Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by jdobbin

  1. No one is lobbying against control of handguns, it has never been an issue, this is just a straw man argument to deflect from the real problems with the long gun registry.

    The Tories have said registration is ineffective. Period.

    Are you saying it is effective for handguns? How so if the argument is that police should not trust or rely in it?

    • Downvote 1
  2. The change is partly responsible, but the company promised 3M doses a week,a nd that hasn't happened during any week. You'd blame everything on the government if you could.

    Ah, yes, this is all about me. Try to leave the personalizing out of this if you can.

    The amount was doses was contingent on an uninterrupted production line. We now know that didn't happen. You keep saying the fault is with the company but Harper applauded the company on Friday for how much vaccine was produced to date.

    The order to switch was what cut production as the Globe and Mail reported Friday.

  3. Nice try. I asked for a quote showing an MP is lobbying against controls of handguns. Got one? No?

    Nice try to suggest that one had. I said that the Tories were against the registry and that it was argument they used for it in general and not specific to long guns.

    They've clearly said handgun controls will remain in place.

    They clearly said the registry was ineffective.

    So I'm supposed to give you the benefit of the doubt that "MPs meetings" doesn't mean "MPs meetings," but at the same time, if the Torys say "registry" they are talking about handguns?

    Think what you want. If the Tories say the registry is ineffective, they certainly haven't said they believe it is effective for hand guns.

  4. And, right on cue comes the frothing and growling; another thread hijacked by the rabid, but baseless, anti-Senate pack.

    One wonder what would happen if the NDP ever got into power. They would be constitutionally obligated to fill the Senate in the absence of a change in the Constitution. Or would they defer to the Governor General?

    I'd love to hear the question posed to Layton. He probably call it hypothetical although if party policy comes smack into the wall of the law of the land, it deserves an answer.

    Perhaps Layton knows for a certainty that he can get the change done in a year and never have a senator named in his government.

  5. Sounds like bad news for a party that I thought was going to be in much better shape in January last year.

    Think the politcal panel last week on CBC said that Peter Donolo was going to be bringing in better people to do the job. The Hill Times said they expected to be a number of people stepping down in light of that.

    In other words, Donolo was not the only change that was anticipated. It would appear you were not one of the those people and that any changes in the office can only be regarded as negative.

  6. Do you take classes in this sort of thing? Like, Political Propoganda 101 and such?

    Do you take classes in beliggerence or are you born with it?

    I asked you a straight question. I want a straight answer. But then you still haven't given a straight answer about the Liberal Party's position on Copenhagen either, despite half a dozen attempts from me to pry it from your leathery lips.

    Think you forgot the response then. The Liberals favour an agreement. The Tories don't seem to.

    That doesn't stop you from condemning the tories on it, of course.

    I have criticized their unresponsiveness to the question of the contract and supply before it become an issue.

    And then we saw blame tossed at the Liberals for the shortage which seemed a reach.

    Just as you condemn the tories here but do it in a weasely political fashion which never comes right out and speaks clearly. It's all innuendo and inference with your drivel.

    And your response to be spittle speckeled bloviating.

    Isn't that what I said? But no, you rephrase it to make it sound like the Tories are somehow to blame for the long lineups and confusion at vaccination centres. Without actually saying so becuase then you'd be caught in an out and out lie.

    I called the Tories on blaming the manufactuer for the problem as some ministers appeared to be doing when their were short on dosages.

    Then a different tact was taken that the Liberals were somehow to blame for the contract.

    I think you are getting confused about who is finding fault for the shortages.

    I said the government had ordered a change in the vaccine and with only one production line, there was a stoppage twice to change over and change back. It was in this that questions were first asked about the contract and how to ensure continuity of supply.

    Your posts here represent all that I despise in your crooked, dishonest, self-serving political party. There's not a person in any position of authority in it who wouldn't sell his mother for a buck and a vote.

    And your posts here represent what I despise because it is done in a furious, accusatory and a personalizing way.

  7. So stating the obvious about our system of government denotes some kind of plan.

    The Tories favour going after the criminal element rather than controlling legal gunowners. The approach they took on the registries being ineffective in in keeping with that. It is why I believe that given a majority, the overall registry would fall in favour of criminal charges for illegal gun use. I don't believe that is out of line with how we have seen the Conservatives do things.

    However, we have had this debate about what is possible and impossible before. I believe I stated back in 2006 that the Tories would not be hampered by fixed election dates. My recollection of things back then was that you didn't think it would happen.

  8. And you're suggesting the government should have gone out and bought more vaccine at that point??!

    My response has been pretty consistent. The contract allowed for getting supply elsewhere to keep the production line going steady.

    The Calgary Herald says the Liberal contract prevented that but Butler Jones says that was never the case. It is why Canada was able to buy vaccine from Australia.

    Then, of course, a couple of kids died and their deaths were highly publicized, panicking parents into a stampede to the vaccination clinics.

    To find the clinics had less vaccine than what had been guaranteed just a week before.

    I remind you that up until this week all shipments were proceeding as expected. The mess we've been witnessing on TV with lineups at various clinics has nothing to do with a shortage but with the sudden overwhelming demand that the provinces did not anticipate when they set up the distribution.

    None of this matters to the Liberals, of course, who are desperate for any talking point, any issue, anything at all they can seize on to blame the Tories.

    The distribution of the vaccine was federal. The delivery was provincial.

    There are plenty of issues regarding that as well but they vary from province to province. However, distribution to the provinces was and is a federal issue.

    And the accusation that the contract prevented the Feds from seeking additional supply or a supplier are false.

  9. Drivel. The Liberals have been attempting to blame the Tories for the shortage, and so after one particularly shrill Liberal made a demand in the HoC a columnist noted the Liberals themselves signed the original long-term deal - perhaps after arranging for a hefty bribe - er, excuse me "Donation".

    The editorial was pretty clear that the Liberals were to blame for the shortage now despite the fact that Butler Jones says that the federal government always had the option of going to a second supplier.

    There has been the suggestion that the 2001 contract never allowed for it.

    We now know that this is incorrect.

    Only if it was known in advance this would lead to shortages, and it was not.

    This is what the questions have been for a while in Parliament but the Tories brushed them off off or shouted them down.

  10. Ah, the hidden agenda again. Whatever.

    As I said, I don't think it is hidden. Harper has said that there are things he can't do with a minority. Nothing to hide about that. He usually says he has no plans to do something rather than say he won't do it.

    Agreed but the political game is more important so neither party is likely to see it that way.

    Zero sum politics.

    Kind of like how Harper shuts down the prison farms that pre-date the existence of Canada and there isn't even a debate about it.

  11. The NDP is a shoe-in in New Westminster. At a well attended all candidates meeting last night the Tory candidate was a no-show. She knows whats coming. This BC by-election is a no brainer.

    As I said, I don't know the full details on the ground there. I just wondered if there had been any traction for the Tories with their spending and Olympic involvement.

  12. I don't there is much reason to believe the cable or telco companies. These guys are pathological liars. It was the cable companies that swore up and down a decade ago that they couldn't open up their cable internet networks to third party resellers, and it turned out to be load of B.S.

    The cable companies have spent the last fifteen years doing everything in their power not to give consumers what they want, and because they pretty much have regional monopolies. While guys like Telus and Bell are coming online as competitors, they too are essentially last mile regional monopolies.

    I have reason to suspect all the media operators. However, in recent days with local broadcasters going under, I am a little more sympathetic about smaller towns and cities losing their stations.

  13. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/06/don-martin-mike-duffy-jumps-the-shark.aspx

    So instead of a rational discussion on the value of the new senators to reforming the process, a tuxedo-sporting Duffy appeared on Thursday's Power and Politics show to interrupt, insult and fire innuendo at Stoffer, snarling in disgust as he blasted the popular MP as a ‘faker'.

    Now, Duffy calling someone a faker equals pot calling the kettle black.

    This is the same Duffy who, as host of his own politics show, presented himself for decades as journalistically neutral, then accepted Harper's $130,000 appointment ten months ago and now devotes his energies to shamelessly shilling for the Conservatives.

    I haven't seen this interview but they will be talking about it again on the panel on Newsworld.

  14. Talk about an angry, frustrated, bitter Liberal flogging a dead horse.......I'm sorry (well, not really) that your party is in the dumper but surely it's time for you to move on.

    Seems to be a horse that it is still running. Harper doesn't believe in fixed elections. Why not admit the legislation is a peace of crap and stop personalizing.

  • Create New...