ReeferMadness

To some people around here, everything they don't agree with is somehow the work of the Liberal Party of Canada.

You're splitting hairs. The goal of the program was to keep Quebec in Canada. If it worked, then I think the lost funds were worth it. Ya think? If you think I've praised the Liberals, you need to point where. I'm not a Liberal and have never voted Liberal. As for Mulroney, there's a name you Conservative apologists would be better off not mentioning. What can be said about a former PM who receives payment in the form of paper bags full of cash for services of dubious value? And then he forgets to declare said payment on his income taxes. Can't be anything wrong with that.

That's an interesting take on bribery.

The comparison to the sponsorship scandal is specious. The sponsorship scandal did have a worthy goal (keeping Quebec in Canada) and if that's what worked, it would be cheap at 20 times the price. In contrast, the Duffy affair had no goal but to keep the Conservative Party from embarrassment. The independent inquiry into the sponsorship scandal was called by a Liberal PM. And then he went into an election and took his lumps. You can say what you want about the Liberals but they did call an independent inquiry and they took at least some accountability. By contrast, Harper and his PMO had numerous chances to come clean and all they did was pile one cover-up on top of another. Most of the wrongdoing in the sponsorship scandal took place inside the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party. Maybe Chretien and the PMO knew what was going on but it's hard to say. By contrast, in the Duffy affair, the PMO is squarely implicated in the bribery of a sitting senator. And cause of the entire affair is PM Harper personally dictating a ridiculous definition of what constitutes residency. Arguably, the entire affair is his fault as his staff and senate do everything to protect him from the ramifications of his dumb political decision. Finally, I think there is a difference in public perception. To me, Chretien is a career politician who believed in Canada. I think he and those around him believed the ends justified the means. Harper, by contrast, rode into power on this "Mr Clean" image and promised to clean up Ottawa. People are not easily inclined to forgive a raving hypocrite.

The sad thing is that while Argus rages at the court like Grandpa Simpson, Harper and an unelected cadre of hangers on in the PMO, actually do impose their personal ideological beliefs and values on the country.

And you would prefer the law only reflect Stephen Harper's personal ideological beliefs and values.

So, I'm going to assume that's another way of saying that you have no expertise, no relevant background and no evidence to support your criticisms of the court. And I won't bother to respond to your whining about how the court does whatever it wants. As if August 31, there is only one Liberal appointee remaining on the bench. Even Justice McLachlin is a Conservative appointee. So, if Harper's own appointees fail to do his bidding, I guess you'll have to just break out the tinfoil hats. Clearly, Canada's legal establishment is just one vast left wing conspiracy, plotting to undermine the forces of good. There are plenty of other right wingers out there who will listen to you pontificate all day about "judicial activism" and "overreach" and all sorts of other equally nonsensical gibberish. Go and talk to them about it.

Sure. Because the current glut will last forever. Because markets work perfectly and always ensure the right supply.

MP's have so little autonomy and power, I'm not sure that even pure list PR would have an appreciable impact. If you want the system that would most emphasize the individual MP, then Single Transferable Vote (STV) is the answer.

The theory that the Saudis are trying to eliminate competition from shale oil is one theory and I don't find it particularly compelling. Americans have a lot of influence with the House of Saud and so I question this. Another theory I find more compelling is that the Americans themselves are working with the Saudis. Maybe the Saudis are attracted by the notion that it will push some of the weaker players out of the shale oil business. But I think that the Americans are aiming this squarely at Russia. And there are a bunch of side benefits: - it allows them to take a swipe at Venezuela and Iran - the American economy needs a boost and cheap energy helps Whatever the cause, the cheap oil won't last. Nobody really seems to know what shale oil really costs to produce but it isn't $35 a barrel. As long as oil stays cheap, investment will slow down and eventually the cost will skyrocket again. This is the miracle of the market. The price will continue to fluctuate wildly, overshooting on both ends. But the longer term trends are clear. The price of oil will continue to climb while solar and other renewables continue to drop. At some point, someone will resolve the storage issue and renewables will take off.

Oh. Please elaborate. Cite the cases where she has failed to follow the law appropriately and don't forget to reference your legal qualifications. We're all waiting.

Two out of the three are corrupt basket cases which I won't bother addressing. And then there's Zimbabwe. (Just kidding). Seriously, the main problem with American politics is not that it's republican, it's that it's American. And Americans seem to be all in favor of the notion that everything is for sale. Including free speech and democracy. Most Canadians don't really appreciate the fact that we don't vote for a Prime Minister and that the PM is supposedly accountable to Parliament. So it would be an improvement to have a directly elected head of state with appropriately limited powers. We can't seem to educate the people to understand the system. So why not have a system that meets the peoples' understanding. I wasn't aware that Harper needed 7 provinces to agree before he stopped meddling in the affairs of the senate. And stopped appointing ridiculous hacks like Duffy. That's a very naive statement. As a private citizen, Harper can say whatever he pleases and nobody will care. And most Canadians hope that he will be a private citizen only very soon. As leader of parliament, it's irresponsible and disrespectful of Harper to get into a spat with the Chief Justice. It politicizes a body that is supposed to be non-political. And I know that lots and lots of right wingers have these conspiracy theories that the Supreme Court is out to thwart Parliament. Which is bizarre, since they are mostly Harper appointees. In fact, we have this thing called the Charter of Rights that was written long before Chairman Harper arrived on the scene to change Canada. So if Harper wants to change Canada, he can open up the Charter. See how well that works for him. As are all of your comments.

I wonder if our democratic institutions, at least as they exist are beyond repair. Or maybe not worth repairing, in many cases. Harper's habit of pro-roguing to avoid accountability has made the GG a tool of the government. Once that happens it's very easy for future governments to do the same. Maybe it's high time to dump the monarchy in favor of an elected head of stated. The mess that is the senate is something that Harper promised to clean up. After a token effort, he went ahead and make it a bigger mess. It's time to make it work properly by having an independent elected senate. Bodies that are supposed to be accountable to parliament (Elections Canada, Auditor General, Parliamentary Budget Office, etc) become politicized when the government picks fights with them. They need to be repositioned so they are really arms length. Harper picking a public fight with Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin left Canada looking that much more like a banana republic and Harper that much more like the leader of a Junta. Harper's habit of running government Ministries like they are an arm of the Conservative Party (muzzling scientists, micromanaging information releases, branding government announcements with the party logo, interfering with environmental assessments) has politicized the public service. Harper's focus on wedge politics, dog whistle politics and the tiny group of swing voters has permanently undermined FPTP. FPTP has been past its due date for a long time but now it is a serious liability. In short, we have a lot of work to do.

Exactly. Which brings us to Orwell's other masterpiece, 1984. The enemies change but there always needs to be an enemy. The sheep need to be kept scared so they stay in a herd and bleat on cue.

Exactly so. Read George Orwell's classic Animal Farm. When the communists seized power in Russia, it was with promises that everything would be different. Only it turned out things weren't different, just the masters changed. If Orwell were around today, he might write a sequel to Animal Farm to illustrate what happened when communism collapsed in Russia. It's still an authoritarian regime, not quite as totalitarian but just as corrupt. And this time, the masters didn't even change. They just became the oligarchs and robbed the state blind.

What size of tinfoil hat do you wear?

That's a ridiculous statement. Checks and balances can be introduced into any form of government. Your statement shows that you've come to this discussion with a closed mind. I'm done with this thread.

An NDP minority government is far from the worst thing that could happen to Canada. I wonder what Trudeau would do in that circumstance.

So here's something that's interesting about Communism. It was birthed in 2 major countries, Russia and China. Both are now embracing capitalism, in their own ways. And in both cases, the same corrupt people who manipulated the communist system for their own benefit now manipulate the capitalist system for their own benefit. And the common people are still stuck living under corrupt authoritarian regimes. So, maybe the fundamental problem wasn't with the ideology itself. Maybe it was that these countries went from primitive authoritarian societies and tried to implement advanced societal concepts without any history or tradition of the types of checks and balances that make a normal advanced society possible. The types of checks and balances that Stephen Harper's government has spent the past 10 years undermining.

kraychik, please provide your evidence that Mr Milloy speaks on behalf of the LIberal Party of Canada. If you don't have any evidence, you could ask the moderators to terminate your thread so you can open one with a more honest title. The origin of this hysterical piece is the National Newswatch, which describes Mr Milloy as following: He was a former provincial cabinet minister so he couldn't even speak for the current Ontario LIberals, much less the LPC. Mr Milloy appears to be talking for nobody but Mr Milloy.

Which begs the question. If there were no other army, who was the US army fighting?

Most don't care to admit it but there are a lot of people who don't really believe in democracy. And wrt point 2, lmao.

Is Harper looking for sympathy? He can find it in the dictionary between sycophant and syphilis. You're right. The defence is making this trial more political but Harper is the author of his own misfortunes. He and his henchmen in the PMO had multiple opportunities not to let this happen: 1. He could have refrained from getting involved in how the senate sets residency rules. He didn't. In fact, he set his own rule for what constitutes residency. 2. He could have stayed away from the senate audit altogether and let Duffy deal with the auditors. He didn't. Instead he interfered with the audit. 3. He could have come clean and admitted that Duffy believed his residency status was OK because he (Harper) told him it was OK. He didn't. Instead he tried to stuff Duffy under the bus. 4. He could have come clean and admitted his mistake as soon as he knew Nigel wrote the cheque. Instead, he supported Wright until the knowledge of the cheque went public. Then he claimed that Novak didn't know anything. If he has to dismiss Novak, he will claim he didn't know anything about that either. The PM bears as much accountability for this mess as anyone and more than most. And there is no reason to believe what he says anymore. Either he is lying or the people around him are lying to him. Either way, he is not to be trusted.

Or maybe the question was just so nonsensical that I assumed it was nothing but rhetoric.

If you believe in democracy, then the way to correct this would be to do a better job of educating people. And have a political system that does a better job of engaging people. If you don't believe in democracy, just keep voting for Harper.