If there were an election today, who would you vote for? Part 2

[yatko]

:arrowu:
Let's see if anything has changed since the last poll.
Bump as you vote please. Thanks.

[yatko]

What? No Harper fans here? Or, are they still sleeping?

[sk8]

Would it make any difference?
They come, mooch/steal and go.

[yatko]

Would it make any difference?
They come, mooch/steal and go.

Also in the mean time drag us into a stupid war with a country whose name none of can pronounce right. Plus all kinds of cuts that will only benefit the wealthy.

[asim99]

looks like harper's forcing the election will make me vote martin

[spidermoore]

"looks like harper's forcing the election will make me vote martin"

That is a silly reason. The election will happen soon regardless. Why wait for Gomery?

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

[Ojam]

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

I know you think that’s an ACE of an argument you have there (since you have now posted the same thing twice) but it really isn't, it only shows your contempt for a fair trial. The facts will still be released, and that is all that is needed. Do you really need somebody to tell you what to think?

[Lange]

Who needs the facts of the trial. The "FACT" that Martin is willing to sell his budget in order to retain power is good enough for me. He made a $7+ Billion swing in an attempt to save his hide. Before that, I would have preferred to wait until the Gomery report was produced. Now, I have enough evidence that this is not the person or the government I want leading my country.

[synaptech]

Who needs the facts of the trial. The "FACT" that Martin is willing to sell his budget in order to retain power is good enough for me. He made a $7+ Billion swing in an attempt to save his hide. Before that, I would have preferred to wait until the Gomery report was produced. Now, I have enough evidence that this is not the person or the government I want leading my country.

ah, what the hell, it's not his $7B anyway...

[Ojam]

Who needs the facts of the trial. The "FACT" that Martin is willing to sell his budget in order to retain power is good enough for me. He made a $7+ Billion swing in an attempt to save his hide. Before that, I would have preferred to wait until the Gomery report was produced. Now, I have enough evidence that this is not the person or the government I want leading my country.

or instead of selling his budget to stay in power, maybe it shows a willingness to work with others in order to get something done while in power rather then have every bill shot down because of not having enough votes to get it passed. He's sharing power with the NDP, not hogging power.

[spidermoore]

"I know you think that’s an ACE of an argument you have there (since you have now posted the same thing twice) but it really isn't, it only shows your contempt for a fair trial. The facts will still be released, and that is all that is needed. Do you really need somebody to tell you what to think?"

You just keep beating that strawman you keep setting up. Beat it good.

I don't need somebody to tell me what to think, that's why I'm not waiting for ONE GUYS OPINION on this, especially one guy appointed by the Liberals.

We don't need to wait for Gomery to know that the Liberals are and have been trying to cover this up as best as they could for YEARS. The specific people involved and to what degree is what Gomery may ferret out but the fact that the Liberals are waist deep in corruption is not in any doubt.

[d_jedi]

I know you think that’s an ACE of an argument you have there (since you have now posted the same thing twice) but it really isn't, it only shows your contempt for a fair trial. The facts will still be released, and that is all that is needed. Do you really need somebody to tell you what to think?

What facts have not yet been released? (Except for some testimony still under publication ban due to pending criminal trials..)

Everything is available from www.gomery.ca.

[Lange]

or instead of selling his budget to stay in power, maybe it shows a willingness to work with others in order to get something done while in power rather then have every bill shot down because of not having enough votes to get it passed. He's sharing power with the NDP, not hogging power.

Are you serious? Do you actually believe that? The word apologist is thrown around with more frequency than I would like...but come on! The timing is kind of odd don't you think? Funny how he is willing to "share power" when he is backed into a corner and not before it. Would you expect him to have been as Barney-esque with a majority gov't? He is selling out in the purest sence of the word, sacraficing the ideals of his party in order to retain power.

[asim99]

"looks like harper's forcing the election will make me vote martin"

That is a silly reason. The election will happen soon regardless. Why wait for Gomery?

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

nothing silly about that...i don't want early elections...we just had elections last year

[Ojam]

You just keep beating that strawman you keep setting up. Beat it good.
.

No straw man needed, you said yourself that we shouldn't wait for the inquiry because it wasn't going to make any judgments. That sure sounds like you want somebody to tell you what to think.

[Lange]

nothing silly about that...i don't want early elections...we just had elections last year

You prefer corupt gov'ts that steal your hard earned money?

[asim99]

Are you serious? Do you actually believe that? The word apologist is thrown around with more frequency than I would like...but come on! The timing is kind of odd don't you think? Funny how he is willing to "share power" when he is backed into a corner and not before it. Would you expect him to have been as Barney-esque with a majority gov't? He is selling out in the purest sence of the word, sacraficing the ideals of his party in order to retain power.

i thought harper was selling out when he agreed to cooperate with liberals over the budget before he decided to go against it...who knew what backroom deals he agreed to at that time, before flipflopping

[Lange]

i thought harper was selling out when he agreed to cooperate with liberals over the budget before he decided to go against it...who knew what backroom deals he agreed to at that time, before flipflopping

Speculation vs. fact

[Ojam]

Are you serious? Do you actually believe that? The word apologist is thrown around with more frequency than I would like...but come on! The timing is kind of odd don't you think? Funny how he is willing to "share power" when he is backed into a corner and not before it. Would you expect him to have been as Barney-esque with a majority gov't? He is selling out in the purest sence of the word, sacraficing the ideals of his party in order to retain power.

Before he didn't have Harper trying to rush an election and might have been able to get things done. Now that Harper is trying to rush and election though it never hurts to officially partner up and maybe get something done while they still can.

[Lange]

I just don't understand Canadians' willingness to get crapped on and then open their mouths and ask for more. I really don't. Why are we so willing to accept a corupt government?

[gman]

Speculation vs. fact

Who will know the fact? Election is about emotion. Most people votes because of emotion. They vote the other party only because the current one does something they don't like instead of the other party that can do something they like.

[asim99]

You prefer corupt gov'ts that steal your hard earned money?

i'd rather have a socially responsible government who is willing to prosecute its 'black sheep' who stole millions, than an irresponsible bush-lites willing to spend billions on wars i don't want, and willing to impose its version of morality over the whole country

[Lange]

Before he didn't have Harper trying to rush an election and might have been able to get things done. Now that Harper is trying to rush and election though it never hurts to officially partner up and maybe get something done while they still can.

What is he trying to accomplish other than retaining power?

[Montague]

You prefer corupt gov'ts that steal your hard earned money?
Speculation vs. fact
You are speculating that the Liberals will lose.

At this point who will win is up in the air.

The best either side could get now is a minority and unstable government.

What is he trying to accomplish other than retaining power?
ALL parties are like that not just the pinko left wing hippies.

Look in the States where GWB is trying to stack the deck in the judiciary by appointed right wing individuals.

[gman]

I just don't understand Canadians' willingness to get crapped on and then open their mouths and ask for more. I really don't. Why are we so willing to accept a corupt government?

Because all government has corruption. THe difference is if you can find it out or not. Oh yeah! I said the same thing in another thread.

[asim99]

Speculation vs. fact

yeah right :rolleyes:

[spidermoore]

"you said yourself that we shouldn't wait for the inquiry because it wasn't going to make any judgments. That sure sounds like you want somebody to tell you what to think."

I'm not the one suggesting we wait for ONE PERSON's opinion on AdScam to come out before making any decisions. I'm not the one who appears to want someone to tell me what to think.

[d_jedi]

nothing silly about that...i don't want early elections...we just had elections last year
We'll either have elections sometime this year, or in the winter early next year..

Why postpone the inevitable? What facts do we not yet have that could change the widely held belief that the sponsorship program was rotten to the core.. and vast sums of money were directed to Liberal-friendly firms by top bureaucrats, under the direction of members of the Liberal government?

Jean Brault's testimony made the corruption perfectly clear.. and his testimony has been corroborated.

I favour an early election because:
a) I do not believe there is any information that will signficantly change the culpability of the Liberal party in the sponsorship scandal
b) Many members of the Canadian public have short attention spans and may forgive and forget the corruption if the election is held off too long.
c) I do not support some of the legislation (such as the Civil Marriage Act) that the Liberals are likely to pass if they stay in power.
d) The Liberals have lost the moral authority to govern.

[Ojam]

What is he trying to accomplish other than retaining power?

Maybe a semi-stable government, and to let the inquiry keep going so that the public learns all the facts, rather then an election now, and then another in 6months, and maybe another 6months after that. Whats the rush for a election?

[Lange]

i'd rather have a socially responsible government who is willing to prosecute its 'black sheep' who stole millions, than an irresponsible bush-lites willing to spend billions on wars i don't want, and willing to impose its version of morality over the whole country

If you believe that the spirit of corruption and ill gotten goods is only a select few bad apples in the Liberal gov't, then you are mistaken. This is from the top down. The culture of an organization is a reflection of its leadership.

Wild accusations about a party being war mongers...is that what you are resorting to? Come on. Morality is determined by the citizens of a country, regardless of the gov't in power. Fiscal responsibility is determined solely by the gov't, and the Liberals have proven incapable of managing that. I'm tired of sitting on the fence.

[Ojam]

"you said yourself that we shouldn't wait for the inquiry because it wasn't going to make any judgments. That sure sounds like you want somebody to tell you what to think."

I'm not the one suggesting we wait for ONE PERSON's opinion on AdScam to come out before making any decisions. I'm not the one who appears to want someone to tell me what to think.

No you're the one who doesn't want to wait because they are not going to tell you what to think, so why wait. I want to get all the facts for myself and then I'll make up my mind. Facts and opinions are not the same thing, I know sometimes that's difficult to understand, but please for the rest of us, try and figure it out.

[spidermoore]

How vigorous do you really think a Liberal government will be in prosecuting their own compared to someone else? Do you really think that a Liberal government in power would be as forthcoming with AdScam details as a non-Liberal government?

Oh to be naive again.

[asim99]

Jean Brault's testimony made the corruption perfectly clear.. and his testimony has been corroborated.

I favour an early election because:
a) I do not believe there is any information that will signficantly change the culpability of the Liberal party in the sponsorship scandal
b) Many members of the Canadian public have short attention spans and may forgive and forget the corruption if the election is held off too long.
c) I do not support some of the legislation (such as the Civil Marriage Act) that the Liberals are likely to pass if they stay in power.
d) The Liberals have lost the moral authority to govern.

wow...jean brault is credible enough for harper to rush to elections...i'd rather wait to listen to everyone than only one person whose accusations suit my pre-conceived opinions

civil marriage would have been one of the best things to have to come out of this house...no one needs government in their wedding showers

and on "moral authority"...who is the referee?

[Ojam]

How vigorous do you really think a Liberal government will be in prosecuting their own compared to someone else? Do you really think that a Liberal government in power would be as forthcoming with AdScam details as a non-Liberal government?

Oh to be naive again.

The criminal and civil inquiries are the ones that will decide if prosecution is needed, oh and way to poison the well. :rolleyes:

[spidermoore]

"I want to get all the facts for myself and then I'll make up my mind. Facts and opinions are not the same thing, I know sometimes that's difficult to understand, but please for the rest of us, try and figure it out."

The little details of who specifically, and to what depth MAY be ferreted out by Gomery but will not change the underlying fact that the Liberal party is complicit. This doesn't mean that I believe EVERY Liberal MP was involved. This does not mean that I believe that there aren't innocent people in Liberal party membership. I sent a letter to my Liberal MP stating as such.

I fear that if we wait, the Liberal Party will have 6-8 months more time to obscure and cover up their corruption. 6-8 months more to have the average Canadian voter to grow more apathetic. 6-8 months more to delay Gomery's report so the 30-days ALSO gets delayed further. 6-8 months of political electioneering accusing their opponents of all kinds of untruths.

[asim99]

If you believe that the spirit of corruption and ill gotten goods is only a select few bad apples in the Liberal gov't, then you are mistaken. This is from the top down. The culture of an organization is a reflection of its leadership.

and conservatives are better, because?

Wild accusations about a party being war mongers...is that what you are resorting to? Come on. Morality is determined by the citizens of a country, regardless of the gov't in power. Fiscal responsibility is determined solely by the gov't, and the Liberals have proven incapable of managing that. I'm tired of sitting on the fence.

i am tired of bush-lites crying foul when someone mentions what they stand for

[Lange]

There is a difference from being willing to go to war, and being an advocate of war.

[bug]

Does it really make a difference who we vote for? They're all crooks. Politicians have been stealing taxpayers money from Day one. Power corrupts. Do you think we taxpayers will get any of that stolen sponsorship money back? Think again :cry: All the Gomery inquiry will succede in doing is costing us more money. When I see the smug looks on the faces of those crooks being called to testify before Judge Gomery, it makes my blood boil. It's all BS, and in the end all those pr*cks will get is a slap on the wrist :mad:

[gman]

and conservatives are better, because?

That is the part I don't get either. All government has corruption. The only difference is they do it smart or dumb. Party A is corrupted does not mean Party B is clean.

If Conservative waits, they have a few benefits:

1. people can make a decision based on all the "facts". No if.
2. people won't be pissed and point the finger to Conservative forcing an early election. Remember election is about emotion. Voters can be pissed by a small thing like this. Remember Patterson of Ontario.
3. Conservative could have a majority if they can wait.
4. If Conservative allows voters to forget and forgive Liberals because of half year delay, well, I will doubt Harper has the ability to lead this country.
5. Cover up? That gives even more ammunition to Conservative.
6. Harper is a new kid on the block. What did he do that make you think he is a good leader? What is on his resume? So far, I found nothing. He keeps on banding on same sex marriage issue and did nothing about other things. I am not saying same sex marriage issue is not important but there are more things that can affect Canadian. Can he multi-task and cover more bases? May be this half year can show his leadership (which I saw none so far). If Conservative is lead by Joe Clark or even Manning, I will vote for C with a heartbeat. Harper is just a better version of Days so far. Okay, a much better verison of Days.

[d_jedi]

wow...jean brault is credible enough for harper to rush to elections...i'd rather wait to listen to everyone than only one person whose accusations suit my pre-conceived opinions
1) Brault's testimony has already been corroborated by people who have/will testify at the inquiry.
2) Why would Brault lie? He facing fraud charges for his actions.. so why would he admit to a crime he didn't commit? I can understand why some of the witnesses "conveniently forgot" certain things related to the scandal - to save their own asses - but why lie to incriminate yourself?

civil marriage would have been one of the best things to have to come out of this house...no one needs government in their wedding showers
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to that. Many in the country (I think it's still about 50-50 nationwide) do not share this opinion, however.

and on "moral authority"...who is the referee?
I was stating my opinion.. recent polls have shown that the majority of Canadians also believe the Martin government has lost the moral authority, as well..

[d_jedi]

I fear that if we wait, the Liberal Party will have 6-8 months more time to obscure and cover up their corruption. 6-8 months more to have the average Canadian voter to grow more apathetic. 6-8 months more to delay Gomery's report so the 30-days ALSO gets delayed further. 6-8 months of political electioneering accusing their opponents of all kinds of untruths.
We're already seeing the scaremongering and distortion coming out from the Liberal party..

Paul Martin himself admitted that they'll use the same scaremongering tactics of the last election.. that Stephen Harper is against health care, is against child care, etc.. I've already posted an article in another thread about this..

[devious9191]

I know you think that’s an ACE of an argument you have there (since you have now posted the same thing twice) but it really isn't, it only shows your contempt for a fair trial. The facts will still be released, and that is all that is needed. Do you really need somebody to tell you what to think?

Well, you have to appreciate the conservative's position. Canadians are a lazy apathetic group by nature, and if given another 6 months to forget about the details that have been released so far from this trial, they will. Not even necessarily forget.. just rationalize a reason to keep voting those damn thieving liberals into office. I've probably heard this 'lesser of two' evils bs, 30 times over the last month, and if we wait til January, I'll probably hear it 60 times. If there's an opportunity to take the helm for the Conservatives, the time is now, while people are still angry, rather than 6 months down the road when everyone can convince themselves that it's not a big deal that their government steals from them.

[spidermoore]

"i am tired of bush-lites crying foul when someone mentions what they stand for"

I am tired of people calling the CPC, "bush-lites" when the CPC is overall further left-of-centre than the Democrats in the USA.

[devious9191]

and conservatives are better, because?

We have proof that this is the case with the Liberals, why don't you provide some that the Conservatives are also making backroom deals?

[asim99]

We have proof that this is the case with the Liberals, why don't you provide some that the Conservatives are also making backroom deals?

for one, they made deals with martin government to support their budget

[asim99]

I am tired of people calling the CPC, "bush-lites" when the CPC is overall further left-of-centre than the Democrats in the USA.

you'll have to thank the canadian people for making their conservatives act better than the real bushies...left to their own devices, these bush-lites would be no better than their soul-twins down south

[spidermoore]

"for one, they made deals with martin government to support their budget"

So you are now equating illegal kickbacks and theft, with trying to make parliment work in a perfectly normal manner under a minority situation.

It is these types of comparisons that I find truely bothersome.

[Montague]

I am tired of people calling the CPC, "bush-lites" when the CPC is overall further left-of-centre than the Democrats in the USA.
Could you please cite some major examples showing the CPC is further left than the Democrats?

[d_jedi]

Could you please cite some major examples showing the CPC is further left than the Democrats?
Harper said in a speech earlier this week that he fully supports the Canada Health Act.. I think that counts..

[Rehan]

I think a more revealing poll would be to ask if anyone would vote differently from the last election, and to which party they would switch.

[gman]

Could you please cite some major examples showing the CPC is further left than the Democrats?

I guess there is no center in US. Both US parties are on the right side of the center. Republician are right. Democrats are right of center. CPC is right of center and may be closer to center than Democrats.

[canadiantofu]

I would vote for the Bloc. but there's no one running here for them.

[gman]

Rehan, you baned yourself. :D
Or, "baned" means something else. :confused:

[Rehan]

Rehan, you baned yourself. :DI was wondering when someone would notice! :lol: Just playing around... :)

[d_jedi]

Rehan, you baned yourself. :D
Or, "baned" means something else. :confused:
wtf?!
that's weird..

[asim99]

rehan: stop playing with yourself too much :cheesygri

[devious9191]

for one, they made deals with martin government to support their budget

Last time I checked this wasn't illegal. This was also before the current government's corruption was publicized. If for example, they were still cutting deals like the NDP after the fact, that might be an issue.

[asim99]

"for one, they made deals with martin government to support their budget"

So you are now equating illegal kickbacks and theft, with trying to make parliment work in a perfectly normal manner under a minority situation.

It is these types of comparisons that I find truely bothersome.

martin government did not take the kickbacks...there is a commission working to figure out who did

[asim99]

the current government's corruption was publicized

WRONG again
it was not current government....current government was elected only last year...the corruption occurred much before that

[devious9191]

WRONG again
it was not current government....current government was elected only last year...the corruption occurred much before that

I never said that it occurred with the current government. I said that the corruption was publicized only recently, and until that time the conservatives were trying to make the minority government work to the advantage of both the conservatives and liberals.

[devious9191]

martin government did not take the kickbacks...there is a commission working to figure out who did

? They've already shown that hundreds of thousands of dollars was funneled to the liberal party, not to individuals. ie. the commercials that you were watching from the liberal party last election for Paul Martin were paid for with my tax dollars.

[asim99]

I never said that it occurred with the current government. I said that the corruption was publicized only recently, and until that time the conservatives were trying to make the minority government work to the advantage of both the conservatives and liberals.

actually harper knew of the corruptionbefore he offered his support to martin...however, after brault testimony when he saw his numbers get better, he conveniently flipflopped, and started asking for elections, ignroing that the majority of the country does not want to go to polls again...talk of being a power grabber

? They've already shown that hundreds of thousands of dollars was funneled to the liberal party, not to individuals. ie. the commercials that you were watching from the liberal party last election for Paul Martin were paid for with my tax dollars.

i'd rather hear it from judge gomery as to where the money went, rather than believing hear-say

[d_jedi]

WRONG again
it was not current government....current government was elected only last year...the corruption occurred much before that
But members of the current government are responsible.

And let's not forget that Martin called the last election before the Commons committee investigating the sponsorship scandal had the opportunity to write their report.

[gman]

? They've already shown that hundreds of thousands of dollars was funneled to the liberal party, not to individuals. ie. the commercials that you were watching from the liberal party last election for Paul Martin were paid for with my tax dollars.

Which one? Federal or Quebec?

[asim99]

But members of the current government are responsible.

And let's not forget that Martin called the last election before the Commons committee investigating the sponsorship scandal had the opportunity to write their report.

hmmm....and harper wants elections before gomery writes its report

[d_jedi]

actually harper knew of the corruptionbefore he offered his support to martin...however, after brault testimony when he saw his numbers get better, he conveniently flipflopped, and started asking for elections, ignroing that the majority of the country does not want to go to polls again...talk of being a power grabber
The majority of Canadians also believe that the Liberals have lost the moral authority to govern.


i'd rather hear it from judge gomery as to where the money went, rather than believing hear-say
www.gomery.ca
It's all there, in black and white. Read 'em and weep.

[devious9191]

actually harper knew of the corruptionbefore he offered his support to martin...however, after brault testimony when he saw his numbers get better, he conveniently flipflopped, and started asking for elections, ignroing that the majority of the country does not want to go to polls again...talk of being a power grabber

I didn't know that you and Stephen Harper were such good friends. The only thing that anyone 'knew' before the inquiry was that there were millions of dollars unaccounted for in the sponsorship program. After testimony clearly pointing a finger at the liberals for wasting tax payers money, illegally, rather than irresponsibly (which is normally the case with those guys), he cut off the support for the Liberals. Obviously, if there was any sort of proof beforehand that Harper was aware of, the rest of Canada would have been made aware of it 10 minutes later, as that's obviously in his best interest, so how can you say that he knew about it before anyone else did?

How can anyone in good conscience act like business as usual until December? We already have a parliament that has ceased to function and can't do anything productive, so what exactly are your elected representatives going to be doing until December when they can't pass a bill in the house of commons?

i'd rather hear it from judge gomery as to where the money went, rather than believing hear-say

I'd rather remove people from office that have been mismanaging my money for years, and are now giving it to their buddies than leave these jokers in office. In the event that at the end of the inquiry it comes out that the Liberal party was in fact spending my money in my best interest, I'm sure that they will be forcing an election anyways, so what's the problem? I'm just waiting for Sheila Fraser to turn her eyes on the gun registry fiasco next.

[gman]

But members of the current government are responsible.

And let's not forget that Martin called the last election before the Commons committee investigating the sponsorship scandal had the opportunity to write their report.
So, Martin was wrong for not giving us a chance to find out exactly what happened. Now, should we allow Harper to do the same wrong thing? Two wrongs does not mean right.

[asim99]

The majority of Canadians also believe that the Liberals have lost the moral authority to govern.

i'd like to see the poll where that specific question was asked

[Montague]

Harper said in a speech earlier this week that he fully supports the Canada Health Act.. I think that counts..
You forget the Democrats under Clinton tried to implicate some major health care change but was rebuffed and he handled it sloppily.

You do not honestly think the Democrats if they had control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency would NOT try to impliment some kind of universal healthcare?

[devious9191]

Which one? Federal or Quebec?

Both

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupaction/publicinquiry.html

He testified that taxpayers' dollars were funneled to the Liberal Party's Quebec wing to help pay campaign costs in the 1993, 1997 and 2000 federal elections.

A former executive director of the Liberal party's Quebec wing, Corbeil confirmed a former ad executive's testimony, that he made illegal payoffs to the Liberal Party of Canada in the 2000 federal election campaign.

The party was broke, Corbeil told Radio-Canada and the Globe and Mail in interviews, and it desperately needed funds to fight a tough election campaign.

[d_jedi]

hmmm....and harper wants elections before gomery writes its report
The difference is we know much more of what happened now..
and the full transcript of the Gomery inquiry is publicly available (except for a few sections under publication ban) from www.gomery.ca (I don't believe this was the case with the Commons commission).

Why was Martin so unwilling to let the Commons commission finish their report.. but wants Gomery to finish? He's desperately trying to hang on to power, plain and simple.. the Liberals are using every procedural trick in the book (including cancelling opposition days) to hang onto power.. the Liberals are trying to bribe Conservative MPs (s/a Inky Mark) by offering them plush appointments in a desperate attempt to hang onto power.. the Liberals threw out a budget that had the support of the majority in the House of Commons, and adopted an NDP budget they themselves believe is fiscally irresponsible in an attempt to hang onto power.

[Roninvancouver]

He's desperately trying to hang on to power, plain and simple.. the Liberals are using every procedural trick in the book (including .

sort of like Harper...he'd do just about anything to get power...including saddling canadians with a quarter billion dollar election...he seems to only care about himself too...

[d_jedi]

You forget the Democrats under Clinton tried to implicate some major health care change but was rebuffed and he handled it sloppily.

You do not honestly think the Democrats if they had control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency would NOT try to impliment some kind of universal healthcare?
Shrug. I don't particularily follow US politics that don't affect me.

[asim99]

so basically the argument here is that brault's testimony convinced harper to ask for a new election...now either harper is a fool or he takes me for one

[d_jedi]

sort of like Harper...he'd do just about anything to get power...including saddling canadians with a quarter billion dollar election...he seems to only care about himself too...
If the Liberals (esp. under Chretien) were so unwilling to go to the polls just because they thought they could win.. you'd have a point..

but, wait..
umm..
how many snap elections did Chretien call?

[d_jedi]

so basically the argument here is that brault's testimony convinced harper to ask for a new election...now either harper is a fool or he takes me for one
Why do you say that? I know that's what crossed the line, personally..

[devious9191]

So, Martin was wrong for not giving us a chance to find out exactly what happened. Now, should we allow Harper to do the same wrong thing? Two wrongs does not mean right.

Harper is going to let the inquiry run its course. He doesn't feel that we should allow a corrupt governmet to remain in place until the results are in though. When the results come in, and if it comes out that the liberals weren't culpable, and there was no scandal, the conservatives will pay for it I'm sure.

[Roninvancouver]

If the Liberals (esp. under Chretien) were so unwilling to go to the polls just because they thought they could win.. you'd have a point..

but, wait..
umm..
how many snap elections did Chretien call?

hey I'm not saying Martin is better..I'm saying Harper is just as bad.... :cheesygri

[Montague]

Shrug. I don't particularily follow US politics that don't affect me.
Dun get me wrong I dun think the CPC are a bunch of right wing lunatics but to say that they are to the left of the Democratic party in my opinion is a big stretch.

[asim99]

the Liberals are trying to bribe Conservative MPs (s/a Inky Mark) by offering them plush appointments in a desperate attempt to hang onto power.

its simply a "he said, he said"...looks like inky mark likes to play dirty

[asim99]

Why do you say that? I know that's what crossed the line, personally..

because before the testimony he pledged support for liberal budget, but flipflopped after that

[d_jedi]

its simply a "he said, he said"...looks like inky mark likes to play dirty
Given the Liberal's tendancy towards corruption, I wouldn't put it past them.

[d_jedi]

because before the testimony he pledged support for liberal budget, but flipflopped after that

After the testimony, he (and the rest of Canada) learned the full extent of the corruption within the Liberal party. How does that mean:
"now either harper is a fool or he takes me for one"

If changing your opinion after hearing Brault's testimony makes you a fool, then you've just called a few million Canadians fools..

[asim99]

Given the Liberal's tendancy towards corruption, I wouldn't put it past them.

i call it scare mongering...

[asim99]

After the testimony, he (and the rest of Canada) learned the full extent of the corruption within the Liberal party. How does that mean:
"now either harper is a fool or he takes me for one"

If changing your opinion after hearing Brault's testimony makes you a fool, then you've just called a few million Canadians fools..

personally i hope canadians aren't fickle enough to be swayed by a singular testimony, and are smart enough to wait till the 'fair trial' process run its course, before passing their judgement

[d_jedi]

i call it scare mongering...
Well.. the Liberals have used these appointments to try to make their problems go away..

Didn't Martin offer Sheila Copps some sort of appointment when she was fighting to represent the Liberal party in her riding?

[gman]

Harper is going to let the inquiry run its course. He doesn't feel that we should allow a corrupt governmet to remain in place until the results are in though. When the results come in, and if it comes out that the liberals weren't culpable, and there was no scandal, the conservatives will pay for it I'm sure.

Sure, Harper does not feel that we should allow a corrupt governmet to remain in place instead of he feels that poll is going his way and has a better chance to take over. Sure, he is doing us a favour.

[devious9191]

personally i hope canadians aren't fickle enough to be swayed by a singular testimony, and are smart enough to wait till the 'fair trial' process run its course, before passing their judgement

Man, do you ever live in a dream world. If you just want to be a head in the sand liberal, and not have an open mind at all, just say so, rather than spouting bs all the time.

Paul Coffin, head of Coffin Communications told the inquiry how he sent in phoney invoices to Public Works Canada, billing the government for sponsorship contracts – even when little or no work was done.

It wasn't his idea, he told the inquiry. After being prodded by Justice John Gomery, Coffin said Chuck Guité, the man who ran the program, told him to send in the phoney invoices.

Cloutier said he received a call in the spring of 1999 from his boss, Claude Boulay, head of Groupe Everest, telling him a federal sponsorship contract was on its way and all the details were already settled.

“He told me all I had to do was send in the order and sign…It’s not everyday that you make $68,000 on a phone call,� he told the inquiry in his brief appearance.

Groupe Everest charged $68,000 in commission fees for sending an order form and passing along two cheques to Artellier to produce items bearing the Canada wordmark. Cloutier admitted no other work was done.

The money, which was never declared as an election expense, was used to pay "volunteers." He promised to reveal more when he testifies before the sponsorship inquiry in early May.

Corbeil also said that several election workers, lawyers and accountants were rewarded for their efforts. Some Liberal lawyers were made judges, he said.


Later in the week, Luc Lemay, whose companies were awarded $36 million in sponsorship contracts, told the inquiry he paid Corriveau nearly $7 million in commissions over the years. Lemay said Corriveau did little or no work for the money. Lemay said Corriveau's invoices charged for alleged work "organizing space in Olympic stadiums" for fairs in Rimouski, Trois-Rivieres, Chicoutimi, and Sherbrooke – cities that don't have Olympic stadiums.

The paper trail suggests Brault made $1.1 million in contributions to the Liberal party that never appeared on the books – they were covered up by fake invoices. Brault also said he paid 10 per cent of the 12-per-cent commissions he collected on sponsorship contract, to the Liberal Party's Quebec wing.

The former head of Gosselin Communications stratégiques, Gilles-André Gosselin, says he was pressured to donate to the federal Liberals in exchange for sponsorship contracts. But he made it clear he wasn't going to play that game.

A 2004 auditor general's report found Lafleur Communication took the commission for simply delivering a $750,000 cheque to Via Rail in early 2000 related to the rail carrier's sponsorship of the series.

How much more do you really need to see? How many testimonies is that?

EDIT: Source http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupaction/publicinquiry.html

[devious9191]

Sure, Harper does not feel that we should allow a corrupt governmet to remain in place instead of he feels that poll is going his way and has a better chance to take over. Sure, he is doing us a favour.

lol.. I know that was supposed to be sarcastic, but that's exacly how it is actually.

[gman]

How much more do you really need to see? How many testimonies is that?
For me, I want to see how bad it can go. If Harper can wait, may be Liberals will be wiped out to 3 seats like Murloney government. I want him to give me that opportunity.

[luthair]

For me, I want to see how bad it can go. If Harper can wait, may be Liberals will be wiped out to 3 seats like Murloney government. I want him to give me that opportunity.

I think Harper would wait if he thought that would happen, which seems to indicate he believes the scandal isn't as bad as its been made out to be. Particularly since at this point polls indicate another minority government.

I don't understand how anyone can critisize the liberal party for making a deal with the NDP, compromise is the only way a minority government can get anything accomplished. As I recall a Liberal-NDP compromise was the start of Healthcare. Not that that has any bearing on the current situation other than as an example of how minority governments work.

[devious9191]

I think Harper would wait if he thought that would happen, which seems to indicate he believes the scandal isn't as bad as its been made out to be. Particularly since at this point polls indicate another minority government.

I agree with a portion of this. I also don't think it's going to get much worse than it already has. And in the event that it does, the typical Canadian attitude of sighing and claiming that corruption is the price of democracy will come out. I also think that right now is the best time to call an election when Canadians are still p*ssed off.


I don't understand how anyone can critisize the liberal party for making a deal with the NDP, compromise is the only way a minority government can get anything accomplished. As I recall a Liberal-NDP compromise was the start of Healthcare. Not that that has any bearing on the current situation other than as an example of how minority governments work.

The whole point, is that Martin is giving up a financially sound budget (and by financially sound, I mean his numbers are in the black, not that I agree with a lot of the social expenditures) in favor of giving the NDP 5 billion for bs. The liberals have proven time and again that they will do or say anything to stay in power and this is just another example of it.

[luthair]

I agree with a portion of this. I also don't think it's going to get much worse than it already has. And in the event that it does, the typical Canadian attitude of sighing and claiming that corruption is the price of democracy will come out. I also think that right now is the best time to call an election when Canadians are still p*ssed off.

There will be huge press coverage when the gomery inquiry finally releases its report. If, at that time it indicates culpability, then there will be huge backlash against the Liberal party. A perception of wrong doing took the Campbell party to the previously mentioned 3 seats.

The whole point, is that Martin is giving up a financially sound budget (and by financially sound, I mean his numbers are in the black, not that I agree with a lot of the social expenditures) in favor of giving the NDP 5 billion for bs. The liberals have proven time and again that they will do or say anything to stay in power and this is just another example of it.

As far as I've heard the budget remains in the black. Even if it didn't, if the NDP party has the seats to support the budget, then under a representative system the population wants it. Until you support the your last statement with examples it remains partisan drivel.

[bug]

I think Politicians in general have forgotten that they are in office to represent the people. We do not vote them in so they can fill their pockets, and their friends pockets etc. Vote of non confidence within the liberal party? Forget that..what about the population? We have no confidence in politicians period :!:
If I wanted to get ripped off, I'd elect Stooples Managers to run the country :lol: The corruption is probably much worse than we could possibly imagine. Michael Moore should make a movie about all this crap.

[spidermoore]

"personally i hope canadians aren't fickle enough to be swayed by a singular testimony, and are smart enough to wait till the 'fair trial' process run its course, before passing their judgement"

There is nothing that Gomery will say or not say that will change the FACT that money has been completely mismanaged and that some of it was stolen by Liberals. This is already established fact regarless of the Gomery inquiry. Ever hear of Sheila Fraser? Ever hear of accounting? These things ARE fact.

Here are some other FACTS regarding Liberal mismanagement:

"An internal HRDC audit of 459 files across seven program areas pointed to serious problems (read: gross financial mismanagement) within the department. They found:

97% of all files lacked backgound checks;

80% showed no evidence of financial monitoring;

72% had no cash flow forecast

25% had no description of what the money was going to support;

and 15% of grant recipients didn't even have an application in their files.

Indeed, 37 of these 459 files revealed serious problems. Overpayments, expense claims which don't qualify, and organizations which just didn't maintain proper records, yet millions of dollars continued to flow."



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"Auditor General Sheila Fraser issued a report on Tuesday that showed the gun registry would cost taxpayers $1 billion by 2004. Original estimates of the cost in 1995 were that the government would have to spend a mere $2 million. "



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



In her fifth and latest critique of the swelling fund, Auditor General Sheila Fraser said that despite the premium cuts, the Employment Insurance fund grew by another $2 billion last year to lift the total to $46 billion.

That goes far beyond what the original EI legislation envisioned, she added.

"For the last five years, we have drawn Parliament's attention to this issue . . . the government has yet to address the concerns about the accumulated surplus," Fraser said in her report released Nov. 23.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When Paul Martin was to become prime minister, the question was raised whether he would be able to keep himself at arms length from CSL. He admitted to CSL having received $137,000 from the federal government. It later emerged that he slightly understated that figure. The total of federal grants and loans received by CSL during Paul Martin's term as finance minister runs to $161 million.


It is FACT that money was stolen. This is not just opinion or testimony at this point. It is FACT. Gomery MAY fill out some of the facts with more details or specifics about individuals but the FACT of theft and gross financial mismanagement is already established.

[devious9191]

There will be huge press coverage when the gomery inquiry finally releases its report. If, at that time it indicates culpability, then there will be huge backlash against the Liberal party. A perception of wrong doing took the Campbell party to the previously mentioned 3 seats.

This is true. I personally don't feel comfortable allowing the liberals to mismanage *my* money for the next year. Especially when it's taken a giant leap from simple mismanagement which the liberals are notorious for, to actually stealing it.


As far as I've heard the budget remains in the black. Even if it didn't, if the NDP party has the seats to support the budget, then under a representative system the population wants it. Until you support the your last statement with examples it remains partisan drivel.

That's true. The liberals pad their budgets in order to look like heros at the end of the year when they discover 10 billion dollar surpluses. Personally, I'd rather see that 10 billion back in my pocket where it came from rather than paying for daycare and housing for welfare cases.

And your last statement doesn't even make sense. If the majority of the population wanted this additional 5 billion dollars spent on bs, it would have been in the original budget. The 5 billion dollars came from a strong arm move from a party that has 19 seats in the 308 seat house of commons.. How is that reflective of the wishes of the majority of canadians?

[rilhouse]

:arrowu:

[Roninvancouver]

looks like (according to the poll) most RFDers would rather have the Liberals instead of the conservatives...well at least it shows that most RFDers can see harper (wanna-be george bush) would be so much worse for canada.....hopefully this will reflected when there is a federal election...

[spidermoore]

One could easily say that most RFDrs prefer to be robbed blind by their government. Both statements are equally meaningless Roninvancouver.

[gman]

One could easily say that most RFDrs prefer to be robbed blind by their government. Both statements are equally meaningless Roninvancouver.
Or, most RFDers know they will be robbed by their government regardless who is in charge. So, being robbed is default. If you think you will not be robbed by changing the government, you are kidding yourself.

[asim99]

looks like (according to the poll) most RFDers would rather have the Liberals instead of the conservatives...well at least it shows that most RFDers can see harper (wanna-be george bush) would be so much worse for canada.....hopefully this will reflected when there is a federal election...

amen to that....canadians don't need bush-lites

[Roninvancouver]

One could easily say that most RFDrs prefer to be robbed blind by their government. Both statements are equally meaningless Roninvancouver.

well it shows they prefer one over the other. that is clear and meaningful.

[spidermoore]

It is really sad that so many Canadians are still willing to settle with the status quo, when the status quo is so poor.

...and all this based on the surreal boogeyman created by the political party that has been prooven to be lying to us for years.

"Gays will get fired from their jobs"

"Harper will end healthcare"

Words coming from prooven thieves and liars, yet you buy it.

[asim99]

there must be something seriously wrong with the philosophy of harper's party when people would prefer 'proven liars and thiefs' over them....they need to realize their medieval times' ideology isn't cutting it, and that they need to do something better than just crying like babies over the so-called 'scare-mongering tactics' of others

[asim99]

Man, do you ever live in a dream world. If you just want to be a head in the sand liberal, and not have an open mind at all, just say so, rather than spouting bs all the time.

How much more do you really need to see? How many testimonies is that?

EDIT: Source http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupaction/publicinquiry.html

i want all that, and more....i want everything everyone has to say

[Think]

How could anyone vote Liberal?

It's astonishing how ignorant people can be :rolleyes: :eek:

[gman]

It is really sad that so many Canadians are still willing to settle with the status quo, when the status quo is so poor.

...and all this based on the surreal boogeyman created by the political party that has been prooven to be lying to us for years.

"Gays will get fired from their jobs"

"Harper will end healthcare"

Words coming from prooven thieves and liars, yet you buy it.

I don't buy what Liberals said. However, I also don't buy what Harper said. I usually try to find out what they DON'T say and what is between the lines of what they said.

My conclusion is both of the them sucks.

[Roninvancouver]

Words coming from prooven thieves and liars, yet you buy it.

people are not THAT stupid.

bottom line - harper's policies just do not have majority appeal...personally for example...his reluctance to condemn the US invasion of Iraq...or at least come out clearly (at FIRST) that he would NOT take Canada into another middle eastern country...well that made me think twice about supporting him at the polls.

the conservatives are just out of touch with what the majority of canadians want on "social" issues...until the the harpies become less right wing christian based...they will be always the bridesmaid and never the bride...

http://img151.echo.cx/img151/937/harperbride.jpg

[Audiogenic]

Unfortunately in Canada, it doesn't really matter who you vote for Federaly unless voting actually becomes mandatory.

The government year after year knows exactly who votes and who doesn't vote (due to voter registration records and other indicators).

The goal is to create the illusion of serving the needs of the voting populous....until the winner gets into office and then claims they can't deliver on original promises now that the actual books are open on the last government's mess.

[Think]

[QUOTE=Roninvancouver]people are not THAT stupid.

bottom line - harper's policies just do not have majority appeal...personally for example...his reluctance to condemn the US invasion of Iraq...or at least come out clearly (at FIRST) that he would NOT take Canada into another middle eastern country...well that made me think twice about supporting him at the polls.

the conservatives are just out of touch with what the majority of canadians want on "social" issues...until the the harpies become less right wing christian based...they will be always the bridesmaid and never the bride...

I understand the pursuasive nature of the liberal agenda but I do not believe that voting for the Conservatives would equate the loss of the liberal appeal in our country.

Most of what I have heard concerning the Conservatives are quit vague and unwarranted. The fact remains that the damage of the Liberals have done must be punished at the polls as well as the courts. This makes Watergate look like jay walking.

I'm not sure who I would vote for but I will not vote for the Liberals.

[andrewemilio]

VOTE LIBERAL!!! - It's in my best interest.

Thank you. :o

[Roninvancouver]

VOTE LIBERAL!!! - It's in my best interest.

Thank you. :o

explain yourself if you can

[d_jedi]

explain yourself if you can
Maybe he works for a Montreal advertising firm?
:D

Gotta keep those slush funds rolling, somehow..

[Byrns]

Bring back Mr. Dithers! After all he was going to go into Iraq and support missle defence until he changed his mind based on the polls...

More criminals in government please!

[d_jedi]

Bring back Mr. Dithers! After all he was going to go into Iraq and support missle defence until he changed his mind based on the polls...

:eek:
Uh oh.. there you go with your facts and logic.
Shh.. the Liberals don't need people who actually critically look at what they've done.. it makes them look bad!
:eek:

[mbalgavy]

Stumbled into this forum because of boredom. Red this topic because of interest. But, I have to say that I am disgusted. To hear and read opinions of people that are just so stupid, it drives me mad. I consider myself fiscal conservative, on the rest of the issues I am more liberal. I do not care much if gays can marry, for all I care if you want marry your donkey. As long as that doesn't mean that my rights will be reduced to accomodate theirs. However, rewarding liberals over and over for all their scandals, all the money they stole from our pockets, it is just insane. I do not care what people think about conservative party - weather they are good or bad, but re-electing liberals is insane.
All politicians are corrupt - most probably they are. (At least by the time they get to a position where they can do some good/harm). However, the only way to keep them in line, is to punish the ones that break the rules and laws. Ignoring it and not punishing them will only show to all of them that there are no consequences to their actions, and they can do anything they want. Do I think Martin knows/knew nothing about the sponsorship ? No way. Any person as high as he was would have to know something. To get to a position like that you have kiss many asses and when you get there, you have to reward the one that helped you get up. Right now he is trying to save his ass for as long as he can. As far as democrats go, they have practically sold their conscience for few billion $$. Now if you believe that end justifies means, than that is fine. But if you were raised with some values, you know it isn't right. As far as Harper, and his support of US and war in Iraq. I was against the war, but that single issue would not make me vote against him. With the status of our army, we are not able to protect PEI should someone try to invade it. Forget about assisting in Iraq. They would have sent maybe out special task force to clean water, because that is all that our army is capable of doing right now.
In the end, I look at my life. Every year my taxes go up, municipal, provincial, federal. Every year I get less and less for my money. Why - because my money is spend on dumbass things from unnecessary bilingualism, support of crack heads with free crack pipes and needles, subsidizing of lazy people that refuse to work, and smart assed politicians that never held an honest job in their life (maybe short of working in MacD when they were 15). I am sick and tired of this socialistic attitude. Hard working people that once brought this country to its peak are dying in old age homes because they cannot afford to pay property taxes on houses they paid for all their life. Their pensions are reduced to nothing, and any medical requirements they might have are not met by failing "free for everyone" health care. Meanwhile, our politicians go to Quebect, US and who knows where to get thier medical needs adressed. There is a political system that promises everybody does what they can, and everybody gets what they require - it is called communism. And we know how those countries ended up. So unless few things happen in this country, fixing up the corruption and mismanagement of all affairs, I refuse to stay here. I will not watch this country reduces itself to a level of another banana republic, and watch my life, my work , and my savings become worthless. All of you tree hugging, dolphin loving, crack heads supporting, welfare depandents can stay here as long as your friends are willing to support you. (sorry, i love trees and dolphins, that one escaped me.....)

[Roninvancouver]

Stumbled into this forum because of boredom. Red this topic because of interest. But, I have to say that I am disgusted. To hear and read opinions of people that are just so stupid, it drives me mad. I consider myself fiscal conservative, on the rest of the issues I am more liberal. I do not care much if gays can marry, for all I care if you want marry your donkey. As long as that doesn't mean that my rights will be reduced to accomodate theirs. However, rewarding liberals over and over for all their scandals, all the money they stole from our pockets, it is just insane. I do not care what people think about conservative party - weather they are good or bad, but re-electing liberals is insane.
All politicians are corrupt - most probably they are. (At least by the time they get to a position where they can do some good/harm). However, the only way to keep them in line, is to punish the ones that break the rules and laws. Ignoring it and not punishing them will only show to all of them that there are no consequences to their actions, and they can do anything they want. Do I think Martin knows/knew nothing about the sponsorship ? No way. Any person as high as he was would have to know something. To get to a position like that you have kiss many asses and when you get there, you have to reward the one that helped you get up. Right now he is trying to save his ass for as long as he can. As far as democrats go, they have practically sold their conscience for few billion $$. Now if you believe that end justifies means, than that is fine. But if you were raised with some values, you know it isn't right. As far as Harper, and his support of US and war in Iraq. I was against the war, but that single issue would not make me vote against him. With the status of our army, we are not able to protect PEI should someone try to invade it. Forget about assisting in Iraq. They would have sent maybe out special task force to clean water, because that is all that our army is capable of doing right now.
In the end, I look at my life. Every year my taxes go up, municipal, provincial, federal. Every year I get less and less for my money. Why - because my money is spend on dumbass things from unnecessary bilingualism, support of crack heads with free crack pipes and needles, subsidizing of lazy people that refuse to work, and smart assed politicians that never held an honest job in their life (maybe short of working in MacD when they were 15). I am sick and tired of this socialistic attitude. Hard working people that once brought this country to its peak are dying in old age homes because they cannot afford to pay property taxes on houses they paid for all their life. Their pensions are reduced to nothing, and any medical requirements they might have are not met by failing "free for everyone" health care. Meanwhile, our politicians go to Quebect, US and who knows where to get thier medical needs adressed. There is a political system that promises everybody does what they can, and everybody gets what they require - it is called communism. And we know how those countries ended up. So unless few things happen in this country, fixing up the corruption and mismanagement of all affairs, I refuse to stay here. I will not watch this country reduces itself to a level of another banana republic, and watch my life, my work , and my savings become worthless. All of you tree hugging, dolphin loving, crack heads supporting, welfare depandents can stay here as long as your friends are willing to support you. (sorry, i love trees and dolphins, that one escaped me.....)


wow, a new user and not a troll :D

thanks for your insights and i agree with a lot of what you say (especially about marrying a donkey..well a cute donkey anyways)...


but let's not cut off our arm to spite our hand.

If harper was in power at the time of the us-iraq thing...i believe we would be at war now in the middle east with 100s of dead canadians. for that alone i cannot in good concience vote for a right wing christian social agenda.

ps...hmm quite a bit of new conservative votes in the poll since i brought the thread back up this morning....

[devious9191]

wow, a new user and not a troll :D

thanks for your insights and i agree with a lot of what you say (especially about marrying a donkey..well a cute donkey anyways)...


but let's not cut off our arm to spite our hand.

If harper was in power at the time of the us-iraq thing...i believe we would be at war now in the middle east with 100s of dead canadians. for that alone i cannot in good concience vote for a right wing christian social agenda.

ps...hmm quite a bit of new conservative votes in the poll since i brought the thread back up this morning....

We should be at war in the middle east. Whether Canadians believe in the cause or not, and I would like to think that the majority of Canadians would believe in freeing the people of iraq from an oppressive dictator (although people like you show that isn't the case). And please don't start with the 'WMD's was the original reason' bs.

The bottom line is that we expect the US to continue to prop us up defensively and economically, because realistically we couldn't support ourselves on either front without them. For the sake of that relationship, and the fact that the USA is basically the 'good' guys when it comes to international relations, particularly dealing with the middle east, we should have our soldiers in Iraq supporting not only the USA, but also democracy. We should have joined the missile defence plan, and hopefully we still will.

At the end of the day, the US is our ally and pretty well the only thing keeping Canada a safe and prosperous place to live.

[Roninvancouver]

We should be at war in the middle east. Whether Canadians believe in the cause or not, and I would like to think that the majority of Canadians would believe in freeing the people of iraq from an oppressive dictator (although people like you show that isn't the case). And please don't start with the 'WMD's was the original reason' bs.

At the end of the day, the US is our ally and pretty well the only thing keeping Canada a safe and prosperous place to live.

It's not BS. The Bush administration LIED about WMDs to convince the americans that the war was urgent and necessary. It was a lie and 1000s upon 1000s died because of that.

If you believe it was true that you are not dealing with reality. EVERY major news source on EARTH has reported that there were no WMDs. Bush's own people have said there were NO WMDs.

It's ironic when you call the WMD lie as BS; but you demand an election becuase you see the Liberals as liars.

[yatko]

Ouch, Conservative votes are closing the difference with liberals.

[andrewemilio]

explain yourself if you can

Money in my dad's pocket...if you know what I mean.

[Roninvancouver]

Ouch, Conservative votes are closing the difference with liberals.


it's new RFD conservative members joining just for the poll :lol: :lol:

harpies will do anything to win...except listen to canadians about war/gays/and health care.

[Roninvancouver]

Money in my dad's pocket...if you know what I mean.

I really am thick - what are you talking about? Who is your "daddy"?

[andrewemilio]

I really am thick - what are you talking about? Who is your "daddy"?

That's as far I will go to explain. My dad has a business relationship with the government and let's just say that issues of morality ( against gay marriage ) is secondary to the financial disposition that would happen if the Conservatives would win. In other words, put your values aside for financial reward.

[Byrns]

it's new RFD conservative members joining just for the poll :lol: :lol:

harpies will do anything to win...except listen to canadians about war/gays/and health care.

Not every Liberal tows the line. At least 30 of them voted against gay marriage.

[Roninvancouver]

Not every Liberal tows the line. At least 30 of them voted against gay marriage.
yes..true..but how many conservatives did NOT vote against gay marriage.

[doc_ock]

yes..true..but how many conservatives did NOT vote against gay marriage.
4. Here's the link. (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2005/04/11/993718-cp.html)

[gman]

US government offical concluded that there was no way Iraq had WMD and disbanded their investigation in recent months. They concluded Iraq had it long long time ago and did try to acquire that but they did not have it. It is NOT they could not find evidence to prove they had it. They concluded that there was no way they could have it.

There is other way to deal with Iraq and free their people. It did not have to be the Bush way.

[KevC]

NDP. I'm for a socialist minority government. I wouldn't mind Liberals leading, just get their things sorted out.

[spidermoore]

Ron, do you really believe that changing the definition of a word is the ONLY way to grant equal legal rights to people? What about women? Are they now called men, or do they have equal rights as women? What about blacks in the US? Are they now called white, or do they have equal rights?

It is naive to think that redefining a word is the only way to grant equality, ESPECIALLY when the Supreme Court of Canada declined to state such when asked directly.

Canadians are split roughly 50/50 on SSM Ron. CPC policy regarding it, is a very good compromise. Grant equal rights but without redefining the word marriage.

If you think that CPC policy is a human-rights violation in comparison to Liberal policy (even though the difference is miniscule) then you are also saying that France, UK, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Portugal, New Zealand, and others, are ALL human-rights violators in this regard.

[devious9191]

It's not BS. The Bush administration LIED about WMDs to convince the americans that the war was urgent and necessary. It was a lie and 1000s upon 1000s died because of that.

If you believe it was true that you are not dealing with reality. EVERY major news source on EARTH has reported that there were no WMDs. Bush's own people have said there were NO WMDs.

It's ironic when you call the WMD lie as BS; but you demand an election becuase you see the Liberals as liars.

Well, you need to look at it from a perspective other than that of the liberal media.

Iraqi government shows no compunction over using chemical weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of Kurds.

http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html

Iraq, has been in the development of nuclear weapons since the late 70's.

http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html#acqui

Iraq repeatedly denied and misled the UNSCOM/IAEA inspectors for years.

http://www.mideastweb.org/iraqtimelineunscom.htm

List of chemical and nuclear agents that Iraq is in possession of pre-2002.

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html

"A new report released on September 9, 2002 from the International Institute for Strategic Studies - an independent research organization - concludes that Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain fissile material."

Whether Iraq was in possession of Nuclear weapons at the time is really besides the point. The fact is, and I have a hard time believing that anyone can deny it, is that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapon (not reactor) technology for over 20 years. If they didn't possess that technology at the time, they would have been able to prepare their own weapons within a decade, and would have been able to prepare their own weapons with material from a third party within 6 months - 1 year. All of this being said, the situation that the US would have faced in Iraq in 10 years once they begin bragging about their nuclear weapons, ie. North Korea, would be far worse than the situation they're facing there today. So, Bush acted on information that he felt was credible and acted in the best interests of the international community whether the liberal canadian hippies will admit it or not.

[gman]

Whether Iraq was in possession of Nuclear weapons at the time is really besides the point. The fact is, and I have a hard time believing that anyone can deny it, is that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapon (not reactor) technology for over 20 years. If they didn't possess that technology at the time, they would have been able to prepare their own weapons within a decade, and would have been able to prepare their own weapons with material from a third party within 6 months - 1 year. All of this being said, the situation that the US would have faced in Iraq in 10 years once they begin bragging about their nuclear weapons, ie. North Korea, would be far worse than the situation they're facing there today. So, Bush acted on information that he felt was credible and acted in the best interests of the international community whether the liberal canadian hippies will admit it or not.

That is the point.

Bush should say "We need to invade Iraq because they will have the ability to develope nuclear weapon." instead of "We need to invade Iraq because they have WMD. We need to act now. Not later."

Bush acted on anything that gave him a reason to do so. He could have checked if the information was good. He could have waited after UN did the last sweep. No, he could not wait and asked the weapon inspector to leave because he needed to do that "now".

[d_jedi]

That is the point.

Bush should say "We need to invade Iraq because they will have the ability to develope nuclear weapon." instead of "We need to invade Iraq because they have WMD. We need to act now. Not later."

Bush acted on anything that gave him a reason to do so. He could have checked if the information was good. He could have waited after UN did the last sweep. No, he could not wait and asked the weapon inspector to leave because he needed to do that "now".
Saddam Hussein lied and deceived inspectors once about WMDs in Iraq.. why should Bush have given him the opportunity to do it again? Saddam was warned very early in the process that any deception or attempts to impede the inspectors would not be tolerated.. he did not heed those warnings.

[devious9191]

That is the point.

Bush should say "We need to invade Iraq because they will have the ability to develope nuclear weapon." instead of "We need to invade Iraq because they have WMD. We need to act now. Not later."

Bush acted on anything that gave him a reason to do so. He could have checked if the information was good. He could have waited after UN did the last sweep. No, he could not wait and asked the weapon inspector to leave because he needed to do that "now".

*shrug. Anyone that feels this way is just refusing to listen to facts and I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove a point that you don't want to listen to.

The question that begs to be asked I guess, is what is the Canadian liberals opinion on what needs to be done in Rwanda, Sudan, and North Korea? The Liberal government has as always taken the position of inactivity. I was reading the other day that North Korea could hit anywhere in the United States with nuclear arms, that they have admitted to having.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/12/us.nkorea/

Maybe we should sit back and let them take the first shot? Actually, what Canada does really isn't all that important. North Korea could tear Canada a new one within a week I'm sure, without the use of nuclear weapons. What would you suggest a country with a military do?

[gman]

*shrug. Anyone that feels this way is just refusing to listen to facts and I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove a point that you don't want to listen to.

The question that begs to be asked I guess, is what is the Canadian liberals opinion on what needs to be done in Rwanda, Sudan, and North Korea? The Liberal government has as always taken the position of inactivity. I was reading the other day that North Korea could hit anywhere in the United States with nuclear arms, that they have admitted to having.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/12/us.nkorea/

Maybe we should sit back and let them take the first shot? Actually, what Canada does really isn't all that important. North Korea could tear Canada a new one within a week I'm sure, without the use of nuclear weapons. What would you suggest a country with a military do?


Yes, why don't Bush act now? North Korean even threat US on that. It is more immediate than Iraq. Why double standard?

[gman]

Saddam Hussein lied and deceived inspectors once about WMDs in Iraq.. why should Bush have given him the opportunity to do it again? Saddam was warned very early in the process that any deception or attempts to impede the inspectors would not be tolerated.. he did not heed those warnings.

Wait, we are talking about Bush not Hussein who is a mad man. Or, Bush and Hussein are in the same class. Bush can do better than that. Bush could have tried to get more international support like he did in Afagh.

[asim99]

4. Here's the link. (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2005/04/11/993718-cp.html)

four voices of reason in a medieval party...that's a good start

[Montague]

Yes, why don't Bush act now? North Korean even threat US on that. It is more immediate than Iraq. Why double standard?
Cause North Korea can and will fight back.

The US will only go into areas where they know they can win and one cannot really fault them for that logic irrespective of whether they are justified in going in there in the first place.

[asim99]

Saddam Hussein lied and deceived inspectors once about WMDs in Iraq.. why should Bush have given him the opportunity to do it again? Saddam was warned very early in the process that any deception or attempts to impede the inspectors would not be tolerated.. he did not heed those warnings.

Bush lied and deceived the world once about WMDs in Iraq.. why should americans have given him the opportunity to do it again? Bush regime was warned very early in the process that any deception or attempts to impede the inspectors would result in deaths of innocent civilians.. he did not heed those warnings.

funny...how much difference a small change in what you wrote makes....
a hundred thousand innocent iraqi civilians would have lived if bush had not lied and decieved

[d_jedi]

Wait, we are talking about Bush not Hussein who is a mad man. Or, Bush and Hussein are in the same class. Bush can do better than that. Bush could have tried to get more international support like he did in Afagh.
Hussein is a mad man? I wholeheartedly agree. He's exactly the type of madman who would go out of his way to acquire WMD.. and he's exactly the type of madman who would have given said WMD to terrorists to use against his enemy - the United States (think about the reaction of Iraq on 9/11 or when the Columbia crashed..)

[asim99]

Hussein is a mad man? I wholeheartedly agree. He's exactly the type of madman who would go out of his way to acquire WMD.. and he's exactly the type of madman who would have given said WMD to terrorists to use against his enemy - the United States (think about the reaction of Iraq on 9/11 or when the Columbia crashed..)

so what does that make bush....bush supports tyrannical (sp?) and brutal regimes all over central and west asia to use against his enemies....from kyrgystan to russia to saudi arabia to israel...(not to mention afghan talibans, iraq's saddam until few years ago)...some people do have short term memory

[gman]

Hussein is a mad man? I wholeheartedly agree. He's exactly the type of madman who would go out of his way to acquire WMD.. and he's exactly the type of madman who would have given said WMD to terrorists to use against his enemy - the United States (think about the reaction of Iraq on 9/11 or when the Columbia crashed..)
I have no problem with Bush wasted Hussein. No problem at all. He could just say Hussein was actively acquireing WMD and US needed to act now. It is a valid reason. His people bought it or not is another thing. If he had to lie to get approval to do something "good", it is hard for people to take that.

BTW, North Korea always supports terrorist. Why don't Bush do the "good" thing too? There are more people in North Korea waiting for Bush to save them.

[d_jedi]

Yes, why don't Bush act now? North Korean even threat US on that. It is more immediate than Iraq. Why double standard?
Possibly because the chances of North Korea using their WMD against the US is pretty low - unless the US provokes them with an attack. If Iraq had WMD, I think their likelihood of using them against the US would be much higher.

[asim99]

Possibly because the chances of North Korea using their WMD against the US is pretty low - unless the US provokes them with an attack. If Iraq had WMD, I think their likelihood of using them against the US would be much higher.

NO...it is beause n.korea actually has wmd's...and bush regime is scared *****less

in case it is not clear, n.korea has been actively exporting its technologies to the undesirable elements through conduits like pakistan...that makes them worse than saddam's iraq

[gman]

Possibly because the chances of North Korea using their WMD against the US is pretty low - unless the US provokes them with an attack. If Iraq had WMD, I think their likelihood of using them against the US would be much higher.

How do you think Iraq would use nuke against US? What Iraq can do but North Korea can't? Both regimes support terrorists.

[d_jedi]

so what does that make bush....bush supports tyrannical (sp?) and brutal regimes all over central and west asia to use against his enemies....from kyrgystan to russia to saudi arabia to israel...(not to mention afghan talibans, iraq's saddam until few years ago)...some people do have short term memory
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The lesser of two evils..
ever heard of those phrases?

[Montague]

Possibly because the chances of North Korea using their WMD against the US is pretty low - unless the US provokes them with an attack. If Iraq had WMD, I think their likelihood of using them against the US would be much higher.
You dun think North Korea which does NOT have oil that it can use to sell "under the table" and is in desparate need for cash would not sell WMD to terrorist groups?

These guys are more dangerous than Iraq.

[asim99]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The lesser of two evils..
ever heard of those phrases?

great....you just justified the actions of 'terrorist' states like n.korea and iran...congrats

[d_jedi]

You dun think North Korea which does NOT have oil that it can use to sell "under the table" and is in desparate need for cash would not sell WMD to terrorist groups?

These guys are more dangerous than Iraq.
I agree, North Korea is dangerous, and needs to be dealt with. I even agree that North Korea was arguably more dangerous than Iraq (even if Iraq did have WMDs) before the US invaded the latter.

So why is the US not in North Korea right now?
Probably because they have their hands full with troops still in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So why did the US choose to invade Iraq instead of North Korea?
I don't know. If you're a cynic, it was because of oil. Otherwise, perhaps:
- Iraq would be easier to invade.. and would serve as a stern warning to NK?
- War with NK may lead to war with China (which the US really wouldn't want)?
- Iran, Iraq, and North Korea drew sticks.. and Iraq got the short one?

[d_jedi]

great....you just justified the actions of 'terrorist' states like n.korea and iran...congrats
No, I really don't think I did.

[asim99]

So why did the US choose to invade Iraq instead of North Korea?

remember bush saying saddam 'tried to kill my father'? it was personal for that silly man
only that a hundred thousand innocent people got killed in the process

what a shame, people who defend bush's lies that caused innocent people to die, are concerned about liberal's lies about sponsorship...

it just smacks of i don't care as long as it is 'not in my backyard'....shame indeed

i'd take a financial scandal anyday over deaths of innocents

[d_jedi]

what a shame, people who defend bush's lies that caused innocent people to die, are concerned about liberal's lies about sponsorship...

Where is your proof that Bush knew beforehand that Iraq did not have WMDs? I can show you plenty of proof that the Liberals lied, and wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money in the sponsorship scandal.

[gman]

Where is your proof that Bush knew beforehand that Iraq did not have WMDs? I can show you plenty of proof that the Liberals lied, and wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money in the sponsorship scandal.
If there is no investigation, there will be no proof, right? Since Bush did not set up something to investigate if he lied, there is no proof, right?

[d_jedi]

If there is no investigation, there will be no proof, right? Since Bush did not set up something to investigate if he lied, there is no proof, right?
I think there was an investigation into the intelligence failures, was there not?

[asim99]

Where is your proof that Bush knew beforehand that Iraq did not have WMDs? I can show you plenty of proof that the Liberals lied, and wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money in the sponsorship scandal.

most of the world told him to wait...but he lied to the world with false excuses...if he did not know, then there is no proof that he did know either...absence of knowledge does not excuse his actions that killed innocent iraqis...there is no moral equivalence between death of a single innocent person and a million dollar fraud, no matter whichever way you look at it

you sure have wrong priorities

[sumfunny]

most of the world told him to wait...but he lied to the world with false excuses...if he did not know, then there is no proof that he did know either...absence of knowledge does not excuse his actions that killed innocent iraqis...there is no moral equivalence between death of a single innocent person and a million dollar fraud, no matter whichever way you look at it

you sure have wrong priorities

Well if you want to stretch it those millions could have gone to health cars which could have saved a life

either way are the iraq's better or worse, I would say better considering how many went out to vote.

[gman]

I think there was an investigation into the intelligence failures, was there not?
It had no investigation about if Bush purposely and knowingly mislead the public. He just said the report was wrong and investigate why the report was wrong. He was not enquired under oath or anything like that (as far as I know).

[aquariaguy]

Well if you want to stretch it those millions could have gone to health cars which could have saved a life

either way are the iraq's better or worse, I would say better considering how many went out to vote.

The US could have used its $167 BILLION to help other countries. Even its own for crying out loud!!

http://costofwar.com/

You can see a rolling ticker.

[asim99]

Well if you want to stretch it those millions could have gone to health cars which could have saved a life

either way are the iraq's better or worse, I would say better considering how many went out to vote.

hah...what a joke...ask the people of baghdad who don't have water to drink, gas for cars, power for homes and streets...how better they are...

i wish the health care was funded better, but it is not the same as dropping an MOAB (mother of all bombs) over a crowded market full of innocent civilians that americans did...and on a similar note i don't think conservative would have done better than liberals on healthcare funding

if turn out is a major indicator of people's delight, then the american population sure is very unhappy, due to their low turn outs

[d_jedi]

most of the world told him to wait...but he lied to the world with false excuses...if he did not know, then there is no proof that he did know either...absence of knowledge does not excuse his actions that killed innocent iraqis...there is no moral equivalence between death of a single innocent person and a million dollar fraud, no matter whichever way you look at it

you sure have wrong priorities
Who do you trust? World leaders - who may very well have their own agenda.. and have reasons for opposing the invasion completely unrelated to whether Iraq had WMDs or not - or your own Intelligence services - who are supposed to do whatever is necessary to present you a clear picture of the situation as it really is?

Note that most of the opposition wasn't over whether Iraq had WMD - our own Prime Minister believed they did (as far as I can remember) - it was whether an invasion was warranted, given that they had WMD (Chretien dithered to the point that would make Paul Martin proud :D).

[d_jedi]

dropping an MOAB (mother of all bombs) over a crowded market full of innocent civilians that americans did...and on a similar note i don't think conservative would have done better than liberals on healthcare funding


That's news to me. When did they do that?

[devious9191]

hah...what a joke...ask the people of baghdad who don't have water to drink, gas for cars, power for homes and streets...how better they are...

i wish the health care was funded better, but it is not the same as dropping an MOAB (mother of all bombs) over a crowded market full of innocent civilians that americans did...and on a similar note i don't think conservative would have done better than liberals on healthcare funding

if turn out is a major indicator of people's delight, then the american population sure is very unhappy, due to their low turn outs

The point, Asim, is that the people of Iraq will be better, if they are not already better off. The freedoms that people like you take for granted in Canada, would be unheard of in Iraq 5 years ago. When was the last time you heard of a political protest in Iraq prior to the invasion. What recourse would an Iraqi woman have if she was raped by one of Hussein's murderers (soldiers)? These are things that we take for granted in the West but are a reality of every day life over there. If you have a different political view than the dictatorship and actually voice it outside of your home, you're literally a dead man, and who is your family going to complain to?

In 5 years, once a stable government and stable police force has taken over that country and put down the insurgency, that country will be in better shape than it has been for 40 years.

Just so you know, since you don't tend to base any of your posts on actual fact. There was 60.0% voter turnout for the 2004 US election, and a 60.5% voter turnout for the 2004 Canadian election.

http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm

http://www.nodice.ca/election2004/voterturnout.html

[devious9191]

That's news to me. When did they do that?

I'm also curious. I can't find a single source that says that one of these was used outside of testing.

Edit: Like everything else Asim says, I'd take it with a grain of salt until he provides more than personal opinion.