scribblet

Here's one where he says he would use the not withstanding clause 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 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 http://tinyurl.com/d3org

Don't forget Martins old promises, excerpted from the Liberal Gov'ts speech In 1999, Paul Martin voted for a bill preserving the TRADITIONAL definition of marriage between and man and a woman. "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. I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians. The courts have ruled that some recognition must be given to the realities of unmarried cohabitation in terms of both opposite sex and same sex partners. I strongly believe that the message to the government and to all Canadian governments from the Canadian public is a message of tolerance, fairness and respect for others. Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

Cute eh! Billions in lawn signs LOL whats the limit on spending for a campaign, (I don't mean third parties) and only a portion of that is spent on signs. I think its around $70,000 not sure, and how many ridings actually have that much in their war chests? Course there's always money that was allegedly diverted by Quebec advertising firms into trust funds controlled by Liberal party operatives. Hence the conjecture that some MP's might not have won if it were not for those funds.

If this is as frightening as you say, how worried should we be that Paul Martin attended the conference in 1996? He's obviously been part of this secret cabal for much longer than Harper. -k Conspiracy theories take on a life of their own and today, reach a much wider audience. They are usually based on paranoia and are unsubstantiated. They appeal to those who wish to distract people from serious discussion of government corruption etc. It doesn't matter what the source or how psychotic these theories are, they remain a distraction and serve the wider purpose.

I think it should be he who understands the media and can win the support of the dailies, wins. Newspapers no longer report news, they try to shape it. The G & M seem to be getting a bit antsy He who understands TV, wins By JOHN DOYLE Monday, January 9, 2006 Posted at 3:06 AM EST Stephen Harper has sailed smoothly toward tonight's Federal Leaders Debate (CBC, CTV, Global and all-news channels, 8 p.m. EST) by ignoring a lot of sneers. If you're an aficionado of political satire on Canadian TV -- and there's a lot of it -- you'll know that Harper has been the target of severe sneering since the first day of this campaign. Both 22 Minutes and Royal Canadian Air Farce have their Harper routines and both amount to the same impression -- he's an automaton, his TV ads are hokey and hilariously inept. No, they're not and he's no robot. No matter what happens tonight, this campaign is essentially over. Harper has won it and I'll tell you why. The Conservative campaign began early and relied heavily on both TV ads and photo-ops tailored for TV news. The army of CBC comics, the middle-class intelligentsia and the self-proclaimed media-savvy can sneer, but they've missed the point. Harper and his cohorts took a page from the Mike Harris campaign that swept Ontario in 1995, a campaign built around the relentless provision of TV photo-ops that, at the time, also produced an awful lot of sneering. But, as the Ontario Liberals and NDP found to their cost, Harris and his handlers displayed a stunning grasp of the simple-minded recipes for TV news reporting. You may have seen those TV ads with Harper being interviewed by a phony interviewer and taking questions from a phony voter. The ads have been mocked relentlessly. The ads are too square and amateurish, say the media-savvy. That's seriously missing the point. At election time, voters want the message presented as simply as possible. In an election campaign with little significant difference between the two main parties, the currency is simplicity. The voter/viewer has a basic request: "Keep it simple, stupid." And one simple question, "What's in it for me?" The Harper campaign fulfilled that request and answered the question, using television. more here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../Entertainment/

POLL: CPC 37% - Libs 29% - NDP 15% - BQ 13% - Green 6% from a poll conducted by the Strategic counsel for CTV. Here is link to the story. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...jan08_060\ 108/20060108?s_name=election2006 I think we are being saturated with polls, and do they sway political opinion? Maybe a new thread?

I have argued many times that Martin can plausibly claim that he was not responsible for the the sponserhsip mess, however, the fact remains that the Liberal party organization in Quebec was taken over by crooks and the Liberal party needs to take responsibility for that. The party in fighting right now just shows that many people inside the party just don't get it - they seem to think that Martin's mistake was to make a big deal out of the scandal.Just another reason why the Liberal party needs to be booted out of power. In the mid nineties a BC Premier ( Mike Harcourt) resigned because of a scandal in his party that was similar to Adscam (Bingogate). He had nothing to with it and it wasn't on his watch. No such ethics federally. Deny, deny and point the finger elsewhere. In most provincial elections, these guys would be gone in a heartbeat. In many other western countries especially in Britain, the gov't wouldn't have survived such scandal and the MP's would have stepped down. IMHO if Martin and others had done this right after the first Gomery report, and called an election themselves they would have won another majority.

That one was pretty slimy. During the 2004 campaign the Liberals claimed that the Conservative estimates were out of whack as well ..... And in the fall of 2005 the Liberals were planning spending based on almost the same numbers as estimated by the Conservative party in 2004. Paul Martin is trapping himself with his own rhetoric.

This came in an email so no link. TWENTY REASONS I'M VOTING LIBERAL 1. Because I believe in the extent to which the official Languages is carried out and enforced; that every public servant even in the most remote part of B.C. should be fluent in the French language, but that the government business in Quebec should be in unilingual French. 2. Because I believe that only lawyers from the province of Quebec are qualified to be prime minister of Canada. 3. Because I believe that the federal government should be entirely controlled by the province of Quebec. 4. Because I believe that all criminals are just poor misunderstood victims of society and can all be easily rehabilitated in a very short period of time; and that only they have "rights"; not the victims of their crimes. 5. Because I believe that hardened criminals like Karla Homolka should be pampered by living in a "cottage" with her own key and be allowed to have pyjama parties and go out on shopping trips; and that killers in prison "resorts" on the Pacific coast should eat filet mignon, have barbecues, go whale watching and have their own golf course, while our senior citizens have to eat left over Kraft Dinner. 6. Because I believe that mass murderers under that age of 18 should be protected by the Young Offenders Act and the rest of us law-abiding citizens do not have the right to know who they are. 7. Because I believe in bringing hundreds of thousands of unskilled people into Canada from third world countries every year so we can support them on welfare and so that they will vote Liberal; and that this number should be increased every year. 8. Because I believe that it is fair that the province of Quebec is the sole province allowed to be in charge of its immigration policy; that they receive 5 times the amount of federal immigration money than does Ontario, even though Ontario has to teach those people how to speak English whereas Quebec only allows immigrants to enter who already know the French language. 9. Because I believe that we do not have the right to own land in Canada, as it is under Liberal law. 10. Because I believe it is only fair that Liberals steal as much tax money as they can from us: through every conceivable means from the HRDC boondoggle to the 2 billion dollar gun registry that does not work. 11. Because I believe that if my family is the victim of a home invasion, I should not have the right to protect them in our own home. 12. Because I believe in huge government bureaucracy and extremely high taxes, as I believe that the government knows how to spend my money better than I do. 13. Because I believe in having essentially no military because everyone loves us and we will never be called upon to protect our country. 14. Because Jack Layton is not a lawyer from Quebec, he is not qualified to be prime minister; besides, he smiles too much. 15. Because Stephen Harper is not a lawyer from Quebec and he and the Conservative Party of Canada have a hidden agenda and they are very scary people. 16. Because I believe that we should alienate our neighbours to the South because all Americans are morons and know nothing about Canada; and that we should continue to align ourselves more closely with our true friends - France, China and Russia. 17. Because I believe everything that the Liberal controlled media tells me, especially the CBC. 18. Because I believe that no one should ever be held responsible or accountable for their own actions in today's society. It is always someone else's fault. 19. Because I believe that we should not expect newcomers to our country to accept or adapt to our culture and traditions and customs; and that we should not wish each other "Merry Christmas" in case it might be offensive to some. 20. Because I have the IQ of a doorknob and am easily sucked in by Liberal scare tactics and propaganda; and am easily bought off with my own tax money.

I'm beginning to think they should be included in the debates as they did garner a number of votes, which, I believe, under proportional rep. would have given them a few seats. They seem to be picking up a bit of momentum.

Personally I don't give a darn about SSM or abortion, they are not issues that I base my vote on. I'm more interested in ethics, gov't accountability, democatric reform and financial issues.

This could explain the rash of spamming and rhetoric. I'm still not counting my chickens though. Apparently Ekos polling results are so "spectacular" that they are holding off releasing them for another day while they do another 500 interviews to confirm what they are hearing. http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20060109...32/CPACTUALITES translation from babblefish The last daily survey of firm EKOS translates a so spectacular opening of the conservatives that the firm decided to wait this evening before revealing its results, in order to double his sample of 500 guarantors. "Our data are if surprising that it would be irresponsible to reveal them at one time as critical as the paddle of the debate", explained to the Press the president of EKOS, Frank Graves. If the guarantors repeat themselves today, one will be able to evoke the possibility of a majority preserving government, says it. "While waiting, the conservatives have at least the wind in the veils. Something is occurring, it is certain. What remains to be specified, it is the exact width of this increase." more here: http://tinyurl.com/9pjr3 Results to be released tomorrow because of tonight's debate. So... do polls really effect people's opinions and the way they vote?

I havn't made any personal attacks, and asking you to stop is not a personal attack.

And the CPC wonder why most Canadians don't want to join in the USA's games.... It's anti-Americanism you know... we should be just like "our best friends and trading partners".... If they want to kill tens of thousands of people to secure oil for their friends, well ... aren't we friends... we should support them, no matter what they want to do... b] More hatred of the Americans from the odious Canadian left. Agreed, we might not agree with all their policies but they are friends and neighbours. You win more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

This is wearing out my scroll button and I'm running out of tin foil hats. LOL

The U.N. has made noises about 'taking over the internet'. While I believe they can't or don't have the ability to do this, the fact that they are musing about it is troubling. Kofi Anan says United Nations wants only to ensure the Internet's global reach, and that effort is at the heart of this summit. Personally I tend to doubt this, and believe that they would like to excercise some control over it.

Don't you worry that you totally lose credibility when you imply that stealing money to fund an election campaign is "fixing" an election? He's not too far off actually. There were some candidates who funded their campaign e.g. purchase of signs, under the table through the sponsorship funds. We'll never know, but maybe these guys would not have won if they hadn't received that money. Paul Martin has been lying to Canadian (yeah, I know, big surprise)and is saying that he has seen the numbers and Tory spending and tax promises mean future deficits for Canada. Here is a posted copy of the letter: http://www.conservativelife.com/blog/index...a_conservative_ Beautiful! Essentially, the report stated that is at least 3 billion is available each year for debt servicing. In addition there is likely an additional 15.7 billion of cushion room should any unforeseen eventualities emerge. Very prudent. Talk about deflating Paul Martin's balloon. Looks great!

Stephen Harper is dead set on fulfilling what Preston Manning was dead set on doing ..... "PUT MONEY IN PEOPLES POCKETS!!!! Still insist he'll end up with only around 115 seats?? Tsk tsk tsk tsk! I'm not making any predicitions anything can happen, but you are wrong about Harper & Preston M. Harper split with Manning because he disagreed with him on various issue3s, he did it quietly and didn't make waves about it.

Toronto Star today Toronto Sun today If you read the Star article, Harper is doing nothing but saying anything can happen, lots will likely change in the next two weeks and he knows that. So how misleading to have a headline that says Harper is "musing" about a majority. This deserves a correction.

Maybe if you stopped with the personal attacks there could be discussion.

Harper has made it clear about abortions, his agenda is more than clear on that and being against abortions isn't necessarily based on theocracy. I personally am pro-choice but draw the line at late term abortions (except for the life of the mother). However, I do have qualms about the whole thing and the killing of a life, and it has nothing to do with religion. One can have morals and values based on reason rather than religion. Although I believe it is strictly between the woman and her conscience it does trouble me. Yes there are people in the CPC who are against abortions just as there are in the Liberal party, and I don't doubt that at some point someone will put forward a bill on this. Beating a liberal drum about the CPC imposing a theocracy is just plain poppycock and scare tactics, it can't be done within our laws and constitution even if they wanted to and had a huge majority.

Johnson's quote speaks volumes about the neo-cons Argus. How do you interpret it? Speaks volumes about people who criticise others for not shouting out their love of Canada, too. Doesn't it, also describes Martin to a T. I'm sure we all love Canada, the fact is most people love the country they happened to be born in, wanting to have a voice or a political say in government doesn't make one any less of a patriot.

what other reasons Argus? Be honest and thorough if you can stomach it. If I can stomach your posts I can stomach anything. I've explained my reasons before. I don't feel the need to explain anything much to you as I strongly suspect you won't be around for very long anyway. Once again argus, you are cluttering up this board with your mindless ignorance instead of clearly articulating your real agenda. Thats a personal attack and against forum rules.

Me too: However, that post was posted here too http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...opic=4684&st=75 thats spamming the forums, plus it should be in the U.S. forum