Jump to content

Moonbox

Senior Member
  • Posts

    8,809
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    40

Everything posted by Moonbox

  1. Marksman to be honest it's very refreshing to get a reasoned explanation from an opposing perspective. You've at least addressed some of the points I made and in some ways you and a very few others in this thread have served to somewhat damper my image of Stephen Harper. I say somewhat because in the end, I think he is doing mosty the right thing. Yes, it's quite clear that some of the promises he makes did not entirely hold up. Things like the income trusts, Newfoundland equalization formulas and fixed election dates come to mind. It's impossible to argue that his promises were either broken altogether or he bent the rules on some sort of funny technicality. With that being said, just like you've already mentioned, some of these promises were completely misguided and stupid to have made in the first place. Should he be chastized for making them? Sure. Should he be also chastized for breaking stupid promises? Well...maybe in so much as they were stupid to make in the first place. The income trusts for example, were impossible to justify as they stood. Yes, the promise was made, but after seeing how unfair a loophole the trusts offered what decision should you make? Should you uphold your promise even though it would be unfair and to the detriment of most Canadians, or should you do what is ultimately right? There are also all the things Stephen Harper said he'd do to make elections and politics more fair. The election gag laws, fixed election dates and many other things like Senate appointments that the Liberal government had been abusing before and since Mulroney are all things that Harper campaigned on and really did nothing about. Mostly, he's just kept the status quo. Does that make him a liar? As much as any other politician I guess. A hypocrit? Sure, but show me a governing politician who isn't. What I'm trying to do in this thread is explain why he would have done what he's done and why it's silly to expect him or think he would do otherwise. Stephen Harper's broken promises in terms of election laws and campaign laws are really just him giving the Liberals a taste of their very own medecine. Does he hold the high moral ground in this matter? No, but nor does his competition. Does it look good on Dion and the Liberals? Most assuredly yes. Liberal policy has been disastrous over the last 35 years in terms of finance and international relations and I would love to see someone argue otherwise. We can pin both our current debt load AND the lack of social and health care services squarely on the Liberal government's (and to a lesser extent Mulroney's) feet. Given what they've done to the country and how blatently the Liberals abused the political system (particularly Chretien and Trudeau) to their own advantage, I think it's very suspect for them in particular to be complaining about what the Harper conservatives are doing. Again, yes, I'll agree it's hypocritical for Harper to be using their own games against them, but I think they are past due for some severe humbling and that this is almost poetic justice.
  2. My view of this is it doesn't really matter. With that being said, I think it IS something people should know about and we can let Canadians decide how they feel.
  3. Well the increase in oil prices really would offset any costs of exploration. That's really not the point though. Williams is a cranky PROGRESSIVE conservative who is still crying that the federal conservatives won't pretend the province isn't earning any money from oil and gas drilling when calculating the equalization payments. In short, Williams is fussing because the Conservatives won't allow him and his province more than their fair share. Put a soother in his mouth and a rattle in his hand and you couldn't have a more fitting image.
  4. Wrong. They endorsed the Liberals in the 2004 election and were highly critical of Harper, but then they endorsed Harper in 2006. Now who knows who they'll endorse? The fact is the National Post is barely even a real newspaper. It loses something like 20 million dollars a year and the only reason it's still being published is so that the Aspers have a political voice in Canada and I don't think it's a great place to go looking for unbiased opinions. It was worse when it was a pro-reform party newspaper under Conrad Black, but it's still pretty bad. I guess we can agree on that. What I'm trying to say is that you should probably have a cynical view of the Liberal position as well.
  5. Okay that was really funny. Haha. Well done.
  6. and again, you've repeated yourself but failed to acknowledge the only reason that he hasn't received a non-confidence vote is that the Liberals are waiting for the polls to improve. The only thing stopping the inevitable election is that the Liberals want to wait to make sure they WIN when they DO force an election. It would be stupid for Harper to allow that. Yes, he has called an election after enacting a leaky piece of legislation that indicated he shouldn't. Yes, it might be considered hypocritical to some. With that being said, I don't think it ever occured to him that the official opposition would openly oppose the ruling government this long while watching polls and abstaining from every piece of legislation until the polls turned around for them. This is unprecedented in Canadian history and it's really just become a game of politics and technicalities. The question is should Stephen Harper play the game to his or to the Liberal's advantage?
  7. 200 kilograms of heroin isn't something you just 'get caught up in'. This dude is a criminal through and through. I find it rather abusive of his position as an MP of Canada to provide a recommendation for a member of his own ethnic community who's pleaded guilty to a crime as serious as this. What is supposed to happen? He comes back to Canada and spends 6 months instead? For 200 kg of heroin????
  8. Yes. A lot of people have double standards. Still doesn't mean it's right nor does it mean that this is a particularly noteworthy issue. The conservatives are having trouble fielding candidates in Novia Scotia. The riding in question is currently held by the NDP. They likely hand picked this candidate because nobody else wanted to run in a riding they would almost certainly lose. Turns out she was a bad apple. Now they have to probably pick a new one unless someone steps up.
  9. Dion's support of the Green party in the debates was nothing but a cheap trick of his own. He already knew she wasn't going to be participating so he said he would support her just to get positive attention. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose in having her in the debates. Harper had nothing to lose and everything to gain if the Green Party succeeded. He didn't want her in because Elizabeth May has basically shown herself to be almost Liberal herself, going as far as endorsing Liberal candiates. The debate would just be annoying to watch if we had to listen to two identical standpoints.
  10. He is basically saying that. He's saying that the opposition won't cooperate with the agenda he's going to set forth. If that's the case, Canada needs to vote.
  11. I don't really see how this means much of anything. She wasn't allowed to run. She was booted out of the party. The conservatives didn't want a convicted criminal in their ranks. What's the deal? I suppose, according to Ontario Loyalist, that Stephen Harper hand-picked her knowing that she had a criminal record because he wants as many criminals in his cabinet as possible. He himself is obviously evil and that would just be a smart thing to do.
  12. Actually Izzy Asper owned the newspaper and he once led the Liberal Party of Manitoba. He's dead now and his sons own it, but the Asper family is usually quite Liberal. The Post has flip-flopped on who it supports in the last few years, but an important thing to note is that it's NOT a National Newspaper anymore and one of its main competitors now is the Toronto Star. Newspapers publish to a large extent the opinions its readers want to hear. It's no secret which way Toronto leans. The Post is widely considered now to be fairly Liberal-leaning. As has been pointed out to me, it does seem like the legislation was a waste of time. With that being said, the purpose of the thread was to contend with all the posts fussing about how wrong it was for Harper to pull the plug on the joke that parliament has become.
  13. Because after an election Harper has a renewed minority and the confidence of Canadians will have been demonstrated in his government at least for the time being. Unless he comes up with something totally boneheaded it would look pretty stupid on the opposition's part to defeat his government shortly after having it re-elected. Most voters would see that as a waste of time and money for taxpayers and would look negatively on the opposition who defeated the government that was just re-elected. Where would that stop? Well it would keep happening until a majority was elected and chances are it wouldn't be the opposition that had been calling pointless elections. Oh and Topaz...please begin with Stephen Harper's spending left and right behavior. Tell us about the controversial issues. Please. I can say things like, "The Liberals have shown that they are less concerned with governing and more concerned with partisan politics and fighting with Stephen Harper. Incompetence? Stupidity? Where do I begin??? See? It's easy to say stuff like that.
  14. You're right. Again though, as you constantly ignore, the PM and his supporters aren't the ones whining right now. The Liberals and their supporters are the ones carrying on. By whining and fussing about the election being called, Liberal supporters are basically just saying, "Despite the fact that legislation was being passed which we openly opposed along with the MAJORITY of the House of Commons, it was okay for us to wait until the polls improve for the Liberals at which point we will do what we were elected to do and actually vote against legislation that we think is wrong for Canada. On the other hand, knowing that this was the Liberal plan, it is completely unreasonable for the Harper Conservatives to not allow us to watch polls until we think we could actually win an election. I mean, obviously they should allow us to play our waiting and watching game until they find themselves at a disadvantage."
  15. and on that I'll agree. and also on What my whole post was about, if you read the title again, is all the people crying foul play as if Harper is doing something terribly evil and crooked. Instead, what he's basically doing is calling Dion's weak-kneed threats as the bluffs they are while at the same time making him publicly declare he won't support Harper's government and cooperate. If Dion has publicly stated he won't support the government, why wait for the inevitable and seemingly near future non-confidence vote?? Unless, of course, you're a Liberal and you're waiting for the polls to improve.
  16. Yes. I know. That's not what's been happening. There's been no consensus. By your very words you'd supported my point. The rest of parliament DID NOT support him. They voted against or abstained. Abstaining to legislation that your party can't support because you're afraid of an election is not cooperation. That's called waiting for the polls to improve. That's a sham parliament. What you just said is nonsense. Dictate? Godwin's law anyone? You don't dictate in an electoral democracy. If he was to 'dictate' anything crazy like the doom mongers say he's trying to, his party would vote non confidence against him. Any elected government with a majority basically dictates legislation. That's providing the Senate and the whole party goes along with it. Your just using big scary words.
  17. Fair enough I can keep that in mind. With that being said, my name calling was a direct reference to the people who are carrying on about the fixed election date 'law' being broken as per the title of my post. As for the bill, you're right, . There's no specific escape clause there and you're also right in that this seems like a pretty vague and leaky piece of legislation to me. So Harper is guilty of passing a law that holds no water. Okay. So maybe that's what people should complaining about instead of calling him a crook. and what you're suggesting is that Harper, instead of calling an election when it's favourable for him, should wait instead for Dion to do otherwise. The fixed election date is a moot point when your opposition has declared they're not willing to cooperate and are threatening to topple the government. Either that's a misquote or I typoed. Over half of parliament is voting against him or abstaining, meaning he is passing legislation without the support of over half the House. The NDP and Bloc vote against him. The Liberals silently protest by abstaining. What this basically means is that while they are unwilling to support Tory legislation, they are just waiting for the appropriate time when the polls favor them instead of Harper to dissolve parliament. Parliament is functioning until the polls favor the Liberals. I think it's pretty unreasonable to expect Harper to handicap himself by allowing the opposition, who declared they will not cooperate with Harper, to wait until the polls look better for them to initiate what they themselves have been implying is a foregone conclusion.
  18. No. He's saying that they've declared they're unwilling to cooperate moving on. Dion has admitted as such. A minority government, without the cooperation of the opposition, the government can't function. Am I wrong?
  19. They've passed bills, sure, but lately they've been doing so without the support of parliament. Nobody is talking about what Harper did last year. They're talking about now and lately. Half the House is openly opposed to him. They've made it CLEAR they're not willing to support him moving on, so to continue as we are is to govern with Dion watching the polls with his finger on the election button waiting for an opportune time to strike. Why would ANYBODY do that????
  20. Guyser you didn't answer any of my questions. My opening post was a response to everything you said. You ignored the fact that Dion has been threatening to bring down the government, but hasn't yet. Why? Because he's just waiting for a time that suits HIM. Harper met with him, they discussed the CPC agenda, Dion was quoted by the media as saying there is no common ground whatsoever and never has been. Let me put it clearly. The Bloc and NDP consistently vote against him. The Liberals abstain. When Harper passes legislation, less than half the House is voting for it. That clearly shows he doesn't have the confidence of the House. That is not a functioning parliament. Parliament is a sham right now and the reason for that is that the Liberals are afraid to admit they don't have the support of Canada right now.
  21. Alright answer me this. If you're arguing with someone, and they're carrying on and complaining and complaining but they refuse to look at the issue reasonably and respond to any argument presented to them, what would you call them? Cry baby was the term that came to mind for me. When they are UNABLE to argue rationally, I call them simpleton. Pick your poison. Mangina, on the other hand, is teenage potty language and lost any funny factor it might have had about 10 years ago. As to your other response, at least you argued the fact. Is the fixed election date law meaningless? Maybe it is at is stands. Do you have a copy of the bill in front of you? No? Me neither. I can't imagine Harper would have passed the bill if it was 100% pointless. Maybe it needs to be revised? If Harper had a majority and he called a snap election, I'd be on your side right now and calling him liar myself. In a minority, I see no wrong done, especially considering how much Dion has been going on about how he disagrees with everything Harper says and does in Parliament. Please any of you, go back to my original post, read it, and refute my claim that parliament isn't functioning when over half the House of Commons is voting or abstaining. I'd like to see you try, but I doubt any of you will. I expect more of the same.
  22. If Harper comes back with a minority his government should function fine and no party would dare defeat him within the next few years. A renewed minority provides him with the renewed confidence of Canadians and any party that tried to defeat him over anything but the most controversial issues would be to blame for any other money wasted. A renewed minority is fine for Harper because basically it says to the opposition, "See! Canadians want me here. Quit yer bitchin!"
  23. and my point is proven. Again, when asked to provide a rationale for your opinions, you couldn't or refused to. The best you guys could come up with was misquoting me and lobbing teenage insults at me that you learned from TV/Internet. You couldn't even manage insulting me properly. You quoted me as calling you a cry baby and simpleton for being unwilling/unable to provide a counter argument and then you responded I had sand in my mangina. That qualifies, I believe, for the "NO U!" department. I asked you a number of questions. You refused to answer them. I asked you to provide counter-arguments. You replied like a child with direct personal insults. Again, all you did was repeat yourself and fling nonsense at me. That's you look stupid in every discussion and that's why the Liberals will fail miserably in this election. When a party campaigns towards the lowest common denominator, the smart people end up voting against it.
  24. Hey, I'm not going to argue with you about the intelligence of going there in the first place. I'm arguing as to the intelligence of a Liberal government sending troops there in the first place but then wanting to bring them back with the country worse off than it was before they came. The Americans invaded Afghanistan unilaterally. NATO was then called in for a peace effort. Is it going incredibly well? Not amazingly. Is there progress? Sure. You're right in that Afghanistan is a mess of a country. It's culture and people are about as different as they can be to us. With that being said, it also provides the world with the vast majority of illegal opium. It was a whole country devoted basically to illegal drug production for consumption around the world. It was run by murderous warlords who governed outside of local or international law and was a proven training ground for extremist fighters. Basically it needed to be cleaned up regardless. It was a whole country devoted to destabilizing the rest of the world. A NATO peace mission is quite a bit different from British Imperialism. Britain's policy was 'make the world England'. They imposed their own laws, their own culture and their own taxes on natives throughout the world and they never had any intention to leave. A NATO peace mission is there to make sure that keeps things stable while a non-dangerous autonomous government repairs the country and asserts itself. Afghanistan is unique in that it has always been broken so NATO is basically starting from scratch.
  25. Yeah he said, "Unless we're defeated or prevented from governing." The opposition has already declared they intend to bring the government down. What's the difference between an opposition that DOES prevent him from governing and one that WILL prevent him from governing when the polls suit them best? It doesn't matter what he didn't describe. Since he didn't describe anything, it really has no place in this discussion does it? As for your last comment, please, counter away. The whole theme of my posts lately have been that Liberal cry babies do NOT usually try to counter arguments presented to them. Instead, they gloss over what was said and respond with quotes like yours that really just repeat the same theme over and over. Harper is evil. Harper is a liar. Harper is a baby snatcher and a blood sucking oil baron blah blah blah. If you're going to complain about something, you should at least be able to look at it rationally and you should be able to present me with a counter argument. Otherwise, yes, you are a cry baby and you are a simpleton. You and people like you are all bleating, "Harper lied! Harper cheated!" My post explained point by point how he came to that decision and how any REASONABLE person would have done the same. Your response was basically, "HARPER LIED HARPER CHEATED." Repetition should not be confused with reasoning.
×
×
  • Create New...