err
-
Posts
884 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by err
-
-
It's quite amusing to see those who found nothing wrong with the beer and popcorn comment, or Martin's use of a private clinic while insisting that public healthcare be preserved, or criticism of the Americans on their emissions record when it far surpasses Canada's, now get bent out of shape over a mere handshake.
For the record, I think Harper was wrong to not shake hands, and I'd like to hear his response to the criticisms raised.
Personally, I think the "beer and popcorn" comment was politically incorrect, and maybe even distasteful.... but there's a ring of truth to it.... They never should have said it, and could have implied that the funds would likely be mis-directed in a more tasteful way... Note however, that this type of message is commonly presented by Conservatives in the provincial forum....
And what's wrong with Martin using a private clinic.... as long as no taxpayer money goes to subsidize his visits... ie. he pays the full shot from his own pocket, then what's the problem.... Public healthcare should be preserved for all of the Canadian public.... Those with tons of money can fly to China for acupucture if they want... or pay for an acupunture clinic in downtown Montreal...
And as for pollution, Martin must be more proactive, and not be hypocritical... Note, however, that the CPC would not "wasted any money" on a "deeply flawed protocol" such as Kyoto.... (Harper's words in the quotations)
If you care about these kinds of issues, vote NDP.
-
Please stick to the topic...a sitting American president who was cheating on his wife.
So if they screw around on their wives BEFORE they become president, that makes it all okay???
Hey PocketRocket... Montgomery is just burning that a Democrat like Clinton is so popular, he'd easily have been elected for a third term if he were allowed to run... And that he was liked and respected around the world.... And that he has charisma, unlike anyone that they can get to run for the religious right, either in Canada or the USA....
err.
-
back to the topic, if this was Harper who had a private care doctor and shares in a private clinic, the main stream media would go bonkers for a week over that. But since it's Martin, he gets very little coverage.
All doctors work out of private clinics. So what is so different about Martin's doctor? Does Martin pay his doctor with a credit card or his health care for the doctor's services as Canadians are prone to do across Canada.
http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgaz...0e-f6ea28b15b11
Prime Minister Paul Martin's personal physician is the Montreal founder of a national network of clinics that is in the vanguard of private health care.
Dr. Sheldon Elman, president and majority shareholder of the Medisys Health Group, said Canada's public health-care system has deteriorated to the point where it is "disastrously terrible" in key areas.
Martin at least, has the decency not to promote these more expensive services that he can afford to pay for out of his own pocket. He is not actively promoting the use of private health care, paid from medicare as Harper did in the French language debate.
In that debate, Harper stated that he didn't care who provided the service, as long as the service was delivered...
I see the three party positions as having the Conservatives endorsing private health care delivery, the Liberals, while not publicly endorsing it, would not make the deal with the NDP to stop public funds going to it... and the NDP's position is to fix our health care system... so it's publicly delivered.... I'm voting NDP.
-
What was Duceppe saying to him?
I watched the video, and though I admit that I'm not very good at lipreading, from the other leaders' expressions, it would appear that only standard pleasnatries were being exchanged.
Maybe Harper was not shaking the hand of his previous ally (in the attempts to tear down our government) because he didn't want to be perceived as "being in bed with the Bloc" 1.
Most people would be appalled by such a refusal to shake hands with an opponent before the debate, as it is a sign of respect for the opponent. If one aspires to leadership, they have to at bite their tongue and at least feign the respect, or risk that everyone would think that he's an arsehole.... with not respect for other people's positions/opinions.
I suppose he can't hide his spots forever.... Lets hope that lots of Canadians see this.....
1 - "Being in bed with the Bloc" is not a sexual reference, Cybercoma (because I know you CPC types are high-strung about any sexual references), but rather one suggesting a "close partnership".
-
Besides lying, the lazy media often are guilty of omission. For example, I've not come across a single story in the mainstream media during the campaign about Harper's opposition to including sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation.
Nor did they mention Martin's glowing endorsement of middle aged men who like to have sex with teenage boys, and that he only wishes he had more of them in his cabinet.
You'll have to explain this one... because it would appear to be completely unfounded and libellous....
You Child Porn Crusaders can't seem to let up on this kind of topic... and don't appear to care to present any facts to back up your allegations.....
-
The Liberal Plan, while I have some concerns about its effectiveness, at least is focused on the problem: the lack of quality day care at a reasonable cost for those who need it. The Conservative Plan is based on ideology and will do nothing to solve the problem. This idea that there should be no programs offered to the less fortunate to give them a "hand up" reflects the rejection of "progressivism" in the new Conservative Party.
I would prefer to see my tax dollars spent on helping the children of the less fortunate get a good start in life than provide a free gift to the more affluent.
I agree that we must strive for proper, regulated day care. However, I would add that it should be publicly run. Private, for-profit day-care centres care primarily about the "bottom line"... and that's not the children. Further, private centres will care more for a healthy profit than a healthy child. Because of this, I would have to recommend the NDP plan over the Liberal one....
-
I noticed in the English language debate that Harper held his tongue on delivery of medicare.... In the French debate, he first said that he didn't want a two-tier health care system... Then Harper stated that he didn't care if the delivery was public or private, but that the government should pay for it....
Last night, in the English debuate, Harper refrained from advocating private health care though....
It is important to note that Harper did advocate private health care delivery, because this is something that we, as Canadians, should strive to prevent...
-
Nobody gets rich from their salary as a politician in Canada. They all wind up rich by the time they're done though.
Look at Mulroney... on the board of directors of how many corporations.... Mike Harris on the board of director of how many corporations.... Margaret Thatcher...
While they're in office, they "do things" that help these companies, and when the're done, they end up on the boards of directors, with good compensation....
-
Further to the Honest Politician's reply, there are many factors. First of which was that when sanctions were lifted, the US and British petroleum companies were going to get NO MORE IRAQI OIL. The backroom deals were already done, that Russia, France, and Holland were the countries that would get to exploit Iraqi oil. At least 16% of the world's oil is known to reside under Iraqi soil, and once it is properly explored, it may turn out to hold a lot more than that.
Iraq had less terrorism than Canada until George Warmonger Bush attacked it to gain control of the country's OIL for his friends. Now, it is a serious hotbed of every kind of problem....You can't have it both ways. In one thread you'll argue that Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, in another you say that invading Iraq will enrage Al-Qaeda. Which is it? Is Iraq a terrorist hotbed that needs to be dealt with or not?Canada's being seen to be "in bed with the USA" in its attacks on Muslim countries will enrage all Muslims... not just those in Al Queda....
why would he attack Iraq for oil when they have tons in their reserves and can buy freely from Saudi Arabia and Canada?
In the 70's there was the "Energy Crisis"... where some of the OPEC countries (assisted by the oil giants) refused to sell oil to the USA, and the price went through the roof.... The USA past its peak production in 1973... their reserves are depleting.... but their demand isn't ... They cannot allow other countries to control their supply of oil.... access was good, pre-Iraq, but now they have control.... and no camel-jockey is ever going to restrict their access to oil again....
-
I always thought it was the rest of the world wanting to come here to get away from whatever in their home country.... Maybe being a cabbie here is better than being beaten and degraded in another country....We are a country obsessed with being PC (politically correct). We steal the best and brightest from thrid world countries, turn them into cac drivers and then revell in calling ourslves "multicultural".
We legalized it because we believe in human rights, and that we shouldn't discriminate against "different" people... I sense that you don't fit into this "we" category....We legalize gay marriage, not because we believe in it but because we don't believe in anything else.
Canada is a non-aggressive country.... Many countries are non-agressive, and I would suggest that a whole lot more should be the same way....We talk a big game on peacekeeping but don't have a military.
Who's this "we" you keep talking about ?????We hate americans but depend on them.
Why don't you inform us about which countries think we're so 'funny'....We are a joke on the international scene but keep thinking everyone loves us. -
POT?
Oh my god that stuff is evil. I saw a guy smoke it once and he started to laugh. Then he couldn't stop smiling. Before I knew it he had made himself a sandwich and went to sleep. It just as bad as that crack that people die for $10 over. I would much rather my child get drunk and become violent then have them smoke a joint and pass out.
Excellent reply....
-
Did you see on the CTV website.... Some radio station wanted to see just how much of an "average guy" Harper was... And he didn't know how much milk or eggs cost.....
-
The point is he has never been middle class
And he has never tried to portray himself as such....
-
Mulroney, like Chretien, was totally ineffective in getting any concessions from the US. But there have now been two major reductions in the softwood lumber duty since Martin took office. Of course it helps that Martin has reminded the US that Canada is the world's largest supplier of energy to the US.
Actually Norm, Mulroneys team couldn't get a NAFTA deal with the United States that wouldn't compromise Canada's positions on several issues, including energy. The negotiators came back empty handed.... But Mulroney sent them back to Washinton with the instructions to "Make a deal at whatever cost".... So Mulroney sold us to the Americans...
At least Cretien had the testicular fortitude to tell the Americans that we wouldn't play "shoot the Iraqi" with them.... Our previous Liberal leader had balls in dealing with the Americans too... It's just the CPC types that want them to control our country.....
-
Iraq had less terrorism than Canada until George Warmonger Bush attacked it to gain control of the country's OIL for his friends. Now, it is a serious hotbed of every kind of problem....You can't have it both ways. In one thread you'll argue that Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, in another you say that invading Iraq will enrage Al-Qaeda. Which is it? Is Iraq a terrorist hotbed that needs to be dealt with or not?Canada's being seen to be "in bed with the USA" in its attacks on Muslim countries will enrage all Muslims... not just those in Al Queda....
-
The unequivocal position on abortion.....
Why is this bad? It could mean that he has learned to appreciate the virtues of the Canadian system in the last few years. It could also mean that, as a politician, he realizes that the wishes of the voter trump the wishes of the politician everytime. Harper's recent statement on abortion in his Washington Post letter was pretty unequivocal: he would stick with the status quo no matter what his personal position.But when Harper keeps his actual positions so close to his vest, or obviously waters them down to appear more electablelast election it was:
We're going to stop the abortions....
and in response to the strong negative public reaction, changed it to:
We're not going to put forth a bill to ban abortions, but if one of our private members wants to, we'll vote on it... (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)
and when the public reaction to this was still very negative,
We're not going to ban abortions.
It would appear he'll adjust his "convictions" to whatever it takes to get elected... like acting like a Liberal... But we can all see that a wolf in granny's dress is still a wolf... and they won't fool Liberal Red Riding Hood.... or very many educated Canadians....
-
Bubber, not really. Martin has so many things coming out of both sides of his mouth you can tell he learned well from Chretien. How can a guy so desperate for votes be doing as well as Martin is. It's sad.
While we're on the topic of big flip floppers, why not bring up about Harper being one of two Reform party members to vote in favour of the Canadian Gun Registry !!!!
-
quote:
Martin did not grow up as a millionaire. He made it in the fashion beloved of the Right.
Martin went to private school, not exactly the fodder of middle class, his father was a cabinet minister and was a Liberal leadership hopeful.
At least Martin never pretends to be middle class, or to "identify with their financial problems"....
-
Harper Most DEFINITELY supported attacking Iraq <-- Bad News
Martin waffled, but held the party line on Iraq <--- Not good
Jack Layton was clearly against invading Iraq <--- Good News
the moral of the story.....
Vote for Jack Layton if you want a government true to its principles.
-
If you'll re-read, you'll see that I was merely commenting on your thinking it was unreasonable to pay everybody "what they're worth"
I guess you're saying that CPC supporters think that all people shouldn't be paid what they're worth... Could you give us an indication of which people should be underpaid... maybe homosexuals, black people... maybe French people.... I'm really curious to know....What you are saying is that every single worker must be paid "what they're worth" and all Canadians must be forced to pay more money for goods and services to justify this.Could you give us an indication of who should pay for all these high-paying jobs? Heterosexual families with children? Christians? Native Indians who can't even drink clean water? Inner-city minorities who continue to live on welfare because the economy can't create jobs for them? Those evil rich people who bust their asses working hard? Those stupid cowboy Americans?
-
Stephen Harper was first elected as an MP in 1993, and had his first child in 1996. I suppose he had to struggle on the MP's wage... didn't he.....Harper said he can relate to raising a family on a middle class budget. The facts of the matter indicate that he did so for about 10 years before becoming leader of the opposition.Just admit that you got duped by the mention of Harper's current salary, forgot that he was earning much less when his kids were younger, and move on.
-
I wasn't a fan of Cretien's until he "did the right thing" about Iraq. As it turns out, there were no weapons of mass destruction.... So Cretien stopped us from looking stupid in most of the word's eyes, and stopped Al Queda from painting a big bulls eye on Canada.Could we have sent along some token troops? Sure, I suppose. But we weren't being asked to. We were being asked for our endorsement. Harper would have given it (as would Martin, apparently) but Chretien chose not to (one of the few times in history that Chretien came away looking smart, as it turns out.)
Of course Harper would have sent troops, ordered helecopters, planes, bombs, etc... He's now saying that he wouldn't send troops BECAUSE HE WANTS TO GET ELECTED. Not because that is the truth. And it's certainly not what he was saying two years ago....This chatter about whether Harper is a chicken for saying he'd have supported the war but wouldn't have sent troops is nonsense, as sending troops wasn't part of the commitment Canada was asked to make.-k
-
Yet another example of Paul Martin saying one thing, yet doing another when push comes to shove. Here are a number of, credited, quotes when he wasn't *fundamentally opposed* to BMD.
Somebody save us from *another* term or Martin's flip flopping...
"In response to a question about why the PM is in talks with U.S. President George Bush regarding the missile defence system, he said Canada can't walk away because it would lose control of its own air space. The PM said that 'nobody should trifle with Canadian air space unless Canadians say it's okay,' he said, making clear that 'I will not sign any agreement that involves the weaponization of space.' (Liberal Party Press Release, June 23, 2004).
Solution = Vote NDP
-
Actually he said Canada wouldn't send troops because the Liberal-decimated military lacked the ability to undertake such a massive operation.What kind of ball-less leader says he supports a war but won't send troops? Under Harper, Canada wouldn't be out of the Coalition of the Willing on principle, just on cowardice.
"because the Liberal-decimated military lacked the ability to undertake such a massive operation..."
Did the newspaper just not print this part... or is it a fictional addition to Harper's words, like many of your other CPC arguments....
WOW!
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted