scribblet

Boy, with what the Liberals had done...that enough so-called education to read and listen...and that just enough practice in using that so-called reason...is not even required to tell that we've been victimized! Can't you hear what the people are saying? Can't you see how they are reacting? They're saying, "we've been mugged by a bunch of thugs!" Oh do yourself a favor and quit reasoning like a typical Liberal. Your reasoning is somehow off-key....no matter how hard I try to twist it around like a cube. It does not compute. Tell me, just who is really choosing to keep her/his head buried deeply in the sand? It doesn't take much reason to figure out that Canadians are being 'liberally scammed' and that social programs (other than EI and old age) are a provincial responsibility. Maybe someone could take their head out of the sand and enlighten us as to where Harper has said he reduce funding for social programs, and which ones he would get rid of. Funny can't find that anywhere in any policy.

Does Harper want to move Canada to the right? What does that mean exactly? The two social issues that matter are abortion and gay marriage. Harper has said he won't open up the abortion issue (although we should because Canada has no law at all at present). As to SSM, Harper has said he'll leave it up to a free vote. If Harper forms a government (and there are still over 10 days in the campaign during which lots can happen), it will only be through the election of many sort-of socially-liberal members who no doubt have other priorities. More importantly, Harper wants to reduce the size of the federal government and respect the sovereign jurisdictions of the provincial governments. In the short run, Harper will be busy cutting the GST, setting up the child care payment and so on. The Left uses these radical terms "neo-con", "extreme right wing" and "slash and burn" when the reality is more mundane. Well said, there seems to be a lot of hypobole these days, the chicken little sky is falling rhetoric seems to be getting more desperate.

Check this out: from a Young Liberal blogger. blaming the ad on a CPC mole yet. http://jasoncherniak.blogspot.com/2006/01/...r.html#comments Tin Foil Hat Time !!! Wednesday, January 11, 2006 Some thoughts to ponder Some thoughts on the blogging controversies of today: 1) I have been talking to a friend of mine in the military and I have made a decision. Even though the military ad was released in error, Martin should have said: "I am very sorry that this ad was released. As soon as I saw it, I found it offensive and told the campaign to throw it in the garbage. Unfortunately, somebody - possibly the Conservative mole in our campaign team - put it on our website against my explicit instructions. I apologize to all Canadians who were offended and promise you that I continue to support the men and women of our armed forces 100%." On another note, just consider - this might be the first ad to ever have an effect on a campaign without airing in a paid spot once. Maybe it is time for the Liberal campaign to take us bloggers seriously. 2) The Mike Duffy/John Duffy thing is ludicrous. Mike showed some fake outrage because he was pissed that John didn't want to answer his question. "Intimidation" my ass. Nevertheless, John should not have said what he said. You cannot beat the media on a point of principle. 3) Many people are saying that the leaked policies do not contain the notwithstanding clause announcement. However, remember that this was likely leaked by the mole and last edited on January 10. I think we should all be a bit suspicious before assuming that this is the true, unedited document. 4) There is clearly a mole in the Liberal campaign. It would not surprise me if that is how the military ad got on the website in the first place. Where are the calls from the media and the other parties for honour and integrity? Should politics really be about industrial espionage? http://www.andrewcoyne.com/ good comments here

http://weblogs.macleans.ca/paulwells/ It begins Just now at the Subway on Bank St. I was buying my lunch and there... in line... standing in front of me... was a soldier. In our cities. In Canada. A soldier. He seemed to be ordering the six-inch ham and turkey. With chipotle sauce. In Canada. We're not making this stuff up.

Where did you find thatpart of the policy? I just looked on the lib website, useless. I had not heard that part of it, and it is somewhat disturbing. Toronto Star Thanks for the info, it doesn't look all that great does it.

Like I said ... gotta love liberal conspiracy theories. And now you're comparing Bush and Harper to Hitler? Did you get this directly from the talking points for the Liberals/Democrats? To say the least ... hyperbole. Definitely scaremongering. Much ado about nothing. Agreed wholeheartedly, the minute the nazi comparisons come out credibility is out the window. Conspiracy theories come into play when there is nothing else left.

It wasn't required to reveal leadership donations then, but somewhere I saw a link on it, Harper did reveal them. I'll be darned if I can find it now.

Good for Mike Duffy we should email him and thank him. Remember, Liberals don't care about outcomes, only votes. If they can point to policies as being anti-crime, no matter how ineffective, or counterproductive, they will. They also like to trumpet anti-crime speeches, even if not accompanied by any action. The fact that Martin says he is against crime is all that matters. He doesn't actually have to do anything to get votes. That is the Liberal way. I notice there are duplicate threads, get confusing.

Actually Harper did release his donor list, in fact I thought (?) I posted the link from the Toronto Star google cache. Have to look for it again can't find it now. Not sure that Martin did either because up until recently it was required that leadership donations be revealed.

They are still running the ad - in French http://andrewcoyne.com/2006/01/bien-trange.php One thing that really bother me about the media and their reporting of these ads is that they show videos of the liberal ads but don't give time to show the conservative ads. We need to write and protest, I've allready written to CTV.

Link here for Martin's use of the NWC Martin Promises to Use Notwithstanding Clause June 08, 2004 OTTAWA – Guess what… Paul Martin is the only federal party leader to have promised to use the notwithstanding clause, or even suggest that using it – for anything – may be necessary. “Let's say that some kind of decision came down that was going to force…churches, synagogues, mosques or temples to redefine marriage in a way that that particular religion did not want to, then I would use the notwithstanding clause.” – Paul Martin (CBC Radio, December 18, 2003). http://www.stevenfletcher.com/archives/000073.php

Did anyone watch part of the hearing for SC nominee Alito? Only saw a bit of it, but Kennedy seems to have lost it. He demanded and got additional time because he was a 'senior Senator' but then, when someone commented on him getting more time he said: "Be Quiet over there you scurrilous dogs" Good grief, he's losing it.

Considering, ( and hopefully,) nobody with a brain actually believes that Harper is driving into town with a trunk full of handguns and handing them out to black kids. That one is so far over the top one has to wonder about the sanity of Martin and his 'braintrust'. The CPC ad on their website countering it which goes 'can you really believe Martin' was well conceived. Harper must simply shrug it off as the last desperate screams of a man burning to death on the Bonfire of Political Ambitions (and Vanities). Hopefully, negative ads like the Libs' will not get people to switch back, but what they tend to do is strengthen the resolve of one's core voters, and for the ad to be on guns in the city must mean that the fiberals are scared sh#tless that their core Tdot support is caving and they could be into a 1993 scenario. Attack ads are not aimed at thought, they are aimed at psychology and actually I felt depressed when I saw them on line. The people with whom I am concerned about did not watch the debate and will subliminally see the attack ads which could sway their vote. Attack ads are not aimed at thought, they are aimed at psychology. Even I felt depressed when I saw them on line, but this is their point and objective. At some point, one will turn off and cease resistance to avoid these bad feelings. But, ceasing means a) not thinking critically any more and surrendering. However, after this depressing moment I would like to be otpimistic in thinking that it is too late to turn the tide, and most voters will be turned off by such revolting negative advertising.

I think it would hurt the CPC, does anyone have a breakdown of what parliament would look like now, if we had prop. rep. ? What about a combination of PR and the current system, but I'm not sure how that would work. Also, if we retained the present system (with fixed election dates) wouldn't having an elected and EQUAL senate balance it out? I'm not sure, but isn't that how the U.S. congress and Senate works.

I also see this as an incredibly desperate move, by a very desperate man. I believe he was trying to corner Harper into admitting that the CPC planned to use the clause (as per Liberal accusations). Now, with Martin himself having said that he would use the clause to defend religious groups, where does this move leave his promise to them? In my opinion, Martin just painted himself as the man who would stab his own mother in the back for a chance at re-election. Bases are loaded, and Mighty Martin is up to bat, swinging for the home-run, and a come from behind victory. However, after 2 debates, a swing and a miss, he's down two strikes. The French debate may or may not help, Martin sounds like he is giving birth when he speaks french. from the other thread: The Martin tactic of wanting to get parliament to do away with the notwithstanding clause is a trap for Harper. Martin is by inference suggesting Harper will take away minority rights, when in fact, Harper has said he wouldn't use it. I don't think they should remove the NWC ( if they can actually do it) its a safeguard and the reason the Charter was accepted. This sounds like a desperate move on Martin's part and his Captain Canada act doesn't fly anymore. Martina also has stated he would use the NWC to protect freedom of religion/SSM. Too bad Harper or the other two were taken by surprise on this.

I've decided the best thing to do is to put RG on 'ignore' that way you don't have to scroll through the debris.

They are the most malicious and vile ads I've seen yet. CTV has them up on their website, all of them, including the one about Harper bringing guns into the cities, ( which supposedly has been pulled by the liberals) Are the liberals paying CTV to run these or what? There's no journalistic commentary and no equal time for other parties. I've written CTV to complain, maybe you all could do so as well. Hopefully, these negative attack ads are too little, too late. They try to paint Harper as 'scary' when the post -debate consensus is that Martin is the scary one. The Calgary Sun editorial got it closest when they described Martin as an out of shape Mike Tyson lumbering into the ring looking like he was prepared to bite an ear off if that's what it took. Flapping his arms and trying to lecture three opposition leaders at once, Paul looked at one point like he was going to generate enough lift to take off. In a word; frantic.

http://www.liberal.ca/multimedia_e.aspx They are out and pretty slimy, the attacks have begun. And this liberal party iss what some people think should be the gov't - don't think so Tim. They are just plain dirty.

Its a big Yawn...ZZZZZZ tin foil hat time.

I'm sure they will, I still think the worst of the attacks are yet to come.

I could be wrong but don't you need 7 provinces to agree to this? In theory Harper's statement that in England Parliament is supreme and in the U.S. the courts are supreme has quite a lot of merit. The notwithstanding clause has always been seen as a check on the powers of the courts. As Harper expressed it, it is a traditional Canadian compromise between American and English values. This would indeed make us more Americanized, the same as the U.S. system where the SC an unelected body has the last word. This removed the concept of supremacy of parliament from our constitutional system, and is a radical undermining of Canadian democracy.

I wouldn't normally link to rabble, but they had a thread I saved on Harper's leadership donations: I'm linking to this as the Toronto Star link no longer works. http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php...ic&f=1&t=003227 Harper reveals donor details... quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Individuals contributed 75 per cent of the total $2.67 million Harper collected. The rest came from corporate donations. Harper's campaign said 323 business donors helped bankroll his drive to beat two other candidates. Harper's donor list stands in stark contrast to more than $12 million Liberal leader Paul Martin raised for his leadership bid against long-shot candidate Sheila Copps, a point Harper hammered home yesterday. "I gather that Mr. Martin and a few others claimed that I'm somehow funded by some secret cabal of big business," he told supporters. "What the leadership donations show is that 75 per cent or more of the money that came to me came from (individual) donors, whereas 99 per cent of his money came from big corporations because he has no real, small ordinary Canadians (supporting) him."

whoops wrong thread.

Good points I agree with that assessment. I also had more of a problem this time understanding Duceppe, wonder why? Layton although got his points across, did sound like a salesman: Have I got a deal for you, vote NDP...it got to be funny. The Martin tactic of wanting to get parliament to do away with the notwithstanding clause is a trap for Harper. Martin is by inference suggesting Harper will take away minority rights, when in fact, Harper has said he wouldn't use it. I don't think they should remove the NWC ( if they can actually do it) its a safeguard and the reason the Charter was accepted. This sounds like a desperate move on Martin's part and his Captain Canada act doesn't fly anymore.

Gay marriage is a most personal issue and one I do not believe should be defined by the state. I was raised with the Catholic definition of marriage and, frankly, if the left wants to call me a racist well then so be it. I posted this in another thread: Martin won't force gay marriages on churches Government to ask Supreme Court if civil union is a viable alternative Janice Tibbetts, CanWest News Service Published: Friday, December 19, 2003 Article tools OTTAWA - Prime Minister Paul Martin says he would use the Constitution's notwithstanding clause if the Supreme Court rules that churches must perform gay marriages. "Oh, yes I would," Martin said Thursday on CBC Radio when asked whether he would use the clause. "I would look at it if it was a question of affirming a (religious) right," he said, explaining that it would be used only under extreme circumstances. He also said "Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages.