Where's the evil?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+May 10 2005, 02:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ May 10 2005, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bend it like Bourgeois@May 9 2005, 08:58 PM
We're petrified of what parties *might* do, even when there's almost no rational basis for it,

I think I have a rational basis for fearing what they *might* do, and that rational basis comes from what they *have* said.

Some members of the party are quite extreme in their views. That much I think most of us agree on, but the answer to any worries about those kinds of people running our country seems to be "yeah, they might have extreme views, but they won't do anything about it, so why worry"? [/b][/quote]

If the only comfort you can find is a politician saying 'trust me', then I agree you should be worried.

But usually that isn't the case.

Take abortion. The government can no more take away a womans right to have an abortion than they can take away a womans right to vote.

What can they do? Play at the edges, make political statements, and thats about all.

Ditto gay marriage. For better or worse those issues are decided by a court, not a politician.

Take a more mundane example - Alberta Liberal policies. Their spending projections were lower than what the Tory's actually delivered. Yet most albertans would never vote for them because they are terrified of what the libs might to do our finances. The Libs couldn't spend more money if they tried - and they probably wouldn't try.

Regardless of whtehr its the Alberta Liberals or the federal cons, if they do a crappy job, you can always vote them out again in 4 years - maybe less.

Nothing that was done cannot be undone, and the traditional party in power will probably be a whole lot better for it.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 10 2005, 09:16 AM
I'm not sure we're "afraid of change" so much as there just aren't good alternatives to vote for due to the current electoral system. Our first past the post system encourages the big regional parties to stay in power in their powerbase region, I think you can put a big part of the blame on that.

It's Liberal or Conservative for the most part because of our first past the poll system. And those who don't agree with the Conservative platform won't vote for them (like many of the posters in this thread). Now I won't be voting Liberal either but because we don't have proportional representation my vote is wasted in this region that I find myself located in (Calgary.) NDP and Green are both screwed by this system because they don't have a concentration of support in one region, they instead have more of a national appeal. The current electoral system promotes regionalism (Tories in the west, Liberals in the east, Bloc in Quebec.)

How are we afraid of change when our choice is to vote for the party that disagrees with our stance, or to vote for the party that abused our trust and stole our money? We need more legitimate choices. We need the minority opinion to be better represented. We need our votes to count. Right now they don't.

You're winning me over bit by bit on the proportional representation, and I won't disagree with you on the need for fundamental change to our system. Ironically, Canadians accepting a new electoral system would pretty much prove me wrong

For now though, the challenges of our system apply equally either way. Voting NDP in calgary is no more a wasted vote than voting Liberal was last time.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Shawnski+May 10 2005, 03:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Shawnski @ May 10 2005, 03:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I did no such thing.
[/b]

You went from: "The whole "wait for Gomery's report" crowd is waiting for AIR" to "I think his final report will be a mere shadow of what most Canadians expect he will report upon. Time will tell though. ... Eventually Gomery's report will be tabled, and not until that time we will have the 20-20 vision to see how the "terms of reference" for this inquiry will have factored into it" in the context of whether Gomery's report will point the finger at specific individuals in the current Liberal gov't.

You don't think that reflects a shift of the type that I mentioned?

Originally posted by Shawnski@May 10 2005, 03:55 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike F

@May 10 2005, 03:57 PM
It must be getting hard to hold on to the belief that it's only the Liberals who are playing partisan politics.

I never ONCE indicated anything of the sort.[/quote]

The overwhelming sentiment on this board has been one of the Liberals using dirty political tools to hold on to power, while the Conservatives were white knights with only the interests of Canadians in mind. I do remember a post of yours in which you made reference to Harper being akin to Superman, coming to save Canada.

These recent events, including and in particular the fact that the bickering caused all the leaders to miss VE Day services in Holland, have shown that they're all just politicians with no one having the right to claim any moral high ground or to claim that they're motivated solely by what is in the interest of Canadians.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout@May 10 2005, 10:31 PM
Marijuana

I agree, shouldn't be legalized, only for medical use.

The issue isn't legalization, it's decriminalization. Big difference.

[Shawnski]

You don't think that reflects a shift of the type that I mentioned?

Nope, I have been consistant in saying that the Gomery report will not be what people expect. Air... fluff. No real teeth. Take it how you like it.

I do remember a post of yours in which you made reference to Harper being akin to Superman, coming to save Canada.

You obviously missed the "Clark Kent" inference of that comment (granted, I could have spelled it out much better) as Harper was being labelled (justly) as too mild mannered to be PM. That seems to be a key knock about him on these boards too. SHOULD he become PM, I think he may very well turn out to be significantly better than we (even Conservative voters) expected, and shed that "mild mannered" cloak.

Seems the latest polls are turning to Harper's favour too....

CTV Poll results on how Canadians view Paul Martin



Harper, meanwhile, has gained crucial momentum going into an election, with poll results indicating that Canadians are beginning to warm up to him and his vision.

Latest CTV polling article

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Shawnski@May 11 2005, 09:17 AM

Nope, I have been consistant in saying that the Gomery report will not be what people expect. Air... fluff. No real teeth. Take it how you like it.

I'm not going to argue with you about what your subjective opinion is or isn't, but, given everything I've laid out including the statement "I am entitled to draw conclusions as to whether there has been misconduct and who may be responsible for it", if you still can't acknowledge that Gomery's report could name current Government officials as having been directly involved if the evidence exists then I think you're in denial.

And if you do acknowledge that such findings could be made, I don't know how you can be so adamant in insisting that the report will be air or fluff. Unless of course you want to argue that nothing that comes out of the inquiry will provide evidence of involvement by current Liberal party members, which seems completely contradictory to the right's argument that the current government is corrupt.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+May 11 2005, 12:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ May 11 2005, 12:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Maritime Q-Scout@May 10 2005, 10:31 PM
Marijuana

I agree, shouldn't be legalized, only for medical use.

The issue isn't legalization, it's decriminalization. Big difference. [/b][/quote]
sorry, yes it is, huge difference. Shouldn't be decriminalized.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout+May 11 2005, 10:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maritime Q-Scout @ May 11 2005, 10:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

The issue isn't legalization, it's decriminalization. Big difference.

sorry, yes it is, huge difference. Shouldn't be decriminalized. [/b][/quote]
Should be for small amounts IMO. But penalties for grow opps and dealers should go up.

[Natt]

I'm getting I l ittle disturbed by the number of uninformed and biased anti-Liberal threads I've been seeing here. Some comparing the Liberal party to to mafia, others about buying MPs...

If you're going to research the Conservative policies so thoroughly, you may as well look at the Liberals as well. Just to keep an open mind about everything.

[Hakan]

Originally posted by Snakeeye+May 10 2005, 06:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ May 10 2005, 06:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Coolsurfer79@May 9 2005, 08:38 PM
I actually believe that the NDP would run balanced budgets. They are the only party that wouldn't be pushing major tax cuts. I'm actually more concerned about the Conservatives putting us back in the red largely because I've seen how the Conservatives have done it in the United States. I believe they will enact tax cuts, but they will then not change spending appropriately.

Another boogeyman. Conservatisim in Canada is generally closer to American Democrats than Republicans. It is patently unfair to base what a party in Canada might do because of the actions of a completely seperate party in a different country.

Or maybe it would be fair of me to compare a potential NDP government to the Soviet Union under Lenin? [/b][/quote]
Actually it wouldn't at all.

The comparison to American Republicans is far more realistic then what you just came up with.

Also, you're heavy on the accusations and pomp but low on substance, if the Canadian Conservatives do compare more with the Democrats why don't you outline why you think so instead of only using a condescending tone. You'd get alot more out of your arguments that way.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Natt@May 12 2005, 07:20 PM
I'm getting I l ittle disturbed by the number of uninformed and biased anti-Liberal threads I've been seeing here. Some comparing the Liberal party to to mafia, others about buying MPs...

If you're going to research the Conservative policies so thoroughly, you may as well look at the Liberals as well. Just to keep an open mind about everything.

This kills me, we've seen Liberal policies in action, we've seen thier party at the trough, we've seen a corruption scandal that threatens the top of the party, and points to one former prime Minister as being involved directly, and another who has had a shadow cast over him. We've heard about the Liberal's trying to woo conservatives with nice appointments so they can shift the votes. We've seen Liberal fundraising lawyers appointed to the crown. We've seen the Liberals ability not to control the purse strings, and we've seen them fumble badly on building any kind of unified Canada.


Have you ever wondered why so many people are p*ssed off at the Liberals?

And is it because our views don't mesh with yours that we are ignorant and biased?

I've also looked at the Liberal party platform and its not and maybe to me and a lot of other people it leaves something to be desired, does that make me a bad person, or wrong? No, but when you make accusations like you just did you might as well call me ignorant, or ######ed., and after looking at entries in these threads where people are saying that the Conservatives are going to take away the right to abortion, that putting the gay marriage issue to an open vote is seen as homophobic, I could say the same thing about Liberal supporters.

Throughout these threads over the last few weeks, the Liberal supporters have dealt in as many questionable statements as the Conservative supports so please don't get all high and mighty and hurt.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Mike F@May 10 2005, 10:19 PM
The overwhelming sentiment on this board has been one of the Liberals using dirty political tools to hold on to power, while the Conservatives were white knights with only the interests of Canadians in mind. I do remember a post of yours in which you made reference to Harper being akin to Superman, coming to save Canada.

These recent events, including and in particular the fact that the bickering caused all the leaders to miss VE Day services in Holland, have shown that they're all just politicians with no one having the right to claim any moral high ground or to claim that they're motivated solely by what is in the interest of Canadians.

I agree to a degree ... the whole thing is a mess, everyone is out for either retaining power, or getting power, both parties have had morons say silly things, and it's all on our dime.

Ticks me off.

But the Liberals are the only party that currently has their pants around their ankles basically caught laundering tax payer money into their own party.

That's a huge difference, and I would say does put them at the bottom of the moral totem poll.

And that can change. If the Harper Conservatives win an election get in and steal my money the "lowest of lows" title is right back up for grabs. but until that point, they are not equals at all.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Bingo+May 12 2005, 02:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ May 12 2005, 02:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike F@May 10 2005, 10:19 PM
The overwhelming sentiment on this board has been one of the Liberals using dirty political tools to hold on to power, while the Conservatives were white knights with only the interests of Canadians in mind. I do remember a post of yours in which you made reference to Harper being akin to Superman, coming to save Canada.

These recent events, including and in particular the fact that the bickering caused all the leaders to miss VE Day services in Holland, have shown that they're all just politicians with no one having the right to claim any moral high ground or to claim that they're motivated solely by what is in the interest of Canadians.

I agree to a degree ... the whole thing is a mess, everyone is out for either retaining power, or getting power, both parties have had morons say silly things, and it's all on our dime.

Ticks me off.

But the Liberals are the only party that currently has their pants around their ankles basically caught laundering tax payer money into their own party.

That's a huge difference, and I would say does put them at the bottom of the moral totem poll.

And that can change. If the Harper Conservatives win an election get in and steal my money the "lowest of lows" title is right back up for grabs. but until that point, they are not equals at all. [/b][/quote]
I agree to agree to disagree, but as a summary:

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.

However if the Opposition insists on forcing an election before the results of the inquiry are out, I'm going to vote Liberal because I support their policies and oppose the Conservatives.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by Natt@May 12 2005, 12:20 PM
I'm getting I l ittle disturbed by the number of uninformed and biased anti-Liberal threads I've been seeing here. Some comparing the Liberal party to to mafia, others about buying MPs...

If you're going to research the Conservative policies so thoroughly, you may as well look at the Liberals as well. Just to keep an open mind about everything.

An open mind about theft, corruption, and cover-ups?

No thanks.

I don't care what their policies are; they stole.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Natt@May 12 2005, 12:20 PM
I'm getting I l ittle disturbed by the number of uninformed and biased anti-Liberal threads I've been seeing here. Some comparing the Liberal party to to mafia, others about buying MPs...

If you're going to research the Conservative policies so thoroughly, you may as well look at the Liberals as well. Just to keep an open mind about everything.

Which Liberal policies should we be researching?

The ones that involve buying the support of 19 NDP MPs for the low price of $5 billion?

The one that involves buying the support of Ontario for $6 billion?

How about the policy of ignoring the democratic will of the House?

Or perhaps the Liberal policy of repeatedly slandering the opposition, specifically trying to paint the Conservatives as bigots, hoping it will scare the idiots in Ontario into voting Liberal? (guess what, it works).

Oh yeah, then there is the stealing, corruption, fraud, threats, kickbacks, coverups and lies.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Mike F@May 12 2005, 03:38 PM
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.

However if the Opposition insists on forcing an election before the results of the inquiry are out, I'm going to vote Liberal because I support their policies and oppose the conservatives.

To me it doesn't matter though (and clearly I need to admit that I wouldn't have voted Liberal in the next election regardless).

For Martin it comes down to two things.

1) He's part of it. He was either in the thick of it or he watched it go down and did nothing about it - a blind eye if it was good for his party, etc.

2) He wasn't a part of it and didn't know. This one sounds better until you remember the guy was the finance minister for Canada, in charge of cash flow and budgets. I realize he's not a cashier and doesn't see every dollar move around, but to have that much money going into his own party's coffers without his knowledge makes him either inept or downright stupid.

So corrupt versus terrible.

Not much of a choice in my mind.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by 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>

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate@May 12 2005, 11:20 PM
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>

[FlamesAddiction]

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.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by 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.