Where's the evil?

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+May 13 2005, 04:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ May 13 2005, 04:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-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? [/b][/quote]
The Liberals have been making deals with Quebec for decades. Why is it such a scandal if the Conservatives do? Like I said, I find Layton's "unholy alliance" to be far more reprehensible, especially since he simply came out and told the world how much of a bribe he would require to throw his support behind a corrupt party.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Natt@May 12 2005, 01:20 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.

I'll keep my mind open if you promise to keep your eyes open to the things being done by these liberal crooks all around this country--even now.

[Hakan]

Originally posted by Snakeeye+May 14 2005, 08:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ May 14 2005, 08:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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

The Liberals have been making deals with Quebec for decades. Why is it such a scandal if the Conservatives do? Like I said, I find Layton's "unholy alliance" to be far more reprehensible, especially since he simply came out and told the world how much of a bribe he would require to throw his support behind a corrupt party. [/b][/quote]
Sorry but I just don't see what's so 'reprehensible' about democratic deal making and collaboration. You have a blind hate-on for Layton which is completely uncorroborated by the facts of the situation. Layton has been acknowledged by almost every major poll as the leader who is doing the best job in this whole mess. Why can't you acknowledge that? If you do answer could you refrain from using straw man arguments such as "he's a socialist/communist" or arguments that he doesn't have a democratic mandate to do what he's doing because he clearly does.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 13 2005, 04:48 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.

I don't think I could respond to your comments any better than this cartoon from a Toronto publication claiming to be a "National" newspaper:

My Webpage

[Sammie]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+May 13 2005, 05:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ May 13 2005, 05:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-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? [/b][/quote]
The Liberal Party under Paul Martin has, and does, make deals with Duceppe any time it's convenient for the Liberals. Haven't you read and kept up with the news over the last couple of years?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Sammie+May 14 2005, 11:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ May 14 2005, 11:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@May 13 2005, 04:48 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.

I don't think I could respond to your comments any better than this cartoon from a Toronto publication claiming to be a "National" newspaper:

My Webpage [/b][/quote]
I gotta admit that cartoon makes a pretty good point.

Some of us don't trust either side though.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Hakan@May 14 2005, 10:15 AM
Sorry but I just don't see what's so 'reprehensible' about democratic deal making and collaboration. You have a blind hate-on for Layton which is completely uncorroborated by the facts of the situation. Layton has been acknowledged by almost every major poll as the leader who is doing the best job in this whole mess. Why can't you acknowledge that? If you do answer could you refrain from using straw man arguments such as "he's a socialist/communist" or arguments that he doesn't have a democratic mandate to do what he's doing because he clearly does.

So then there is nothing reprehensible about the Tories and Bloq teaming up to bring down Martin then, right?

Personally, I have no problem with Layton as a person. Politically, I disagree with virtually everything he stands for, and judging by the polls, an overwhelming majority of Canadians also disagree with him. He can be the nicest guy in the world, but that doesnt change the fact that his ideals stand to destroy this country. As such, it becomes alarming when the NDP and it's 19 MPs take over government. Layton's willingness to work with a corrupt government is more reprehensible than Harper teaming with Quebec's MP's to bring down the government. You can only invent more boogeymen and conspiracy theories to try and slander the CPC for working with the Bloq. PM Layton came right out and demanded a $5 billion bribe for his support.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Just a question. All else being equal, let's say Martin is replaced by a young charasmatic leader, who deals with the concerns, problems, and needs of the Western provinces with great care and pride. A "Blue Liberal" if you will.

Would you vote for the evil Liberal party then?



To answer the same question, if there was a CPC leader than was charasmatic, and dealt with the concerns, problems, and needs of Eastern provinces with care and pride, a "Red Tory" if you will, I'd be more than willing to vote for them.


Just curious if this is a Martin/Harper thing, or a CPC/Liberal thing.

[MarchHare]

Just a question. All else being equal, let's say Martin is replaced by a young charasmatic leader, who deals with the concerns, problems, and needs of the Western provinces with great care and pride. A "Blue Liberal" if you will.

Would you vote for the evil Liberal party then?

Albertans won't vote for a Liberal candidate. Ever. It dates back to Trudeau and the NEP...they still haven't forgiven the Liberal Party for that. And in terms of dealing with the "concerns, problems, and needs of the Western provinces", for at least Alberta, that would mean adopting policies that aren't popular in Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic Provinces, which would be political suicide for the Liberals (and explains why the Reform and Alliance Parties never had any support East of Manitoba and why the CPC has been stalled at 30% national support despite all the allegations coming from the Gomery Inquiry).

Asking if Alberta would ever vote for a Liberal candidate is akin to asking if Alabama would ever vote a Democrat for president.

Martin even tried to be this hypothetical candidate you described. After assuming the office of PM, he made all kinds of comments about reaching out to the West. His two most important cabinet ministers come from the West. It made no difference; Alberta still voted against the Liberals.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Snakeeye+May 14 2005, 03:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ May 14 2005, 03:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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

The Liberals have been making deals with Quebec for decades. Why is it such a scandal if the Conservatives do? Like I said, I find Layton's "unholy alliance" to be far more reprehensible, especially since he simply came out and told the world how much of a bribe he would require to throw his support behind a corrupt party. [/b][/quote]
You missed the point. The Liberals and the Bloc have common ground on many issues, economic and social. They can make several deals that don't have to play on separatism.

What possible deal could the Bloc and Reform party make that are not related to dismantling the country?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Sammie+May 14 2005, 05:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ May 14 2005, 05:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@May 13 2005, 04:48 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.

I don't think I could respond to your comments any better than this cartoon from a Toronto publication claiming to be a "National" newspaper:

My Webpage [/b][/quote]
It's not that I don't trust Harper or the conservatives. I actually do trust them - I trust them to do a lot things that I don't want them to do.

With the Liberals, you at least know that the economy and budget will work, Quebec separatism dies down, society will have progressive change, and social programs will exist to aid people - all things that I believe in. The Conservatives may in fact have less corruption (or more, as there is guarenteed to be some in every party), but I can also trust them not to pay attention to the things I care about.

It has nothing to do with trusting the moral character of individual politicians, at least not for me.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

I'm well out of the politcal scene happening back home, but from my perspective it seems to me that the conservatives have gone all "let's better friends with the US", and adopted a number of policy changes that look something like US GOP policy. Or the Liberals have muddied the argument enough as to cast doubt on them for it.

To me, the CPC = the Reform Party. Lots of cast members are the same, and the well right of your average Joe Canadian members still carry a lot of power. Their platform is sneaky, and sorta reads a little like GW's 2000 platform - vague, positives emphasized, with heaps of room for interpretation. They also capitualate to the needs of the current US administration in their platform(Kyoto, missile defence), and we know that, generally, the public in Canada loathes GW.

For the conservatives to come to power in Ontario, and indeed Canada, they need to project themselves in terms of fiscal responsbility, and leave the moral issues that assoiciate them with the GOP behind.

I voted for Joe Clark when I was in Calgary, and would do so again because he was smart enough to understand that. Your classic social liberal, fiscal conservative. Someone along those lines running the CPC might have made the election a slam dunk. (In fact before the scandal, these were the things said of Paul Martin).

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@May 14 2005, 08:54 PM

I voted for Joe Clark when I was in Calgary, and would do so again because he was smart enough to understand that. Your classic social liberal, fiscal conservative. Someone along those lines running the CPC might have made the election a slam dunk. (In fact before the scandal, these were the things said of Paul Martin).

I could support a "Joe Clark" conservative right now too. Most of them are part of the right-leaning faction of the Liberal party now anyway though. Enough time has passed since the destruction of the old PC party that the Liberal party swallowed up the social liberals that would otherwise be part of the PC party. As far as liberalism goes, the new conservatism has none. The old PC party saving grace was that they were versatile as both they and the Liberals had areas where ideology overlapped with each other. Both had some liberals and some conservatives.

On another note, I think the Liberal party has engulfed too much of the political spectrum at this point. There is a growing fissure between the most left leaning liberals and the right leaning liberals (like Martin). I wouldn't be surpised at all to see the Liberal party implode like the PC party did after Mulroney, and in fact, I've been predicting it for about 5 years now. I think what is happening right now is the beginning of that process. In the end, I wouldn't be surprised to see the NDP swallow of the left leaning liberals and the NCP the right leaning liberals making both parties more powerful and more popular.

The Liberal party has just become to big for it's own good. While it is good for encompassing a larger portion of the population, it also serves to alienate more people that it represents.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Maritime Q-Scout@May 14 2005, 12:11 PM
Just a question. All else being equal, let's say Martin is replaced by a young charasmatic leader, who deals with the concerns, problems, and needs of the Western provinces with great care and pride. A "Blue Liberal" if you will.

Would you vote for the evil Liberal party then?



To answer the same question, if there was a CPC leader than was charasmatic, and dealt with the concerns, problems, and needs of Eastern provinces with care and pride, a "Red Tory" if you will, I'd be more than willing to vote for them.


Just curious if this is a Martin/Harper thing, or a CPC/Liberal thing.

Chances are it will be a very, very long time before I consider voting Liberal. Part of the reason is that I tend to be a social conservative as well as a fiscal conservative, and while a leader of the Liberal party can get away with using Conservative financial policy, I doubt the Libs will ever move far enough to the right to accept a social conservative, so from my perspective, your scenario likely would not occur in the future.

As for a Liberal Prime Minister dealing with western alienation, that simply will not happen until confederation is fixed and/or our electoral system is overhauled. Removing most or all linequities isnt all that likely under a Conservative government either for the same reason.

If Martin should buy his way back into the big chair, Harper will be gone regardless, and chances are McKay will take over. We would then see how realistic your second question is.

I'd also mention that when it comes to a Joe Clark type, the word "conservative" definitely needs brackets. I thought he was to the left of Chretien and the Liberals by the time his last tenure as PC leader ended.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Snakeeye+May 15 2005, 09:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ May 15 2005, 09:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Maritime Q-Scout@May 14 2005, 12:11 PM
Just a question.# All else being equal, let's say Martin is replaced by a young charasmatic leader, who deals with the concerns, problems, and needs of the Western provinces with great care and pride.# A "Blue Liberal" if you will.

Would you vote for the evil Liberal party then?



To answer the same question, if there was a CPC leader than was charasmatic, and dealt with the concerns, problems, and needs of Eastern provinces with care and pride, a "Red Tory" if you will, I'd be more than willing to vote for them.


Just curious if this is a Martin/Harper thing, or a CPC/Liberal thing.

Chances are it will be a very, very long time before I consider voting Liberal. Part of the reason is that I tend to be a social conservative as well as a fiscal conservative, and while a leader of the Liberal party can get away with using Conservative financial policy, I doubt the Libs will ever move far enough to the right to accept a social conservative, so from my perspective, your scenario likely would not occur in the future.

As for a Liberal Prime Minister dealing with western alienation, that simply will not happen until confederation is fixed and/or our electoral system is overhauled. Removing most or all linequities isnt all that likely under a Conservative government either for the same reason.

If Martin should buy his way back into the big chair, Harper will be gone regardless, and chances are McKay will take over. We would then see how realistic your second question is.

I'd also mention that when it comes to a Joe Clark type, the word "conservative" definitely needs brackets. I thought he was to the left of Chretien and the Liberals by the time his last tenure as PC leader ended. [/b][/quote]
Snake,
Joe Clark was the PM of the country as a fiscal conservative. The point is that "social" politics have never played well at all in Canada, and the Reform/CPC party has a wing that wants to start that kind of thing up. I think social liberal is the norm in Canada - there are few that hold ultra conservative moral stances in the big population centres that decide the elections, ultimately.

Victimizing certain segments of society (homosexuals), pouring millions of dollars into something where you won't get it back in the name of something of a moral crusade (criminalization of marijuana and abortion) and things like this have never played well to the majority in BC, Ontario and Quebec (one would even argue downtown Calgary and a good chunk of Edmonton, too). As this is where the population base sits, if the CPC decides to tote this 1950's vision of the world out during the election, they may find it hard to gather the momentum where they need it.

If they stick to running on fiscal conservatism and an end to graft, they have a better chance than by tacking these moral issues to their platform.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+May 14 2005, 02:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ May 14 2005, 02:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I don't think I could respond to your comments any better than this cartoon from a Toronto publication claiming to be a "National" newspaper:

My Webpage

It's not that I don't trust Harper or the conservatives. I actually do trust them - I trust them to do a lot things that I don't want them to do.

With the Liberals, you at least know that the economy and budget will work, Quebec separatism dies down, society will have progressive change, and social programs will exist to aid people - all things that I believe in. The Conservatives may in fact have less corruption (or more, as there is guarenteed to be some in every party), but I can also trust them not to pay attention to the things I care about.

It has nothing to do with trusting the moral character of individual politicians, at least not for me.[/b][/quote]
it's nice to know that the economy and budget are "at least" working. Now, let's vote in the Conservatives and get them to fine tune the economy and budget by trimming all the excesses from the gun registry, adscam, the Kyoto agreement and the golf course in Jean Cretien's riding that funded the Liberal Party's election campaigns and bought the silence and services of family and friends of the Party over the last decade.