Government on the brink?

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Apr 8 2005, 09:51 AM
Sheesh this is getting a little dull.

Would you be comfortable with a Muslim fundamentalist as Canada's foreign affairs minister?

This is getting dull, I agree. It is obvious that you are completely unable to show that Day has a poor record as an MP and Foreign Affairs critic, and you are unable to show that his beliefs have influenced his performance in said positions.

All you have proven is that you believe a person who disagrees with you is a moron.

And honestly, no, having a fundamentalist muslim as foreign affairs minister would not bother me. If his beliefs led to poor performance in the post, then I would have to reconsider. However, beliefs alone do not constitute poor performance, and unless it is shown that such a belief leads to poor performance, I see no reason to disqualify such a person who would otherwise be (presumably) qualified.

If you can show me where Day is unfit for such a position based on his track record as an MP, then I will listen. But your bigotry is not a compelling argument.

[Lurch]

Clearly I lean the other way, that won't come as a surprise to you I'm sure.

I think there's a balance in both parties however, and really when you look at the political spectrum it's not like you're choosing an apple versus an orange ... it's Granny Smith vs Macintosh.

But every screws up?

I'll give you that, but don't you think this goes a bit beyond that? We had that discussion in the office today and nobody could think of a government scandal as corrupt or shocking as this one in Canadian history.

I can think of a couple that are at the least very close. Brian Mulroney allegedly received $300,000 personally under shady circumstances in the Airbus scandal.

Quote from Maclean's review of A Secret Trial by William Kaplan.

Here's Mulroney regretting the day he ever met Karlheinz Schreiber, the German-Canadian businessman who, Kaplan reveals, began paying Mulroney $300,000 in cash within months after Mulroney left office in 1993. "If you accumulated all the sorrow over all my life, it does not compare to the agony and anguish that I have gone through since I met Schreiber."

And here's Mulroney's response when Kaplan asks about the money Schreiber gave him. "Anyone who says anything about that will be in for one f--- of a fight." And here's the former prime minister, as Kaplan gets closer to publishing his revelations in the Globe and Mail, making desperate appeals to Kaplan's Jewish identity. He tells Kaplan: "I know you got abuse about me, but it is because of Stevie Cameron. She put so much poison into the system. Israel is the new Jew. As far as she is concerned, I am the new Jew."

Wow. What's it all about? Well, that's a tale convoluted enough to fill a book -- or, as it turned out, two. A Secret Trial amounts to a book-length correction of the central assumption in Kaplan's first book about Mulroney, Presumed Guilty: Brian Mulroney, the Airbus Affair, and the Government of Canada. The assumption was that Mulroney had played straight with him. Chastened and corrected, Kaplan does not even bother to hide his bitterness in the new book.

In 1988, Air Canada paid $1.8 billion for passenger airplanes from Europe's Airbus. By 1995 the RCMP was investigating whether Mulroney had received illegal commissions for the Airbus purchases, for the Coast Guard's purchase of a dozen helicopters, or for a plan, eventually cancelled, to assemble light armoured vehicles in Bear Head on Nova Scotia's Cape Breton Island. The Mounties harboured similar suspicions about Schreiber and former Newfoundland premier Frank Moores.

A secret informer fed the Mounties clues. With the help of officials in the federal Justice Department, the RCMP sent a letter to the Swiss government asking for more details. Mulroney found out about the letter, sued big for defamation and settled out of court, winning an abject apology.

There has never been evidence that Mulroney behaved inappropriately in the Airbus file, the helicopter purchase or the Bear Head project. Kaplan repeats that "no evidence has ever come forward, none whatsoever," that the RCMP's 1995 goose chase was justified.

So? So throughout the nasty Airbus affair, Mulroney insisted his relationship with Schreiber was "peripheral." It wasn't until 2001 that Kaplan learned from Philip Mathias, a National Post reporter who couldn't get his paper interested in the story, that within months of leaving office, Mulroney had begun accepting huge cash payments from Schreiber in a succession of hotel rooms.

What for? The reason for the payments -- and whatever work Mulroney would have done to earn them -- has never been made clear, Kaplan writes. This is true even though, as many readers will already know, much of this story has come out before, in an extraordinary three-part series Kaplan wrote for the Globe and Mail in 2003.

With the Liberals, it may go to the top. With the PC's, it seems a lot more clear that it did. You may also recall the PC gov't in SK during the late '80's and early 90's where many MLA's actually went to jail, I believe.

[Bingo]

You think that equates though?

I'm not so sure it does.

I can find links talking about how Mulroney was vindicated in the air bus scandal too, that one doesn't seem to be conclusive either way.

Chances are he's not fully guilty nor innocent.

But is that to the level of the current mess? I don't think it is from what I'm seeing. If you add up tax dollar waste they're not even on the same playing field.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Snakeeye+Apr 8 2005, 12:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ Apr 8 2005, 12:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Apr 8 2005, 09:51 AM
Sheesh this is getting a little dull.

Would you be comfortable with a Muslim fundamentalist as Canada's foreign affairs minister?

This is getting dull, I agree. It is obvious that you are completely unable to show that Day has a poor record as an MP and Foreign Affairs critic, and you are unable to show that his beliefs have influenced his performance in said positions.

All you have proven is that you believe a person who disagrees with you is a moron.

And honestly, no, having a fundamentalist muslim as foreign affairs minister would not bother me. If his beliefs led to poor performance in the post, then I would have to reconsider. However, beliefs alone do not constitute poor performance, and unless it is shown that such a belief leads to poor performance, I see no reason to disqualify such a person who would otherwise be (presumably) qualified.

If you can show me where Day is unfit for such a position based on his track record as an MP, then I will listen. But your bigotry is not a compelling argument. [/b][/quote]
Yeah I'm the bigot. I'm not the one who went to Jim Keegstra to get my car fixed. Guess who did?

Can you show me Stockwell's qualifications?

His impressive work badmouthing the Liberals and trying to get Canada into the Iraq war notwithstanding, I can't see much in the way of "qualifications" at all. Put a rube like him in a room with Condoleeza Rice and he'll come out with a smile on his face and an agreement for a unilateral Canadian invasion of Syria.

What has he done that warrants such a position? "He hasn't screwed up too badly yet in unrelated fields" hardly qualifies. He's proven himself several times to be a rather dim individual, and he has neither the experience or education to be Canada's foreign affairs minister.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Lurch@Apr 8 2005, 06:57 PM

I can think of a couple that are at the least very close. Brian Mulroney allegedly received $300,000 personally under shady circumstances in the Airbus scandal.

I also remember how he got caught buying his wife and kids gifts on state trips and charging it to the Canadian taxpayers.

[Lurch]

You think that equates though?

I'm not so sure it does.

I can find links talking about how Mulroney was vindicated in the air bus scandal too, that one doesn't seem to be conclusive either way.

Well, many of the links you will find vindicating Mulroney come back to Kaplan, who wrote a book vindicating Mulroney, in large part. However, Kaplan later determined Mulroney snowed him, and released his second book, which is where my quote is drawn from. Second, the Airbus deal was for $1.8 billion of taxpayer money - how much of that was waste due to kickbacks is anyone's guess, but I suggest the scale is potentially huge. Third, Mulroney did everything in his power to halt the Airbus investigation, whereas the Gomery inquiry appears to be fully backed by Paul Martin (maybe not by choice, but he certainly is not suing to stall the investigation ala Mulroney). It is interesting that Mulroney is not suing Kaplan for defamation this time around as he did with the RCMP - it makes me think Kaplan has the straight story on him.

Finally, I'd like to point out that no one in the Liberal party has been proven guilty of anything yet either. Chances are this will end up like the Airbus scandal and anyone high up will get off with a 'maybe they did it, maybe they didn't' sort of conclusion.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Apr 8 2005, 01:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Apr 8 2005, 01:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lurch@Apr 8 2005, 06:57 PM

I can think of a couple that are at the least very close. Brian Mulroney allegedly received $300,000 personally under shady circumstances in the Airbus scandal.

I also remember how he got caught buying his wife and kids gifts on state trips and charging it to the Canadian taxpayers. [/b][/quote]
Sadly stories like that are frought in every political group.

Look at Chretien's track record, it's endless. Jet rentals, golf course scandals, it goes on and on.

But people are calling this thing Canadian Watergate. That says something. I think it steps past digressions from both parties in the past and paints Chretiens government as the most corrupt in Canadian history.

The better defence for a Liberal backer isn't an attempt to deflect by talking about Day's oddities or Mulroney's past, but to hope that it doesn't paint Martin and the current Liberal government.

[Bingo]

If the roles were reversed and Mulroney and his government were in the cross hairs today and not the Liberals, how many of you would jump all over me for trying to talk about Chretien?

Comes across a little lame today in my estimation.

[Lurch]

Comes across a little lame today in my estimation.

Oh it does. So when you suggest this is 'the worst scandal in Canadian political history' or something to that effect, it's lame to to look back on history and compare this event to other scandals. You have quite interesting standards for what is lame.

Also, many suggest (and I'm not sure if you are one of them) that if the Conservatives gain power the scandals and waste will somehow diminish, but history shows that party is just as corrupt. Just my opinion, but the people who tend to want to get in power are, as a group, the least likely to treat that power respectfully. Political affiliation has nothing to do with this tendency.

Somewhat off topic, I would definitely agree the Liberals should get the heave ho for this event, exactly the same way the PC's did federally in '93 and in SK earlier than that. However, to blame the Liberals for the CPC's inability to cast itself as a viable alternative to a corrupt, tired government should fall directly at the feet of the CPC party, nowhere else. Until they let the opinions of the majority of Canadians dictate their policy they will remain a party that represents the right of centre minority. Like or hate the Liberals, they are masterful at representing the median Canadian's opinion, which is really the point of a democratic government, n'est pas?

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Apr 8 2005, 12:18 PM
Can you show me Stockwell's qualifications?

His impressive work badmouthing the Liberals and trying to get Canada into the Iraq war notwithstanding, I can't see much in the way of "qualifications" at all. Put a rube like him in a room with Condoleeza Rice and he'll come out with a smile on his face and an agreement for a unilateral Canadian invasion of Syria.

What has he done that warrants such a position? "He hasn't screwed up too badly yet in unrelated fields" hardly qualifies. He's proven himself several times to be a rather dim individual, and he has neither the experience or education to be Canada's foreign affairs minister.

Sorry, your accusation, your burden of proof. Show me how Day is unfit for such a post

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lurch@Apr 8 2005, 01:57 PM
Oh it does. So when you suggest this is 'the worst scandal in Canadian political history' or something to that effect, it's lame to to look back on history and compare this event to other scandals. You have quite interesting standards for what is lame.

Speaking of history ... I think your historical look at this string is a bit out of whack.

I didn't bring "history" up until this string was way off topic and into Stockwell Day. My point then as it is now, is deflection.

You can try to deflect my deflection comment by saying I opened the topic of history but that wouldn't be genuine.

But if you insinst on looking back I think many view this event as THE MOST CORRUPT in Canadian history nonetheless.

[V]

While I would completely hope for CPC to capitalize on this scandal, I really don't think they're able to.

I actually think a more probable result from this scandal is another referendum in Quebec. Could a vote for separatism be far behind this? I'll bet the PQ strike quickly and hard.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Snakeeye+Apr 8 2005, 03:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ Apr 8 2005, 03:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Apr 8 2005, 12:18 PM
Can you show me Stockwell's qualifications?

His impressive work badmouthing the Liberals and trying to get Canada into the Iraq war notwithstanding, I can't see much in the way of "qualifications" at all. Put a rube like him in a room with Condoleeza Rice and he'll come out with a smile on his face and an agreement for a unilateral Canadian invasion of Syria.

What has he done that warrants such a position? "He hasn't screwed up too badly yet in unrelated fields" hardly qualifies. He's proven himself several times to be a rather dim individual, and he has neither the experience or education to be Canada's foreign affairs minister.

Sorry, your accusation, your burden of proof. Show me how Day is unfit for such a post [/b][/quote]
1. He doesn't understand the Canadian legal system.

2. He doesn't have any formal education to speak of.

3. He has no international experience whatsoever.

4. His past work at the provincial level is not exactly mind-blowing, and it certainly doesn't qualify him to be MFA.

5. He has done nothing of any note on the national level.

6. He's dumb. (see: Keegstra is my mechanic, let's ban Of Mice and Men, "Women who become pregnant through rape or incest should not qualify for government-funded abortions unless their pregnancy is life-threatening", protested against sex education in front of a school...


Check the resumé of the past few MFA's and then look at Stock's and tell me "which one of these guys is not like the other"? They all have advanced degrees -- law, Ph.Ds in international relations and political science, they've been professors, had stints at Oxford, long careers in federal government, Nobel Prize nominations, experience.

Or check out the CV of some of the people he'd be dealing with. Condoleeza Rice, Jack Straw...

He's not qualified to deal with these people on international issues.

So, it's your turn. What has he done that makes you believe he is qualified for this extremely important and complex job?

[Winsor_Pilates]

It's too soon to judge how bad this scandel is. Nothing has been proven yet, and until it has no one can say that it is the worst scandel ever, that the Libs should get booted for it, Chretian should be charged etc.
If this scandel is as bad as it's being said to be, than the Libs likely will lose the next election. The thing is that the Libs are the only party that really represents anything close to the majority of Canadians. Even if the Conservatives win, it would be a vote against the Libs, more than a vote for the Conservatives.
The majority of Canadians are stuck between a rock and a hard place with one party that shares their ideals but has scandels (Liberals), and another party that might not have any scandels but doesn't represent their interests (Conservatives).

[CaptainCrunch]

having an advanced degree dosen't really make you smart or qualified, or a leader.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Apr 8 2005, 04:32 PM
having an advanced degree dosen't really make you smart or qualified, or a leader.

I didn't say it did.

One semester at UVic, having zero experience and a hilariously bad stint as a "leader" don't make you smart, qualified or a leader either.

I'm not making this up folks. Guys like Stockwell Day -- guys with no education or experience -- they just don't get jobs like this.

Do you think the Yanks would make some guy Secretary of State when the only thing he ever did was work as the Treasurer of Oklahoma? That's what this is.

We've heard so many times that "Canada has to take a seat at the kids table". Christ, if we sent Stockwell to some of these meetings, we'd lose that. He'd be put in the kitchen to wash dishes while the rest of them discuss things that he has never proven he can comprehend.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Apr 8 2005, 12:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Apr 8 2005, 12:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Apr 8 2005, 05:45 PM

I'll give you that, but don't you think this goes a bit beyond that? We had that discussion in the office today and nobody could think of a government scandal as corrupt or shocking as this one in Canadian history.

That just goes to show you how painfully boring Canadian politics are. This is nothing compared to the kind of things that go on in other countries.

Bigger scandals occur elsewhere all the time that make the Liberals look like saints. [/b][/quote]
Got any examples to back that up?

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Lurch@Apr 8 2005, 12:57 PM
I can think of a couple that are at the least very close. Brian Mulroney allegedly received $300,000 personally under shady circumstances in the Airbus scandal.

If I recall correctly, Brian Mullroney was found "not guilty" of that charge in court, sued the Liberal government and was awarded a considerable settlement for damages.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Apr 8 2005, 02:03 PM
I also remember how he got caught buying his wife and kids gifts on state trips and charging it to the Canadian taxpayers.

If you check back in the records I think you'll find that these where gifts given to the Mulroney's by heads of state. He never bought them. By the ethics laws of that time these gifts actually belonged to the people of Canada. This is small potatoes compared to the adscam rip off.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Apr 8 2005, 01:18 PM
Yeah I'm the bigot. I'm not the one who went to Jim Keegstra to get my car fixed. Guess who did?

I'll bite. Who did?

In other words, EVERYONE who has ever had their car worked on by Jim Keegstra, who was employed by a car repair shop in Eckville, MUST be a member of this mysterous, mystical fanatical Christian fundamentalist group he belonged to.

Why stop there. Why not condemn anyone who has ever walked on the same street as Keegstra as being a member of this fanatical fundamentalist group. Better yet. Why not classify ALL people who ever set foot in a church as a fanatical fundamentalist Christian moron.