Where's the evil?

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate+May 13 2005, 06:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cube Inmate @ May 13 2005, 06:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike F@May 12 2005, 03:38 PM
If you came up with an aggregate score for the parties based on the individuals and their actions over the last 5-7 years then the Liberal party would be on the lowest rung of the moral ladder. There were clearly a number of corrupt individuals who abused the power they had been given.

The problem is though that we're not voting for the 5-7 year aggregate of the parties, we're voting for the 2005 version. What I need to know is whether the corruption was limited to a specific cell (for lack of a better term) in the Liberal party that was purged when Chretien and his crew left, of was it spread throughout the entire party with some of the corrupt individuals trying to get voted in again. As I've (hopefully) established in my argument with Shawnski, the Gomery inquiry stands a good chance of answering that question.

This type of statement drives me freakin' crazy...

You say it's not about the past, but about the present and the future. So, assuming you're a gullible fool, you might believe that Martin and his team have inherently higher moral standards than Cretin and his bunch. Maybe even Gomery or the RCMP will someday tell us that the existing heirarchy is untainted in the whole affair...although obviously they were incompetent. STILL...a vote for the Liberal party effectively condones what has been done for the last 10 years, regardless of whether you're voting for the perpetrators or their successors. The only thing politicians understand (and possibly learn from) is being fired by the voters.

Giving the party a free pass to the PMO regardless of their transgressions is the worst possible thing for the country, IMO. This one-party dictatorship is perpetuating the attitude among Canadians that "mediocrity" is fine. If we want better---and I do---then we've got to send a message that we want better performance. The only way to send that message is by firing the dictatorship. It's way past time to fire Ralph as well, with decades of PC government behind us in Alberta...

Try a new party. If things don't work out, we can fire them too in another few years. Maybe if we keep firing these idiots, they'll learn that they have to actually serve the country, rather than use the country for their own benefit.

</rant> [/b][/quote]
Here, here!

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by HOZ+May 13 2005, 10:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (HOZ @ May 13 2005, 10:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@May 13 2005, 10:48 PM
I'm starting to have some serious reservations about Harper.

First, he complains about Liberals wasting money, and then he goes and purposely obstructs parliament 3 days in a row. That is basically the political equivalent of a temper tantrum. His party seems more interested in obstructing than working. He wants to force an election and waste $300 million dollars instead of trying to make things work.

Second, he is making handshake deals with a Quebec separtist. This one worries me quite a bit. Here is a guy who could very well be the next Prime Minister of the country, and he is forming a political alliance with a person whose goal is to dismantle the country. Their politics share very little common ground - one is a right conservative, and the other is a left socialist. You can bet your bottom dollar that Duceppe isn't helping Harper right now out of the goodness of his heart. It really makes me wonder what Duceppe will gain from Harper if the conservatives win the next election.

Honestly, you and reality are very separate. [/b][/quote]
You're one to talk. You're the biggest wierdo on this site, and I think most people would agree. You sound like a paranoid schitzophrenic most of the time.

Explain how my concerns about Harper do not represent reality.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 13 2005, 03:48 PM
I'm starting to have some serious reservations about Harper.

First, he complains about Liberals wasting money, and then he goes and purposely obstructs parliament 3 days in a row. That is basically the political equivalent of a temper tantrum. His party seems more interested in obstructing than working. He wants to force an election and waste $300 million dollars instead of trying to make things work.

Second, he is making handshake deals with a Quebec separtist. This one worries me quite a bit. Here is a guy who could very well be the next Prime Minister of the country, and he is forming a political alliance with a person whose goal is to dismantle the country. Their politics share very little common ground - one is a right conservative, and the other is a left socialist. You can bet your bottom dollar that Duceppe isn't helping Harper right now out of the goodness of his heart. It really makes me wonder what Duceppe will gain from Harper if the conservatives win the next election.

First, that $300 million is going to be spent anyway. Either today, or in November (well, assuming Martin keeps his promise, but we all know that wont happen as he has proven more adept at breaking promises than Chretien was). So that is a non issue.

As for shutting down parliament, does it really matter? Everything they could possibly discuss today will be wiped out when the government falls next week. Certantly it is childish on all sides, but that is politics.

As for working with Duceppe, I don't get the devil from Quebec argument. So long as Quebec remains a Canadian province, the BQ are their representatives in parliament. In this case, the two parties have a common cause. I really find working with the Bloq to bring down the Liberals to be far less reprehensible than the NDP working with a corrupt party outright demanding billions of dollors be wasted for that support.

That said, Harper will definitely have a difficult time of it as a minority Prime Minister, as we all know Duceppe will stab Harper in the back the first time it is beneficial to him. I would suspect that the Bloq would work with a minority CPC government so long as Harper would hold true to shrinking federal government, especially it's interference, and giving more powers to the provinces. Quite frankly, that benefits the entire nation, not just Quebec.

The most unfortunate part of this entire fiasco is that Ontario is going to force the continuation of an unstable government, as there will not be a majority government coming out of this. I only hope that it is a Conservative minority, and that Harper can prove to Ontario that the CPC is not the evil boogeymen that the liberal dominated media makes them out to be in that time.

[MarchHare]

Giving the party a free pass to the PMO regardless of their transgressions is the worst possible thing for the country, IMO. This one-party dictatorship is perpetuating the attitude among Canadians that "mediocrity" is fine. If we want better---and I do---then we've got to send a message that we want better performance. The only way to send that message is by firing the dictatorship.

Consider this:

Even with all the allegations about criminal activity within the Liberal Party, polls still show them neck & neck with the Conservatives. Those same polls show that the NDP is the #2 choice of a majority of Liberal supporters. This is not because voters are unimformed or are idiots, despite what many posters here seem to think. Nor is it because of Liberal mud-slinging tactics. Canadians see the CPC as nothing more than the Alliance/Reform Parties in new clothing, and those parties have never appealed to voters outside of the West. This "one-party dictatorship", as you put it, is not the fault of the Liberals (although they've certainly been willing beneficiaries). The PC party of old would be killing the Liberals in polls right now, especially in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. If we want an effective opposition in this country, one that could conceivably win a majority government, it's the Conservatives that have to adapt. A Harper-led CPC, as is obvious to anyone by now, does not have enough credibility with voters to form anything more than perhaps a minority government.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by MarchHare@May 13 2005, 08:07 PM

Consider this:

Even with all the allegations about criminal activity within the Liberal Party, polls still show them neck & neck with the Conservatives. Those same polls show that the NDP is the #2 choice of a majority of Liberal supporters. This is not because voters are unimformed or are idiots, despite what many posters here seem to think. Nor is it because of Liberal mud-slinging tactics. Canadians see the CPC as nothing more than the Alliance/Reform Parties in new clothing, and those parties have never appealed to voters outside of the West. This "one-party dictatorship", as you put it, is not the fault of the Liberals (although they've certainly been willing beneficiaries). The PC party of old would be killing the Liberals in polls right now, especially in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. If we want an effective opposition in this country, one that could conceivably win a majority government, it's the Conservatives that have to adapt. A Harper-led CPC, as is obvious to anyone by now, does not have enough credibility with voters to form anything more than perhaps a minority government.

I'd agree with that. I'm gonna stay neutral in this so:

As much as Martin might be a crook, Harper scares the BEJEBUS out of Atlantic Canadians. Does he even know they exist?

Part of the problem in Canadian politics right now is that policy superstars (Martin, and Harper) are leading the parties. Sadly, to be in the public eye, and the go to guy, you need to be charasmatic, and have great communication and leadership skills. Something that neither man has. As much as Martin might come off as an *******, Harper comes off as cold and unprepared. Might have something to do with never looking into the camera, but when he does he looks like he's gonna kill you in your sleep.

As much as you might not want to hear it, in order for the CPC to do well, they need an ALLSTAR leader from Quebec. It'd close the gap from east to west. Until then, a Masters in Economics (for the record only psycopaths would take economics, let alone a masters in it, haha) probably won't be leading the country.

[Resolute 14]

The PC party of old would be killing the Liberals in polls right now, especially in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. If we want an effective opposition in this country, one that could conceivably win a majority government, it's the Conservatives that have to adapt.

Not with the incompetent leadership the Tories typically had.

The problem here is that the CPC has adapted. It is moving farther to the left, however as your own post proves, people are far too willing to simply hang onto that old belief that it is just the Reform/Alliance with another name. And while you may consider voters out east to be wise enough to figure it out on their own, quite frankly, I think you give them too much credit. Far, far too many people are still basing their opinions on Reform party policy, not Conservative Party of Canada policy.

Keep in mind that the best case scenario here is a Conservative minority. Even with Harper and his boogey-man image, the CPC will have to be much more centrist to hold onto power for any length of time. The CPC has spent most of the last decade adapting. I suspect people like you will never be happy until they are left of the Liberals.


Q-scout - I'm rather curious why Harper scares Maritimers so much. It's especially interesting given that the transfer deal Newfoundland and Nova Scotia got was only promised by Martin after Harper promised it first. I question whether you guys would have ever gotten any kind of deal if not for the Conservatives and Harper forcing the Liberals into making that promise last year. Though obviously there are a lot of other factors, including social policy and whatnot.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@May 13 2005, 11:05 PM
As for working with Duceppe, I don't get the devil from Quebec argument. So long as Quebec remains a Canadian province, the BQ are their representatives in parliament. In this case, the two parties have a common cause. I really find working with the Bloq to bring down the Liberals to be far less reprehensible than the NDP working with a corrupt party outright demanding billions of dollors be wasted for that support.

So you wouldn't at all wonder if it were the Liberals or NDP making behind the scenes politcal alliances with the Bloc?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@May 13 2005, 08:17 PM
Q-scout - I'm rather curious why Harper scares Maritimers so much. It's especially interesting given that the transfer deal Newfoundland and Nova Scotia got was only promised by Martin after Harper promised it first. I question whether you guys would have ever gotten any kind of deal if not for the Conservatives and Harper forcing the Liberals into making that promise last year. Though obviously there are a lot of other factors, including social policy and whatnot.

now remember in political threads I do not type my opinion, just what I pick up from those around me.

The biggest thing seems to be how social programs and transfer payments are viewed by those in Harper's home province. If his electors are in favour of private healthcare, and smaller transfer payments (it's evidenced by the Should Alberta Seperate thread) then why would a poorer province want that?

The funny thing is the NS Convservatives have formed the government in Nova Soctia for the past 5 years, with similar numbers in NB, and PEI. It's not to say that the East Coast isn't in favour of a conservative philosophy per say, but more of a liberal Conservative philosophy, or a conservative Liberal philosophy.

There is also the sentiment of "my grandfather voted Liberal, and my father voted Liberal, and gosh darn it all, I'm voting Liberal".

And there are people that just plain out don't like Harper. They hate him more than Martin. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Again, just saying what I see. You can argue it black and blue all you want, but until you change the view here on the east, it's staying that way. Why I said a Conservative leader from Quebec would do wonders for the party.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate@May 12 2005, 11:20 PM
This type of statement drives me freakin' crazy...

You say it's not about the past, but about the present and the future. So, assuming you're a gullible fool, you might believe that Martin and his team have inherently higher moral standards than Cretin and his bunch. Maybe even Gomery or the RCMP will someday tell us that the existing heirarchy is untainted in the whole affair...although obviously they were incompetent. STILL...a vote for the Liberal party effectively condones what has been done for the last 10 years, regardless of whether you're voting for the perpetrators or their successors. The only thing politicians understand (and possibly learn from) is being fired by the voters.

Giving the party a free pass to the PMO regardless of their transgressions is the worst possible thing for the country, IMO. This one-party dictatorship is perpetuating the attitude among Canadians that "mediocrity" is fine. If we want better---and I do---then we've got to send a message that we want better performance. The only way to send that message is by firing the dictatorship. It's way past time to fire Ralph as well, with decades of PC government behind us in Alberta...

Try a new party. If things don't work out, we can fire them too in another few years. Maybe if we keep firing these idiots, they'll learn that they have to actually serve the country, rather than use the country for their own benefit.

</rant>

So individual politician only learn by a party being voted off, huh?

Here's how things would work in your world: A Liberal politician, L, is approached by person X and offered a deal whereby if he directs government funding to X's company, X will then kickback some of that money to L. L thinks to himself "Gee, the sponsorship scandal has shown me that there's a good chance that an audit will catch this, I'll be publically exposed as corrupt, I'll never be able to hold pubic office again and I'll possibly be charged with civil &/or criminal offenses, ruining my life... but hey other Liberals will still be able to get elected so yeah let's go for it!"

That's how you think things work, but I'm the gullible fool right?

You change individual behaviour by making individuals know that they will be held personally accountable for their actions. Do I believe that believe that Martin and his team have inherently higher moral standards than Cretin and his bunch? If the Gomery inquiry fails to find any of them were corrupt, then yes. And furthermore I'd expect them to be on their best behaviour in the future because they've just seen a bunch of their former colleagues publically dragged through the mud, and I have no doubt that the fear of being held accountable as individuals will keep them in line irregardless of what happens to the party.

[MarchHare]

And there are people that just plain out don't like Harper. They hate him more than Martin.

Maritimers have never forgiven Harper for his "culture of defeatism" comment. Hell, even the Conservative government in Nova Scotia unamiously passed a motion condemning Harper for those remarks.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/05/29...r_atlntc020529

Does anyone know if the CPC won any seats in Atlantic Canada last year that weren't previously held by an incumbent from the former PC party (like Peter Mackay)?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by Mike F@May 13 2005, 04:54 PM
Here's how things would work in your world: A Liberal politician, L, is approached by person X and offered a deal whereby if he directs government funding to X's company, X will then kickback some of that money to L. L thinks to himself "Gee, the sponsorship scandal has shown me that there's a good chance that an audit will catch this, I'll be publically exposed as corrupt, I'll never be able to hold pubic office again and I'll possibly be charged with civil &/or criminal offenses, ruining my life... but hey other Liberals will still be able to get elected so yeah let's go for it!"


That's how you think things work, but I'm the gullible fool right?

In denial, not gullible.

The whole rest of the world works on the principle that the organization and people at the top bear responsibility for the consequences of those under them. Whether they actively participate or not.

Exxon didn't get to fire the captain and walk away from a ship piled into the rocks.

Arthur Anderson had to re-invent itself, not just fire a couple people and go on it's merry way over Enron.

Why would the world work differently for the Liberals than anyone else?

Think bigger. The issue isn't the Liberal who's going to line his pockets. There will always be shady types in any party. Your friend L is going to be there no matter what. The issue is will all the people around him be more interested in stopping him and coming clean, or joining in and covering their own ass.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Bend it like Bourgeois+May 13 2005, 05:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bend it like Bourgeois @ May 13 2005, 05:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

In denial, not gullible.

The whole rest of the world works on the principle that the organization and people at the top bear responsibility for the consequences of those under them. Whether they actively participate or not.

Exxon didn't get to fire the captain and walk away from a ship piled into the rocks.

Arthur Anderson had to re-invent itself, not just fire a couple people and go on it's merry way over Enron.

Why would the world work differently for the Liberals than anyone else?[/b]

Last time I checked, Chretien and his crew were gone.

If those who were responsible for Enron had left the company and passed it on to new control before the scandal broke would you demand the head of the new CEO, CFO etc., who had nothing to do with the corruption, just because they were in charge at the time when the shinguard hit the fan?

Is that how the whole rest of the world works?

<!--QuoteBegin-Bend it like Bourgeois@May 13 2005, 05:43 PM
Think bigger. The issue isn't the Liberal who's going to line his pockets. There will always be shady types in any party. Your friend L is going to be there no matter what. The issue is will all the people around him be more interested in stopping him and coming clean, or joining in and covering their own ass.[/quote]

No, this is about whether the current Liberals will line their pockets (i.e. will continue to act in a corrupt manner). There may still be people of questionable moral character in the party, as there are in all parties, and the argument that the pro-Conservative camp are relying on is that these individuals won't reform there ways unless the government is voted out of office. That's just wrong and relies of a flawed understanding of human motivation as I outlined in my last post.

[CaptainCrunch]

So based on your statement do you believe that the conservative party after BM left should have been reduced to a couple of seats?

Because that happened because of patronage and scandals.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 13 2005, 06:51 PM
So based on your statement do you believe that the conservative party after BM left should have been reduced to a couple of seats?

Because that happened because of patronage and scandals.

I didn't follow politics back then and don't know what that scandal was all about, so I can't comment on what did or should have happened.

And I'm finally getting a chance to watch Spiderman 2, so I don't feel like researching it right now B-)

[MarchHare]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Canadians were really p*ssed at the Mulroney government over the GST and the failures of Meech Lake and Charlottetown? Not to mention the economy was bad at the time (which never helps the incumbent party), and Kim Campbell ran one of the worst campaigns ever. The infamous ads mocking Chretien's facial disability pretty much sunk the PC party.

The outcome, however, was that the ads, which were seen to have unfairly attacked Mr. Chrétien, did irreparable damage. Progressive Conservative electoral support plummeted following the ad fiasco, and on election day the Party received only 16 percent of the vote and managed to salvage but two seats from the 169 they had won in 1988 - an electoral debacle unmatched in Canadian political history. What the outcome would have been without the self destructive political ads is open to speculation, as the momentum of the campaign had already shifted to the Liberals before the Tory's desperation bid to turn the numbers around. However, a respected member of the PC Strategy Committee estimated that without the ads the party could have won 50 to 60 seats. While an NDP strategist calculated the PC's could have claimed 25 seats. Whatever the actual number, the decision to run these two ads has to rank as the single greatest blunder in the use of advertising in Canadian elections.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/infoparl/english/iss...am=152&art=1031

What were the scandals that plagued the Mulroney government, other than the Airbus scandal, and that was only revealed after the election, wasn't it?

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout@May 13 2005, 05:16 PM
As much as you might not want to hear it, in order for the CPC to do well, they need an ALLSTAR leader from Quebec. It'd close the gap from east to west. Until then, a Masters in Economics (for the record only psycopaths would take economics, let alone a masters in it, haha) probably won't be leading the country.

Quite frankly I think this kind of notion is disgusting and why Canada is in such dire straits politically... We don't like a leader cause he lives in Alberta, and an all-star from Quebec would be more appealing??? You wonder why Albertans hate the East so much, its comments like this. I guess we all have no chance of the centre seat, guys and gals.

Now I'm not attacking you personally here Q, cause you're not the first or the last to say this kind of thing. Imagine the uproar in the US if people came out publically and said they didn't vote for a certain party... not because of what they say, or think, but because of where they live... thats just wrong on so many levels. Think Kerry would've done better if he was a Southern boy? or if Bush hailed from a swing state or Upstate NY? I don't... its simply not an issue, they're both AMERICANS, patriots even, and thats all that matters. Maybe in the primaries, but not in the actual election.

Harper suffered from image issues at first, but I think he's recovered fairly well, and opinion polls on the leaders tend to reflect this. Every leader says stupid things... Harper's "Culture of Defeat" is no worse than Chretien's "I don't like working with Albertans"... only difference is it happened to you.

I think we are facing two very serious issues with Canadian politics:

1. Only 33% of Canadians actually are right of centre and there's nothing anyone can do to change that... and the largest concentration by far is in Alberta. Socially unique from Canadians? thats another thread.

2. People won't look beyond partisan lines when something clearly wrong happens. They rather vote in the Liberals cause the CPC is "evil, rednecks", the Bloc are "evil separatists... how dare they, Canada is perfect", and the NDP is "backwards and ridiculous". That is a problem. I mean if it was a CPC scandal, I'd vote for another party on principle. In Canada, I think there's even more than partisan lines here... I think its very much regional too. I think many Canadians simply dislike the opposite region.

There is a very strong perception in Western Canada that hard working people succeed... so when we see high unemployment in Eastern Canada, and institutions being suckled by our transfer monies, we tend to be annoyed and think, hey, maybe they like it that way, they don't elect governments that cut programs and stimulate the economy like we had to... so what gives?

I mean, its no secret, many universities in Canada are both federally and provincially funded, and if I'm not mistaken, Dalhousie is federally funded... U of C is not. We see that school getting two trips to the dinner table and ours getting one... on our coin, and yeah... we think you guys must love your status...culture of defeat indeed. I don't agree with the wording, i think it was a dumb thing to say aloud, but its a sentiment many understand.

In the East, you guys think Alberta would be worse than Saskatchewan without Oil, and that we'lll be poor overnight if that changes, so we're spoiled brats who should be happy to share, because you guys paid what? to initially create us before the Americans did, and a small period totalling 5 years as a province. Maybe so...

Also, a question for you Q, from one of your previous posts... whats so wrong with fixed elections days and acting like a Republic?

[HOZ]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 13 2005, 11:01 PM
You sound like a paranoid schitzophrenic most of the time.

Umm....maybe you should look those big words up.


I will get back to you on Harper after I talk things over with my neighbours dog. He has been telling me that everyone is against me and that I should buy a gun

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Thunderball+May 13 2005, 09:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Thunderball @ May 13 2005, 09:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Imagine the uproar in the US if people came out publically and said they didn't vote for a certain party... not because of what they say, or think, but because of where they live... thats just wrong on so many levels. Think Kerry would've done better if he was a Southern boy? or if Bush hailed from a swing state or Upstate NY? I don't... its simply not an issue, they're both AMERICANS, patriots even, and thats all that matters. Maybe in the primaries, but not in the actual election.
[/b]

Uh, did you miss all of the discussion during the election about Kerry being a Massachusetts Liberal, and needing someone like Edwards from North Carolina to appeal to southern voters?

<!--QuoteBegin-Thunderball@May 13 2005, 09:03 PM
2. People won't look beyond partisan lines when something clearly wrong happens. They rather vote in the Liberals cause the CPC is "evil, rednecks", the Bloc are "evil separatists... how dare they, Canada is perfect", and the NDP is "backwards and ridiculous". That is a problem.[/quote]

God, what does it take to put this stupid misperception to rest? Has there not been enough policy debate on this site to finally convince you guys that it's not just brainwashing and fearmongering?

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by Mike F+May 13 2005, 11:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ May 13 2005, 11:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Uh, did you miss all of the discussion during the election about Kerry being a Massachusetts Liberal, and needing someone like Edwards from North Carolina to appeal to southern voters?

<!--QuoteBegin-Thunderball@May 13 2005, 09:03 PM
2. People won't look beyond partisan lines when something clearly wrong happens. They rather vote in the Liberals cause the CPC is "evil, rednecks", the Bloc are "evil separatists... how dare they, Canada is perfect", and the NDP is "backwards and ridiculous". That is a problem.

God, what does it take to put this stupid misperception to rest? Has there not been enough policy debate on this site to finally convince you guys that it's not just brainwashing and fearmongering? [/b][/quote]
In the US Primaries, there is always talk about who is the better vote catcher... however, I don't think that deterred many voters in the US elections... Kerry simply wasn't the greatest the Dems could've fielded. Its not cause he's a Patriots fan. (Or at least he better be... :P )

Now... as for brainwashing and fearmongering... I thought I was pretty clear. I said people would simply rather vote for Liberals...for whatever reason... many as simplistic as the ones I listed. However, when something clearly wrong happens, there is a need to look away from policy to a degree, and the fact that it isn't happening is a clear problem to our system. Everything I've read from Non-Canadian sources seems to think its a no-brainer... the Liberals are corrupt so you should not vote for them.

Whats it gonna take to get rid of the misconception that its okay to vote for a party that was caught being corrupt and scandalous regardless of your political persuasion?

Its not a policy issue. Its a non-partisan issue. You do not reward corruption in democracies.

The Liberals are a centrist party, their left and right fringes should be able to easily jump ship for a term without sacrificing their beliefs in the name of improving the system. Thats not happening, and that is a problem, whether you choose to admit it or not.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Mike F+May 13 2005, 10:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ May 13 2005, 10:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Thunderball@May 13 2005, 09:03 PM
2. People won't look beyond partisan lines when something clearly wrong happens. They rather vote in the Liberals cause the CPC is "evil, rednecks", the Bloc are "evil separatists... how dare they, Canada is perfect", and the NDP is "backwards and ridiculous". That is a problem.

God, what does it take to put this stupid misperception to rest? Has there not been enough policy debate on this site to finally convince you guys that it's not just brainwashing and fearmongering? [/b][/quote]
You can start by having our political leaders figure it out.

PM Layton has been attacking the CPC for "getting in bed with the sepratists", while a Liberal MINISTER has become the third Liberal since 2000 to try and compare the Conservatives with bigots or racists.

And these people say this because it resonates out east.