Where's the evil?

[MarchHare]

The problem here is that you are taking a very small, extreme minority of the party and passing it off as being representative of the entire party.

Interesting you should say that.

How many times have posters here (including you?) painted the entire Liberal Party as a bunch of corrupt criminals because of the sponsorship scandal when it's quite likely those involved only represent a very small minority of the party (and are most likely not even involved with politics anymore)?

As for the rest of your post, I was only using abortion as an example. Just because something isn't listed in the Conservative Party platform doesn't mean a CPC MP isn't going to introduce a private member's bill about any particular issue. Why should I trust what's in the party's platform to be the only legislation a potential CPC government enacts given the outspoken views of several CPC MPs and Harper's on-the-record comments about allowing free votes on private member's bills?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@May 9 2005, 11:55 PM
And when those "moral issues dealt with in the 50s" are soundly defeated, what will your boogeymen then become?

Well many people in this thread have pointed out concerns they have with the stated conservative platform. Did you skip over those posts? Seems like you're focusing on one of the smaller complaints and trying to explain it away. Try dealing with the big ones.

[Julio]

Originally posted by Snakeeye+May 9 2005, 04:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ May 9 2005, 04:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@May 9 2005, 02:39 PM
One of the issues that's frequently mentioned as being part of the CPC "hidden agenda" is that they want to ban abortion.

Now, we all know the official party platform says that they will not introduce legislation to ban abortion.# But we also know that many prominent members of the Conservative Party are long-time outspoken pro-lifers.# Couple this with the fact that the CPC wants to allow many free-votes, what's stopping a Conservative Party MP from introducting a private member's bill to ban abortion?# In fact, last June Stephen Harper said that he would allow just that.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePr.../04/485055.html

Why many of us fear the so-called "hidden agenda" isn't because of what's in the CPC policy document, but rather because of the (quite clear) views on many issues by numerous Conservative MPs and Harper's apparent willingness to allow free votes on private member's bills about those issues.

"I would generally continue...."

Simply put, I guarantee that you could not find 154 Conservative MP's (or hopefuls) who would vote in favour of outlawing abortions.

I would guarantee you couldnt find 50.

I also guarantee you would find Liberals who would support outlawing abortions.

Simply put, there is 0 chance that the Conservatives introduce a motion to ban abortions as official party platform, and there is only a marginally higher chance that an individual MP would introduce it as a private members bill, and expect it to even reach the floor for a vote, let alone be in any danger of passing.

The problem here is that you are taking a very small, extreme minority of the party and passing it off as being representative of the entire party. This is something Canada's liberal media has proven very adept at, and people - especially out east - eat it up.

And yet, if I were to brand the Liberals a racist organization based on the comments of Fry and Volpe, I'd get trashed for overgeneralizing.

Canada is a very hypocritical nation. [/b][/quote]
Snakeeye:
Have a look @ this page before you guarantee that 50 Conservative MPs wouldn't vote for a total abortion ban.
http://www.straightgoods.ca/Election...ews.cfm?Ref=15

Now I do have to agree that it would be greatly suprising if 154 Conservative MPs would, and it is also true that some Liberals are very anti abirtion. But generally I do think that it can be said that as a group the Conservative causus is more anti abortion and that the Liberal causus is more pro abortion.

[Resolute 14]

March - I'm aware you were using abortion as an example. I was as well. You can substitute abortion with any "moral" issue and the point holds.

It's also interesting that you would assume that the corrupt Liberals are no longer in politics. Pretty bold thing to assume, given that Paul Martin himself has been implicated.

I'll give you that your comments on the assumption of guilt of the entire Liberal party is fair, however we arent talking about fringe elements of the Liberal party pushing their agenda here.

Quite frankly, Jean Cretien was corrupt. His top aides were corrupt. Paul Martin, if he isnt equally corrupt is at least guilty of duplicity in the matters that went on. We are talking about the guys who run the country here because, quite frankly, individual MPs have no voice, especially in the Liberal Party. What the man in charge wants, the man in charge gets.

Corruption and criminal behaviour in the Liberal party went right up to the top. "Moral" issues that nobody really wants to deal with are not going to be pushed by those at the top rungs of the CPC. Even if Harper (and yes, Day) wanted to, it would be political suicide, as Canadians have no interest in opening such issues back up

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@May 9 2005, 05:55 PM
And when those "moral issues dealt with in the 50s" are soundly defeated, what will your boogeymen then become?

I don't know, all the other stuff that I've said I guess.

It's covered pretty widely in this very thread.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Julio@May 9 2005, 05:02 PM
Snakeeye:
Have a look @ this page before you guarantee that 50 Conservative MPs wouldn't vote for a total abortion ban.
http://www.straightgoods.ca/Election...ews.cfm?Ref=15

Now I do have to agree that it would be greatly suprising if 154 Conservative MPs would, and it is also true that some Liberals are very anti abirtion. But generally I do think that it can be said that as a group the Conservative causus is more anti abortion and that the Liberal causus is more pro abortion.

You will have to do a hell of a lot better than than a very biassed report from a lobby group with a definite agenda on a less than balanced website.

That said, It is rather obvious that you are more likely to find a social conservative in the Conservative party. They have to support someone. Hell, it is one of the reasons why I support the Conservatives. The point is, they only represent a small part of the party, not the whole, and their ideas will not come to pass on the simple reason that Canadians dont want such issues to pass. If Harper and the CPC were to allow such a group to get such a bill through the house without strong support for such an action, Harper would end his tenure as a one term prime minister with the Liberals virtually guaranteed majorities for another decade at least.

[MarchHare]

It's also interesting that you would assume that the corrupt Liberals are no longer in politics. Pretty bold thing to assume, given that Paul Martin himself has been implicated.

I'm not assuming anything, but unlike so many others here, I'm reserving judgment until the final Gomery report is released.

As for Paul Martin, he has only been implicated by Chuck Guite (not exactly the most reliable of sources), and even then Guite said he only heard of Martin's involvement second-hand and didn't deal with him directly.

I'll tell you what: if the final results of the Gomery Inquiry accuse any currently-elected Liberal MP of criminal wrong-doing, I'll donate $25 to the Conservative Party. If not, you donate $25 to the Liberals. Sound fair?

Quite frankly, Jean Cretien was corrupt. His top aides were corrupt.

Agreed.

And that's the extent of what I think the Gomery Inquiry is going to determine.

Paul Martin, if he isnt equally corrupt is at least guilty of duplicity in the matters that went on.

This is where I'm not so quick to agree with you. I'm assuming you're basing that remark on the fact that he was the Minister of Finance at the time?

To say that as Finance Minister he must have known what was going on shows a misunderstanding of that cabinet position. His job was to set the budget for each federal department and program (including the Sponsorship Program). How that money is spent after he's allocated it is not his responsability; that's up to the ministers and directors in charge of each department. Nor is it the Finance Minister's job to make sure allocated funds are spent effectively -- that's the task of the Auditor-General.

As I said, I'm reserving judgement until the Gomery Inquiry is finished, unlike so many posters here who are quick to call the whole party as a whole guilty.

If people are going to paint the entire Liberal Party as a pack of criminals because of a few of them are, then it's only fair to call the CPC a bunch of pro-life fundamentalist conservative nut-jobs because of a few bad apples too.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+May 9 2005, 04:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ May 9 2005, 04:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Snakeeye@May 9 2005, 11:55 PM
And when those "moral issues dealt with in the 50s" are soundly defeated, what will your boogeymen then become?

Well many people in this thread have pointed out concerns they have with the stated conservative platform. Did you skip over those posts? Seems like you're focusing on one of the smaller complaints and trying to explain it away. Try dealing with the big ones. [/b][/quote]
Not everybody is going to have the same view on all issues. People that disagree with a party over their stated policy on the issues - ie gay marriage, Kyoto, corporate welfare and the like arent likely to vote for that party.

That's the beauty of the multi-party system. There is a party that represents your beliefs.

The problem is the supposed hidden agendas that people are basing their votes on, not stated policy or actions. If a person actually took the time to think about it, they would realize that the supposed hidden agenda of the Conservatives is merely a fabrication with very little chance of actually coming to pass.

If you oppose the Conservatives because you disagree with their platform, I respect that.

If you oppose the Conservatives because the liberals tell you that they will take away a womans right to an abortion, I dont respect that.

There are legitimate issues that everyone needs to consider when deciding who gets their x. It would be nice if people actually focussed on them.

But then, legitimate issues arent as effective as slander and extreme generalizations, are they?

[Julio]

Originally posted by Snakeeye+May 9 2005, 05:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ May 9 2005, 05:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Julio@May 9 2005, 05:02 PM
Snakeeye:
Have a look @ this page before you guarantee that 50 Conservative MPs wouldn't vote for a total abortion ban.
http://www.straightgoods.ca/Election...ews.cfm?Ref=15

Now I do have to agree that it would be greatly suprising if 154 Conservative MPs would, and it is also true that some Liberals are very anti abirtion. But generally I do think that it can be said that as a group the Conservative caucus is more anti abortion and that the Liberal causus is more pro abortion.

You will have to do a hell of a lot better than than a very biassed report from a lobby group with a definite agenda on a less than balanced website.

That said, It is rather obvious that you are more likely to find a social conservative in the Conservative party. They have to support someone. Hell, it is one of the reasons why I support the Conservatives. The point is, they only represent a small part of the party, not the whole, and their ideas will not come to pass on the simple reason that Canadians dont want such issues to pass. If Harper and the CPC were to allow such a group to get such a bill through the house without strong support for such an action, Harper would end his tenure as a one term prime minister with the Liberals virtually guaranteed majorities for another decade at least. [/b][/quote]
OK...fair enough...how about http://campaignlifecoalition.com or www.lifesite.net ?
If you go through their news archives, they talk about how over a dozen pro life MPs were added to the roster after the last election, about voting records, including one in 2003 that had over 50 then Alliance MPs voting in favor of the Commons Health Committee looking at abortion.
Doctrinistic social conservatives are the main reason that this voter, who couldn't wait to vote PC when he turned 18, now looking to see if there is another party that better suits my beliefs.

[Julio]

Originally posted by Snakeeye+May 9 2005, 05:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ May 9 2005, 05:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Snakeeye@May 9 2005, 11:55 PM
Not everybody is going to have the same view on all issues. People that disagree with a party over their stated policy on the issues - ie gay marriage, Kyoto, corporate welfare and the like arent likely to vote for that party.

That's the beauty of the multi-party system. There is a party that represents your beliefs.

The problem is the supposed hidden agendas that people are basing their votes on, not stated policy or actions. If a person actually took the time to think about it, they would realize that the supposed hidden agenda of the Conservatives is merely a fabrication with very little chance of actually coming to pass.

If you oppose the Conservatives because you disagree with their platform, I respect that.

If you oppose the Conservatives because the liberals tell you that they will take away a womans right to an abortion, I dont respect that.

There are legitimate issues that everyone needs to consider when deciding who gets their x. It would be nice if people actually focussed on them.

But then, legitimate issues arent as effective as slander and extreme generalizations, are they?

[/b][/quote]
Damn good post sir...
We may disagree on a few things in this post, but agree that an intellegent voter is a better voter. I find that I disagree on many issues with many people, but I find them more interesting and better people than those who are just sheep, be it for the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP or whomever.

[MarchHare]

If you oppose the Conservatives because you disagree with their platform, I respect that.

If you oppose the Conservatives because the liberals tell you that they will take away a womans right to an abortion, I dont respect that.

Point the first: I oppose several Conservative Party policies as outlined in their platform. OTOH, I agree with most (but not all) policies as outlined in the Liberal Party platform.

Point the second: Your two choices are somewhat disingenuous. Aside from what I outlined in my first point, I also have a legitimate fear over what a Conservative government might do, and it has absolutely nothing to do with "Liberal Party smear tactics" or whatever. In another thread I listed many quotations from several Conservative MPs (including Harper -- this isn't just a fringe-element of the party) outlining views that I disagreed with. I don't need the Liberal Party to paint the CPC in a bad light; in my view, they do it to themselves. But for the same reasons that I oppose the CPC, their base supports them...I have no problem with that.

Finally, a hypothetical question:

The NDP platform proposes balanced budgets and responsable spending. Do you trust the NDP to run this country's finances?

[Resolute 14]

And that is fair March. If you disagree with CPC policy, then dont vote for them. I respect that. My problem is with the people all too willing to vote for or against a party because of slander and fabrications.

Though apparently that makes me a Klansman...

As to your question on the NDP, no, I wouldnt trust the NDP to run this country's finances. Mainly because I believe that the NDP and I have radically different beliefs on what "responsible spending" constitutes. The billions of dollars Prime Minister Layton ordered Martin to promise, is a good look at the difference. Personally, I believe that the only way the NDP would be likely to maintain a balanced budget would be to raise taxes to cover the spending required for the NDP's pet projects. And, as I have stated in the past, I trust me to run my finances a hell of a lot better than the government.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@May 9 2005, 06:56 PM

Though apparently that makes me a Klansman...

Don't buy that crap for a minute. It was political grandstanding and faux outrage and nothing more.

The other side of this coin is that conservatives think every Liberal or Liberal supporter is a murdering psychopath gangster.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 9 2005, 01:47 PM
I'm just curious about the whole racist, hidden agenda, dark evil platform that is described by the anti conservatives, and the Liberal Government?

As others have pointed out, there are a few "hardpoints" that could sway your average Liberal voter. Iraq, and Gay Marriage could be considered showstoppers for them.

But beyond those hardpoints, you're right in that the platforms of the Liberals and Conservatives converge a fair bit.

So ultimately, if the Conservatives are lagging behind in the polls, is it the Liberals that are swaying the voters, or are the Conservatives doing a horrible job in demonstrating that they're not "evil" and selling their vision of government?

Personally I think it's more the latter, Harper has brought the charisma and salesmanship of a dictionary salesman to the political scene. If he was smart, he'd be finding a way to win over voters to his cause dispelling the myths, but instead, he's choosen to hit the cruise control button. I'm moving more towards the Conservative vote, but not because Harper has done anything to convince me.

Like I've said before, this race is the Conservatives to lose, and they're doing a damn fine job of it so far.

[MarchHare]

As to your question on the NDP, no, I wouldnt trust the NDP to run this country's finances. Mainly because I believe that the NDP and I have radically different beliefs on what "responsible spending" constitutes. The billions of dollars Prime Minister Layton ordered Martin to promise, is a good look at the difference. Personally, I believe that the only way the NDP would be likely to maintain a balanced budget would be to raise taxes to cover the spending required for the NDP's pet projects. And, as I have stated in the past, I trust me to run my finances a hell of a lot better than the government.

That's precisely the point I was trying to make. The NDP platform tells us that they believe in balanced budgets and responsable spending, but you and I both know what a farce that is. They say those things because they know they won't get any votes if they don't.

Likewise, I don't trust that the Conservatives would only enact the policies they outline in their platform. Why should we trust their new, (slightly) more moderate platform given views that were publicly stated in the past by many party members, including Harper?

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by MarchHare@May 9 2005, 06:25 PM
I'll tell you what: if the final results of the Gomery Inquiry accuse any currently-elected Liberal MP of criminal wrong-doing, I'll donate $25 to the Conservative Party. If not, you donate $25 to the Liberals. Sound fair?

Interesting bet, March.

Let's break it down this way.

Case 1) You ARE aware that NO ONE will be "named" as "criminally wrong doing" by this report (since the Gomery Commission CANNOT name anyone.... see quote and link following) whereby you are knowingly setting up an automatic win for yourself and propagating the Liberal myth that the Gomery report will in fact indicate any criminal actions, or

Case 2) You have no idea what the Gomery Inquiry is mandated to report, which is in fact only on the process/recommendations for improvement and not that of identifying any wrong doers in the matter. This point is being hushed by the media big time, and I would not blame you for not understanding it, although I find it irresponsible to take such a position as you have without knowing this truth.

Here is the link to the Gomery Commissions mandate

Section k) the Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization and to ensure that the conduct of the inquiry does not jeopardize any ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceedings;

The whole "wait for Gomery's report" crowd is waiting for AIR. The Fiberals are banking on the facts that few, if any, understand that Gomery will NOT be saying anything close to "Person X, Y and Z broke the law"

So March, which is it? Case 1 or case 2? Baiting Snakeeye and posturing no better than the Liberals are doing, or are you too unaware of what the report is mandated to report?

Either way, your "bet" offer looks weak to me.

[flamefan74]

While on the topic of hidden agendas, what about the 7 programs with $1 billion each that Martin set up while Finance minister?(someone can correct me if I'm wrong about the numbers) He set them up so that they can't be audited and won't tell anyone what they are for. Does anyone even know what they spend the money on? Not saying that everything the Conservatives do is right, but that is ridiculous. That $7 billion total could be better spent on other programs for the country. And yet Martin has the nerve to talk about the Conservatives hidden agendas. Just one of the reasons I don't trust him.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 9 2005, 01:40 PM
It's not all about the Liberal party brainwashing us or the credibility of the crooks. A lot of it boils down to people taking the opposite stance on issues than the Conservatives have taken. Sometimes Conservative supporters just don't seem to grasp that.

What's the problem with the Conservatives? I think it boils down to the fact that they aren't liberal enough for this fairly liberal country. The current version of the Conservatives is still too right wing to gain majority support IMO.

I think you're right when you say Canadians generally don't support any kind of (small c) conservative agenda, and your post is pretty much bang on.

But you've also highlighted some of the bizarro world aspects of canadian politics.

We have virtually no philosphical stance on theft and corruption, to say nothing of being inept, but we have a philosophical attachment to who delivers free health care.

We're petrified of what parties *might* do, even when there's almost no rational basis for it, but are willing to completely forgive what the party in power actually *is* doing.

And I don't just mean federal politics. Short of our new record low of outright theft, almost any charge you can level at the federal liberals can be equally planted on provincial governments, including Alberta's.

We're so amazingly afraid of change. It's unhealthy.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by MarchHare
To say that as Finance Minister he must have known what was going on shows a misunderstanding of that cabinet position.

To suggest that he did not know what was going on shows a misunderstanding of party politics. Martin's deputy minister and chief bureaucrats can take the free pass of 'we just sign the cheques'. Martin himself cannot.

Even if he didn;t know as a senior cabinet minster (unlikely, but possible), as one of the 2 most powerful people in the Liberal party he knew as a senior Liberal in Quebec. There is no way his party in his province can siphon millions without him knowing.

And even if blind faith allows us to think he didn't know it was going on at the time, he surely knew years before now and hid the truth. If the Libs wanted to say sorry and come clean for the actions of a few bad apples, they had years of chances before this. That they chose not to indicts the whole party. Whether they grabbed envelopes of cash of a table themselves or not is irrelevant.

[MarchHare]

Shawnski:

Touché. It's actually case 2. Like (I would assume) most Canadians, I was under the impression that the Gomery Inquiry existed to find all the facts and name the guilty parties.

To be fair though, I did say that if the Gomery Inquiry accused any currently-elected Liberal. Based on what you posted, that seems within the scope of the inquiry; Gomery can point the finger at people, but he can't assign guilt (that would be left to a criminal court, I guess).