hellnback

[quote name='moderateamericain' Yes lets apply Occums to this line of thought. The US administration secrtley conducted an operation to stir up the American population into letting GWB launch and unfounded war on iraq based on false information, which by the way GERMANY, RUSSIAN, FRANCE, and England intellgience services believe to be true, Trained 12 islamic fundamentalist to fly planes, which by the way they started to learn to do in the Clinton administration, But that doesnt matter the election was bought by bigbusiness which paid WASP americans to vote republican and paid blacks and other ethnic minorites to not show up and vote for GWB twice. But why stop there, The CIA new about the planned attacks and did nothing about it, why? because George Bush told em hed like to see 500 people dead and over 1000 serverly injured. All because Daddy bush didnt finish his war. Does that sound about right? Or, the terrorist caught us with are pants down, hijacked 4 planes, flew 2 into the WTC, flew one into the pentagon, and lost the 4th over pennsylvania when the passengers hijacked the hijackers. "Occums"? .... Heck, I prefer verifiable facts. There is a long history in The U.S. of covert operations for political and economic reasons, many of which have been made public by utilization of provisions allowing release of previously classified documents. That's the good news! The bad news is that many refer to clandestine operations designed to attack their own country and their own citizens as an excuse to invade whichever country they determined was the current 'enemy'. I won't go as far back as "the Maine" incident, will start in the twentieth century. Have you ever heard of Pretext S? How about 'operation mongoose'? There are countless more, and many as yet to be "unclassified" so I'll stick with those I just mentioned by name and the ramifications should be obvious. An official paper was presented (and duly processed} suggesting attacks on Guantanamo and/or Miami as the excuse to invade Cuba. Most interesting was the idea of blaming the attacks on Cuban "terrorists". "Bay of Pigs" was a hasty substitute due to time restraints and caused a lot of friction between the 'neos' and Kennedy. If you care to research further, I have no doubts that you will be quite shaken by what you discover, as would any loyal American who believes in the professed values of the U.S. So, you see that it is quite rational to continue delving into 9/11 in view of the historical evidence. Truth has a nasty habit of eventually coming out, and it's best to be mentally prepared for it.

Our present system is supposed be the same service for ALL Canadians. That can NEVER happen as long as we have a "party" system of politics. All major parties get the bulk of their donations from corporate (business) interests. All major parties shape their actions to appeal to the furtherance of those donations while favouring the segments of society having the biggest lobbies. That explains (for example) why cancer patients seemingly don't have the priority accorded to those wanting abortions. That type of governmental priority-setting even applies to the practice of 'awarding' contracts to hospital food suppliers. Ask any trucker that has done supermarket and hospital deliveries from a load picked up at a major depot. Both get exactly the same groceries from the same place, yet hospitals are required to pay more for it. There are many private companies involved in all aspects of our suposedly 'social system' of health care. It's time for a long overdue restructuring of the entire political system.

Most people have little or no idea of actuality regarding political machinations and simply follow the (seeming) media lead like a bunch of brainless sheep.

Perhaps the following will aid your determination to find out the truth. Two Interesting Pre-911 statements "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nation will accept the New World Order." -- David Rockefeller, Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank (now J.P. Morgan Chase bank) "The process of transformation.. is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." -- PNAC (Neo-con Project for a New American Century) document

I hope you can sift through all the official 'spin'.

Mowich, you're certainly not alone in your sense of outrage. The unfortunate truth is that we (Canadians) have been literally brainwashed into believing that we are somehow automatically superior in every respect to the people of 'third world' countries, and that unrealistic ego seems to induce many to believe that their every thought is ultimate truth. They see no need of political activism on their part even extending to the right to vote. What they miss is that we are all being spoonfed hype and spin from all political parties, each one seeking the 'sensational hook' that will appeal most to ego bound gullibles. The fact is that democracy is no better than other forms of government, but it was made to work by the blood sweat and tears of countless generations before us. That fact that should be constantly stressed, not just at election time, but all through every year at all the schools of our very fortunate country. Any thinking person will realize that our 'freedoms' are merely a collection of choices presented to us by a political system that is severely flawed at best, and without constant alertness and objective perception on the part of all voters we could very well find ourselves JOINING the ranks of third world countries.

H-m-m-m, ... well I can't argue with that! Perhaps it was a freudian type slip as I was contemplating his seeming vegetative cerebral state.

That your corrupt, incompetent party might lose is not a crisis. The Mulroney tories were not really conservative. They were extremely centrist, with the red tory branch being mainly in charge then. The only conservative government was Harris' and he did pretty good given the circumstances. They've been blamed for everything but global warming by every shrill, wacked out lefty, but little they did can be seriously criticised by a neutral party. So what? You decide on your governments on the basis of what the Americans want? If a government is hated by the Americans it's good, if it's loved it's bad? Talk about ignorant and bigoted! Argus, I've never had the displeasure of hearing from a more uninformed, pretentious, spin artist than you appear to be. It seems quite likely that you're not even Canadian, since your supposed knowledge of the political history of Canada is so bizarrely erroneous. Please tell me when Harris was Prime Minister of Canada, .... I seem to have completely missed those years (he was merely Premier of Ontario). I imagine that YOU might assume that there is no difference but rest assured that there certainly is. While he was PREMIER OF ONTARIO he managed to destroy our provincial medicare system, raise taxes, cause needless strife in our educational system and cause voters to replace him with a Liberal, in this, a traditionally conservative voting province. I can't help but notice that the first quote of your latest posting was taken from a response that I made to Boondoggle. Could it be that you're unethical enough to pretend that it was made to you? That could never happen, my friend, since from the first of your communications there has been nothing but biased gibberish contained in your postings. For your edification, the "crisis" to which I referred was not that the Liberals might lose the election, but that if the Conservatives won we would soon see our young Canadians getting their limbs blown off in foreign oil wars while under the direction of a Bushite neo-Nazi. In order to show the extent of the unmitigated comedy of misconceptions that you apparantly hold, be informed that my brother, sister, and all of their children are American citizens, my father is buried in Hollywood cemetary, and my mother's ashes are in Newport Bay. Additionally, in addressing your absurdities, I "decide" my governments by weighing the respective records of all parties, factor in everything that is known about the currently running politicians, then apply the resulting conclusion to the current state of world affairs as well as domestic ones. That analysis has shown the liberals to be the default choice of necessity. You have me wondering if you're actually a neo-con 'plant' on this Canadian political site for purpose of deliberate spin and intellectual sabotage. Rest in peace.

If you read my post again, you'll see that I start off by saying that people that are partisan tend to only use facts that either favor their position or reflect poorly on what they oppose. In other words, they offer an incomplete, and therefore inaccurate, picture. The purpose of my post was not to refute, but to add some of what you left out. I'm not cherry picking or being partisan either. Naturally, I covered area that either made the Liberals look bad or the Conservatives look good to balance what you already covered. That's not being partisan. If I were partisan, I wouldn't have acknowledged that the Liberals have done good things, nor would I say Trudeau was one of the better Prime Ministers. The only thing that I really mentioned that the other parties are promising is democratic reform, and given the length of my post and how much I dedicated to that, I don't think it's accurate to say I was stressing that point. However, it's worth mentioning that there is bipartisan support for democratic reform. What will the Liberals do for democratic reform? Remove the notwithstanding clause and have the courts dictate? No thanks. If international obligations to NATO and the UN are important to you, then you should keep in mind that under international law it is for the Security Council to decide on matters of security not NATO. Kosovo was a NATO mission not a UN mission, and airstrikes are hardly classified as peace-keeping. The only two wars that the UN supported were Korea and Desert Storm. As for nuclear weapons, Canada signed on to the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) in 1968, yet had nuclear weapons in the country long after that. Of course, this could open a debate about effectiveness of the UN, but that's not the point when you mention our obligations. If you prefer the Liberals, that's totally your prerogative, but it's simply untrue to suggest that one party has it all right and the other has it all wrong. Boondoggle, I offer a sincere apology for a hasty misperception. Please excuse the faux pas on the basis of me being new here and a bit overwhelmed by the initial response. Much of what you have said is equal in truth to any of my contentions, however, the points that I covered seemed (to me) to be the ones of utmost importance at this particular time of (what I consider to be) crisis. Too many have apparantly forgotten the disastrous results of previous Conservative governments. Others, who are young, have basically no knowledge of previous events. There are exceptions of course, but I feel that a Consevative government is precisely what the "Bush hawks" want in Canada. Perhaps you noticed my comment regarding my dislike for Martin, yet I see the Liberals as the lesser of evils presented at this time. Again, please accept my apology. I wish you well.

I was rather thinking more of Greek Mythology. Well, that's hardly fair. Your post was a collection of sputtering paranoid drivel and delusional nonsense and I at least took the time to show how childishly ignorant they all were. And did so with such handsome ease you are left with nothing to do but blush and slink off. Before I blush and slink off though, I'd like to thank you. It's not very often that a wise, modest, and obviously self-assured man, such as yourself, would take the time and effort to answer the sputtering paranoid, delusional drivel of someone of my lowly stature and intellect. Besides that, your comments have made me actually feel superior to someone.

You are being silly. There is no doubt whatever of their crime. It is not even in dispute that they directed hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to their friends, and that some of that money was kicked back to the Liberal party. Their own party workers and the ad execs who testified have said as much. Some $40 million remains missing, and no one seems to know where it went. Oh? How much money have the tories and NDP stolen lately? No one is accusing Martin of getting a blow job. Instead they're accusing him of screwing us. They gave us these things? How generous of them. And here I thought we paid for them - well, all except the hundreds of billions that Trudeau borrowed in order to give the boomers cheap pensions and create our debt. The world changed in the last fifty years. No matter who was in power, we would have had all that stuff, just like every other western nation. Yes, multiculturalism so that immigrants could slaughter people in drive-by shootings on boxing day. Multiculturalism so immigrants could retain their culture and never adapt to ours, so they could live here all their lives and never become Canadians. Patriation of the Constitution and charter so we could spend tens, if not hundreds of billions in complex legal wrangling, so that unelected judges could supplant elected representatives as the supreme power and creators of laws and social policies. And you want me to reward them for that? Anyone in power but the NDP would have given us surpluses given a booming economy - largely driven by exports to the US and the oil market, and the money pouring in from the GST, a program they promised to kill. As for a friendship with the US, I bet Bush won't even answer the phone when Martin calls. Martin has run as much against Bush this election as against Harper. His worst accusations are always that Harper is friendly with Bush, that Bush might "smile" if Harper is elected (God forbid) that Harper might do things like the Americans do (eeee!). And going to Iraq probably would have gotten us no more casualties than going to Afghanistan has. Childish. There was no chance, none whatsoever, of us becoming world leaders because of the Avro. We simply don't have the numbers of consumers. Take a look, sometime, at the massive billions and billions and billions in support the Europeans have had to give to their own aircraft industries to try and compete with the Americans. And that's with huge local (enforced by government) demand from their own air forces and national airlines. In point of fact, the world-wide recession started under Trudeau. Do we blame him then? And the GST is a program supported by the Liberals. They had an election over the Freed Trade Accord, and won. So much for being against the will of the people. With the protectionist trade winds blowing strong in Washington over the past years, it's been a good thing we had the FTA to protect us. It's certainly imperfect, but certainly better than nothing. I would suggest you pick up a book or two and start at it then. My dear Argus, your 'nic' is quite ironically descriptive since it copies the name of Project Argus which was an rocket shot in 1958 to detonate three atomic bombs for the purpose of seeing where the particles fell. As for your post #27, it deserves no detailed response , being merely a collection of insults, generalizations and bigotry. I don't know what university you attended but you obviously majored in incivility and vitriol and you must certainly have acquired a degree in ignoring reality. Best wishes for your speedy recovery.

The Liberals have accomplished quite a bit, but they have also been in power most of the time. I'm not going to try to deny that the Liberals have done some good things because I'm not interested in partisan arguments. However, while they've done well in some areas, they've neglected others. For example: they've done well with the budget in recent years, but I just don't think they get it when it comes to defense, democratic reform and law enforcement. Rather than having tunnel vision on what's already going well, maybe it's time to focus on things that aren't going so well, and I'm not convinced you're going to see that with the same party remaining in power for so long. I consider Trudeau to be one of the better Prime Ministers. However, it's interesting how the Liberals recently tried to imply in an attack ad that the Conservatives would use the military to impose martial law when the only Prime Minister to do that was Trudeau. Canada has had 8 years of surplus because the tax payers gave them money while services were cut. They tell you they have plans for the future, but if you elect the same government, you're likely to get the same result. That would include paying down debt, which is good, but I don't think that's the only issue to consider. The question is: are you happy with the status quo? If so, vote Liberal. I'd say that the friendship between Canada and the US exists more as a result of social and economic interaction than from political rhetoric. It's well known that some of the comments from the Liberals in recent years haven't exactly been helpful. By definition of the word "ally" Canada should support the US when appropriate. The US doesn't always have it wrong; therefore, supporting the US in conflicts is not an absurd thing to consider. Furthermore, it's estimated that 500,000 to 1,500,000 people died in Iraq under the sanctions that Canada helped enforce while the Liberals were in power. If you take the lowest figure, it's still higher than the number of deaths in the Iraq war. The conclusion in the Duelfer report echoed what people in UNSCOM were saying years ago, which was that Iraq was fundamentally disarmed in the 90s, yet sanctions continued, and thus the suffering continued. The US/British policy was that 100% verified disarmament was necessary to end sanctions, which was impossible to achieve. I think Harper spoke prematurely on this subject for partisan reasons, but has long since changed his position. The most important thing, in my opinion, is that elected representatives listen to constituents, and Harper as demonstrated that he can do that. If he gets elected and it's just lip service, it'll be twice as hard for Conservatives to get re-elected. For the Conservatives, the critical thing will be to build trust not pushing contentious issues. Also, don't forget that it was the Liberals that sent CF-18s on bombing missions in Kosovo in addition to the Canadian armed forces in Afghanistan, and indirectly, Canada contributed more to the Iraq war that alot of the coalition. Canada also contributed indirectly to the Vietnam war. Canadian made Napalm and Agent Orange ended up in Vietnam, and Agent Orange was tested in Canada even though the government denied it for years. It was the NDP, by the way, that helped uncover that. They also tested Agent Purple, which is far worse than Agent Orange. I agree that it was a mistake to scrap the arrow, but there's more to the story when it comes to the Bomarcs. Despite pressure from the US, Diefenbaker refused to arm the Bomarcs with nuclear warheads. At the time, Pearson's wife joined a group called Voice of Women that opposed nuclear weapons in Canada, and Pearson himself was against the idea. However, he later changed his position, and Trudeau lashed out at him for doing so. The following election was fought on the issue of nuclear weapons in Canada, and Pearson won. In 1963, Pearson met with JFK and agreed to nuclear weapons in Canada, which arrived at the end of that year. It seems alot of Canadians aren't even aware that there were nuclear weapons in Canada, but it was a reality thanks to the Liberals. Native people also got the right to vote when Diefenbaker was Prime Minister. Typical partisan argument. The Liberals blame Mulroney for it, and the Conservatives blame Trudeau. As for the GST, I thought the Liberals were gonna cut it? What happened to that? And the Liberals expanded on it with NAFTA. How do you expect to grow your economy with an isolationist attitude? Canada is next door to the largest economy in the world, which accepts the majority of Canadian exports, and Canada usually has a trade surplus with the US. That comment shows contempt for democracy. It is NEVER good for democracy to have a lack of opposition to the governing party regardless of which party your views are aligned with. Without opposition, what you have essentially is a coronation not an election. One of the key issues, I believe, in this election is democratic reform, and both the NDP and Conservatives agree on fixed election dates and possibly proportional representation. Perhaps, but the only way for them to grow is if more people support them. Who knows, they my get people in the House of Commons this time. Also, unlike other media sources, CPAC has been covering them. True, but cherry picking it for partisan reasons is pretty bad too. In this particular election I am definitely "partisan" in view of the disastrous consequences if conservatives were to get a majority government! It seems that instead of refuting the facts presented you prefer to muddy the waters with things that were done under contractual obligation, whether to NATO or the UN. That in itself betrays a partisan-like perception of circumstances. You also stress what other parties are promising, while I stressed only fact. It would seem as though you have more partiality to "cherry-picking" than I. Have a nice day.

If the Liberals ever release the names of the seven people that took the stolen money into their campaigns this will change. That's not to mention that there's still money left to account for. And by safe harboring the 7 criminals from prosecution by not releasing their names, Paul Martin is as culpable as the rest. Hicksey, you seem to assume that the candidates were in collusion with the actual perpetrators of the money 'misdirection'. On what basis? I thought it was the job of law enforcement to do those things that you suggest Martin should have done. That's not quite how things are done, my friend.

Some of what you say is misleading. The one that jumps out at me is the health care The Liberals didn't give us universal health care. The public system we benefit from today came as a result of a Liberal minority government working in coalition with the NDP. But this is besides the point. It's unfair to attribute today's leaders with past party mistakes, as well as triumphs. You selectively mention what parties have done to champion the Liberal cause. The Liberals have given us 8 straight years of surplus. How did they do that? Under martin's direction, they slashed funding across the board more than any Conservative PM ever has... You want to reach back into history? Well, which party was it decided to draft troops for World War 2? ( This being after they promised not to..._ I'm not a Conservative supporter, but Martin has had his chance. The fact that he survived to take office after the scandal initially erupted was a godsend to the Liberals, and they blew it. What did they do in that time? They knew that they had an election coming. Martin knew he had to leave an impression, make an impact... In my opinion, many people aren't voting for Conservatiove, but against Martin. If the party had a leader with his integrity intact, then he would have had no trouble taking over the reigns of Chretiens majority. If Harper gets his chance now, which is not a certainty, then so be it. It's only misleading to those who don't read it carefully, and/or depending on their individual perception. If you check you'll see that I gave the credit for the plan to Tommy Douglas. My intention is not to deceive, but to present accurate facts. I'm not atrributing anything to today's leaders, simply referring to overall party performance. Funding was necessarily slashed since that is the only intelligent remedy for overspending. Would you prefer tax increases? Troops were drafted because of a threat to the entire world by the Nazi mentality, unlike today's hype about the new bogeyman "terrorists" that Harper would use as an excuse to have us engaged in Bush's oil wars. Actually, Martin was only beginning to "have his chance" since he and Chretien weren't exactly drinking buddies. To place the scandals in his lap is to follow the 'spin' by rival parties playing nasty. From the time he took office as Prime Minister the dogs were nipping his heels, so he really didn't have ANY time to show what he could do as leader. I personally don't like the man, and consider his ethics quite suspect but I'm also aware of what the alternatives are. Yes, the majority uninformed voters are following the media sensationalism like drugged sheep, while Martin tries to consolidate the remaining loyal liberal members. Don't forget that there is still much internal dissent over the Martin/Chretien feud. Your "so be it" would most likely result in the worst experience in Canada's history. Harper wants to be the fairhaired son of the Washington neo-cons. Enough said? I wish you well.

Thanks for the welcome, Hydraboss. correction: The liberal PARTY didn't admit to criminal acts, they did, however publicly acknowledge the fact that some of their members behaved in a dishonest way, and offered to reimburse the money involved. Would you have them engage in self-flagellation? 2. As a 70 year old pensioner I'm quite aware of how pathetic our pension system is. It's just one of a multitude of areas that need addressing, but I won't lay the blame solely at the feet of the liberals. 3. This country was "split" long before Trudeau came on the scene. Perhaps you should check the longstanding western ill will regarding the CN cattle shipping fiasco. 4. Such people love playing with fine points so much that they'd probably enjoy milking mice. 5. ANY surplus is difficult to arrive at in modern politics, especially so when the preceding rival party has incurred massive debt. 6. There were signs of the oncoming recession that Mulroney used in order to be elected, then he did absolutely nothing to alleviate the onset and continuation of it. 7. The GST is (in my opinion) an unethical and pathetic attempt to strengthen the profits of the affluent at the expense of less fortunate people. Chretien lied, and nothing of value has been done to change that. 8. Everyone is entitled to their own perception on the ease or difficulty of such a solution. 9. I kind of like the NDP bit their tendency to be extreme turns me off. Keep smiling, my friend.