly the government we deserve.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Sammie+Apr 23 2005, 11:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Apr 23 2005, 11:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

What an idiotically stupid comment![/b]

As opposed to this gem:

<!--QuoteBegin-Sammie@Apr 9 2005, 11:28 AM
The Green Party? Is that where people gather and share the merger pickings from their nostrils?[/quote]

[longsuffering]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Apr 24 2005, 12:58 AM
People are losing their jobs and people will likely go to jail. The former PM - the PM who is responsible for this scandal, may even be one of them. At the very least, his 'legacy' will be this scandal.

Big deal, in the end the people that deserve to lose thier jobs will be protected by the judges that they appointed. Mark my words, some disposible yeoman in a red uniform will take a fall for this, and while the real perpetrators are allowed to retire with thier full pensions and benefits we'll watch the Liberals crow that they cleaned this mess up, until next time.

I've said before that I can't agree with those who paint this as a Liberal Party scandal. The 'program' in question was controlled by a small group led by Chretian. Do you have any idea how easy (relatively) it is for a small unified group to keep knowledge of their actions confined to their group?

then the scandals under the conservatives weren't party scandals and therefore they can't be judged against them. And I disagree with you on this anyways, if the head of the party was doing this, then it is a Liberal party scandal, and if its that easy to dupe your finance minister on this, overspending on the gun registry, the HRDC scandal etc etc, then that person shouldn't be the Prime Minister at this particular time. Its one or the other with Martin, either he's incompetant or he knew about it and tried to cover it up, it can't be any other way.

Well, according to Transparency International, Canada has it 'pretty good' as regards to corruption. Better than the US even. Imagine that. Canada has fallen from somewhere like #3 down to #12 (as the least corrupt countries) as a result of this scandal, but is still judged to be less corrupt than the US, Germany, France and Japan.

If your talking about the 2004 list it was compiled before the the gomery hearing adjourned which would probably move us back down that list beyond the U.S. and most other industrial nations, but we'll have to wait til 2005's list comes out. Canada has also slid steadily downwards on this list since the Liberals retook power.


agree with the poster who voiced his concerns about the Conservative parties desire to become a lap dog to the U.S. Being an independent country means developing an independent foreign policy. That includes standing up for the values you believe in. The Conservatives seem too eager to appease the US no matter where their disasterous foreign policy takes them because they don't want to risk our business relationship. History tells us that appeasement isn't a good idea.


I don't really buy this whole Conservatives want to become the lapdogs of the Yankee Imperialist swines. However I see nothing wrong with working with the American's on areas of common interests. But thats a whole different kettle of fish here.

Martin's government is not Chretian's government. Its as simple as that. I support letting the Gomery inquiry play out. When the FACTS are in, I will make an informed decision.

Your right Martin's government is not Chretian's government, but its equally as bad since most of the members of Chretian's senior cabal are still in key positions in running this country, and Martin is one of them. I don't really want to wait for the Liberals to try and buy thier way out of this mess over the next 8 months, because thats what they'll do, and they'll also start thier fear campaign and thier BS. If Martin was a honourable guy, he'd march over to the GG office and disolve parliment and let this go to a vote. But then again, the Liberals in Canada over the last 10 years and longer have never been honourable or truthful.

And that as Forest Gump would say, is all I have to say about that.

Well, at least you have an open mind. :P

I'm wasting my time, but I have to ask how you KNOW that "the people that deserve to lose thier jobs will be protected by the judges that they appointed."

Spoken like a true cynic. Let's wait and see. I doubt JC will go to jail, but I believe some of the key players will.

And I'm not as sure as you that TI will move Canada down the list next time ratings are compiled.

Remember the rating is based on perception. You cannot say with any certainty whether Canada's rating will rise or fall as a result of the Gomery Commission. Banana republics bury their scandals, literally in some cases. I believe Martin's government is sincere in letting events take their course and for Gomery to continue his work independently. Our TI rating could raise as a result of the public enquiry.

And I suggest you provide some evidence rather than throw out phrases like: "Canada has also slid steadily downwards on this list since the Liberals retook power." Have you got anything to back up your not-so-veiled suggestion that the government was responsible for changes in ratings? Or is it just another thing you KNOW Carnack? Demonstrate a cause and effect. The US rating has been dropping since Bush became President. Your logic suggests his government is more corrupt than Canada's. Or can you blame that on Martin as well?

And as has been pointed out a number of times, although you keep ignoring it - the Finance Minister sets the Budget - he does not and never has, had responsibility for monitoring spending.

One last thing. I was a Conservative most of my life (back when the PC represented the centre and the Liberals were further to the left of the political spectrum), but Harper's party does not share my values. Call me silly, but I have to support the party that thinks like I think. The one that believes in Social programs, a woman's right to choose, basic Human Rights for everyone and most importantly an INDEPENDENT foreign policy.

I could probably support a MacKay or Stronach lead Conservative Party. I can't support a Canadian Alliance led party. The party should get rid of the right wing, religious right wackos and maybe they'd have a chance to form a majority government some day.

[longsuffering]

Originally posted by Bend it like Bourgeois@Apr 24 2005, 08:58 AM
I'm absolutely stunned at how may people will defend this Libs on this.

It shouldn't matter whether you're politcally just left of David Suzuki or just right of Attila the Hun - this is a party that stole our money. And not a couple questionable lunch receipts, but millions of dollars.

I don't care if other countries are worse - they stole our money.

I don't care if other Canadian governments have done the same thing - this one stole our money.

Perhaps next time I want a new car I should walk into a dealership and just never come back from the test drive. I'll tell the judge 'lots of people steal, and in some places, they steal even more.' I'm sure he'll let me off then.

Support the Greens, NDP, conservative, BQ - whatever you like. But to continue to support the liberals is pathetic. Democracy has a way of ensuring we get exactly the government we deserve.

And you obviously don't care if the Alliance dominated Conservative Party will eviserate Canada's social programs, tramble on the rights of minorites and women, send Canadian soldiers to fight and die in senseless wars and stick their noses up GWB's butt for an extra trade dollar.

The Ad scandal sickens me, but I will not vote for a party that will systematically dismantle the things that make me proud to be a Canadian.