Liberals win surprise budget vote. (In other words, Conservatives got OWNED) [Archive]

aquariaguy

Jun 24th, 2005, 12:38 AM

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1119522976752&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

OTTAWA - Paul Martin's Commons corps dusted off a rarely used procedural tactic just before midnight Thursday to bamboozle furious Conservatives and pass contentious Liberal-NDP budget amendments.

The Conservatives could only sputter and fume after their unofficial partners in the Bloc Quebecois deserted them to join the Liberals and the NDP to cut off debate on the budget and move up a vote on same-sex marriage.

The realization of what had occurred only dawned on the Tories as they gazed around the shuttle buses that normally ferry MPs back to their offices and realized there wasn't a Liberal in sight.

Every available Liberal MP was cloistered in the Commons lobby waiting to spring into a vote to cut off debate. The Liberals, the Bloc and New Democrats made extraordinary use of a rule allowing for cutting off debate on the budget if they agreed the Conservatives were being obstructionist.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper poured scorn on the alliance.

"When push comes to shove the Liberals will make any deal with anybody," Harper said after he was forced to rush back for a midnight vote. "And it doesn't matter whether it's with the socialists or with the separatists or any bunch of crooks they can find."

Though the Bloc stood with the Tories in the midnight budget ballotting, the Liberals still mustered five more votes than the Tory-Bloc alignment; several Conservative MPs were absent.

The Liberals were taking a monumental gamble. A loss on the vote would force the prime minister to dissolve Parliament and call a summer election.

But Liberal strategists were confident they had caught the Conservatives unawares and decided to risk their government for a decisive victory.

"I hope they can count," Liberal MP Shawn Murphy said of Liberal strategists as MPs milled around before the vote.

The Tories, who had boldly predicted they could topple the Liberal government on the budget vote, were suddenly complaining they had members missing.

A few Conservatives were missing from their seats in an earlier vote Thursday evening. More could been seen racing back up Parliament Hill when news broke of the impending budget showdown.

They reacted with unfiltered rage.

Conservative deputy leader Peter MacKay described his foes as a ménage a trois between separatists, socialists and power-hungry Liberals.

Liberals claims of making the minority Parliament work was "all just one big, fat stinking lie" and then went further, comparing the Liberals to one of Hollywood's most heinous homicidal cannibals.

"We have to start thinking that Hannibal Lecter is running the government and they'll do anything they have to do to win."

Liberals could barely contain their glee in response.

"Its not surprising that Hannibal Lecter should spring to mind for Mr. MacKay given the growing number of Conservatives who believe the party should soon eat its own leader," said Scott Reid, the prime minister's spokesman.

The Liberals handily won the earlier vote to extend the sitting of this session of Parliament after they promised to bring their controversial same-sex legislation to a vote.

It was the first such extension since the free-trade debate raged in the dog days of 1988.

The Bloc Quebecois threw its weight behind the extension vote after extracting a promise from the Liberals that same-sex legislation will be dealt with before the session ends.

MPs are expected to adopt the same-sex bill by a healthy margin.

It passed second reading last month in a 163-138 vote and is already the law in every jurisdiction except Prince Edward Island, Alberta, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.

Both the Bloc and the NDP support it, overwhelming the Tories and three dozen or so Liberal backbenchers who oppose it.

The Liberals carefully gauged the absences in the Commons before pulling their surprise move Thursday, knowing where their opposition stood and mindful of their close shave last month when they survived a Tory-Bloc non-confidence move by only one vote.

The Tories and the Bloc have said all along they would vote against the amendment, which would add $4.6 billion in social spending to the budget.

Earlier, several Tories said privately they don't want an election, don't expect one, and have no desire to topple the government right now.

It would be novel political strategy for the Tories to trigger an election now - 12 points behind the Liberals in the latest Decima poll released Thursday, and threatening to send the country to the polls in August for the first time since 1953.

Even an election-hungry Bloc - which is poised to sweep Quebec - seems more anxious to hit cottage country than the campaign trail.

"For the moment I don't intend to order the (election) machine kick-started again," Gauthier said.

"Personally, I'd prefer to go for my vacation soon and maybe the fall would be a better moment for a general election.

"But I am always ready."

It was the Bloc's co-operation that made an extension possible. The Commons had been scheduled to start its three-month summer break Thursday.

Initially lukewarm to the idea, the Bloc changed its tune after an exchange of letters between Gauthier and Liberal House leader Tony Valeri.

Valeri promised "that C-38 would be dealt with at all stages before the House would adjourn."

That was good enough for the Bloc - which had said it wanted a written guarantee that C-38 would come to a vote if there were an extension.

Ojam

Jun 24th, 2005, 12:46 AM

haah thats awesome, there was an episode of "The West Wing" where I think senators(?) did the same thing.

aquariaguy

Jun 24th, 2005, 12:49 AM

I can just picture the Conservatives running across the grass with their Blackberry getting yelled at from Harper for skipping.

b0r3d

Jun 24th, 2005, 12:53 AM

lol.. i find the Conservatives are to sneaky and look how imature they react to this. Can only imagine how messed up things would be with them in power.

I just dont like the Conservatives for the sneakyness

I can just picture the Conservatives running across the grass with their Blackberry getting yelled at from Harper for skipping.

Iron Chef Ajax

Jun 24th, 2005, 12:58 AM

aquariaguy

Jun 24th, 2005, 12:58 AM

lol.. i find the Conservatives are to sneaky and look how imature they react to this. Can only imagine how messed up things would be with them in power.

I just dont like the Conservatives for the sneakyness

I agree with you. The Liberals are sneaky too, but they are smart. We need smart sneaky people instead of stupid immature, wannabe-sneaky, cry-babies who call other people names. Hannibal. Lol

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 12:59 AM

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 01:02 AM

I agree with you. The Liberals are sneaky too, but they are smart. We need smart sneaky people instead of stupid immature, wannabe-sneaky, cry-babies who call other people names. Hannibal. Lol

No, what we need are politicians who are honourable and who try to gain the respect of the Canadian public, rather than rushing around in the dark, cutting deals with the "separatists" (the liberals have been blasting the conservatives for this for *months!*), and assuring their victory because they didn't let the other team know that they were starting without them.

Honestly, does this entire spectacle make anybody trust the Liberals more?

Byrns

Jun 24th, 2005, 01:04 AM

So is Belinda going to cross back to the Tories tomorrow now that the Liberals are now in bed with the Bloc?

elty

Jun 24th, 2005, 01:31 AM

I'm not surprised. It's the same sort of underhanded tactic that the Liberals have been pursuing for years now. Want to get rich quicker, but don't have the capital? Just funnel some taxpayer's funds to your buddies in Quebec. Want to tick conservatives off and at the same time create more income for your federal government? Gun registry. Want to win a vote that you couldn't normally otherwise win? Make sure your party is there, and all other parties that support you, but don't bother to mention it to the opposition.

Liberal supporters can be as gleeful as they want, but the fact remains that if conservatives in power had tried to pull this, the tone of the news article would have been furious rather than amused. With Martin trying to remain in power by any means, honourable or dishonourable, it's a wonder that Canadians are still seemingly-willing to trust him.

Ok, let's say EVERYONE in Conservative is here. Will they win? Nope.

Also, how could u know if Conservative is in power then the media will be furious? I dont think that will happen, unless Conservative is really stupid and not welcome at all among Canadian. (Which should not be the case IF they are actually in power).

And, the reaction from Conservative is just funny. They accused the Liberal to co operate with the "seperatist"? I thought they did the exact same thing.

gman

Jun 24th, 2005, 01:33 AM

Again, I can see Harper is eating his shoes again with this statement. :D

"When push comes to shove the Liberals will make any deal with anybody," Harper said after he was forced to rush back for a midnight vote. "And it doesn't matter whether it's with the socialists or with the separatists or any bunch of crooks they can find."

socialist = NDP
Separatists = Bloc
Who is "any bunch of crooks they can find"? :D :D

elty

Jun 24th, 2005, 01:38 AM

No, what we need are politicians who are honourable and who try to gain the respect of the Canadian public, rather than rushing around in the dark, cutting deals with the "separatists" (the liberals have been blasting the conservatives for this for *months!*), and assuring their victory because they didn't let the other team know that they were starting without them.

Honestly, does this entire spectacle make anybody trust the Liberals more?

What you are looking for is definitely not a Conservative then.

Honestly, I think real Conservative supporter should think about why their party is so unpopular among Canadian, if Liberal really sucks that much. Instead of attacking your opposition, why not try to build up yourself? Playing the blame game do not help anything. You do not have to give up your principle, but you can certainly present it better.

chickenbones

Jun 24th, 2005, 01:53 AM

The better of two evils... Calling the other side cannibals is real mature...

aquariaguy

Jun 24th, 2005, 02:17 AM

It's funny what Scott said back to McKay after he made the Hannibal joke. Man the liberals are awesome with comebacks. Conservatives always get shutdown.

gilboman

Jun 24th, 2005, 02:21 AM

So is Belinda going to cross back to the Tories tomorrow now that the Liberals are now in bed with the Bloc?

the liberals dont have to oppose everything the bloc does and the bloc has always supported samesex marriage. but supporting one issue same as the bloc is different than an alliance the conservatives formed with the bloc.

but of course you probably dont understand such a simple concept if you need to ask.

gman

Jun 24th, 2005, 02:29 AM

Webslinger

Jun 24th, 2005, 03:07 AM

The further I look at Liberals and Harper, I can see Harper's C is playing a kindergarden level of politics. They were out-smarted, out-planned and out-calculated by Liberals. The only thing they can do is to say something bad about Liberals. Even that, they are not doing a good job.

They are played into the hands of Liberals and in catch-22. They can't even dare to overthrown the government at the moment because right now probably is the best time for Liberals to have an election. The best time for C to have an election probably will be when the ad-gate report comes out.

Exactly

I'm not a Liberal fan, but Harper should just step down. He's done nothing but bury his party since getting elected. He doesn't have what it takes to manage a team, and he does not represent majority interest in Canada. Moreover, this "Hannibal" comment coming from MacKay is just going to bury the Conservatives further in the polls, especially in Ontario. Harper should have corralled his sheep and told them to stop bleating. Look where "evil reptilian kitten-eater" got the Liberals at the provincial level in Ontario.

I also find the comments about snuggling with the Bloc amusing. The Bloc platform is not even in the same universe as the Conservative's. Besides separatism (and, in turn, focusing power provincially), the Bloc (especially with its old Labour ties) resembles the NDP more than any other party.

Harper needs to tuck his tail between his legs and hope there's something to bark at when the Adscam stuff comes into focus again. In the meantime, he better get used to damage control.

Jun 24th, 2005, 04:26 AM

Again, I can see Harper is eating his shoes again with this statement. :D

socialist = NDP
Separatists = Bloc
Who is "any bunch of crooks they can find"? :D :D

If it's ok to call the NDP socialist I imagine everyone would be cool with me calling members of the Conservative party Facists....not!

This was such a obscene statement. Only topped by the cannibal reference.

It's one thing to shoot across playful insults over a beer or something but for Harper and McKay in front of the TV cameras it just shows, as others have said, how childish they are. In retrospect, I suppose, I owe Stephen Harper a thank you for destroying his party and making the NDP the next air apparent to the offical opposition.

This is the greatest thing I hae ever seen. I just wish I would have known so I could have watched it live on CPAC (and burned it to DVDr :D). Atleast I'll be able to record Politics w/ Don Newman Friday who I'm sure will have the full scoop on it.

This is one of the greatest days in Canadian history. I was furious when Martin yanked away the party from Chretien but I gotta say this move to pass this ground breaking NDP/Liberal socially porogressive budget as well as sealing the fate of the passage of gay marriage shows he is more brilliant than I ever envisioned. With the the left wing Bloc holding Quebec and Martin needing the Federalist NDP to be a regular backer of his causes aslong as the election shakes out about the same as the House numbers now (i.e. not if the Liberals win enough seats to form a razor thing majority gov't since Harper Conservatives are going no where) we could be instore for one of the most progressive governments in years...if ever.

Gotta say I'm very proud to be a Canadian today...very proud :D

Now all we have to do is address the Scott Baio issue.
http://www.gothamist.com/images/2004_12_scottbaio.jpg

Jun 24th, 2005, 05:04 AM

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050624.wvote0624/BNStory/National/
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/23/parliament050623.html

For more perspective on this historic day. Oddly enough the National Post site isn't working (loads but just brings up a white page). Poor, poor, conservatives - can anything else go wrong for them? ;)

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 08:32 AM

harperiites had been acting like they knew the rulesbook better than liberals, with all their obstructionism recently...too bad they got owned

it is a good news to start day with

mbg

Jun 24th, 2005, 08:34 AM

This is one of the greatest days in Canadian history. I was furious when Martin yanked away the party from Chretien but I gotta say this move to pass this ground breaking NDP/Liberal socially porogressive budget as well as sealing the fate of the passage of gay marriage shows he is more brilliant than I ever envisioned.

Brilliant? He doesn't agree with the NDP budget amendments. This man is at heart a blue conservative who wants power, the only avenue to which is by leading the Liberals. Almost everything he is doing (except tax cuts) is probably against his principles, and that's why he can't keep his stories straight.

mbg

Jun 24th, 2005, 08:39 AM

I'm not too worried about the fate of the Conservatives, but it's a bit disheartening to see the support for underhanded tactics as a means to an end. Democracy is in trouble in this country because of these silly games.

But, these attitudes align well with the direction that the left have been taking over the past few years -- that if you don't agree with them, that you should be silenced at all costs. And it is suffocating. The left are just as bad as the right. The NDP, Liberals, and Conservatives are all embarrassing to watch.

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 08:44 AM

Again, I can see Harper is eating his shoes again with this statement. :D

socialist = NDP
Separatists = Bloc
Who is "any bunch of crooks they can find"? :D :D

Parrish

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 08:50 AM

I don't know if it was in the article, since I haven't had a chance to read it, but I did watch this on tv last night.

The bottom line, is that the liberals scurted around democracy. The conservative members were going up one at a time, and debating c48, since they felt that it was not in their constituents best interests. Whether you want to call it a delay tactic or not, really doesn't make any difference, as it certainly is the right of every MP to debate a bill, particularly a budget bill on behalf of their constituents.

The liberals pulled an underhanded move, since they knew that a number of conservative MP's were either absent due to illness or back in their own ridings. What they did, was pass an amendment to the bill, that prevented the conservative MP's from speaking on behalf of their constituents in order that they could have a midnight vote on a bill, when all of the opinions on the issue hadn't been heard.

How can you debate that that is democratic? Sure, they won the vote, but parliament didn't get to hear a large portion of this country's opinion on why c48 was bs.

Jun 24th, 2005, 08:58 AM

Brilliant? He doesn't agree with the NDP budget amendments. This man is at heart a blue conservative who wants power, the only avenue to which is by leading the Liberals. Almost everything he is doing (except tax cuts) is probably against his principles, and that's why he can't keep his stories straight.

I would say he's more of the old "red tory" however it's exactly what you describe that makes this move brillant. He's been able to cobble together a working government against the Alliance Cons.

It's ironic. Everybody predicted, and I'm sure they were right, that Martin would shift the party to the right wing of the party. That Chretien line about being weary of the right is the perfect example. However karma, ying-yang, whatever has forced him into a position of being in charge of one of the most left wing governments in recent Canadian history. However he's been able to adapt and is pulling off brillant political moves to move forward his agenda. It's one thing to push something you believe in. It's something entirely different to actually lead a team you wouldn't normally be a part of and lead them to victory time and time again.

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:03 AM

I'm not too worried about the fate of the Conservatives, but it's a bit disheartening to see the support for underhanded tactics as a means to an end. Democracy is in trouble in this country because of these silly games.

I'm not worried either. Seeing them implode is honestly giddyish to watch.

However how is this a problem for democracy? The NDP and Bloc are left leaning, the Liberals are Left-Centre and all three parties have more votes than the right wing party (In both MPs and total citizen votes). The majority of the population wanted this to go through - it did go through. Democracy preveiled dispite Harper and his party trying to obstruct it.

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:06 AM

Parrish

How's Parrish a crook? Perhaps a loud mouth (although I always liked what she had to say) but crook doesn't make sense.

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:10 AM

I'm not worried either. Seeing them implode is honestly giddyish to watch.

However how is this a problem for democracy? The NDP and Bloc are left leaning, the Liberals are Left-Centre and all three parties have more votes than the right wing party (In both MPs and total citizen votes). The majority of the population wanted this to go through - it did go through. Democracy preveiled dispite Harper and his party trying to obstruct it.

Bill C48 was a strong arm move by the NDP government to ammend a budget that the majorityof the population agreed on. If the liberals had wanted this additional 5 billion dollars of spending, it would have been in the original budget, would it not? So, these items in the budget were brought about by 19 seats of the 308 seat house of commons, after the budget (that everyone agreed on) was already presented. How can you say that this is a victory for democracy?

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:12 AM

Bill C48 was a strong arm move by the NDP government to ammend a budget that the majorityof the population agreed on. If the liberals had wanted this additional 5 billion dollars of spending, it would have been in the original budget, would it not? So, these items in the budget were brought about by 19 seats of the 308 seat house of commons, after the budget (that everyone agreed on) was already presented. How can you say that this is a victory for democracy?

isn't that how minority government works? especially when the opposition (conservatives) are hell-bent on bringing it down

mbg

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:15 AM

isn't that how minority government works? especially when the opposition (conservatives) are hell-bent on bringing it down

That is how Martin justified everything in that time period, including the Belinda Stronach cabinet appointment. He justified that appointment by saying that it was necessary to make the government work.

The only government he has any interest in having work is one that he gets to be leader of.

I can't believe how these Liberals have coerced the population into believing that it's OK to use corrupt means to an end as long as the party that they want in power stays in power.

ill_mango

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:19 AM

Bill C48 was a strong arm move by the NDP government to ammend a budget that the majorityof the population agreed on. If the liberals had wanted this additional 5 billion dollars of spending, it would have been in the original budget, would it not? So, these items in the budget were brought about by 19 seats of the 308 seat house of commons, after the budget (that everyone agreed on) was already presented. How can you say that this is a victory for democracy?

1) Every opinion poll I saw said a majority of Canadians liked the new budget.

2) The majority of the population voted for left or centre-left governments who worked together to pass this bill

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:19 AM

isn't that how minority government works? especially when the opposition (conservatives) are hell-bent on bringing it down

That seems to be how *this minority government works, yes. How the rest of the country doesn't have a problem with this government buying votes with their money is beyond me though. Particularly when there is no plan for this money to be spent. Who wouldn't prefer something detailing how 5 billion dollars of tax money is going to be spent? "500 million dollars on foreign aid over 5 years"? Give me a break. And they repeatedly voted down ammendments put forward by the conservatives to detail these expenses, and then vote on them afterwards.

mbg

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:24 AM

However how is this a problem for democracy? The NDP and Bloc are left leaning, the Liberals are Left-Centre and all three parties have more votes than the right wing party (In both MPs and total citizen votes). The majority of the population wanted this to go through - it did go through. Democracy preveiled dispite Harper and his party trying to obstruct it.

I think it's a problem for democracy because between the empty, illogical NDP rhetoric, the Liberal corruption and indecisiveness, and the silly games that the Conservatives are playing, more people are finding themselves unable to identify a party that they can give their vote to. Of those that are motivated to vote, many votes are now for the lesser of evils rather than being a real vote.

I have always in the past been confused why nearly half of the country could not not be bothered to take half an hour out of their day to go and vote on election day, but I am now in the position where I wouldn't feel comfortable giving my vote to any of the three major parties, and I couldn't give you a reason why I would park my vote with Green, either.

It would be encouraging to me if the Liberals were kicked out of office in the next election. That's not necessarily because I want the NDP or Conservatives in power, but just because they need to get the message that they are not doing a good job. If the economy goes downhill before the next election and the Conservatives find a new leader, there may be a chance of that...

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:26 AM

That seems to be how *this minority government works, yes. How the rest of the country doesn't have a problem with this government buying votes with their money is beyond me though. Particularly when there is no plan for this money to be spent. Who wouldn't prefer something detailing how 5 billion dollars of tax money is going to be spent? "500 million dollars on foreign aid over 5 years"? Give me a break. And they repeatedly voted down ammendments put forward by the conservatives to detail these expenses, and then vote on them afterwards.

Whose votes are they buying? The taxpayers? As you say with "how the rest of the country doesn't have a problem with this gov't buying votes with their money is beyond me" it sounds like they've "bought" the taxpayers votes?

But how is that buying? The majority of the country is happy with having these funds put into social programs they like. You've said it yourself. Isn't that what democracy is? The gov't spending the tax revenue how the population wishes?

It sounds like your problem is that you're not happy that this is what the majority of Canadians want. You've said it yourself in the sentence I quoted.

mbg

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:28 AM

This is the true test of political prowess for all the leaders in power. Sure, you can pass bills when you are the majority, but can you do it when you aren't? It requires clever moves, alliances, strategies; something that it looks like the liberals are quite adept at.

But, giving significant power to a party (NDP) that received the vote of a small minority of Canadians is not honouring the spirit of the outcome of the last election. Canadians did not want this amount of power given to the NDP.

The Liberals are making these moves to stay in power and framing it as a move to make the minority work. It seems that a lot of people are seeing it the way that the Liberals want them to see it.

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:28 AM

Yeah, people might call this underhanded and sneaky, but quite frankly I think it is exactly how a government should work. Everyone has to work together to make this country what they want it to be. In the end what we will have is a large compromise between all of Canada (well, except what people who voted conservative want).

This is the true test of political prowess for all the leaders in power. Sure, you can pass bills when you are the majority, but can you do it when you aren't? It requires clever moves, alliances, strategies; something that it looks like the liberals are quite adept at.

So people can ***** and moan if they want, but the fact remains that things are getting done.

What things are they getting done, exactly? This is the third liberal government I've seen that seems to sit on their hands rather than make a difference in anyone's lives either domestically or abroad. How has your life improved in the last year? Have we taken any steps to prevent genocide in foreign countries? Have we even taken any steps to protect our own environment locally? We're hell bent on Kyoto, which is fine, but we've already said that we can't meet our obligations, and I personally haven't seen anything that says that we're making any progress towards them at all.

mbg

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:31 AM

But how is that buying? The majority of the country is happy with having these funds put into social programs they like. You've said it yourself. Isn't that what democracy is? The gov't spending the tax revenue how the population wishes?

Where is the proof of this majority support? You can't point to the polls because they are volatile. Canadians didn't vote the NDP into power, so what makes you think that they want so much money put into social programs?

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:35 AM

Whose votes are they buying? The taxpayers? As you say with "how the rest of the country doesn't have a problem with this gov't buying votes with their money is beyond me" it sounds like they've "bought" the taxpayers votes?

...They bought the NDP's votes.

But how is that buying? The majority of the country is happy with having these funds put into social programs they like. You've said it yourself. Isn't that what democracy is? The gov't spending the tax revenue how the population wishes?

Do you have a source showing the majority of the population are in favor of C48?

It sounds like your problem is that you're not happy that this is what the majority of Canadians want. You've said it yourself in the sentence I quoted.

I'm not happy that the government pulled a move to quell democracy in the house of commons. It is the right of every MP to speak of behalf of their constituents. That is why they are elected.. not to vote on party lines, but to speak on behalf of the people in their ridings. A number of MP's didn't have the opportunity (that they are democratically entitled too) to speak on behalf of the people that sent them to Ottawa.

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:37 AM

Where is the proof of this majority support? You can't point to the polls because they are volatile. Canadians didn't vote the NDP into power, so what makes you think that they want so much money put into social programs?

canadians chose a minority government, and the minority gov did exactly what a minority gov does...the budget is canadian friendly, and i'll be interested in finding out what percent of the canadians is against this amended budget

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:40 AM

canadians chose a minority government, and the minority gov did exactly what a minority gov does...the budget is canadian friendly, and i'll be interested in finding out what percent of the canadians is against this amended budget

Personally, I'd be more interested in seeing what percent of Canadians know anything about this amended budget, other than it kept them from having to go vote.

gman

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:40 AM

Think

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:40 AM

Anyone who would support the Liberals are very foolish.

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:43 AM

...They bought the NDP's votes.
it is not buying the votes....layton is not dumb enough to support a budget that conservatives liked (but refused to support) because it was more big business-friendly than people-friendly

I'm not happy that the government pulled a move to quell democracy in the house of commons. It is the right of every MP to speak of behalf of their constituents. That is why they are elected.. not to vote on party lines, but to speak on behalf of the people in their ridings. A number of MP's didn't have the opportunity (that they are democratically entitled too) to speak on behalf of the people that sent them to Ottawa.

majority of mps (which is a democratic thing to do) chose to stop delaying tactics (i.e. extended debates)....how is the 'quelling democrcay'? unless you think that the right of an individual mp > the right of the majority in the house

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:44 AM

Ok, let's say EVERYONE in Conservative is here. Will they win? Nope.

Then why in the world did they need to pull out this underhanded tactic? Why couldn't they have won the vote fair and square?

Also, how could u know if Conservative is in power then the media will be furious? I dont think that will happen, unless Conservative is really stupid and not welcome at all among Canadian. (Which should not be the case IF they are actually in power).

Let's take CBC for instance. Harper has said that if he gets into power, he's going to reduce the budget for the CBC. Martin will not do this. If you were a reporter at the CBC with your job on the line, which party would you support?

And, the reaction from Conservative is just funny. They accused the Liberal to co operate with the "seperatist"? I thought they did the exact same thing.

You've got it all backwards. The Liberals have been accusing the Conservatives for months that they've been wrongly dealing with the separatists in order to bring down the government. Now the Liberals cozy up to the separatists in order to save the government? If what the Conservatives did in the first place was wrong, then what the Liberals did was just as wrong.

Honestly, I think real Conservative supporter should think about why their party is so unpopular among Canadian, if Liberal really sucks that much. Instead of attacking your opposition, why not try to build up yourself? Playing the blame game do not help anything. You do not have to give up your principle, but you can certainly present it better.

The reason that the Conservatives are so unpopular in Canada is because the press takes every opportunity to make them look like idiots. Look at Day: he was criticised solely because of his religious beliefs. Does anybody remember whether or not he was a capable leader? No, because all we can remember from the media is how "scary" he was. It's no different with Harper.

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:44 AM

Personally, I'd be more interested in seeing what percent of Canadians know anything about this amended budget, other than it kept them from having to go vote.

why did harper not explain what is wrong with ndp budget? he was more obssessed with same-sex issue than budget

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:45 AM

I think it's a problem for democracy because between the empty, illogical NDP rhetoric, the Liberal corruption and indecisiveness, and the silly games that the Conservatives are playing, more people are finding themselves unable to identify a party that they can give their vote to. Of those that are motivated to vote, many votes are now for the lesser of evils rather than being a real vote.

I have always in the past been confused why nearly half of the country could not not be bothered to take half an hour out of their day to go and vote on election day, but I am now in the position where I wouldn't feel comfortable giving my vote to any of the three major parties, and I couldn't give you a reason why I would park my vote with Green, either.

It would be encouraging to me if the Liberals were kicked out of office in the next election. That's not necessarily because I want the NDP or Conservatives in power, but just because they need to get the message that they are not doing a good job. If the economy goes downhill before the next election and the Conservatives find a new leader, there may be a chance of that...

If anything this will enhance the desire to vote. The majority of voters wanted these three parties in office. They have now done what they said they would do. The public, as shown by opinion polls, supports what they wanted to do. I could see how Conservative voters may vote less because they won't think it'll matter however they are the minority. The majority of Canada will continue to be quite pleased with this centre-left government.

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:46 AM

Anyone who would support the Liberals are very foolish.

that's a profound statement... :|

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:47 AM

For the minimum, sit there, listen and debate. With a minority government, every time they are there, it can be critical. They should prepare for that. They should just camp there.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. They've been debating every night until after midnight for the last two weeks. When you have members that are very ill, you're not pulling them out of the hospitals to sit on stretchers at parliament hill waiting for a vote that *should never come, provided fair democractic practices are practiced.

If the liberals wanted to cut the debate time on the bill off, that's fine. Give everyone a days notice in advance, and if you feel that the majority of the population is on your side, you'll have the votes to pass the bill. By taking advantage of the fact that some people simply cant make it in an hours notice, for reasons that are beyond their control, you're sidestepping democracy.

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:49 AM

majority of mps (which is a democratic thing to do) chose to stop delaying tactics (i.e. extended debates)....how is the 'quelling democrcay'? unless you think that the right of an individual mp > the right of the majority in the house

You mean that the majority of MPs were concerned that they wouldn't get their two-month long vacation and would have to actually *work* during the summer like the rest of us. I'm not saying that the Cons are innocent in this regard, but for the amount of money they're being paid to work, they certainly should take matters like this more seriously instead of flitting about in back rooms and calling votes when the other party isn't fully present.

It's "quelling democracy" because not all of Canada was represented in last night's vote. Not like it matters; under our present system MPs vote according to what their leaders tell them, not how their constituents tell them to do so.

gman

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:49 AM

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. They've been debating every night until after midnight for the last two weeks. When you have members that are very ill, you're not pulling them out of the hospitals to sit on stretchers at parliament hill waiting for a vote that *should never come, provided fair democractic practices are practiced.

If the liberals wanted to cut the debate time on the bill off, that's fine. Give everyone a days notice in advance, and if you feel that the majority of the population is on your side, you'll have the votes to pass the bill. By taking advantage of the fact that some people simply cant make it in an hours notice, for reasons that are beyond their control, you're sidestepping democracy.
Not every MP are ill. Even Harper was not there.

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:49 AM

Anyone who would support the Liberals are very foolish.

Alot of Canadians vote Liberal. I suppose you're saying the majority of Canadians are foolish?

Roninvancouver

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:49 AM

i'm really surprised in light of the Hannibal Lecter reference by the Conservatives about the Libs that no one posted a picture :)

what's up with the Cons using movie/tv references (like calling the Libs like the Sopranos a while back)...don't they read any books? what's wrong with using literary references...or even comic books or something...do all these Cons do is watch TV? :D

http://www.postcardsfromprison.com/p7795.jpg

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:50 AM

Not every MP are ill. Even Harper was not there.

He was too busy having a L tattooed on his forhead in preparation.

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:51 AM

why did harper not explain what is wrong with ndp budget? he was more obssessed with same-sex issue than budget

They've been debating the NDP budget in the house every night until after midnight for over a week. The main issue that the conservatives have with it, is that it's a buy vote tactic, first of all, and secondly that 5 billion dollars of tax payers money is being spent, without a clear spending plan.

The conservatives tried to introduce an ammendment that would put the bill back into committee in order to set out where the money was going exactly (which doesn't seem unreasonable), before voting on it. Of course, the NDP's and liberals voted it down. And now you have a vote that says x amount of money to foreign aid, y amount of money to post secondary, z amount to housing. You would think that with the amount of audits coming back from Fraser that show financial mismanagement, that every dollar spent should have a plan behind it, but that just isn't how this government works.

gman

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:51 AM

You've got it all backwards. The Liberals have been accusing the Conservatives for months that they've been wrongly dealing with the separatists in order to bring down the government. Now the Liberals cozy up to the separatists in order to save the government? If what the Conservatives did in the first place was wrong, then what the Liberals did was just as wrong.

What did Liberals give up to get Bloc over? Nothing.
What did Bloc give up to go with Liberals? Something.

Ojam

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:52 AM

Wasn't it last week that the conservatives were willing to support the bill in order to push the equal marriage bill back to the fall. Isn't Bill C38 supported by a majority in parliament? So from the line of reasoning that has been used in this thread doesn't that mean that the majority of Canadians support that bill? Since the majority of Canadians support the bill, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that the conservatives by willing to pass the budget (which they are now saying the majority of Canadians do not support?) were trying to get in the way of democracy and equal rights, and since they were willing to pass it, would imply that they were done debating it, therefore any further debate by the conservatives would simply be a stall tactic to not only stop the budget bill, which only there constitutes might be opposed to, and to stop bill C38 which is supported by the majority of parliament.

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:52 AM

Then why in the world did they need to pull out this underhanded tactic? Why couldn't they have won the vote fair and square?

they followed rules...how is it not fair and square?

Let's take CBC for instance. Harper has said that if he gets into power, he's going to reduce the budget for the CBC. Martin will not do this. If you were a reporter at the CBC with your job on the line, which party would you support?

doesn't canwest have a huge media presence? it is not exactly liberal friendly...how come you ignore their presence

You've got it all backwards. The Liberals have been accusing the Conservatives for months that they've been wrongly dealing with the separatists in order to bring down the government. Now the Liberals cozy up to the separatists in order to save the government? If what the Conservatives did in the first place was wrong, then what the Liberals did was just as wrong.

bloc still voted with cons to oppose the budget

The reason that the Conservatives are so unpopular in Canada is because the press takes every opportunity to make them look like idiots. Look at Day: he was criticised solely because of his religious beliefs. Does anybody remember whether or not he was a capable leader? No, because all we can remember from the media is how "scary" he was. It's no different with Harper.

this would fall under the 'whining' category....national post and its sister institutions hardly miss a chance to blame liberals and ndp for anything...you should blame canadians for not buying the right-wing conspiracies , because if they did canwest would be the biggest media institution in canada, which fortunately it is not

Think

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:53 AM

Alot of Canadians vote Liberal. I suppose you're saying the majority of Canadians are foolish?

Yes

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:54 AM

What did Liberals give up to get Bloc over? Nothing.
What did Bloc give up to go with Liberals? Something.

yup....bloc wants the same-sex marriage passed...that 'something' is an admirable 'something'

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:54 AM

what's up with the Cons using movie/tv references (like calling the Libs like the Sopranos a while back)...don't they read any books? what's wrong with using literary references...or even comic books or something...do all these Cons do is watch TV? :D

My hunch has been they're trying to sound cool and not like they're the party of the elderly voters (Harper didn't help that doing the PR thing at the old age home awhile ago) and the stick in the mud crowd. Book readers and comic book viewers are also more literate than the average population and do tend to skew left. (not a hard and fast rule so don't pounce on me :) )

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:54 AM

You would think that with the amount of audits coming back from Fraser that show financial mismanagement, that every dollar spent should have a plan behind it, but that just isn't how this government works.

No kidding! Most people in this thread are like "Well, the liberals only screwed up once before, and it was only $250 million dollars, but hey, we'll give them carte blanche with *this* budget, because we just trust them so darn much!"

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:54 AM

Not every MP are ill. Even Harper was not there.

lol. When you watch the parliamentary debates, the only people there are the people directly involved, or the ones that will be speaking. On a given night, there are less than 30 MPS (out of 308) present. It wouldn't make sense to have 300 people that aren't planning on speaking (or voting), or aren't directly involved in the issue, stay until midnight every night to listen to debates that they're not involved in.

During the earlier debates (and every debate for the last two weeks), none of the party leaders were present.

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:56 AM

yup....bloc wants the same-sex marriage passed...that 'something' is an admirable 'something'

Agreed. And it wasn't that much to "give up" since Martin wanted to pass it anyways - as did the NDP. Kinda like a woman making me promise to buy soymeat so she'll spank me.

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:56 AM

they followed rules...how is it not fair and square?

There's a difference between following the rules and being honourable.

this would fall under the 'whining' category....national post and its sister institutions hardly miss a chance to blame liberals and ndp for anything...you should blame canadians for not buying the right-wing conspiracies , because if they did canwest would be the biggest media institution in canada, which fortunately it is not

So I'm wrong? The majority of people who dislike the Conservatives feel the way they do for reasosn that aren't religious?? Riiiiiight.

JAC

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:57 AM

Anyone who would support the Liberals are very foolish.
that's a profound statement... :|
Isn't it, though?

I was about to compliment him on the depth of his political insight, not to mention his obvious facility with the English language, when I remembered the mods won't let us do that anymore.

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:57 AM

You mean that the majority of MPs were concerned that they wouldn't get their two-month long vacation and would have to actually *work* during the summer like the rest of us. I'm not saying that the Cons are innocent in this regard, but for the amount of money they're being paid to work, they certainly should take matters like this more seriously instead of flitting about in back rooms and calling votes when the other party isn't fully present.

It's "quelling democracy" because not all of Canada was represented in last night's vote. Not like it matters; under our present system MPs vote according to what their leaders tell them, not how their constituents tell them to do so.

not quite, they will still be sitting through a extended session to debate and pass same sex marriage...conservatives were threatening to bring the government down on budget issue, and liberals did exactly what they needed to do to get it passed (and they did so by following the rules)

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:58 AM

majority of mps (which is a democratic thing to do) chose to stop delaying tactics (i.e. extended debates)....how is the 'quelling democrcay'? unless you think that the right of an individual mp > the right of the majority in the house

That's what democracy is. By your logic, in a majority government situation, the government could just stop debate on *any* issue that they want to pass, without hearing the viewpoint of the rest of Canada, that may disagree with the government. It's every canadians democratic right to be heard by the government, either directly or through their MP.

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:58 AM

Yes

Well although a very condesending view of Canadians atleast it is honest. I respect that. And look forward to more Canadian "foolishness" :D

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 09:59 AM

not quite, they will still be sitting through a extended session to debate and pass same sex marriage...conservatives were threatening to bring the government down on budget issue, and liberals did exactly what they needed to do to get it passed (and they did so by following the rules)

Again, following the rules and winning honourably are two completely different animals.

Absolute

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:01 AM

In regard to Paul Martin's reaction, anyone else reminded of last week's Family Guy ep, where Bryan jumps up and says "YEAH! In your **** face **********"?

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:01 AM

There's a difference between following the rules and being honourable.
well...liberals are being blamed for not following the rules, which is not true at all
"being honorable", though, is a term i'd avoid using for liberals and conservatives

So I'm wrong? The majority of people who dislike the Conservatives feel the way they do for reasosn that aren't religious?? Riiiiiight.
i didn't get this...i need my morning tea, i suppose

Roninvancouver

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:01 AM

Yes

Well it seems like your posts aren't being deleted by the moderators "Think"...stick to single word replies...they seem to work best for you :cheesygri

gman

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:03 AM

lol. When you watch the parliamentary debates, the only people there are the people directly involved, or the ones that will be speaking. On a given night, there are less than 30 MPS (out of 308) present. It wouldn't make sense to have 300 people that aren't planning on speaking (or voting), or aren't directly involved in the issue, stay until midnight every night to listen to debates that they're not involved in.

During the earlier debates (and every debate for the last two weeks), none of the party leaders were present.
The problem is he should know that can happen and prepare for it. That is most of them should at least camp around the Parliament and rush to vote if necessary. Liberals did tricks before. Harper should see that coming.

I see that funny that nobody in their party consider all possible tactics.

In the recent Executive Officer election of Hong Kong, people considered every possible ways that could delay the election so that they can cover all bases. That includes (1) the death of one of the candidates; (2) criminal act of one of the candidates; (3) bankrupcy of one of the candidates.

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:03 AM

That's what democracy is. By your logic, in a majority government situation, the government could just stop debate on *any* issue that they want to pass, without hearing the viewpoint of the rest of Canada, that may disagree with the government. It's every canadians democratic right to be heard by the government, either directly or through their MP.

well, harper/conservative mps should make this 'denying the debate' problem a campaign issue...it is for canadians to decide ultimately whether liberals did it right or wrong, isnt it

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:05 AM

well...liberals are being blamed for not following the rules, which is not true at all
"being honorable", though, is a term i'd avoid using for liberals and conservatives

Heh, well, I'm not saying that the conservatives are any better than the libs, mind you. I just think that all parties should try to win back the public's respect by dealing out in the open and acting like proper ladies and gentlemen, especially after adscam. This latest move by the libs isn't going to help.

i didn't get this...i need my morning tea, i suppose

Let me rephrase: Is it or isn't it true that people dislike Harper because of his religious beliefs, and the fear that he will bring them with him if he becomes PM?

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:07 AM

The problem is he should know that can happen and prepare for it. That is most of them should at least camp around the Parliament and rush to vote if necessary. Liberals did tricks before. Harper should see that coming.

I see that funny that nobody in their party consider all possible tactics.

In the recent Executive Office election of Hong Kong, people considered every possible ways that could delay the election so that they can cover all bases. That includes (1) the death of one of the candidates; (2) criminal act of one of the candidates; (3) bankrupcy of one of the candidates.

Some of the Conservative MP's are ill, and seeing their doctors outside of Ottawa... you can't have them all sitting around parliament, or in hotels.

The bottom line should be, that is if this what the government though the majority of Canada wanted, they would hold a fair vote, and they would get the results that they wanted anyways. If this is not what the majority of Canada wanted, then this should be considered a sneaky way of bypassing democracy.

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:07 AM

my favorite segment from the star article

The Conservatives could only sputter and fume after their unofficial partners in the Bloc Quebecois deserted them to join the Liberals and the NDP to cut off debate on the budget.

They compared their Liberal, NDP and Bloc opponents to crooks, Satan and Hollywood homicidal maniac Hannibal Lecter.

hahahahaha...the conservative mps must have foam coming out of their mouths when they started name calling

gman

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:09 AM

Let me rephrase: Is it or isn't it true that people dislike Harper because of his religious beliefs, and the fear that he will bring them with him if he becomes PM?
No, nobody dislike Harper's personal religious beliefs. People dislike he uses religion (one religion) as foundation to govern this country.

Absolute

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:09 AM

No, nobody dislike Harper's personal religious beliefs. People dislike he uses religion (one religion) as foundation to govern this country.

That's my personal opinion, I prefer a separation of religion and state.

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:09 AM

well, harper/conservative mps should make this 'denying the debate' problem a campaign issue...it is for canadians to decide ultimately whether liberals did it right or wrong, isnt it

Well, I'm sorry to say it, but Canadian's as a whole don't seem to care. They don't care that the liberals steal their money, deplete their military, hurt their healthcare, hurt their pensions, and raise their taxes. Why would they care if liberals are no longer following traditional democratic practices?

I'm pretty sure that as long as the liberals just don't introduce a new sales tax, that the majority of canadians will be content to just keep voting em in.

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:10 AM

The bottom line should be, that is if this what the government though the majority of Canada wanted, they would hold a fair vote, and they would get the results that they wanted anyways. If this is not what the majority of Canada wanted, then this should be considered a sneaky way of bypassing democracy.

I completely agree. What more needs to be said here? I'm more anxious to find out what's going to happen with Bill C-60, but it's doubtful they'll get around to that before the fall.

gilboman

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:12 AM

Well, I'm sorry to say it, but Canadian's as a whole don't seem to care. They don't care that the liberals steal their money, deplete their military, hurt their healthcare, hurt their pensions, and raise their taxes. Why would they care if liberals are no longer following traditional democratic practices?

I'm pretty sure that as long as the liberals just don't introduce a new sales tax, that the majority of canadians will be content to just keep voting em in.

actually canaddians have consistantly shown they care more about values than money, which is why they rather have the liberals who have poorly managed the money rather than saving a few bucks but putting in people who have fvcked up ideals and values.

canadians are smart and know that in a government that needs to reflect their values, money is not the utmost important thing. kinda like you wouldn't sell your soul to the devil for $10, or would you? ;)

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:12 AM

No, nobody dislike Harper's personal religious beliefs. People dislike he uses religion (one religion) as foundation to govern this country.

So, you're concerned about the second part of my statement: "the fear that he will bring them with him if he becomes PM?" In other words, it's *still* his religious views that you're concerned with.

mbg

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:13 AM

Personally, I'd be more interested in seeing what percent of Canadians know anything about this amended budget, other than it kept them from having to go vote.

I agree with this.

"Don't ruin my summer holiday!"

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:13 AM

Heh, well, I'm not saying that the conservatives are any better than the libs, mind you. I just think that all parties should try to win back the public's respect by dealing out in the open and acting like proper ladies and gentlemen, especially after adscam. This latest move by the libs isn't going to help.
i am okay with canadians deciding over this issue

Let me rephrase: Is it or isn't it true that people dislike Harper because of his religious beliefs, and the fear that he will bring them with him if he becomes PM?
not really...paul martin is religious as well...canadians, in my opinion (and i can be wrong), do not dislike their politicians for being religious....they, however, dislike the politicians who bring their personal religious agenda to the realm of secular politics

gilboman

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:14 AM

I completely agree. What more needs to be said here? I'm more anxious to find out what's going to happen with Bill C-60, but it's doubtful they'll get around to that before the fall.

do you understand the concept of miniority rights? probably not.

if we voted on women rights, never would have gotten it...why? cause only men could vote.

give blacks rights and and segregation? no way cause they were miniorities

of course you wouldnt care since you support oppression of minorities anyways.

mbg

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:14 AM

If anything this will enhance the desire to vote. The majority of voters wanted these three parties in office. They have now done what they said they would do. The public, as shown by opinion polls, supports what they wanted to do. I could see how Conservative voters may vote less because they won't think it'll matter however they are the minority. The majority of Canada will continue to be quite pleased with this centre-left government.

So, you predict an increase in voter turnout in the next election?

gman

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:14 AM

Some of the Conservative MP's are ill, and seeing their doctors outside of Ottawa... you can't have them all sitting around parliament, or in hotels.

As I said, not all are sick. Probably, only a handful of them.

The bottom line should be, that is if this what the government though the majority of Canada wanted, they would hold a fair vote, and they would get the results that they wanted anyways. If this is not what the majority of Canada wanted, then this should be considered a sneaky way of bypassing democracy.
I think Liberals probably can win doing this tactic or not. However, using this tactic made Harper looks really foolish. Their action afterward made them even more foolish. Yes, it is "in your face. HaHa!".

If C were prepared and lose (because of missing a handful of sick MPs), they would have a honourable lose and gain in the poll. Try your best and fail always makes you look good. Unprepare and lose, well! Now, they just looks elementary.

Again, Liberals did follow the rule. It is C who is not prepared for that.

d_jedi

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:15 AM

Ok, let's say EVERYONE in Conservative is here. Will they win?
Do the math, yes they would. Especially with independants David Kilgour and Pat O'Brien siding with the Conservative/Bloc opposition to the budget.

And, the reaction from Conservative is just funny. They accused the Liberal to co operate with the "seperatist"? I thought they did the exact same thing.
That's mocking the Liberals accusing them of cooperating with the seperatists earlier. Funny how the Liberals ridicule cooperation with the Bloc when the seperatists are against them.. but are more than willing to embrace their cooperation when it works in their favour. Hypocrites.

Tiberius

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:15 AM

No, what we need are politicians who are honourable and who try to gain the respect of the Canadian public, rather than rushing around in the dark, cutting deals with the "separatists" (the liberals have been blasting the conservatives for this for *months!*), and assuring their victory because they didn't let the other team know that they were starting without them.

Honestly, does this entire spectacle make anybody trust the Liberals more?

Oh come on! The Conservatives aligned with the SEPERATISTS just to try to topple the government at an opportune time... THEY are the ones lacking honour!

All the Liberals did was agree to address ONE ISSUE they both AGREE on sooner rather than later... not exactly "cutting deals" in any fashion that compromises their integrity... unlike the Cons - who would need to align with the Bloc to form a government because they certainly aren't going to get a majority any time soon (leadership and idealogy issues exist that need to be addressed before they have a chance)

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:15 AM

aquariaguy

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:16 AM

I love this picture.
http://img79.echo.cx/img79/6008/030126laytonjackndp1250he.jpg
"You Conservative Fools!"

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:16 AM

rant rant rant

LOL. Maybe you should take the time and figure out what C-60 is about before going off on me about gay marriage, hmm?

gman

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:17 AM

So, you're concerned about the second part of my statement: "the fear that he will bring them with him if he becomes PM?" In other words, it's *still* his religious views that you're concerned with.
I bet most of the MP has their own religious view. Do I concern about them? No. Because they don't use their personal religious view to influence their day to day work. Otherwise, we should have a Bishop to run this country.

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:17 AM

Oh come on! The Conservatives aligned with the SEPERATISTS just to try to topple the government at an opportune time... THEY are the ones lacking honour!

And the libs did exactly the same thing to save the government. What's the difference?

d_jedi

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:17 AM

the liberals dont have to oppose everything the bloc does and the bloc has always supported samesex marriage. but supporting one issue same as the bloc is different than an alliance the conservatives formed with the bloc.

but of course you probably dont understand such a simple concept if you need to ask.
That seems to be exactly what the Conservatives are doing with their opposition to the budget. How, exactly, is this an "alliance"? Provide some other examples of Bloc/Tory cooperation to prove.

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:18 AM

Because they [most MPs] don't use their personal religious view to influence their day to day work.

Does Harper? No. You think that because that's what the media has convinced you to believe, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

mbg

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:19 AM

I love this picture.
http://img79.echo.cx/img79/6008/030126laytonjackndp1250he.jpg
"You Conservative Fools!"

My caption would have been: "Yay! I'm relevant!"

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:20 AM

LOL. Maybe you should take the time and figure out what C-60 is about before going off on me about gay marriage, hmm?

a link to c-60 would be nice :cheesygri

d_jedi

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:20 AM

Parrish
Belinda.

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:21 AM

actually canaddians have consistantly shown they care more about values than money, which is why they rather have the liberals who have poorly managed the money rather than saving a few bucks but putting in people who have fvcked up ideals and values.

canadians are smart and know that in a government that needs to reflect their values, money is not the utmost important thing. kinda like you wouldn't sell your soul to the devil for $10, or would you? ;)

Well, what exactly is the most important thing?

Having a healthcare system that works and provides better than adequate care for Canadians? How about a healthcare system that is sustainable more than the next 10 years, when an entire generation retires and begins to need that system? We already have people on stretchers in hallways now, we're going to have people on stretchers on lawns, when that generation retires.

How about having a military that is capable of transporting troops overseas? Or a military that can even keep denmark out of our own backyard. What does it say when more of your troops die from equipment malfunction than they do from hostile fire?

How about having a pension plan that works? People work their entire lives paying into this plan are going to be retiring in the next 20 years and there's a good chance that that money won't be there for them.

These are quality of life issues that affect the majority of Canadians. All the homosexuals getting married in the world isn't going to fix the healthcare system.

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:22 AM

Does Harper? No. You think that because that's what the media has convinced you to believe, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

nope, i have never seen 'national post' convincing me to believe that (and 'national post' is part of media, for all i know)

gman

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:23 AM

Does Harper? No. You think that because that's what the media has convinced you to believe, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true.
Then, he and his PR department did a poor job to alter that view. If Harper had shut up to talk about religion that much, media had no room to make that up (if they make that up). Did people say Joe Clark or Manning had kind of image like Harper?

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:24 AM

what does that says about canadians, and what does that say about the position of conservatives in canadian politics

I really don't know. There's either been a lot of fear mongering done over the last 10 years that Canadians are somehow convinced that a right wing government is going to force everyone to church on Sunday, or everyone works for the government and is afraid of losing their jobs when a responsible government steps in and starts trimming some of the fat.

I live in Ottawa, so I'm well aware of the second one. Barely even worth voting here.

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:24 AM

a link to c-60 would be nice :cheesygri

Google "C-60 Canada."

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:25 AM

Then, he and his PR department did a poor job to alter that view. If Harper had shut up to talk about religion that much, media had no room to make that up (if they make that up). Did people say Joe Clark or Manning had kind of image like Harper?

isn't that why harper will go on the bbq circuit in summer..for a political makeover

gman

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:26 AM

And the libs did exactly the same thing to save the government. What's the difference?
Really, how exatly is that? Liberals did not give up anything to Bloc. It is Bloc gave up something to get what they want. And, what Bloc wants is what Martin wants.

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:27 AM

nope, i have never seen 'national post' convincing me to believe that (and 'national post' is part of media, for all i know)

So do you believe that Harper will bring his religious views with him should he gain the PMship? I'm assuming you'll answer yes, as you've said as much for the past few months. How did you come to this conclusion? Do you know the man personally?

d_jedi

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:27 AM

I'm not worried either. Seeing them implode is honestly giddyish to watch.

However how is this a problem for democracy? The NDP and Bloc are left leaning, the Liberals are Left-Centre and all three parties have more votes than the right wing party (In both MPs and total citizen votes). The majority of the population wanted this to go through - it did go through. Democracy preveiled dispite Harper and his party trying to obstruct it.
The Bloc did not want this to go through. The Conservatives did not want this to go through. Hell, even Ralph Goodale didn't really want the changes to go through (aside from assuring the Liberal cling to power).

If you actually add up the numbers - the budget amendment would have been voted down, with support of independants David Kilgour and Pat O'Brien.

Contrast how the Liberals acted now - knowing they currently had enough support, but may lose it (due to lobbying of Liberals opposed to homosexual "marriages") - to when they originally tabled the budget - knowing they didn't have enough support, and had to dither in order to bribe.. er.. payoff.. err.. convince Belinda Stronach to cross the floor.

The Liberals are willing to use whatever dirty trick possible in order to get their way. That is not democracy.

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:28 AM

I really don't know. There's either been a lot of fear mongering done over the last 10 years that Canadians are somehow convinced that a right wing government is going to force everyone to church on Sunday, or everyone works for the government and is afraid of losing their jobs when a responsible government steps in and starts trimming some of the fat.

I live in Ottawa, so I'm well aware of the second one. Barely even worth voting here.

conservatives have not exactly done their part to come clean to the canadian people...as recently as now, conservative are indulging in their own fear mongering over same-sex issue...

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:28 AM

Really, how exatly is that? Liberals did not give up anything to Bloc. It is Bloc gave up something to get what they want. And, what Bloc wants is what Martin wants.

The Liberals aligned with the blocs to save the government. The Cons aligned with the bloc to bring down the government. Neither the libs nor the cons have a more solid alliance than that. So, again, what's the difference?

gman

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:29 AM

The Liberals aligned with the blocs to save the government. The Cons aligned with the bloc to bring down the government. Neither the libs nor the cons have a more solid alliance than that. So, again, what's the difference?
How did Liberals align with Bloc? Just because Bloc votes the way like Liberals, they now become allies?
If you make your enemy to believe you on one issue (and both of you believe that anyway), do you two suddenly become allies?

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:30 AM

So do you believe that Harper will bring his religious views with him should he gain the PMship? I'm assuming you'll answer yes, as you've said as much for the past few months. How did you come to this conclusion? Do you know the man personally?

i know that much, that he'll do anything trump civil rights struggle (read: gay rights), and he'll do anything to grab power....liberals may be accused of being power grabbers but, at least, they stand for minority civil rights

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:31 AM

conservatives have not exactly done their part to come clean to the canadian people...as recently as now, conservative are indulging in their own fear mongering over same-sex issue...

The conservative stance on the same-sex issue is one that half of the country agrees with. They have agreed to allow a vote on the issue (if they were in power) even though it isn't against their party policy, what more could you ask from them?

The same-sex marriage issue is much like C48, far too rushed. Noone has enough information on the subject to make an informed vote.

d_jedi

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:32 AM

canadians chose a minority government, and the minority gov did exactly what a minority gov does...the budget is canadian friendly, and i'll be interested in finding out what percent of the canadians is against this amended budget
Personally, I'd rather have the $161 (approximate, assuming 31 million population) in my pocket as a tax cut rather than the new spending. Because that is what the NDP amendments will cost each and every Canadian.

Are you getting value for your $161?

aquariaguy

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:33 AM

http://img88.echo.cx/img88/2987/harper5pz.jpg
So true...
http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/020910/mackay.jpg

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:34 AM

How did Liberals align with Bloc? Just because Bloc votes the way like Liberals, they now become allies?
If you make your enemy to believe you on one issue, do you two suddenly become allies?

From the article: "The Conservatives could only sputter and fume after their unofficial partners in the Bloc Quebecois deserted them to join the Liberals and the NDP to cut off debate on the budget and move up a vote on same-sex marriage."

And I didn't say that either party formed a hard and fast alliance with the bloc, merely that at one point or the other, they had "aligned" themselves with the bloc.

The bloc assisted the liberals in ending debate and subverting the democratic process.

JAC

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:35 AM

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/spongebob_narrowweb__200x270.jpghttp://www.valleyskeptic.com/stephen_harper.gif

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/harper_sponge.html

Here's an (admittedly biased) website that addresses the Conservative party's religious agenda.

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:36 AM

The conservative stance on the same-sex issue is one that half of the country agrees with. They have agreed to allow a vote on the issue (if they were in power) even though it isn't against their party policy, what more could you ask from them?

The same-sex marriage issue is much like C48, far too rushed. Noone has enough information on the subject to make an informed vote.

c-38 (same sex marriage) has been debated to death...it should be done and over with...conservatives do not want a vote on that (they have firmly said that time and again on the 'politics' program with don newman), because they know they will lose....that is why they have been using delay tactics to keep the issue from a vote...their 'free vote' rhetoric is just a sham, tell me how many conservatives will support same-sex mariage?

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:37 AM

Are you getting value for your $161?

yes, i am...

Tiberius

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:37 AM

And the libs did exactly the same thing to save the government. What's the difference?

Geeee whiz... I guess the point would be that the Conservatives started *ALL* of this - after originally stating they would help make parliament work and would not seek to topple the minority government after the election - but as soon as they have a small lead in the polls, they immediately backtrack on their word and get in bed with the Bloc....

Who started all of this? The Cons! They forced the Liberals hands. (and ironically, even after being ambushed, the Liberals still out-played the Cons at every turn)

The Cons were using every tactic possible to try to get their way (foolishly as it turned it because they did NOT hold the lead in the polls - they still have fatal flaws in their party that keep them from power - something Belinda tried to tell Harper but he ignored her... but now Harper is licking his wounds and saying he doesn't even want an election... great vision! great leadership!)

So... why ***** and moan when the Liberals use the same go-for-the-throat tactics the Cons used and totally out-maneuver them? It's sour grapes.

Canadians want our government to *DO* things... not be stuck in the mud while some political-lightweight rants and philibusters and prevents anything from being done.

I am proud of the way our government "worked" in this situation. I don't even necessarily agree with the 4.6 Billion package the NDP wanted included in the budget (I agree with some of it.. disagree with some of it)... BUT!! I AM PAINFULLY AWARE OF **WHY** IT HAD TO BE DONE!! I BLAME *HARPER*!! We could have had a GREAT budget in place - but Harper had to go and try to be opportunistic - and it wasn't even the right timing to try such a tactic!! His actions have proven to be MORONIC! What a political whiz he is... as each week passes he looks more and more like a child playing amongst men. He isn't helping his parties cause - he's only hurting it. And you wonder why the Liberals remain the best option and the leader in the polls in the this country.

d_jedi

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:37 AM

Not every MP are ill. Even Harper was not there.
That's because he had the trivial matter of oh, the 20th anniversary of the Air India terrorist attacks to attend to.

Remember how the Liberals accused the Conservatives of underhanded tactics to try to bring down the government as an excuse not to attend the D-Day anniversary?

Looks like they were worried about the Conservatives taking a page out of the Liberal book..

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:38 AM

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/harper_sponge.html

Here's an (admittedly biased) website that addresses the Conservative party's religious agenda.

"Admittedly biased" website? From the first paragraph:

"Now I'm not saying that Stephen is gay, there is no evidence that he has even masturbated, but looking at the pictures below of the supposedly gay Spongebob Squarepants and Stephen Harper, the resemblance is striking."

Thanks for contributing to the conversation, JAC.

d_jedi

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:39 AM

Wasn't it last week that the conservatives were willing to support the bill in order to push the equal marriage bill back to the fall.
No. They said they would still vote against it.

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:40 AM

c-38 (same sex marriage) has been debated to death...it should be done and over with...conservatives do not want a vote on that (they have firmly said that time and again on the 'politics' program with don newman), because they know they will lose....that is why they have been using delay tactics to keep the issue from a vote...their 'free vote' rhetoric is just a sham, tell me how many conservatives will support same-sex mariage?

I completely agree. C38 will go through, and it makes sense that the conservatives do not want a vote on it until they can at least do so in good conscience. The problem with it, is that there's too many loose ends, or I'd probably support it myself. Is it written into the bill that the church won't be forced to hold gay marriages? No. Is it written into the bill that until more research is done on homosexual adoption, that the current procedure will remain in place? No. It isn't about limiting the rights of one group of people, it's about limiting the repercussions of giving those people rights on the rights of another group (the church and children).

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:41 AM

JAC

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:42 AM

"Admittedly biased" website? From the first paragraph:

"Now I'm not saying that Stephen is gay, there is no evidence that he has even masturbated, but looking at the pictures below of the supposedly gay Spongebob Squarepants and Stephen Harper, the resemblance is striking."

Thanks for contributing to the conversation, JAC.

Do I really need to explain the concept of humor to you? On second thought, perhaps I do.

Read the articles before you dismiss the site out of hand.

Of course, I rather doubt you'll find any merit in them.

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:42 AM

No. They said they would still vote against it.

actually the conservatives had offered to fast track the legislation (by limiting debate), but then backed out, and started to use delay tactics besides threatening to bring down the government

gman

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:42 AM

That's because he had the trivial matter of oh, the 20th anniversary of the Air India terrorist attacks to attend to.

Was Martin there too?

Remember how the Liberals accused the Conservatives of underhanded tactics to try to bring down the government as an excuse not to attend the D-Day anniversary?

See, Liberals thought about the possiblity while Conservatives was day dreaming.

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:44 AM

Geeee whiz... I guess the point would be that the Conservatives started *ALL* of this - after originally stating they would help make parliament work and would not seek to topple the minority government after the election - but as soon as they have a small lead in the polls, they
.
.
I am proud of the way our government "worked" in this situation. I don't even necessarily agree with the 4.6 Billion package the NDP wanted included in the budget (I agree with some of it.. disagree with some of it)... BUT!! I AM PAINFULLY AWARE OF **WHY** IT HAD TO BE DONE!! I BLAME *HARPER*!! We could have had a GREAT budget in place - but Harper had to go and try to be opportunistic - and it wasn't even the right timing to try such a tactic!! His actions have proven to be MORONIC! What a political whiz he is... as each week passes he looks more and more like a child playing amongst men. He isn't helping his parties cause - he's only hurting it. And you wonder why the Liberals remain the best option and the leader in the polls in the this country.

I have a very simple question. Over the last 10 years has your family experienced a significant quality of life increase due to any act that the government has put forward? I can't think of one thing in *10 years that the government has done to help the middle class in this country.

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:46 AM

Is it written into the bill that the church won't be forced to hold gay marriages? No. Is it written into the bill that until more research is done on homosexual adoption, that the current procedure will remain in place? No. It isn't about limiting the rights of one group of people, it's about limiting the repercussions of giving those people rights on the rights of another group (the church and children).

To further your point: all the bill says is that the charter is sufficient to protect religious rights, and that "it would be for the Provinces, in the exercise of their power over the solemnization of marriage, to legislate in a way that protects the rights of religious officials while providing for solemnization of same-sex marriage" (Bill C-38, Religious Clause (Clause 3), para. 55).

If the bill leaves the issue up to the provinces, this implies to me that it *doesn't* have sufficient protection for religious groups.

Tiberius

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:47 AM

So do you believe that Harper will bring his religious views with him should he gain the PMship? I'm assuming you'll answer yes, as you've said as much for the past few months. How did you come to this conclusion? Do you know the man personally?

What if he doesn't? What if he does? Think about it.....

Most of his supporters (the real ones... not the "I'll vote for him because I'm sick of Liberals" voters) EXPECT him to bring his "religious values" with him. They EXPECT him to take those stances in government.

So tell me... would his supporters be "happy" if he suddenly didn't take any stances based on his "beliefs"??

The party he is the leader of is born from some core beliefs... and those seem to match up fairly well with core beliefs Harper is known to have... so....

... why would we expect him to completely distance himself from those beliefs? It's not REASONABLE to assume that. It also is not reasonable to take answers he gives while trying to get elected as being the truth! (geee... politicians lying or simply misleading on questions to get elected... that would never happen! LOL)

aquariaguy

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:48 AM

That's because he had the trivial matter of oh, the 20th anniversary of the Air India terrorist attacks to attend to.

Remember how the Liberals accused the Conservatives of underhanded tactics to try to bring down the government as an excuse not to attend the D-Day anniversary?

Looks like they were worried about the Conservatives taking a page out of the Liberal book..

I don't think that was the reason Harper missed it.
I read an article few days about that Martin went. They called it "Martin's Entourage". So please try again.

d_jedi

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:48 AM

How did Liberals align with Bloc? Just because Bloc votes the way like Liberals, they now become allies?
If you make your enemy to believe you on one issue (and both of you believe that anyway), do you two suddenly become allies?
Well, that's what the Conservatives were being accused of with their "alliance" with the Bloc for voting together on the budget..

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:48 AM

I completely agree. C38 will go through, and it makes sense that the conservatives do not want a vote on it until they can at least do so in good conscience. The problem with it, is that there's too many loose ends, or I'd probably support it myself. Is it written into the bill that the church won't be forced to hold gay marriages? No. Is it written into the bill that until more research is done on homosexual adoption, that the current procedure will remain in place? No. It isn't about limiting the rights of one group of people, it's about limiting the repercussions of giving those people rights on the rights of another group (the church and children).

well, if what you say is true, then that should give the conservatives enough fuel to launch a successful election campaign (though i doubt that)

gman

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:49 AM

From the article: "The Conservatives could only sputter and fume after their unofficial partners in the Bloc Quebecois deserted them to join the Liberals and the NDP to cut off debate on the budget and move up a vote on same-sex marriage."

And I didn't say that either party formed a hard and fast alliance with the bloc, merely that at one point or the other, they had "aligned" themselves with the bloc.

The bloc assisted the liberals in ending debate and subverting the democratic process.
It looks more like Bloc "aligned" themselves to Liberals because only Bloc gives up something. How do you not welcome somebody agree with you? Friend or foe.
Says, both of us has different point of view. I say something and you agree with me. Now, I align with you? Or, it looks you align with me more? Or, there is no align at all?

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:49 AM

Of course, I rather doubt you'll find any merit in them.

Probably not. But, then again, I don't find a lot of merit in reading claims that Spongebob SquarePants is gay, or comparing the faces of fictional characters to political leaders. I've got more worthwhile articles to read.

gman

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:50 AM

Well, that's what the Conservatives were being accused of with their "alliance" with the Bloc for voting together on the budget..
It is not the same because:
1. C gave up what they believed, the original budget.
2. C said in public that they would not get rid of the government that soon.

In other words, they changed their principal and found a partner to do that.

Tiberius

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:50 AM

The Liberals aligned with the blocs to save the government. The Cons aligned with the bloc to bring down the government. Neither the libs nor the cons have a more solid alliance than that. So, again, what's the difference?

The Liberals did NOT align with the Bloc to "save the government".

Please READ THE ARTICLE in the first post.

The Bloc voted AGAINST the budget amendment with the Cons...

The only thing the Bloc has done is say they will vote for the same-sex marriage bill... that is their stance on it. The Liberals did NOT twist their arm or make deals with them about it. They just agreed to get it done sooner rather than later.

aquariaguy

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:51 AM

Probably not. But, then again, I don't find a lot of merit in reading claims that Spongebob SquarePants is gay, or comparing the faces of fictional characters to political leaders. I've got more worthwhile articles to read.

You prefer Harper style and watch movies like Hannibal and Sopranos.

d_jedi

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:52 AM

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:53 AM

What if he doesn't? What if he does? Think about it.....

Most of his supporters (the real ones... not the "I'll vote for him because I'm sick of Liberals" voters) EXPECT him to bring his "religious values" with him. They EXPECT him to take those stances in government.

So tell me... would his supporters be "happy" if he suddenly didn't take any stances based on his "beliefs"??

The party he is the leader of is born from some core beliefs... and those seem to match up fairly well with core beliefs Harper is known to have... so....

... why would we expect him to completely distance himself from those beliefs? It's not REASONABLE to assume that. It also is not reasonable to take answers he gives while trying to get elected as being the truth! (geee... politicians lying or simply misleading on questions to get elected... that would never happen! LOL)

The 'core' beliefs that he has, are the same 'core' beliefs that this country has. What exactly do you think that he's going to do? Worst case scenario. The US has two right of centre party's, and women are still able to have abortions, children aren't forced to church at gun point, and homosexuals aren't stoned to death in town squares.

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:54 AM

Nope, the Liberal's "free vote" rhetoric is a sham. How many Cabinet ministers voted against the Civil Marriage Act?

35 or more liberals will vote against it...name just 5 conservatives who would vote in favor

cabinet ministers ARE government, and it would be silly to expect them to vote against the 'government' on what 'government' calls a civil rights issue

Tiberius

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:54 AM

The bloc assisted the liberals in ending debate and subverting the democratic process.

Insteresting "twist" on things.

Don't you find it ironic that the Conservatives themselves were saying they did NOT want to topple the government right now on the Budget Amendment.... hmmmm... so what WERE they doing... just STALLING... wasting time...

The Bloc knew this and were sick of it would be my guess!

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:55 AM

The Liberals did NOT align with the Bloc to "save the government".

Please READ THE ARTICLE in the first post.

The Bloc voted AGAINST the budget amendment with the Cons...

The only thing the Bloc has done is say they will vote for the same-sex marriage bill... that is their stance on it. The Liberals did NOT twist their arm or make deals with them about it. They just agreed to get it done sooner rather than later.

From the article: "The Conservatives could only sputter and fume after their unofficial partners in the Bloc Quebecois deserted them to join the Liberals and the NDP to cut off debate on the budget and move up a vote on same-sex marriage."

More accurately: the liberals used the bloc to call for a vote when not all of the cons were there, winning by five votes. This is called "saving the government": "The Liberals were taking a monumental gamble. A loss on the vote would force the prime minister to dissolve Parliament and call a summer election."

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:55 AM

well, if what you say is true, then that should give the conservatives enough fuel to launch a successful election campaign (though i doubt that)

If the conservatives don't have enough fuel with everything else this government has spent 10 years doing, I don't think this will change anything. Welcome to Canada.

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:56 AM

You prefer Harper style and watch movies like Hannibal and Sopranos.

You prefer drinking Coke and watching movies like "Hunt for Red October."

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:56 AM

Welcome to Canada.

thanks..i am enjoying my stay :cheesygri

d_jedi

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:58 AM

actually the conservatives had offered to fast track the legislation (by limiting debate), but then backed out, and started to use delay tactics besides threatening to bring down the government
You are mostly correct. They offered to do so (but not vote for the budget amendments) in exchange for delaying the final vote on the Civil Marriage Act, but the Liberals declined to make this deal.

So, then the Conservatives decided to fully scrutinize the budget amendments, as originally intended.

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:58 AM

Insteresting "twist" on things.

Don't you find it ironic that the Conservatives themselves were saying they did NOT want to topple the government right now on the Budget Amendment.... hmmmm... so what WERE they doing... just STALLING... wasting time...

The Bloc knew this and were sick of it would be my guess!

The Conservatives had put forward motions that would force the government to tell the canadian tax payer where this 4.6 billion dollars was going to be spent before voting on it. How can anyone argue that it isn't reasonable that the government should have a plan to spend that much money before we give it to them?

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:59 AM

thanks..i am enjoying my stay :cheesygri

lol. bah

d_jedi

Jun 24th, 2005, 10:59 AM

See, Liberals thought about the possiblity while Conservatives was day dreaming.
It was despicable for the PM to use this an excuse to not attend the D-Day anniversary.

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:02 AM

It was despicable for the PM to use this an excuse to not attend the D-Day anniversary.

he did go there eventually...
remind me again why he hesitated first to attend those ceremonies?

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:02 AM

Are you getting value for your $161?

yes, i am...

It's too bad that you have no idea what it's going to be spent on...

d_jedi

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:03 AM

It is not the same because:
1. C gave up what they believed, the original budget.
2. C said in public that they would not get rid of the government that soon.

In other words, they changed their principal and found a partner to do that.
hmm.. let's turn that around.

It is not the same because:
1. Liberals gave up what they believed, the original budget.

In other words, they changed their principal and found a partner to do that.
HMM..

The Conservatives only did (2) in response to the shocking relevations of gross corruption and theft at the Gomery Inquiry.

Tiberius

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:03 AM

I have a very simple question. Over the last 10 years has your family experienced a significant quality of life increase due to any act that the government has put forward? I can't think of one thing in *10 years that the government has done to help the middle class in this country.

How simplistic and short-sighted of you. You do realize that any government could come into power and be a free spending, arse-kissing juggernaut... sucking up to everyone and trying to make everyone happy.... but... it is not sustainable! Their is such a thing as a "budget"! Debt is not "good". The Cons (Mulroney) played their role is created our huge debt, and now it needs to be addressed for the future health of our country.

The Liberals have been fiscally responsible, have taken stances I agree with in world issues, and on issues within our own country, and from a policy standpoint are on the right track with the majority of Canadians being very comfortable with what they have done.

Why do YOU think they keep getting elected? Why do you think they keep a lead in polls in this country? They have done a GREAT job. Put the Cons in charge for over a decade and you will have scandles, wasted funds, etc. also. What really matters is that the system works and people are held accountable - and the country moves forward in a positive direction.

Bottom line:

A government that steps in and spends money it DOES NOT HAVE to give me something now (slightly better "services" for example) is NOT DOING ME A FAVOUR!!!! It is hurting the future of this country. We need to make things work with within a budget.

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:04 AM

It's too bad that you have no idea what it's going to be spent on...

it will be spent on things better than i would be spending it on...i'd rather not provide info on my spending habits here :cheesygri

Tiberius

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:04 AM

To further your point: all the bill says is that the charter is sufficient to protect religious rights, and that "it would be for the Provinces, in the exercise of their power over the solemnization of marriage, to legislate in a way that protects the rights of religious officials while providing for solemnization of same-sex marriage" (Bill C-38, Religious Clause (Clause 3), para. 55).

If the bill leaves the issue up to the provinces, this implies to me that it *doesn't* have sufficient protection for religious groups.

But it *does* allow for specific segments of the country who want their "own beliefs" reflected to make their own rules. Isn't that what you want???

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:05 AM

The Conservatives only did (2) in response to the shocking relevations of gross corruption and theft at the Gomery Inquiry.

gomery? what gomery? i don't remember

i am kidding, of course :cheesygri

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:05 AM

Why do YOU think they keep getting elected? Why do you think they keep a lead in polls in this country? They have done a GREAT job. Put the Cons in charge for over a decade and you will have scandles, wasted funds, etc. also. What really matters is that the system works and people are held accountable - and the country moves forward in a positive direction.

You *do* know that it was the Liberals who misspent $250 million in adscam and not the cons, right? You *do* know that it was the liberals who are costing us millions of dollars with the defunct gun registry, right? To rephrase your statement to make it true:

Put the Liberals in charge for over a decade and you will have scandles, wasted funds, etc.

d_jedi

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:05 AM

he did go there eventually...
remind me again why he hesitated first to attend those ceremonies?
He feared the Conservatives would do what the Liberals did last night.

If it would be underhanded for the Conservatives to vote down the government in that way, it's underhanded for the Liberals to prop up the government in that way.

What I don't understand is the Bloc's motivation for all of this. By voting with the NDP and Liberals to stop the debate on the budget bill, they condemned themselves to losing the budget vote.

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:06 AM

But it *does* allow for specific segments of the country who want their "own beliefs" reflected to make their own rules. Isn't that what you want???

No. I want religious freedoms protected in Canada, whether or not gays are allowed to be married. This bill does not 100% assure this.

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:07 AM

What I don't understand is the Bloc's motivation for all of this. By voting with the NDP and Liberals to stop the debate on the budget bill, they condemned themselves to losing the budget vote.

i think bloc's interest is in seeing c-38 passed, which will be the main focus of the house starting next week

d_jedi

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:07 AM

it will be spent on things better than i would be spending it on...i'd rather not provide info on my spending habits here :cheesygri
I wouldn't doubt it if some of that money found it's way into another Liberal slush fund.. you know, because the sponsorship program just isn't working for the Liberals the way it used to..

gman

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:07 AM

hmm.. let's turn that around.

HMM..

The Conservatives only did (2) in response to the shocking relevations of gross corruption and theft at the Gomery Inquiry.
If C did not try to get rid of the government, we are still in the original budget. It is C did that first and Liberals reacted. If you don't like the amendment, blame that on C.

d_jedi

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:09 AM

If C did not try to get rid of the government, we are still in the original budget. It is C did that first and Liberals reacted. If you don't like the amendment, blame that on C.
If the Liberals didn't steal money from the Canadian taxpayers, the Conservatives wouldn't have changed their position on supporting the original budget. So the blame ultimately falls on the Liberals.

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:10 AM

No. I want religious freedoms protected in Canada, whether or not gays are allowed to be married. This bill does not 100% assure this.

good to know

JAC

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:11 AM

Probably not. But, then again, I don't find a lot of merit in reading claims that Spongebob SquarePants is gay, or comparing the faces of fictional characters to political leaders. I've got more worthwhile articles to read.
Not the reasons I had in mind, but hey, go ahead and ridicule a critical viewpoint, in the typical religious right fashion.

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:11 AM

How simplistic and short-sighted of you. You do realize that any government could come into power and be a free spending, arse-kissing juggernaut... sucking up to everyone and trying to make everyone happy.... but... it is not sustainable! Their is such a thing as a "budget"! Debt is not "good". The Cons (Mulroney) played their role is created our huge debt, and now it needs to be addressed for the future health of our country.

The Liberals have been fiscally responsible, have taken stances I agree with in world issues, and on issues within our own country, and from a policy standpoint are on the right track with the majority of Canadians being very comfortable with what they have done.

Why do YOU think they keep getting elected? Why do you think they keep a lead in polls in this country? They have done a GREAT job. Put the Cons in charge for over a decade and you will have scandles, wasted funds, etc. also. What really matters is that the system works and people are held accountable - and the country moves forward in a positive direction.

Bottom line:

A government that steps in and spends money it DOES NOT HAVE to give me something now (slightly better "services" for example) is NOT DOING ME A FAVOUR!!!! It is hurting the future of this country. We need to make things work with within a budget.

In 10 years of government, the average Canadian should expect their lives to improve. For the average canadian, the opposite is the case. Our health care system is in worse shape now than at any time since it's implementation. Our military is in worse shape now than it probably ever has been, as an effective international peacekeeping force. Our students are unable to afford tuition for university, and the homeless are content to keep collecting welfare cheques, since we keep sending them.

The point is, that it isn't enough for the government to tread water. Canadians have a right to have better lives than the generation before them, and I would expect my children to have a better life than I have. It's one thing to say that you run a 'balanced budget' year after year, but so what? How does that help me and my family? How does anything that the government has proposed over the next 5 years help me or my family?

Noone is suggesting that we run up massive debt in order to cut taxes.

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:12 AM

If the Liberals didn't steal money from the Canadian taxpayers, the Conservatives wouldn't have changed their position on supporting the original budget. So the blame ultimately falls on the Liberals.

yup...liberals and their supporters are like "crooks, Satan and Hollywood homicidal maniac Hannibal Lecter"....because they make the conservatives cry :cry:

mommmyy!!!!!

gman

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:12 AM

If the Liberals didn't steal money from the Canadian taxpayers, the Conservatives wouldn't have changed their position on supporting the original budget. So the blame ultimately falls on the Liberals.
As I said before in another thread, they could bring down the government the other way. They could have let the budget (that they agreed with and approved) passed and then brought the government down in private bill. They could have shut up and did a sneak attack and won.

d_jedi

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:16 AM

As I said before in another thread, they could bring down the government the other way. They could have let the budget (that they agreed with and approved) passed and then brought the government down in private bill. They could have shut up and did a sneak attack and won.
Maybe they care about that democracy thing everyone's been talking about?

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:17 AM

Tiberius

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:18 AM

The point is, that it isn't enough for the government to tread water. Canadians have a right to have better lives than the generation before them, and I would expect my children to have a better life than I have. It's one thing to say that you run a 'balanced budget' year after year, but so what? How does that help me and my family? How does anything that the government has proposed over the next 5 years help me or my family?

Noone is suggesting that we run up massive debt in order to cut taxes.

Once again - this is short-sighted and overly simplistic!

The reason things "improved" steadily as long as they did was ONLY because prior governments over-spent! They ran up huge deficits with became our DEBT!

The only way to "improve" on something you couldn't afford in the first place, is to continue to overspend by EVEN MORE! You also would have to do this while paying the INTEREST on your prior MASSIVE DEBT LOAD!

I'm guessing you didn't take (or "get") economics - like many people - so it's not surprising people can't digest this simple concept and it's implications.

We are paying the price now for past overspending. We *THINK* we should have something sooooooooo much better - but we never could really afford that in the first place!!! On top of that, you want it to IMPROVE??????

Hey! I'd love to live under those circumstances myself!! Especially when you are already living in one of the absolute best countries for it's standard of living, health care, and social programs in the entire world!

gman

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:22 AM

Maybe they care about that democracy thing everyone's been talking about?
Let me put it this way. If Harper did not try to use the budget as the weapon to bring down the government, we would have an election.

NDP did not mind to bring down the government. They only agreed with protecting the budget with amendment. If Harper did that in a private bill, NDP might go with him.

So, if Harper let the original budget pass, there would be no amendment.
Then, if Harper set up a private bill, we might have a election because he would have C, Bloc and NDP. Of course, unless Martin found something else to counter that.

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:22 AM

The reason things "improved" steadily as long as they did was ONLY because prior governments over-spent! They ran up huge deficits with became our DEBT!

By prior governments (aside from Mulroney, and Campbell and Joe's less-than-one-year terms) you mean the liberals who have essentially been in power since 63, right?

Tiberius

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:28 AM

By prior governments (aside from Mulroney, and Campbell and Joe's less-than-one-year terms) you mean the liberals who have essentially been in power since 63, right?

I would say it would mostly encompass Trudeau and Mulroney. Between them they held power for a long time and it was the era of "spend, spend, spend"... Debt be damned.

We are paying for it now. Any government that gets in office that goes back to the "old ways" of running a deficit is not doing us a favour.

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:32 AM

Once again - this is short-sighted and overly simplistic!

The reason things "improved" steadily as long as they did was ONLY because prior governments over-spent! They ran up huge deficits with became our DEBT!

The only way to "improve" on something you couldn't afford in the first place, is to continue to overspend by EVEN MORE! You also would have to do this while paying the INTEREST on your prior MASSIVE DEBT LOAD!

I'm guessing you didn't take (or "get") economics - like many people - so it's not surprising people can't digest this simple concept and it's implications.

We are paying the price now for past overspending. We *THINK* we should have something sooooooooo much better - but we never could really afford that in the first place!!! On top of that, you want it to IMPROVE??????

Hey! I'd love to live under those circumstances myself!! Especially when you are already living in one of the absolute best countries for it's standard of living, health care, and social programs in the entire world!

lol. I have a major in Economics.

The national debt in Canada is about 600? Billion dollars. When the government claims that it is running balanced budgets, balanced means that the interest on this debt is being paid. We spend 40-50? billion a year on interest payments.

Keep all of that in mind. Every 6 months or so, the auditor general office produces a report on various government departments. In *every report, there are gross financial mismanagement issues, with every department. At that to Adscam, which shows definitive proof that at the very least, this government is lacking sound financial controls.

Now, does it not make sense that we could improve our way of life by doing one of two things. We could A, lower taxes, so that the average Canadian has more money to spend on things that they consider to be priorities in their own lives, or B, pay off some of the balance on the debt so that our children aren't saddled with the burden of our parents generation. Both A and B are Conservative principles. Neither A nor B are the current governments principles.

And now you're going to say 'well, where do we get the money for A or B?'. Well, we get the money for A and B by implementing financial controls, cutting corporate taxes to increase employment and remove people from social assistance or even *gasp* cutting social programs that aren't self sufficient. These are the types of things that improve the lives of the majority of Canadians rather than that of a few special interest groups.

mbg

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:34 AM

i know that much, that he'll do anything trump civil rights struggle (read: gay rights), and he'll do anything to grab power....liberals may be accused of being power grabbers but, at least, they stand for minority civil rights

With a Conservative minority, the Liberals and NDP would hold the balance. They wouldn't be able to do what you are worried about.

You can address gay rights without marriage. A civil union will do it, just like how those homophobic European countries do it.

JAC

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:36 AM

Not the reasons I had in mind, but hey, go ahead and ridicule a critical viewpoint, in the typical religious right fashion.

I had no idea there was such a large body of scholarly work done on the sexual orientation of Spongebob SquarePants! I'm extremely sorry for doubting you; I'll definitely give that site the intense scrutiny it most assuredly deserves!

(Hint: next time you might want to find a site that doesn't make itself look like a complete joke in the *first paragraph* if you want people to actually read it)

Thanks for proving my point, Tixxy. Would you feel better if I linked directly to the articles so you don't have to be confused by the funny pictures? Or would the claims that Harper is another zealot still get your panties in a bunch?

mbg

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:37 AM

You prefer drinking Coke and watching movies like "Hunt for Red October."

What's wrong with drinking and watching movies?

gman

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:38 AM

With a Conservative minority, the Liberals and NDP would hold the balance. They wouldn't be able to do what you are worried about.

You can address gay rights without marriage. A civil union will do it, just like how those homophobic European countries do it.
Right now, I am not too worry about minority right, partner with Bush or whatever if Harper takes over the PM job. I am more worry about we would have a dumb and don't know what to do PM to administrate this country. And, be a laughting stock for 4 years.

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:39 AM

What's wrong with drinking and watching movies?

Nothing. This is, in fact, my plan for tonight. I just had no idea what aquariaguy was implying, so I thought I'd throw a non-sensical comment into the fray.

devious9191

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:39 AM

Thanks for proving my point, Tixxy. Would you feel better if I linked directly to the articles so you don't have to be confused by the funny pictures? Or would the claims that Harper is another zealot still get your panties in a bunch?

The point is, that noone wants to read a website that is working from obvious political bias. If you want to take some quotes from your website and post them, go nuts. You can't expect anyone to go search through what seems to be bs from the homepage, to sort out articles which may (but probably do not) have any real relevance to this discussion.

Tiberius

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:41 AM

[QUOTE=devious9191]lol. I have a major in Economics.

The national debt in Canada is about 600? Billion dollars. When the government claims that it is running balanced budgets, balanced means that the interest on this debt is being paid. We spend 40-50? billion a year on interest payments.
[QUOTE]

I'd also like to note that 40-50 billion is about 1/4 of our public revenue each year! Just to pay the INTEREST!

Federal debt has gone down by between 20 to 38 BILLION between 2000 and 2004!!! (depending on if you are looking at Gross or Net numbers). That is GREAT to see. Kudos to the Liberals for accomplishing this.

Sadly, we need to do MUCH better. At that pace, we won't be rid of the debt for well over 100 years!

Whine and moan about 250 million losses in "scandles", but the over-spending of past governments is more harmful to us - we are paying 40-50 BILLION PER YEAR because to that mis-management! (not to mention it has made us feel ENTITLED to better standards than we could afford!)

Any government that comes in and overspends again will be contributing to this issue.

The gravy train is gone. For the next 100+ years we have to live in reality - just to get back to EVEN.

If we go back to overspending and building the debt, we'll just continue to spend 1/4 of our public government revenue on INTEREST... Poof... gone...

JAC

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:42 AM

The point is, that noone wants to read a website that is working from obvious political bias. If you want to take some quotes from your website and post them, go nuts. You can't expect anyone to go search through what seems to be bs from the homepage, to sort out articles which may (but probably do not) have any real relevance to this discussion.
Oh, no? Everything Tixxy links to has an obvious religious bias, yet he still expects us to sift through pages of drivel. Should we not expect the same of him?

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:43 AM

Whine and moan about 250 million losses in "scandles", but the over-spending of past governments is more harmful to us - we are paying 40-50 BILLION PER YEAR because to that mis-management! (not to mention it has made us feel ENTITLED to better standards than we could afford!)

The current government has proven itself to be untrustworthy. We can't do anything about the $40-50 billion per year, but we can do something about the government that sees no harm in giving away $250 million of taxpayer money to friends.

mbg

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:45 AM

Right now, I am not too worry about minority right, partner with Bush or whatever if Harper takes over the PM job. I am more worry about we would have a dumb and don't know what to do PM to administrate this country. And, be a laughting stock for 4 years.

A laughing stock for 4 years would mean a majority government.

Harper is not dumb. He's more thoughtful than Martin, and so far has not shown himself to be as corrupt (re: defeating democracy via manipulation of ridings -- think Sheila Copps). But, there are some questionable characters in the Conservative party. Then again, there are some questionable characters in all parties :)

If you said that you were worried about Western social conservatism getting more of a voice at the federal level, I would say that you have something to be worried about (although it's not really Western -- more like Prairies, or maybe just Alberta). But, ambivalent and lethargic Ontario attitudes are not really positive in my eyes, either.

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:46 AM

Oh, no? Everything Tixxy links to has an obvious religious bias, yet he still expects us to sift through pages of drivel. Should we not expect the same of him?

The last page I remember linking to was www.religioustolerance.org, which has the following mandate:

"To promote religious tolerance and freedom.
To describe religious faiths in all their diversity.
To describe controversial topics from all points of view."

I've asked you again and again to cease referring to me as "Tixxy," as I find it denegrating and condescending. I've asked you this at least three or four times now. Guess I'll have to ask again: please stop referring to me as "Tixxy," as it is not my handle and I find it denegrating and condescending. Attack my words, not *me*.

mbg

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:46 AM

Nothing. This is, in fact, my plan for tonight. I just had no idea what aquariaguy was implying, so I thought I'd throw a non-sensical comment into the fray.

Who is sensical, and why do you hate fray?

While I'm at it.. .why are you anti-semitic?

d_jedi

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:47 AM

Sadly, we need to do MUCH better. At that pace, we won't be rid of the debt for well over 100 years!
...
Any government that comes in and overspends again will be contributing to this issue.
So, how do you feel about the extra $5 BILLION that the Liberals intend to spend with the budget amendments rather than paying down the debt?

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:48 AM

You can address gay rights without marriage. A civil union will do it, just like how those homophobic European countries do it.

surely you don't mean the majority of "freedom"-hating europeans :cheesygri

Tiberius

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:49 AM

The current government has proven itself to be untrustworthy. We can't do anything about the $40-50 billion per year, but we can do something about the government that sees no harm in giving away $250 million of taxpayer money to friends.

The alternative to the current government (Cons) had a platform that sounded like a budget be damned spending spree (military, health care, etc.). Sure, they were hitting on the hot spots that many Canadians wanted to hear (health care for instance)... but sometimes being fiscally responsible and making do within the budget you have available means facing realities. Spending tons of money to win votes and running a debt does nobody a favour in the long run.

That's why if you are really following "politics" you start to see through the political rhetoric and spin that is intended to follow the polls/hot topics and win votes, and determine what exactly they would "really" do. The Cons either would have backed down from their promises that got them the votes and not spent the money, or, they would have spent like crazy and run a deficit. Either way, it didn't appeal to me. Having the Liberals "stay the course" with their policy and fiscal plan made sense to me.

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:49 AM

While I'm at it.. .why are you anti-semitic?

As someone who's part Jewish, I'm a little confused as to how I can be anti-semitic as well. Maybe I just loathe my legs and torso, but am okay with my arms and head. :confused:

Can you please point out the exact post I made that gave you the impression that I'm anti-semitic?

gman

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:50 AM

A laughing stock for 4 years would mean a majority government.

Harper is not dumb. He's more thoughtful than Martin, and so far has not shown himself to be as corrupt (re: defeating democracy via manipulation of ridings -- think Sheila Copps). But, there are some questionable characters in the Conservative party. Then again, there are some questionable characters in all parties :)

If you said that you were worried about Western social conservatism getting more of a voice at the federal level, I would say that you have something to be worried about (although it's not really Western -- more like Prairies, or maybe just Alberta). But, ambivalent and lethargic Ontario attitudes are not really positive in my eyes, either.
So far, I have not seen one thing Harper did is considered to be smart. May be you can enlight me and help his image. He failed in PR. He failed in policy (if there is one). He successed in flip flopping. You know I really try hard to make myself to like him so that I have a reason to vote for him instead of voting for Liberals or NDP or nobody. I could not. May be you can help me.

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:52 AM

While I'm at it.. .why are you anti-semitic?

while i diagree with Txiasaeia most of the time, i am sure he is not anti-semitic (or anti-anyother-faith)

mbg

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:53 AM

As someone who's part Jewish, I'm a little confused as to how I can be anti-semitic as well. Maybe I just loathe my legs and torso, but am okay with my arms and head. :confused:

Can you please point out the exact post I made that gave you the impression that I'm anti-semitic?

Nothing gave me that impression, but it doesn't mean that it's not true. I vote NDP, so I don't have to be logical.

(by the way, I might be insane, or I might be pulling your leg).

Tiberius

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:54 AM

So, how do you feel about the extra $5 BILLION that the Liberals intend to spend with the budget amendments rather than paying down the debt?

I feel anger towards the Conservatives for not backing the original budget that they SAID THEY SUPPORTED - simply because they wanted to be opportunistic when polls blipped in their favour for a MOMENT. It is the Conservatives political games and short-sightedness that caused all of this. I don't blame the Liberals for a second for standing up for themselves and playing the political game to get things done.

Harper and the Conservatives have only had mis-steps since this whole thing started. They never should have opposed the "good budget" that even they liked in the first place. The real kicker and joke of it is that their reason for destroying the original budget was that they thought they were going to be ahead in polls and an election would be a "good thing" as soon as possible. That was moronic and short-sighted of them. It has completely backfired and they have no chance in an election any time soon.

mbg

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:55 AM

So far, I have not seen one thing Harper did is considered to be smart. May be you can enlight me and help his image. He failed in PR. He failed in policy (if there is one). He successed in flip flopping. You know I really try hard to make myself to like him so that I have a reason to vote for him instead of voting for Liberals or NDP or nobody. I could not. May be you can help me.

Harper doesn't have to do anything in public that seems smart for him to be smart.

Anyway, I only said that he was not dumb.

asim99

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:55 AM

I feel anger towards the Conservatives for not backing the original budget that they SAID THEY SUPPORTED - simply because they wanted to be opportunistic when polls blipped in their favour for a MOMENT. It is the Conservatives political games and short-sightedness that caused all of this. I don't blame the Liberals for a second for standing up for themselves and playing the political game to get things done.

Harper and the Conservatives have only had mis-steps since this whole thing started. They never should have opposed the "good budget" that even they liked in the first place. The real kicker and joke of it is that their reason for destroying the original budget was that they thought they were going to be ahead in polls and an election would be a "good thing" as soon as possible. That was moronic and short-sighted of them. It has completely backfired and they have no chance in an election any time soon.

i couldn't have said it better

Txiasaeia

Jun 24th, 2005, 11:55 AM

Nothing gave me that impression, but it doesn't mean that it's not true. I vote NDP, so I don't have to be logical.

I don't get it. Are you going for a personal attack by claiming that I hate Jews (and not backing it up), or are you trying to make some political point?

EDIT:

(by the way, I might be insane, or I might be pulling your leg).

Oy vey, I'm confused ;)

JAC

Jun 24th, 2005, 12:24 PM

I've asked you again and again to cease referring to me as "Tixxy," as I find it denegrating and condescending. I've asked you this at least three or four times now. Guess I'll have to ask again: please stop referring to me as "Tixxy," as it is not my handle and I find it denegrating and condescending. Attack my words, not *me*.
Since you saw fit to complain to Ryan about it, I'll be happy to oblige him.

Can I offer you some cheese in the meantime?

mbg

Jun 24th, 2005, 12:27 PM

Oy vey, I'm confused ;)

Yeah, it was a bad joke gone horribly wrong :)

aquariaguy

Jun 25th, 2005, 12:41 AM

Yeah, it was a bad joke gone horribly wrong :)

Very wrong!

We need a politics forum!

jerryhussain

Jun 25th, 2005, 01:46 AM

Conservatives = http://img226.echo.cx/img226/9474/owned7ay.gif

Jun 25th, 2005, 07:34 AM

For those complaining about how I didn't source a poll showing how bad the Conservatives are doing here ya go. Honestly I didn't think something that well known should have to be explained...but hey...whatever.

On the eve of what could be a Spring election, a new Environics survey conducted for the CBC finds that Liberal support has increased from a post-election low point found just one month ago, giving them a slim lead of two points over the Conservatives.
Nationally, 33 percent of decided voters would support the Liberal Party if an election were held today; this is an increase of six points from an April survey conducted for the CBC by Environics. The Conservative Party now has the support of 31 percent, down two points. The New Democratic Party garners the support of 22 percent, down two points. Nationally, the Bloc Québécois stands at 10 percent (45% in Quebec, down six points). The Green Party stands at three percent, up one point. One percent would vote for other parties. More than one in ten Canadian voters (14%, unchanged)) remain undecided about which party might deserve their support.

The new survey was conducted between May 12 and 16, 2005 among 1,500 Canadians who are eligible to vote. The margin of error for a sample of this size is +/- 2.6 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

http://erg.environics.net/imageLibrary/table1_may18.gif

Liberal support, however, remains four points lower than its popular support in the June 2004 election. Support for the Conservative Party is similar to its share of the vote last year, while support for the New Democratic Party is six points higher than its popular vote. Nationally, the Bloc Québécois is down marginally from its popular vote in the June 2004 election.

http://erg.environics.net/imageLibrary/table2_may18.gif

( ) change from April 2005

In Ontario, the Liberals, with 40 percent of decided voter support, have an eight-point lead over the Conservatives, at 32 percent. The NDP receive support from 24 percent of decided voters.

In Quebec, the Bloc Québécois receives the support of 45 percent of decided voters; a substantial lead of 24 points over the Liberals, at 21 percent. The Conservatives and NDP each receive the support of 16 percent of decided voters.

In British Columbia, the Liberals, with 35 percent of decided voter support, are slightly ahead of both the Conservatives at 30 percent and the New Democrats at 29 percent.

In the Prairies, the Conservatives receive the support of 52 percent of decided voters, a huge lead of 25 points over the Liberals, at 27 percent. The New Democrats receive the support of 19 percent of decided voters.

In Atlantic Canada, the Liberals, at 43 percent of decided voter support, are 13 points ahead of the Conservatives, at 30 percent. The New Democrats receive the support of 25 percent of decided voters.

http://erg.environics.net/news/default.asp?aID=580

All sad results for them (except for the Praries where I assume it's largely Alberta support). 8 point lost in BC. 1 point (within the margin of error) ahead of the NDP. Harper and his crew has done a nice job destroying this party.

Thank you.

As for any other critques - well to be honest it doesn't matter anymore. Sure I'm still gonna vote whenever the election comes but I've come to the conclusion that conservatism in Canada is slowly dying away. The vote being discussed in this tread is another example of it. When you lose gay marriage next week hear the news knowing it's over.

Thank you Brian Mulrouny for destroying the PCs
Thank you Preston Manning for splintering the pieces left of the Tories
Thank you Stockwell Day for turning your party into a joke.
Thank you Stephen Harper for turning it into a irrelevant extremist relic on the Canadian landscape.

aquariaguy

Jun 25th, 2005, 05:55 PM

Maybe Harper should think about running in Iran, since the conservatives won there.

ephemera

Jun 25th, 2005, 07:45 PM

doesn't canwest have a huge media presence? it is not exactly liberal friendly...how come you ignore their presence

Canwest doesn't get a $1,000,000,000 a year from the Liberal Governemnt, and the heads of the CBC are Liberal chums to boot!

Why don't you just admit that this is a corrupt governemnt. Why not be pro NDP? At least they have integrity.

Ferman

Jun 25th, 2005, 10:14 PM

Thank you Brian Mulrouny for destroying the PCs
Thank you Preston Manning for splintering the pieces left of the Tories
Thank you Stockwell Day for turning your party into a joke.
Thank you Stephen Harper for turning it into a irrelevant extremist relic on the Canadian landscape.

You forgot about:

Thank you Paul Martin for fanning the flames of western seperation.

jed

Jun 25th, 2005, 10:28 PM

Guys, I need to understand - how the Liberals can be supported by turning a $2 million dollar gun registry into $2 billion (and counting); have reduced the number of RCMP at the same time; have funnelled almost 350 million of yours and my money into their own and their cronies pockets (Gomery); the lost $1 billion of Janes a year or two ago; turning Canada into a social experiment with the same-sex marriage where (from what I've read) the majority of people don't want this (I'm not saying which way I am, just telling you what I've read); a party that changes their Budget in a hotel room on the back of a piece of paper without even getting permission from their own Finance Minister; the list goes on.

Now, I'm not saying Harper is the be-all, end-all, the NDP, the Bloc, whomever. All I'm saying is, isn't there a better choice than the bunch of crooks now in power?

From what I can see happened with this vote is the Conservatives were trusting (naively, perhaps) the gov't to do due process.

So, why are the Liberals still popular when they have cost the country this kind of money, and keep in mind this is only what we Know about. Seriously. And keep in mind, I haven't said who I want in to replace them (I don't want this to go in that direction), but isn't anyone better than what is already there? At least someone who tells the truth, and acts accordingly? Is it not too much to ask that the representatives we send to Ottawa act with honor and respect, rather than the self-serving doods it seems they are?

gman

Jun 25th, 2005, 10:53 PM

Byrns

Jun 25th, 2005, 11:05 PM

You forgot about:

Thank you Paul Martin for fanning the flames of western seperation.

And Quebec seperation...

jed

Jun 25th, 2005, 11:25 PM

The question is not why Liberals is supported. It is why Conservative is not supported. You are correct that Liberals is not worth to be supported. However, Conservative somehow managed to make them worth less to be supported.

Yeah, but why? I mean, we've seen what the Liberals have done, and its not good (IMHO). The other guys just CANNOT be as bad as the Liberals, can they?

gman

Jun 26th, 2005, 12:07 AM

Yeah, but why? I mean, we've seen what the Liberals have done, and its not good (IMHO). The other guys just CANNOT be as bad as the Liberals, can they?
Never underestimate. Never ... until you are sure. It can always be worse.

If we still have PC, they probably already took that government over with majority. Unfortunately, it is Reform with PC sacked in a bag.

May be it is time to revisit my 3 salemen theory (http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1699123&postcount=27) . :D

Jun 26th, 2005, 02:31 AM

You forgot about:

Thank you Paul Martin for fanning the flames of western seperation.

Western seperation has always been newspeak for Alberta seperation. I doubt Sask, Manitoba and BC would ever have any support to even form a seperation movement nor would they want to affliate themselves with a Klien style government.

As for Quebec seperation I doubt that'll happen too - I imagine with the BQ's increased support that's just served to shift Canada to more of a Quebec leftwing style government and will require the Liberal minority to make sure Quebec is pleased with what they recieve to remain within Canada.

If anything, a Harper style government would be the cause of seperation - of Quebec as well as Ont, Sask, Man, BC, PEI, NB, NS and the terrorities since I'm sure we'd get tire of him only representing the viewpoint of only one prov.

Jun 26th, 2005, 02:56 AM

Never underestimate. Never ... until you are sure. It can always be worse.

If we still have PC, they probably already took that government over with majority. Unfortunately, it is Reform with PC sacked in a bag.

May be it is time to revisit my 3 salemen theory (http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1699123&postcount=27) . :D

Agreed. I wouldn't mind throwing Martin out on his ear and would love to replace him with Jack Layton, but let's be honest, they made an excellent protest vote since they're the only party not touched by the sponsorship scandal, but I doubt they'll form gov't. I would consider voting for a Joe Clark led and run conservative party but the Ralph Klien, Mike Harris, Stephen Harper conservative is far to extreme for Ontario, aside from a few rural ridings, to vote for.

Ferman

Jun 26th, 2005, 11:41 AM

Western seperation has always been newspeak for Alberta seperation. I doubt Sask, Manitoba and BC would ever have any support to even form a seperation movement nor would they want to affliate themselves with a Klien style government.

As for Quebec seperation I doubt that'll happen too - I imagine with the BQ's increased support that's just served to shift Canada to more of a Quebec leftwing style government and will require the Liberal minority to make sure Quebec is pleased with what they recieve to remain within Canada.

If anything, a Harper style government would be the cause of seperation - of Quebec as well as Ont, Sask, Man, BC, PEI, NB, NS and the terrorities since I'm sure we'd get tire of him only representing the viewpoint of only one prov.

Why is it ok for the feds to 'shift Canada to more of a Quebec leftwing style' government, but when the west/Alberta wants more Alberta rightwing style government, they are made out to be villains?

Jun 26th, 2005, 04:00 PM

Why is it ok for the feds to 'shift Canada to more of a Quebec leftwing style' government, but when the west/Alberta wants more Alberta rightwing style government, they are made out to be villains?

Because the rest of Canada usually elects centre-left governments, sometimes left wing and on occasion right wing - but even then it's "faux right wing". Canadians wouldn't tolorate the Klien/Harper model. Even Harris and Cambell haven't weren't able to go as far as Klien.

http://erg.environics.net/imageLibrary/table2_may18.gif

In Atlantic Canada left/centre-left has 68 compared to 30 for the right. Even the left wing alone is only 5 points behind with the centre-left clearly ahead.

Quebec has 37 for left/centre-left with only 16 for right and a massive 45 for the left wing, although seperist, PQ.

Ontario 72 for left/centre-left and a sad 24 for right.

BC has 65 for left/centre-left and 29 for right.

The only place the Cons are ahead is the Praries - however as you say it's really Alberta where they're strong. Sask and Manitoba often have (including now for both) left wing prov governments. I'm not sure why Environics would lump Sask and Manitoba with Alberta to be honest. If I was Sask/Man I'd be rather ticked about that.

So I guess the short answer is that they are, to use your own words, villians.
Canada has no interest in a uber right wing gov't that is often the spawn of Alberta. Even a faux right wing gov't won't be tolorated for that long. Doesn't the Liberals have like a 2-1 ratio for being in power on the federal level to the old PC party? And they were much more centerist party than the Alliance Cons.

Ferman

Jun 26th, 2005, 04:17 PM

So I guess the short answer is that they are, to use your own words, villians.
Canada has no interest in a uber right wing gov't that is often the spawn of Alberta.

If this is the case, then why should Alberta have an interest in being part of Canada? Opposite political views on most everything.

If anything, Alberta should be its own distinct society and country more than Quebec.

Jun 26th, 2005, 04:37 PM

If this is the case, then why should Alberta have an interest in being part of Canada? Opposite political views on most everything.

If anything, Alberta should be its own distinct society and country more than Quebec.

Alberta is only distinct in their right wing idelogy. They match up with the rest of english Canada on everything really that qualifies as "distinctive".

Alberta could seperate however it took Quebec *years* to get a referendum going. During this time the Federal government controlled by the rest of Canada will just send in more refugees who Stephen Harper has said himself don't vote the "Alberta" way (while also adding that they live in ghettos) to get more centre-left members in your government to stall seperation.

Even if a vote were to come to pass it is widely known that if Quebec had voted yes Chretien had it all planned out to send the millitary into Quebec. I'm sure the same thing would be done for Alberta as well.

Ferman

Jun 26th, 2005, 04:53 PM

Even if a vote were to come to pass it is widely known that if Quebec had voted yes Chretien had it all planned out to send the millitary into Quebec. I'm sure the same thing would be done for Alberta as well.

I don't think military force would be used if it was the will of the people.

If Ottawa would do that, many countries would be more than will to stop it. Including the US, or China.

Who is to say what qualifies as distinctive anyway?

jed

Jun 26th, 2005, 04:56 PM

Perhaps, but if we shut the taps off the military wouldn't go anywhere.

Seriously, I don't understand what is so extreme about Harper, for instance. From what I've read he is all for responsible government that is lead by the people. Financial responsibility sounds good to me. Being honorable and doing what you are asked of your constituents sounds good to me too.

Bowing to the party whip sounds like a copout and doing anything to stay in power, no matter what, sounds extreme.

Harper can have whatever personal views he wants (I'm sure you and I do too), but so long as he does what he says he is going to do with regards to government, isn't that what is important? Or am I missing something here...besides the millions/billions of dollars pi$$ed away by the Libbies already.

Jun 26th, 2005, 05:03 PM

I don't think military force would be used if it was the will of the people.

If Ottawa would do that, many countries would be more than will to stop it. Including the US, or China.

Who is to say what qualifies as distinctive anyway?

PM denies plan for troops in Quebec
http://montreal.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=qc_troops20032110

Of course Chretien denies it however there would have been assets that the federal government would need protected as well as any Federalist citizens in Quebec. After the FLQ crisis a police state for atleast a short period of time would be a natural if any prov voted for seperation.

In short I imagine it'd be too much trouble for Alberta to bother. However there is a seperatist movement in Alberta.

jed

Jun 27th, 2005, 03:46 PM

Samir

Jun 27th, 2005, 04:10 PM

You can't compare Quebec & Alberta.

Quebec's sovereignty is a respect/heritage/culture issue.

Alberta's sovereignty is a $ issue.

Tiberius

Jun 27th, 2005, 04:23 PM

You can't compare Quebec & Alberta.

Quebec's sovereignty is a respect/heritage/culture issue.

Alberta's sovereignty is a $ issue.

Interesting argument/point. I would agree that Alberta's beef is mostly about $$$$... and then about power/control (hmm... money?)... and lastly about ideology.

But to say Quebec's reason to push for seperatism is primarily respect/heritage/culture just doesn't wash. All of Canada is bi-lingual (at great cost) because we embrace our cultural and having 2 official languages, etc... what does Quebec do? Language police and dictating that french is the language of the province (what happened to bi-lingual Canada?). Ok, so that can be understood as protecting the language and culture.... not that big of a deal for the rest of Canada in the grand scheme of things.

So... we respect Quebec, and they are taking action to protect their heritage/culture already by forcing the use of the french language (on signs, in schools, etc.). So, at what point it is reasonable under those circumstances to then try to rip the country apart? How is Quebec being so horribly wronged by the rest of Canada to warrant such as a movement?

Pretty much any ill-feeling towards Quebec that exists in Canada is the result of the seperatist movement (a self-fulfilling movement perhaps?).

I once had an information discussion with a well-educated Quebecer whom I worked with (a Management Consultant who lived his entire life in Quebec and still does). He explained the PQ was really trying to argue that they could better run Quebec than Ottawa can. That they could better spend tax dollars, etc. However, he said he would consider their proposal if only they showed some evidence of what they were claiming! They had control at the provincial level, and yet, in Quebec they had the highest tax rate in the country. He didn't feel they were doing a better job running the province or managing the tax dollars they did have in their control.

But... from what he explained to me, he boiled down the Quebec PQ argument to $$ also. I found that interesting.

itsyours

Jun 27th, 2005, 04:30 PM

You can't compare Quebec & Alberta.

Quebec's sovereignty is a respect/heritage/culture issue.

Alberta's sovereignty is a $ issue.
Imagine an Alberta without oil! :cheesygri

devious9191

Jun 27th, 2005, 04:35 PM

Imagine an Alberta without oil! :cheesygri

It's a good thing that we won't for the next hundred or so years..

bug

Jun 27th, 2005, 04:57 PM

Don't get me started talking about Quebec Politics. Chretien tried to appease the seperatist leaders by allowing them to form the Bloc Quebecois and have a say in federal politics. The Bloc is supposed to be a federal party, yet only runs candidates in the province of Quebec. Are other federal parties afforded the same luxury? I think not. I could go on and on, but I'm getting too :mad:

aquariaguy

Jun 27th, 2005, 05:02 PM

Imagine an Alberta without oil! :cheesygri

Those lucky bastards.

d_jedi

Jun 27th, 2005, 05:18 PM

Imagine an Alberta without oil! :cheesygri
Imagine Ontario WITH oil! :cheesygri

gman

Jun 27th, 2005, 05:36 PM

Imagine Ontario WITH oil! :cheesygri
Imagine how Ontario acted before Alberta found oil. I don't think they acted like what Alberta is doing right now.

Ferman

Jun 27th, 2005, 05:44 PM

Imagine an Alberta without oil! :cheesygri

Imagine an Ontario without the auto sector.

Spent

Jun 27th, 2005, 05:50 PM

From CBC News

Deal with Bloc taints marriage bill's legitimacy: Harper
Last Updated Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:34:28 EDT

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper raised hackles in the House of Commons Monday after saying Canadians won't feel the same-sex marriage law is legitimate because it will only pass with the support of a separatist party.

He's clutching at straws, now. :lol:

jed

Jun 27th, 2005, 11:45 PM

You can't compare Quebec & Alberta.

Quebec's sovereignty is a respect/heritage/culture issue.

Alberta's sovereignty is a $ issue.

You know, I don't think thats accurate. From what I've read, it all comes down to less government. The reasons behind it are different, true, but what we are both looking for is more autonomy.

devious9191

Jun 28th, 2005, 12:17 AM

Imagine how Ontario acted before Alberta found oil. I don't think they acted like what Alberta is doing right now.

Alberta's in a bit of a unique situation. Canada's federal government is and has always been decided by Ontario and Quebec.

Why exactly would Ontario complain? They hold all of the chips. All elected PM's have always catered to the East coast, simply because the west doesn't have enough votes to make a difference.

When you're in a situation like Alberta or BC and you're paying for the 'have not' provinces of the East AND getting no say in how the country is run, I'm sure it could be a frustrating situation.

Jun 28th, 2005, 01:03 AM

Thats what I don't understand about you Gord, is that you think the seperatists are a bunch of extremists in AB. However, you walk done the street, there are alot of citizens who share the views of them, simply because of a loack of political will for change in Ottawa.

People don't want this same BS here, we know that if there is less gov't the people are the better for it. That is why they have that attitude. Harper has done nothing politically (I'm talking action here) to warrant his abuse, yet Eastern people ride him. I don't know if people will ever "get enough" to seperate, but things sure look like they might out here. Threat of force or no.

/me sitting on fence

I don't think much of separtists in QC to be honest either. As the FLQ crisis showed millitary intervention would be warrented in either situation.

Many in BC, Sask, Manitoba, Ont, Quebec, NB, NF would contend just the opposite regarding government. It is with an unfettered free market that people are worse off. National daycare is a perfect example of a government program that has large approval for in the majority of Canada.

I suppose it's a matter of perspective since from my point of view Harper has done alot. Opposed gay marriage, called for the dismantling of the single payer health care system, threatened freedom of choice for women, support and encouraged Canada to invade Iraq with the Americans and belittled us for not doing so. True he hasn't *done* anything however everything he has shown support for is not welcomed for many in Canada. Our concern would be that he does what he says he supported in the past. Not a unfounded concern imho.

If Alberta chooses to seperate because the rest of Canada refuses to elect a Conservative government so be it however there are many forms of Conservatism. If the Conservatives were endorcing a more liberatian style party then wthey could very well have moer success. To this date the majority of conservatism in Alberta, if not all of it, has not tho.

I fully expect Klien to enact the not withstanding clause once gay marriage is legalized in Canada. If this move is supported by the majority of Albertans it will only further serve to alienate the majority of Canadians from Alberta.

jed

Jun 28th, 2005, 08:56 AM

I think I'm understanding a bit where you're coming from, with regards to Harper. And, it all comes back to having a Liberal leader (because they're the ones in power when it was done) who could do whatever the h3ll he wanted to do without support or permission from cabinet. That is exactly what Harper is against. So, he can say whatever he wants, but if he were to do what he says, it would take the gov't to decide, supported by the people. If you're worried about him doing what he says he is going to do, that is one of the things.

And, in fact, I'm not sure that a national daycare is supported - I mean who knows for sure with the media, but an article I read said that in fact, the majority would rather have tax relief for stay at home parents than trying another failed social experiment where the gov't is trying to raise yours and mine children. Quebec is in favor as they already have such a program, but I'll raise my own children, Thank you very much.

Not to nitpcik, but Harper is against SSM, but not against SSM relationships (or the people themselves) - just doing the same as NZ or Australia (can't remember which it was) where they left the traditional def alone, but created a new relationship, so to speak to fill the void. The fact remains a same sex marriage is not the same as an opposing sex one, biologically at least. (not going there now).

I think you're missing my point with regards to Alberta wanting a different gov't. They don't necessarily want Conservatives ruling, bottom line is, they want someone there who will do what they say they are going to do, not be affected by the UN, money men sitting in the wings, lobbyists, and who have the country's interests at heart, to create a better environment for all. That is obviously not what the Liberals are about. It seems they are there for their own interests, and could care less about making the country better. If that were the case, we wouldn't see things like 2 billion down the drain on a gun registry while decreasing size of the RCMP, amongst other things. If you make a mistake, and people know that mistakes happen, suck it up, say you did and fix the problem. That is not what is happening. The 4 mounties ambushed in Northern AB is only the beginning of those actions.

Responsible gov't. Represent the constituents. Do it fairly and honestly. Say what you will about Harper, but hes the only one talking that way. Yes he has his issues with the press, but no one else seems to give a rat about anything but themselves.

Klein has said the nonwithstanding clause won't work because its already been thru Supreme Court. This thing has been thought thru very well, and that also displeases people here when they see that - there seems to be ulterior motives are work when you go to that much trouble just to do this SSM thing - right or wrong. Once again, the people are trounced. AB's views seems to be, we send the money East (equalization payments) and for what - so we can be shat on, time and time again?

Klein brought in changes that said, if you want to do something (user fees for instance), you get to pay for it. Not, we'll tax you so that however many people use the service, few or many, its paid for. This is where we get the views on being more efficient, less gov't, you work and if you want something you pay for it. Not the gov't looks after you.

Its not the issues that have pi$$ed off Albertans, but the way its done, underhanded, without the input of the people. They see what less gov't has done to their lives, and for us, its made us more prosperous. This is the exact opposite with the federal gov't who wants to intrude more into the lives of Canadians. This is all about power, and who doesn't want to give it up. Perhaps Mr. Harper won't be any better than whats there, but I guarantee, her won't be worse. Or, maybe Mr. Layton, or the BQ should be given a chance, whomever, just not the status quo. It is no longer acceptable.

Tiberius

Jun 28th, 2005, 10:13 AM

Alberta's in a bit of a unique situation. Canada's federal government is and has always been decided by Ontario and Quebec.

Why exactly would Ontario complain? They hold all of the chips. All elected PM's have always catered to the East coast, simply because the west doesn't have enough votes to make a difference.

When you're in a situation like Alberta or BC and you're paying for the 'have not' provinces of the East AND getting no say in how the country is run, I'm sure it could be a frustrating situation.

So... by your own admission, Ontario (and Quebec) is/are paying for the "have not" provinces also? Also, before Alberta "found oil" based on your theory of how Ontario/Quebec were running and treating the country, Alberta was somehow being "wronged" ? Yet, taxpayer money was spent to develop transportation routes (rail and later roads, etc.) to the west. In a country as large as Canada there will always be areas (MOST of the areas) that are "have nots". Do you just ditch them and say "fend for yourself and live in poverty"?

It seems you are claiming that this supposedly Ontario/Quebec controlled federal government has always done a good job of supporting Canada as a whole and assisting "have not" provinces as you call them.

So what exactly is the beef Alberta has? Would they cut off the east coast "have not" provinces if they had control in Ottawa? If so, I'm glad you don't have control! You obviously do NOT have a grasp on what Canada is, what it takes to run a country this diverse and large, etc. I guess little "details" like the fact that entire families invested all of their money into the fishing vessels and life they had on the east coast - and then are told they can't fish.... I guess that means squat to you? I guess you feel they shouldn't be compensated for being told they can't make a livelihood anymore doing the one thing they know how to do? The one thing that ALL of their money is tied up in. I don't want to be paying for people to not work either - but I'm not foolish enough to either claim that: a) the way the federal government has handled the situation is horribly wrong (as if you are informed enough about the realities of the situation to make such a judgement), and b) that any particular segment of our country has been railroaded as such decisions have been made (like claiming an Alberta "better solution" to the issue was ignored... which must be what you are saying - or else you are simply saying you want to keep your money and "screw 'em"?)

PS - I think issues like "have not" east coast provinces, Quebec getting attention, etc. are just "used" by other "personal interest" groups (such as this seemingly Alberta-based movement claiming they are being somehow wronged in Ottawa) to try to illustrate and further their agenda. It's not like they are saying they would do something better, or that they have better ideas, etc.... they just want more for themselves so they use every argument/excuse they can latch on to in order to attempt to illustrate their point. I guess that's fair game - but it's easy to find flaws in each individual thing they decide to harp on about.

To simply say: "We feel government should be more province centred and controlled" would suffice and actually make some sense to me. Where to draw the line is the tricky part - you don't want vastly different laws/infrastruature systems in place all across the country, etc.

gman

Jun 28th, 2005, 10:19 AM

I am confused.
I think I'm understanding a bit where you're coming from, with regards to Harper. And, it all comes back to having a Liberal leader (because they're the ones in power when it was done) who could do whatever the h3ll he wanted to do without support or permission from cabinet. That is exactly what Harper is against. So, he can say whatever he wants, but if he were to do what he says, it would take the gov't to decide, supported by the people. If you're worried about him doing what he says he is going to do, that is one of the things.

So, he may not do what he said. Then, why do I care what he said because what he said mean nothing? He should go back to the room, talk to his people and decide what should be said. Instead of saying it for the sake of getting attention and then said what he said means nothing. I think this is called flip flop.

I think you're missing my point with regards to Alberta wanting a different gov't. They don't necessarily want Conservatives ruling, bottom line is, they want someone there who will do what they say they are going to do, not be affected by the UN, money men sitting in the wings, lobbyists, and who have the country's interests at heart, to create a better environment for all. That is obviously not what the Liberals are about. It seems they are there for their own interests, and could care less about making the country better. If that were the case, we wouldn't see things like 2 billion down the drain on a gun registry while decreasing size of the RCMP, amongst other things. If you make a mistake, and people know that mistakes happen, suck it up, say you did and fix the problem. That is not what is happening. The 4 mounties ambushed in Northern AB is only the beginning of those actions.

So, you do want the leader does what he said. I thought you said Martin is doing that.
Perhaps Mr. Harper won't be any better than whats there, but I guarantee, her won't be worse. Or, maybe Mr. Layton, or the BQ should be given a chance, whomever, just not the status quo. It is no longer acceptable.
I admire and respect your confidence with Harper. BTW, I am pretty sure he will be worse. May not be in the angle you see it but in terms of experience and the experience of people around him. He had never administrated an office (any level). Based on how he administrate his own party right now, I have no confidence on him.

devious9191

Jun 28th, 2005, 10:29 AM

So... by your own admission, Ontario (and Quebec) is/are paying for the "have not" provinces also? Also, before Alberta "found oil" based on your theory of how Ontario/Quebec were running and treating the country, Alberta was somehow being "wronged" ? Yet, taxpayer money was spent to develop transportation routes (rail and later roads, etc.) to the west. In a country as large as Canada there will always be areas (MOST of the areas) that are "have nots". Do you just ditch them and say "fend for yourself and live in poverty"?

No, Ontario is paying for 'have not' provinces, of which Quebec is one. Alberta and the West in general is being wronged, because they are and have been contributing to the finances of a country that they have no say in. They have no say in how their money is spent. The social 'progress' that is being made in the East (with things such as gay marriage), run directly contrary to a lot of their beliefs (particularly in Alberta).

Noone is suggesting that we ditch the poor provinces. Ontario is obviously to be quite content to keep the country together, because they control the finances. Alberta on the other hand, is paying for provinces like Quebec and the maritimes to enact social policies that run against what they believe in.

The solution? I'm sure Alberta would suggest equal representation. Even representation based on land mass, so that they're votes actually count. I can't think of one election in the last dozen years where a federal election hadn't been decided before the polls even closed in the West.

It seems you are claiming that this supposedly Ontario/Quebec controlled federal government has always done a good job of supporting Canada as a whole and assisting "have not" provinces as you call them.

That isn't what I'm claiming at all. The government has always catered to the province with the most votes...

So what exactly is the beef Alberta has? Would they cut off the east coast "have not" provinces if they had control in Ottawa? If so, I'm glad you don't have control! You obviously do NOT have a grasp on what Canada is, what it takes to run a country this diverse and large, etc. I guess little "details" like the fact that entire families invested all of their money into the fishing vessels and life they had on the east coast - and then are told they can't fish.... I guess that means squat to you? I guess you feel they shouldn't be compensated for being told they can't make a livelihood anymore doing the one thing they know how to do? The one thing that ALL of their money is tied up in. I don't want to be paying for people to not work either - but I'm not foolish enough to either claim that: a) the way the federal government has handled the situation is horribly wrong (as if you are informed enough about the realities of the situation to make such a judgement), and b) that any particular segment of our country has been railroaded as such decisions have been made (like claiming an Alberta "better solution" to the issue was ignored... which must be what you are saying - or else you are simply saying you want to keep your money and "screw 'em"?)

At the end of the day, it's not directly a financial issue. The issue is that the provinces that pay for this country have no say in how the money is spent in it. The people of Alberta and BC don't want to seperate so they can all get rich. They want to seperate because they feel like they're the bank for a country that doesn't listen to their opinion on financial and social issues. And they're right. In the house of commons, the government is limiting debate on social topics like gay marriage from Conservative members (who are primarily from the West), so now their elected MPs aren't even allowed to speak in parliament.

Tiberius

Jun 28th, 2005, 10:31 AM

Klein brought in changes that said, if you want to do something (user fees for instance), you get to pay for it. Not, we'll tax you so that however many people use the service, few or many, its paid for. This is where we get the views on being more efficient, less gov't, you work and if you want something you pay for it. Not the gov't looks after you.

Its not the issues that have pi$$ed off Albertans, but the way its done, underhanded, without the input of the people. They see what less gov't has done to their lives, and for us, its made us more prosperous. This is the exact opposite with the federal gov't who wants to intrude more into the lives of Canadians. This is all about power, and who doesn't want to give it up. Perhaps Mr. Harper won't be any better than whats there, but I guarantee, her won't be worse. Or, maybe Mr. Layton, or the BQ should be given a chance, whomever, just not the status quo. It is no longer acceptable.

Some of the above ideas/thoughts are interesting. I also feel if they were approached "properly" there are things all of Canada could benefit from. In particular, it would take a GOOD politician to communicate such ideas as "user fees" to all of Canada and not scare the crap out of them. It's easy to say something the wrong way and then have it spun and used to completely decimate you. Such issues that involve drastic changes need to be approached delicately - even if they seem like such obvious and common sense things to you personally. Believe it or not, Many issues seem "obvious" and "common sense" to different people - yet many people see it another way... ;)

I also question your comments about "without the input of the people". I simply disagree with that statement. The "people" have spoken. They elected the current government, AND those before this one. That was the "people's" choice. Maybe in Alberta the choice was different - but that wasn't the Majority. Even the actions taken now by this government are the will of the people - and if they aren't (although polls, etc. I believe show support) this government WILL have to face the voters again. If you are SO convinced they are NOT doing the will of the "people" - take solice in the fact that an election is coming up soon! We'll see if you are right......

Tiberius

Jun 28th, 2005, 10:45 AM

No, Ontario is paying for 'have not' provinces, of which Quebec is one. Alberta and the West in general is being wronged, because they are and have been contributing to the finances of a country that they have no say in. They have no say in how their money is spent. The social 'progress' that is being made in the East (with things such as gay marriage), run directly contrary to a lot of their beliefs (particularly in Alberta).

Quebec is NOT a "have not" province. Get your supposed "facts" straight. They are energy rich and have abundant capacity to generate electricity - among other things.

The solution? I'm sure Alberta would suggest equal representation. Even representation based on land mass, so that they're votes actually count. I can't think of one election in the last dozen years where a federal election hadn't been decided before the polls even closed in the West.

Equal representation IS what we have right now. So what's your beef? Representation by LAND MASS? Okey dokey!! So.... the NWT will control our country... sounds brilliant! (moronic is more like it!) Oh yeah, and Quebec would have a whack of control also!

That isn't what I'm claiming at all. The government has always catered to the province with the most votes...

If that's the case, why would Ontario and Quebec (supposedly the only voice heard in federal politics) cater to east coast provinces, prairie provinces, or west coast provinces? I'm sure you'll claim they don't do anything for Alberta - and might even claim they don't do anything for the east coast or prairies/BC... but... you'd be dead wrong and F.O.S.... to put it bluntly. Oh yeah, and there are *many* seats in parliament for the prairies and west coast... you ARE represented. Your voice *IS* heard. You just aren't the majority. Just because you have some social agenda that doesn't match the more open and accepting ways of the Majority, don't claim that you are somehow not represented or heard. You just aren't the majority. You don't speak for "Canada".

At the end of the day, it's not directly a financial issue. The issue is that the provinces that pay for this country have no say in how the money is spent in it. The people of Alberta and BC don't want to seperate so they can all get rich. They want to seperate because they feel like they're the bank for a country that doesn't listen to their opinion on financial and social issues. And they're right. In the house of commons, the government is limiting debate on social topics like gay marriage from Conservative members (who are primarily from the West), so now their elected MPs aren't even allowed to speak in parliament.

That sounds quite arrogant. Claiming the provinces who pay for the country don't have a say in how money is spent. I believe Alberta is NOT the only financial contributor to this country. BC/Ontario/Quebec all do incredibly well financially. It seems to me voices are being heard just fine - and if you feel it isn't the money talking I think that contradicts some of what you have said earlier! Ontario/Quebec controlling federal government would occur only if they had the monetary base to do it!! Where do you think politicians go to get their biggest $$$ contributions?? Winning Ontario is huge not just because of the number of people and seats you can get... you also get massive corporate dollars through the companies and people in the province. I could claim the money does control the country and therefore the provinces that "pay for this country" are running it - by majority vote.

I personally feel your whole "money" province argument is garbage and it shouldn't even play a role in a democracy where you have government by representation of the population! Who says the "rich" should get to dictate to the "poor"??? That isn't democracy. Did you ever stop to think that "money" people making policy for a diverse country isn't necessarily in the people's (as a whole) best interest???

gman

Jun 28th, 2005, 10:47 AM

I also question your comments about "without the input of the people". I simply disagree with that statement. The "people" have spoken. They elected the current government, AND those before this one. That was the "people's" choice. Maybe in Alberta the choice was different - but that wasn't the Majority. Even the actions taken now by this government are the will of the people - and if they aren't (although polls, etc. I believe show support) this government WILL have to face the voters again. If you are SO convinced they are NOT doing the will of the "people" - take solice in the fact that an election is coming up soon! We'll see if you are right......
Yes and no.
Yes, the government was elected by people.
No, people does not necessary agree with everything the elected government proposed. And, people elect the government for a general direction and not necessary one particular bill.

Tiberius

Jun 28th, 2005, 10:52 AM

Yes and no.
Yes, the government was elected by people.
No, people does not necessary agree with everything the elected government proposed. And, people elect the government for a general direction and not necessary one particular bill.

Agreed. And that will always be the way. There is no way for millions of people to think "exactly" the same way on every single issue. You have to be realistic.

Edit: If any particular issue is so offensive to majority of people however, a government that still takes action against the majority on such an issue will face the voters at the next election... so it will eventually pay for ignoring the people. That would be the check and balance of the system.

Well... I guess there is one way millions of people could be perfectly aligned on almost every issue... if they are devoted to a particular religion/faith that dictates to them what their opinion should be on every issue...

gman

Jun 28th, 2005, 11:02 AM

Agreed. And that will always be the way. There is no way for millions of people to think "exactly" the same way on every single issue. You have to be realistic.

Edit: If any particular issue is so offensive to majority of people however, a government that still takes action against the majority on such an issue will face the voters at the next election... so it will eventually pay for ignoring the people. That would be the check and balance of the system.

Well... I guess there is one way millions of people could be perfectly aligned on almost every issue... if they are devoted to a particular religion/faith that dictates to them what their opinion should be on every issue...
I was not trying to determine what the right way is.
I just pointed out the government does not necessary follow to the view of the majority. I don't think this is wrong. The governmetn should consider the input of the people but it is only one of the factors to decide what to do.

Tiberius

Jun 28th, 2005, 11:13 AM

I was not trying to determine what the right way is.
I just pointed out the government does not necessary follow to the view of the majority. I don't think this is wrong. The governmetn should consider the input of the people but it is only one of the factors to decide what to do.

I absolutely agree. I actually feel it is a necessity of good government to sometimes do things that are not backed by the opinions of the majority. It's a sad reality, but a reality nonetheless. A government that only panders to people asking for more, more, more and tries to make everyone happy, spends indescriminately, etc. is doing nobody favours in the long wrong.

Examples of this can be seen in middle east and third world countries where the "majority" may support things such as raping women (see link) and it is just "custom" and tribal elders can acquit the men at their will. Luckily, things will hopefully be changing slowly but surely in such places... hopefully...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050628/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_rape_victim

In our first world countries, this could mean things like raising taxes, adjusting social programs that just aren't sustainable, raising CPP contributions sooner rather than later when the writing is on the wall that it will go backrupt when baby boomers retire, etc. etc... they are are sensitive political issues and there are many others if I were to dig up specific example and back them by an essay worth of facts. In essense, if the politicians/government ONLY pander for votes, their actions will not be in our best interests. For instance, if they know seniors vote in the highest numbers, they won't dare tackle an issue that would negatively influence seniors for fear of losing those votes, etc... But, once in office, maybe they have to make the "proper" decision that impacts seniors because it is the best course of action (always debateable, but some situation are quite clear that action is required... people just don't like the action because they don't see the financial view of things that proves it isn't sustainable). Sorry for being vague about any specific issue - but I didn't want any particular issue to spark debate on that issue - as a great concept, there are things a good government will do/should do that may not be supported by the majority if you poll them. Any "cut" in services for instance tends to be viewed negatively, despite the fact the service may be fatally flawed and unsustainable - you just can't "take away" from people once they have something without p*ssing them off.

devious9191

Jun 28th, 2005, 11:16 AM

Quebec is NOT a "have not" province. Get your supposed "facts" straight. They are energy rich and have abundant capacity to generate electricity - among other things.

Well, where to start. Quebec receives about *half of the equalization payments that the government distributes to the provinces. You can do your own research on the topic, but Quebec is certainly a 'have not' province.

Equal representation IS what we have right now. So what's your beef? Representation by LAND MASS? Okey dokey!! So.... the NWT will control our country... sounds brilliant! (moronic is more like it!) Oh yeah, and Quebec would have a whack of control also!

My point is that exactly. No matter how you choose to run an election in this Canada, the views of the people in the West aren't heard. These people aren't asking to tell the whole country how to spend their money, they're telling the whole country (the growing seperatist movement that is), that they can run their own finances, and determine their own social policies. What exactly is the benefit to provinces like Alberta and BC to stay within Canada? They would be wealthier on their own, and could enact social policies that the Majority of their people would support, rather than that of the majority of Canada.

firehawk12

Jun 28th, 2005, 11:21 AM

So, I suppose the Federal government should stop subsidizing beef farmers then?

pfdude

Jun 28th, 2005, 01:02 PM

And stop all aid to the flooded regions

Jun 28th, 2005, 08:32 PM

And stop all aid to the flooded regions

Exactly. With all the mad cow stuff and floods it seems like Alberta is getting all the social welfare lately - not that I oppose it - it just seems like that's the prov that's been in the most need lately.

and I think this is the thread - but I'm not sure. Regarind the poster who said Klien couldn't use the not withstanding clause b/c it's been ruled by the supreme court - I beleive he can since Quebec's language laws have been ruled unconstitutional however they were able to use not withstanding to still have them - no?

jed

Jun 29th, 2005, 11:28 PM

First, sorry for the delay, been away for a few days...

I can't remember the particulars of the not withstanding clause but I think it had something to do with how the Supreme Court already ruled on the SSM deal, and that would affect its use. Someone with more knowledge here would know better.

But, in regards to equalization payments, Alberta telling the rest of the country what to do, you guys are missing the points altogether. This is nothing like that, and the people do not believe that either.

We want less gov't in our lives, not more, and the money that is sent East, we want it spent wisely, not pi$$ed away on useless things. When you see this abuse of money and power it frustrates the hell out of everyone. THAT is what makes AB want to see better representation - it has been proven that what is there cannot do the job they say they are going to do, do what else do you do - leave things as they are? No, you change things. It just so happens that Harper says he stand for the type of changes that Albertans know works, (at least for them).

And if you would like the token money sent out for the flood and the BSE, you're welcome to it - it was a VERY small percentage of what was actually given by the provincial gov't, and was used as a media spot - Hey look, we're giving Alberta all this money. Grandstanding is all.

My points here are not to say that Alberta is right and you are wrong. If you're thinking that, then you're wrong. Its to show our point of view that the status quo is no longer an alternative - things are not getting done for the good of the Entire country. No you can't please all of the people, but you should be able to do it without backroom deals to get a budget passed without even discussing it with your own cabinet, blowing cash on idiotic gov't "projects" year after year after year (HRDC, Gun Registry, Indian Affairs), making sure your party and its cronies are paid off handsomely, etc, etc, etc. It is tiresome to see such waste and to have the East not see this waste. Its our money these guys are blowing and yet its like they're impervious to crap sticking on them because the polls/elections keep bring the ba$tard$ back.

We cannot understand that attitude. You screw up, you're out. Plain and simple. Give the next guy a try.

Even if Harper did everything the media said that he supports, it still wouldn't come close to costing the country, financially or otherwise, what the Liberals are doing/done. And, you know what, I'm not necessarily a Harper fan. I just think hes an outstanding alternative to whats already there and needs a shot.