Liberals Cancel Opposition Day

[Incinerator]

Originally posted by MarchHare+Apr 21 2005, 03:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MarchHare @ Apr 21 2005, 03:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moon@Apr 20 2005, 09:37 PM
Its funny.

All of those quotes are reasons why I not only support the CPC but am as much of an active member as I can be.

I agree 100% with everyone of the quotes.

And that's absolutely fine. I have no problem with you agreeing with a party's platform and supporting them for that reason.

I, on the other hand, do not agree with the Conservative Platform, and I'm not going to vote for them just because the some Liberals (who may or may not be involved with the party presently) were part of a scandal.

The reason I posted those quotes is because I was accused of disliking the Conservatives because of Liberal mud-slinging. In reality, I dislike the Conservatives because of their own words and actions. [/b][/quote]
That's fine, I see your points. I think that maybe why some people think you're of the brainwashed variety is because there are just so many of the Liberal voters who fit that description.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Apr 20 2005, 09:07 PM
Imo, that is a little naive.

Ontario is, and always will be the seat of Canadian government. Even the Conservative party, with a Westerner in Harper as leader would pander to Ontario to maintain it's votes.

Even if the CPC were to do less to try and placate Quebec - with the possible consequence of seeing them finally leave while trying to rob us blind on the way out - the money not wasted there would be wasted in Ontario.

That is one of the things that will never change in Canadian politics.

And it is specifically why the CPC is slowly moving to the left.

Actually Harper was born and raised in Eastern Canada (Eastern = anything east of Manitoba's eastern border). I don't think we have the right to claim him all to ourselves. Ontario and Quebec have as much right to call him one of their's as well since he lived there before he moved west. We have no other alternative but share him with them. :smooch:

[Incinerator]

Originally posted by Sammie+Apr 21 2005, 03:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Apr 21 2005, 03:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Snakeeye@Apr 20 2005, 09:07 PM
Imo, that is a little naive.

Ontario is, and always will be the seat of Canadian government.# Even the Conservative party, with a Westerner in Harper as leader would pander to Ontario to maintain it's votes.#

Even if the CPC were to do less to try and placate Quebec - with the possible consequence of seeing them finally leave while trying to rob us blind on the way out - the money not wasted there would be wasted in Ontario.

That is one of the things that will never change in Canadian politics.#

And it is specifically why the CPC is slowly moving to the left.

Actually Harper was born and raised in Eastern Canada (Eastern = anything east of Manitoba's eastern border). I don't think we have the right to claim him all to ourselves. Ontario and Quebec have as much right to call him one of their's as well since he lived there before he moved west. We have no other alternative but share him with them. :smooch: [/b][/quote]
Yup, and the guy doesn't exactly speak bad French either :P

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Apr 20 2005, 08:26 PM
In a purely technical sense, no, my choices aren't just the Liberals, Conservatives, or NDP. I could vote for the Green Party, the Marijuana Party, the Natural Law Party (are they still around?), an independant candidate, etc.

In reality though, if I want my vote to go to a candidate with a chance of winning rather than being a mere statistic, the big three are my only choice. And the fact that I live in Calgary means that the Conservative Party is going to win regardless of how I vote, so it's a moot point anyway.

As for my point about the only options I find palatable are to either vote Liberal or abstain, how would you suggest I vote, given that I don't support the platform of either the CPC or the NDP?

I can respect that you ruled out the Conservatives because you disagree with their platform.

So, assuming that a conservative will win in your riding, consider that the party you do vote for earns funding because of the number of votes it will get.

Therefore, if you are partial to the Green party policies (as an example), consider giving them a vote. While I dont take the Greens seriously, as I consider them to be more of a lobby group than a true political party, if you think they have some good ideas, use your vote to help fund their goals.

Honestly, I think what will serve your long term interests best is to vote Conservative, even if you feel you have to hold your nose while doing it.

The CPC will almost certantly sweep Calgary, so voting for them wont change the outcome.

But, if the Conservatives manage a significant increase in popular vote, while the Liberals fade similaraly, it would more than likely push the Liberals into reforming themselves.

I have little doubt that the next government will also be a minority. Likely a Conservative minority. The country is just too fractured right now for anything else. Therefore, chances are high that the next government will also be short lived. If Harper ultimately proves to be unpalatable to the Canadian people, then he will be kicked out as quickly as Martin will be.

And in that case, wouldnt you want a re-focused Liberal party stinging from a strong rebuke by the Canadian public running in that election, rather than the same old-same old thinking that Canadians will forgive any transgression?


It is naive to believe that the corruption that plagues the Liberals left with Chretien. If you want to be able to respect yourself for voting Liberal, you need to send them a strong message.

[MarchHare]

And in that case, wouldnt you want a re-focused Liberal party stinging from a strong rebuke by the Canadian public running in that election, rather than the same old-same old thinking that Canadians will forgive any transgression?

Interesting point.

I remember lots of talk after the last election that a minority government was punishment for the Liberals and that they would have to be on their toes because of it.

Also, keep in mind that the Gomery Inquiry was Martin's own doing. He didn't have to call this, and it's likely the Sponsorship Scandal would have faded from the minds of most Canadians by now. That alone makes me think that Martin didn't have any involvement...although I'm quite anxious to see the final results.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by MarchHare+Apr 20 2005, 08:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MarchHare @ Apr 20 2005, 08:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

You attack my logic, and then you follow it up with poor logic of your own. Colour me unimpressed.

[/b]

Colour me confused as hell then. I was merely making an allegory of what it seemed you were saying to me. No idea what you are getting at with your response here, please clarify for I am stupid...

EDIT: Ah yes, that I am limiting your options or something? Is that the problem here? Well i'm not doing that by any means. The 'someone else' in my allegory could be anybody and thus, any party or an abstained vote. But it seems to me that you were the one who said the waste and corruption in the Liberal Party is a fair cost at keeping the CPC out of power. Now please explain your original notion that a little scandal or corruption within the Liberal Party is excusable...

... or tell me if i'm still missing something here.

Originally posted by MarchHare+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MarchHare)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Never once did I suggest a potential CPC government would be corrupt or wasteful.# It's their publicly stated positions on many issues that I find distasteful and unworthy of my support.
[/b]

Fair enough. Again, don't vote for em then I really don't know if I will be either.

Originally posted by MarchHare

In one breath you accuse your opponents of being moronic and needlessly fearing "hidden agenda", and then you go on to complain about "hidden corruption" at the hands of the Liberals.# Please.

What?! What's 'hidden' about the corruption?! I'm refering to the Gomery inquiry, last I checked there is nothing 'hidden' about that or what it was revealing! I'm not making false allegations here, i'm refering to something that is right out in the open for the public to see.

Originally posted by MarchHare

Also, why should I trust the Conservatives when their deputy leader publicly promised not to merge with the Alliance and then did just that?# They already have a history of being dishonest and they haven't even been elected yet.

T'was unfortunate he had to lie in order to get it done. However, it could be argued he was doing what was best for 'right-wing' Canada as no more vote-splitting would occur.

Originally posted by MarchHare

Why do I loathe the CPC so much?# It has absolutely nothing to do with anything at all that the Liberals have said, and everything to do with what comes from the mouths of your own party members.

"We should have been there shoulder to shoulder with our allies."
-Stephen Harper, on the invasion of Iraq

"We support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to win."
-Harper on Iraq again

Again, I didn't support the effort in Iraq. I'm not going to agree with everything a party does. Also, this is irrelevant now. The Iraq war is over with. Curious as to whether Martin would have supported it or not...

Originally posted by MarchHare

"We should try to keep our mothers in the home and that's where the whole Reform platform hangs together."
-Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative MP of Yorkton-Melville

http://www.conservative.ca/documents/20050...DECLARATION.pdf , page 23-24.

Originally posted by MarchHare

"Foreign nationals without status should not be under the protection of the Canadian charter."
-Inky Mark, Conservative MP of Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette

Ah yes. Well, he did say this as a member of the Alliance Party. Seems to me that bit has changed. Also: http://www.conservative.ca/documents/20050...DECLARATION.pdf , 37-39 for CPC immigration policies.

Originally posted by MarchHare

"Marriage is open to everybody as long as they're a man and a woman."
-Jason Kenney, Conservative MP of Calgary Southeast

Whatever. I already said this is a non-issue for me now.

Originally posted by MarchHare

"Make no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country."
-Stephen Harper

http://www.conservative.ca/documents/20050...DECLARATION.pdf , page 33. Harper is also very fluent in french.

Originally posted by MarchHare

"There is a dependence in the region that breeds a culture of defeatism."
-Stephen Harper on Atlantic Canadians

In clarification of this comment being misconstrued:
There is a dependence in the region that breeds a culture of defeatism. I've never, ever suggested that the people of this region are responsible for the region's have-not' status, I've suggested it's the fault of federal policy, and that we have to tackle it - Stephen Harper.

<!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@

"You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society."
-Harper again
[/quote]
I would like to see your source for this. Also of note, he's not putting down immigrants or anything, he's simply pointing out the fact that Conservatives do poorly in these types of regions. Also, http://www.conservative.ca/documents/20050...DECLARATION.pdf , 37-39 for CPC immigration policies. Also:
http://www.penguinproject.com/tdhstrategie...ads/ZolfPOV.mht


<!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare

"On the justification for the war, it wasn't related to finding any particular weapon of mass destruction. In our judgment, it was much more fundamental. It was the removing of a regime that was hostile, that clearly had the intention of constructing weapons systems. … I think, frankly, that everybody knew the post-war situation was probably going to be more difficult than the war itself. Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took."
-Harper on Iraq again

As to the italicized part, of course there's the upside that none of our brave service members were killed for non-existant WMDs and connections to Al Qaeda.

Anyway, I could go on all night.# The Conservatives have made their own bed.# I don't need the Liberals to tell me why I shouldn't vote for them; they do a good enough job of that themselves.
[/quote]
Again, Iraq is over with! Again, I didnt support it and disagree with Harper in that he wanted to send troops there!


A couple other points. Firstly, there are Liberal members that oppose things such as same sex marriage as well. Also, I could dig up a slew of quotes of Liberal members saying stupid things, yadda, yadda, yadda. In the interest of saving time, and the fact that I believe actions speak louder than words, I wont bother though.

And again, for the umpteenth time, i'm not really pro-CPC as much as I am anti-Liberal. Abstain, vote CPC, vote Green, anybody... except the Liberal Party. They are being proven to be corrupt and I do not support this in any government. This view would be the same for any other party as well...

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Apr 20 2005, 09:00 PM

Interesting point.

I remember lots of talk after the last election that a minority government was punishment for the Liberals and that they would have to be on their toes because of it.

Also, keep in mind that the Gomery Inquiry was Martin's own doing. He didn't have to call this, and it's likely the Sponsorship Scandal would have faded from the minds of most Canadians by now. That alone makes me think that Martin didn't have any involvement...although I'm quite anxious to see the final results.

The thought of a Liberal minority obviously did not work, as I would be rather surprised if Martin has kept a single promise. Obviously the promise of ending the "democratic deficit" died early. As did reaching out to the West.

The only nice thing about a Liberal minority is that the opposition has power. The Liberals can't sneak trick ammendments like the the little Kyoto sidestep in without threatening their own government.

And yes, Martin did call the inquiry. But, he did so because of overwhelming pressure from Canadians. He also called a snap election trying to earn himself a fresh majority mandate before the inquiry really even fired up. That suggests to me that Martin knew something of what was going on - maybe even all of it - and was trying to sneak himself past the controversy before it broke.

Sufficed to say, I trust Martin a little less than you trust Harper.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Apr 20 2005, 10:03 PM
Also, this is irrelevant now. The Iraq war is over with. Curious as to whether Martin would have supported it or not...

They are pulling people out of the river everyday, they found 19 dead people at a football stadium and there were like 3 suicide bombings today. Ethnic tension and violence and such. It's not over and they are going to be there for a long time. It is not irrelevant.

Would the Conservatives send Canadian troops to Iraq now? I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't know the "official policy".

Never mind the wider "War On Terror" business that I'm not too comfortable with my country getting mixed up in.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Apr 20 2005, 10:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Apr 20 2005, 10:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@Apr 20 2005, 10:03 PM
Also, this is irrelevant now. The Iraq war is over with. Curious as to whether Martin would have supported it or not...

They are pulling people out of the river everyday, they found 19 dead people at a football stadium and there were like 3 suicide bombings today. Ethnic tension and violence and such. It's not over and they are going to be there for a long time. It is not irrelevant.

Would the Conservatives send Canadian troops to Iraq now? I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't know the "official policy".

Never mind the wider "War On Terror" business that I'm not too comfortable with my country getting mixed up in. [/b][/quote]
Sorry, let me clarify. The initial 'invasion' is over, the war is certainly not. Interesting point as to whether or not the CPC would send troops over there now if they got elected in a majority. I wonder if i'd support that too (needa give it more thought) as while I didn't support going into Iraq (EDIT: I made the same mistake as before, heh), now that the mess has been made (and while it is not ours) it certainly needs to be cleaned up...

[Sammie]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Apr 20 2005, 10:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Apr 20 2005, 10:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@Apr 20 2005, 10:03 PM
Also, this is irrelevant now. The Iraq war is over with. Curious as to whether Martin would have supported it or not...

They are pulling people out of the river everyday, they found 19 dead people at a football stadium and there were like 3 suicide bombings today. Ethnic tension and violence and such. It's not over and they are going to be there for a long time. It is not irrelevant.

Would the Conservatives send Canadian troops to Iraq now? I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't know the "official policy".

Never mind the wider "War On Terror" business that I'm not too comfortable with my country getting mixed up in.[/b][/quote]
But of course! Everybody knows that if Sadam were still in power there would be absolutely no mass killings in Iraq and Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with these bodies in the river, the football field, and the world Trade Center on 9/11. It's all a conspiracy by Bush and Harper that Martin and the Liberal Party are protecting us from.

We obviously need to have the Liberals robbing us so we don't get sucked into that evil conservative Bush/Harper vortex.

[REDVAN]

Just because MarchHare won't vote conservative, even in spite of all the coruption in the Liberals, that doesn't mean that other won't change their minds.

It's been a nice run liberals, but time is over. Next election will be a conservative majority. Hopefully Harper waits until he has enough support to earn his majority.

[Flame On]

And yes, Martin did call the inquiry. But, he did so because of overwhelming pressure from Canadians. He also called a snap election trying to earn himself a fresh majority mandate before the inquiry really even fired up. That suggests to me that Martin knew something of what was going on - maybe even all of it - and was trying to sneak himself past the controversy before it broke.

Sufficed to say, I trust Martin a little less than you trust Harper.

I think the inquirey was largely whipped up by the opposition as most reports I've heard are that even now the public at large doesn't really know what's going on with the allegations. Not to discredit the need for it, just disputing it was the public for the most part. Secondly the fact that Martin knew what the optics of the situation might look like and tried to side step it is quite different than probably knowing something was wrong. These guys are ALL seasoned politicians they know how things will look and how to maneuver. Harper is no different.
I think the rest of the country trusts Harper less than you maintain you do over Martin, hence the result of the last election and perhaps the one that may be coming.

We obviously need to have the Liberals robbing us so we don't get sucked into that evil conservative Bush/Harper vortex

Yes we do.

[MarchHare]

But of course! Everybody knows that if Sadam were still in power there would be absolutely no mass killings in Iraq and Al-Qaeda had nothing to do with these bodies in the river, the football field, and the world Trade Center on 9/11. It's all a conspiracy by Bush and Harper that Martin and the Liberal Party are protecting us from.

Did I read that incorrectly, or do you think that Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks?

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Flame On@Apr 20 2005, 10:55 PM

I think the inquirey was largely whipped up by the opposition as most reports I've heard are that even now the public at large doesn't really know what's going on with the allegations. Not to discredit the need for it, just disputing it was the public for the most part. Secondly the fact that Martin knew what the optics of the situation might look like and tried to side step it is quite different than probably knowing something was wrong. These guys are ALL seasoned politicians they know how things will look and how to maneuver. Harper is no different.
I think the rest of the country trusts Harper less than you maintain you do over Martin, hence the result of the last election and perhaps the one that may be coming.

Yes we do.

Great job of taking comments made by two different people, combining them, and using them out of context to support what you want to say.

You're not a CBC Mole for the Liberal Party, are you? :angry:

[Sammie]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Apr 20 2005, 11:13 PM

Did I read that incorrectly, or do you think that Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks?

I'm sure that no matter what I write, you're going to read it incorrectly. How else can you justify your logic? Read what you want into what I wrote. After all, you're going to anyway. Besides, it's your democratic right to twist what others say to meet your agenda. It's the Liberal way.

[Incinerator]

Originally posted by Sammie+Apr 21 2005, 05:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Apr 21 2005, 05:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@Apr 20 2005, 11:13 PM

Did I read that incorrectly, or do you think that Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks?

I'm sure that no matter what I write, you're going to read it incorrectly. How else can you justify your logic? Read what you want into what I wrote. After all, you're going to anyway. Besides, it's your democratic right to twist what others say to meet your agenda. It's the Liberal way. [/b][/quote]
I'm glad I didn't read this post in the morning or else I'd have my morning Timmie's all over my laptop screen by now...

[Mike F]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Apr 20 2005, 10:13 PM

Did I read that incorrectly, or do you think that Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks?

You just have to understand that when you write:

"I'm aginst the Iraq war, and am glad Canadian troops aren't over there fighting and dying",

Sammie reads it as:

" Saddam Hussien was an all-together fine chap who wouldn't hurt a soul, and Al Qaeda is simply a misunderstood group of cave enthusiasts who have been falsely accused" [he apparently makes the second conclusion based on the assumption that Saddam and Al Qaeda were working together, so a refusal to got after Saddam = a refusal to go after Al Qaeda]

It's another classic Sammie leap of logic that keeps his world brimming with straw men to slay with his rapier sharp wit.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Mike F+Apr 20 2005, 11:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Apr 20 2005, 11:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@Apr 20 2005, 10:13 PM

Did I read that incorrectly, or do you think that Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks?

You just have to understand that when you write:

"I'm aginst the Iraq war, and am glad Canadian troops aren't over there fighting and dying",

Sammie reads it as:

" Saddam Hussien was an all-together fine chap who wouldn't hurt a soul, and Al Qaeda is simply a misunderstood group of cave enthusiasts who have been falsely accused" [he apparently makes the second conclusion based on the assumption that Saddam and Al Qaeda were working together, so a refusal to got after Saddam = a refusal to go after Al Qaeda]

It's another classic Sammie leap of logic that keeps his world brimming with straw men to slay with his rapier sharp wit.[/b][/quote]
Damn it! I never would have thought of that if you hadn't told me what I thought. You're GOOD!

Can you simplify what I was thinking when I came to the second conclusion because I haven't got a clue how I could have figured that part out all by myself? :unsure:

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay+Apr 20 2005, 10:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAllTheWay @ Apr 20 2005, 10:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Colour me confused as hell then. I was merely making an allegory of what it seemed you were saying to me. No idea what you are getting at with your response here, please clarify for I am stupid...

EDIT: Ah yes, that I am limiting your options or something? Is that the problem here? Well i'm not doing that by any means. The 'someone else' in my allegory could be anybody and thus, any party or an abstained vote. But it seems to me that you were the one who said the waste and corruption in the Liberal Party is a fair cost at keeping the CPC out of power. Now please explain your original notion that a little scandal or corruption within the Liberal Party is excusable...

... or tell me if i'm still missing something here.
[/b]

I still want to hear your explanation that a few million dollars of stolen taxpayer money is okay as long as it keeps the CPC out of government. Most importantly, why small amounts of corruption, as you seem to be implying, are okay in government. When does the amount of stolen money climb high enough that it becomes an issue for you? How many high ranking Liberal officials having a part in this would it take for you to become concerned? I only ask because I find it troublesome people are willing to tolerate corruption within government.

Oh, as it would seem you disprove of my little allegory (for, aside from some link, reasons still unknown from my side), feel free to change it or make a new one if you wish. I only used it to try and put a different perspective on what exactly it was I thought you were saying...

<!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAllTheWay@

<!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare

"You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society."
-Harper again
[/quote]
I would like to see your source for this. Also of note, he's not putting down immigrants or anything, he's simply pointing out the fact that Conservatives do poorly in these types of regions. Also, http://www.conservative.ca/documents/20050...DECLARATION.pdf , 37-39 for CPC immigration policies. Also:
http://www.penguinproject.com/tdhstrategie...ads/ZolfPOV.mht
[/quote]
Still waiting for your source on this one as I was unable to locate the primary source for it...

[MarchHare]

I still want to hear your explanation that a few million dollars of stolen taxpayer money is okay as long as it keeps the CPC out of government. Most importantly, why small amounts of corruption, as you seem to be implying, are okay in government. When does the amount of stolen money climb high enough that it becomes an issue for you? How many high ranking Liberal officials having a part in this would it take for you to become concerned? I only ask because I find it troublesome people are willing to tolerate corruption within government.

Never once did I say I tolerate fraud and corruption or that it was ok in government. I hope those that were responsible for this scam are brought to justice just as much as anyone else. I, however, do not believe every member of the Liberal Party was involved. In fact, there's pretty good evidence that neither Martin nor any of his senior staff were part of this at all (caveat: this is by no means a definitive statement and final judgement is reserved pending the findings of the Gomery Inquiry). To suggest that all Liberals are crooked because of this makes as little sense as saying all CPC members are radical Christian nutjobs because Stockwell Day is one.

I've given my reasons for not wishing to vote for either the CPC or the NDP. I agree with most of the Liberal platform, and I have serious issues with the policies of the other two major parties.

Oh, as it would seem you disprove of my little allegory (for, aside from some link, reasons still unknown from my side), feel free to change it or make a new one if you wish. I only used it to try and put a different perspective on what exactly it was I thought you were saying...

Your allegory created an extremely contrived scenario and didn't fit this situation. First, the Liberal Party is not one employee. In your analogy, it's like I discovered that the guy who quit two years ago had been embezzeling money from the company's account, so I should fire his brother who wasn't involved because of it (same caveat as above). Second, you suggest that I'm "scared to hire someone else", but if I was really looking to hire someone, I'd have my choice of dozens of applicants. In the Canadian political scheme, I have my choice of two others, both of which I have serious concerns with.

Still waiting for your source on this one as I was unable to locate the primary source for it...

This site credits the original source as the January 22, 2001 issue of Report Newsmagazine. I found what I think is the article here, but unfortunately I have to register to read it all, so I didn't bother. Do you doubt that the quote is accurate? It's on the record that Mr. Harper was asked to clarify what he meant by that comment during a session of Parliament. Here's the transcript: http://www.parl.gc.ca/PDF/37/3/parlbus/cha...es/Han048-E.PDF