Afghanistan

[normanchateau]

When huge companies paying large amount of taxes were about to redo themselves as income trusts, he had no choice.

I'm not saying that breaking the promise on income trusts was stupid. I'm saying that his promise to re-visit a lesbian's right to marry was.

Others claim that this government has more important things to do than debate whether we should be honouring Canadian heroes by lowering the flag. Yet this government viewed it as worth debating whether they should take away a lesbian's right to marry. This government has very strange priorities.

[M.Dancer]

Then why did Harper think in December, 2006, that "re-visiting" the issue of same-sex marriage was an important use of his time? Were Canadians in turmoil because lesbians could marry? Is lowering the flag to honour Canadian heroes less important to Harper than removing a lesbian's legally bestowed right to marry?

Are you still harping over this dead issue? You were told why, to shut up the socons.....sheesh...beat many dead horses?

[scribblet]

Then why did Harper think in December, 2006, that "re-visiting" the issue of same-sex marriage was an important use of his time? Were Canadians in turmoil because lesbians could marry? Is lowering the flag to honour Canadian heroes less important to Harper than removing a lesbian's legally bestowed right to marry?

Oh gee, not those poor lesbians again guess if he hadn't kept his promise on that issue he would have been wrong too.

[normanchateau]

Are you still harping over this dead issue? You were told why, to shut up the socons...

Someone else claimed it's because Harper keeps his promises.

[Alta4ever]

Someone else claimed it's because Harper keeps his promises.

He might not keep them all but he's kept more then the lieberals. And least he doesn't try to bride taxpayers with their own money. I hated nothing more then paying 30% to the liberal government to have them try to bribe my vote by offering to give 1% in federal services.

At leaset we don't have a government like that anymore.

[jdobbin]

At leaset we don't have a government like that anymore.

We don't? Paul Martin cancelled sponsorship. Harper has re-introduced it. And the first thing that the Tories did was ask which Tory ridings should get the money.

[Alta4ever]

We don't? Paul Martin cancelled sponsorship. Harper has re-introduced it. And the first thing that the Tories did was ask which Tory ridings should get the money.

Oh really, prove it

[jdobbin]

Oh really, prove it

The Tories re-introduced a $30 million dollar program of sponsorship. You didn't hear about it?

http://www.straight.com/article-93137/news...m-the-art-world

Local politicians and festival directors are accusing Heritage Minister Bev Oda of mishandling the distribution of a new $30-million festival sponsorship program. Oda has said guidelines for the program will not be ready until fall. The funding, slated to run for two years, was announced as part of the federal budget last March.

"They've set this fund for this fiscal year," Lindy Sesson, western representative for the Canadian Festivals Coalition and executive director of the Vancouver International Children's Festival, told the Straight . "I think about 80 percent of festivals happen in the summer. If they [the Department of Canadian Heritage] are not going to release or accept applications until the fall, it is not realistic to give $30 million to 20 percent of the festivals."

And then to top it off, they tried to direct it to Tory ridings.

http://www.charlieangus.net/newsitem.php?i...db9e6847c1f02d4

Today during Question Period, Charlie Angus called for the resignation of the Heritage Minister following evidence Bev Oda has offered money to backbench Conservative MP’s for a program that doesn’t exist. Angus produced a letter yesterday from the Minister’s office that is inviting Conservative MPs to come forward with ideas on how to spend a $30 million program slated for summer festivals. No criteria, applications or timelines have been posted by the Heritage Department with regards to this multi-million dollar fund.

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=n042587A

The new program designed to replace the infamously corrupt federal sponsorship fund appears set to become a bona fide Conservative boondoggle, the opposition alleged Wednesday.

An internal memo suggests the government intends to favour ridings held by Tory MPs when they hand out cash from a new $30-million program for festivals, the NDP said. New Democrat MP Charlie Angus said the Tories - who bill themselves as a new government of accountability - have a few questions to answer.

I'm sure some Tories are shocked by this news and want any sponsorship stopped immediately.

[Alta4ever]

The Tories re-introduced a $30 million dollar program of sponsorship. You didn't hear about it?

http://www.straight.com/article-93137/news...m-the-art-world

And then to top it off, they tried to direct it to Tory ridings.

http://www.charlieangus.net/newsitem.php?i...db9e6847c1f02d4

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=n042587A

I'm sure some Tories are shocked by this news and want any sponsorship stopped immediately.

Funny you left this out

"All MPs are invited to provide input. The Conservative caucus received a questionnaire, and all members of the opposition parties will receive it in the coming days."

and this......

One cultural group called the allegations of malfeasance surprising.

The head of the Canadian Association of Fairs and Exhibitions said he has met with the heritage minister and is currently working to provide her with a written definition of what should be considered a festival.

"From what I've heard, the government's intentions are very honourable - so I'm kind of surprised," said association president David Bednar.

So far you have nothing but a allegation.

[jdobbin]

So far you have nothing but a allegation.

Funny, that is not what the Tory internal memo said. Oda was caught flatfooted on the whole issue and and the government look bad. It's no wonder why she was shuffled out of the job.

And until now, you were unaware that sponsorship was re-introduced.

Edited April 5, 2008 by jdobbin

[Alta4ever]

Funny, that is not what the Tory internal memo said. Oda was caught flatfooted on the whole issue and and the government look bad. It's no wonder why she was shuffled out of the job.

And until now, you were unaware that sponsorship was re-introduced.

I was unaware it was reintroduced, but was the money funnelled back to the party? If it isn't then it is a much different program.

[jdobbin]

I was unaware it was reintroduced, but was the money funnelled back to the party? If it isn't then it is a much different program.

The memo which came from Oda's offices was trying to direct public money to Tory ridings. A pretty disturbing direction for a party that which had campaigned on eliminating this type of bribing people with their own money.

And shouldn't the right wing be looking at cutting this type of spending?

[Alta4ever]

The memo which came from Oda's offices was trying to direct public money to Tory ridings. A pretty disturbing direction for a party that which had campaigned on eliminating this type of bribing people with their own money.

And shouldn't the right wing be looking at cutting this type of spending?

It depends on how far right you are.

[Topaz]

The memo which came from Oda's offices was trying to direct public money to Tory ridings. A pretty disturbing direction for a party that which had campaigned on eliminating this type of bribing people with their own money.

And shouldn't the right wing be looking at cutting this type of spending?

Jdobbin, refresh my memory, wasn't there something about the Tories and Elections Canada and they were overspending and then has some scam going to recycle money? About 10-15 were caught doing this I think.

[Wilber]

Time to start a new thread maybe, this one has lost its way.

[jdobbin]

Time to start a new thread maybe, this one has lost its way.

Here is we are back on track: A Canadian soldier was killed yesterday.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...ada&s_name=

A Canadian soldier was killed in southern Afghanistan Friday after his armoured vehicle struck an improvised explosive device.

Pte. Terry John Street, 24, was killed in the incident, Brig.-Gen. Guy Laroche, the commander of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, confirmed Friday.

The explosion took place shortly after 6 p.m. local time, in the volatile Panjwaii district southwest of Kandahar city, long known as a hotbed for Taliban activity.

Street and his colleagues were redeploying for the evening, when the blast occurred, said Laroche.

Sadly, I think even with a "surge" of troops into Afghanistan, it will likely a whole lot longer to ever to see real security and an Afghan government capable of ever taking care of itself.

If the Canadian military remains at its present size or slightly larger, this will be the only mission that it ever does for several years. Given that Harper only spends 1.2% of GDP on the military, we are not going to see a huge number of new soldiers.

A new emergency in Canada or elsewhere might not have the manpower or resources to respond in time.

In time, even the Conservatives might tire of Afghanistan if there is a lack of progress.

[jdobbin]

Jdobbin, refresh my memory, wasn't there something about the Tories and Elections Canada and they were overspending and then has some scam going to recycle money? About 10-15 were caught doing this I think.

This is still before the courts and it was a whole lot more than 10-15 candidates.

But people are right, this is for another thread.

[Argus]

I'm sure some Tories are shocked by this news and want any sponsorship stopped immediately.

Sponsorship does not equal kickbacks in return for phony contracts - except to the Liberals, who have so few members willing to contribute money they're desperate to fill their campaign chests somehow.

But yes, I'd cancel all such sponsorship. Unfortunately, the reality is that the Tories appear to think (and may be right) that they need to suck up to the minorities like the Liberals did for so long. Half of Toronto is made up of foreigners, after all, most of them visible minorities. That's why the Tories aren't getting any seats there. All the "ethnic representatives" were getting bribed by the Liberals to turn out the tribal vote. So the Tories are trying to bribe them in turn.

[jdobbin]

Sponsorship does not equal kickbacks in return for phony contracts - except to the Liberals, who have so few members willing to contribute money they're desperate to fill their campaign chests somehow.

But yes, I'd cancel all such sponsorship. Unfortunately, the reality is that the Tories appear to think (and may be right) that they need to suck up to the minorities like the Liberals did for so long. Half of Toronto is made up of foreigners, after all, most of them visible minorities. That's why the Tories aren't getting any seats there. All the "ethnic representatives" were getting bribed by the Liberals to turn out the tribal vote. So the Tories are trying to bribe them in turn.

No, kickbacks is what we saw during the election so that the Tories could use taxpayer money to mount their campaign. It is why Elections Canada has taken them to court.

Bringing back political sponsorship is just going come back and bite the Tories on the ass.

[Argus]

No, kickbacks is what we saw during the election so that the Tories could use taxpayer money to mount their campaign. It is why Elections Canada has taken them to court.

Bringing back political sponsorship is just going come back and bite the Tories on the ass.

This kind of post just provides more evidence that the Liberals refuse to acknowledge how thoroughly corrupt it was to give out money for phony contracts in exchange for kickbacks. To people like Jdobbin, hard core Liberals, there's no difference in doing what they were doing - stealing money, in essence - than the Tories using their own money in ways which might contravene complicated election rules.

Has any party in Canada ever been so thoroughly and completely crooked all the way down to the bone before, so crooked they don't even understand what corruption means?

[Wilber]

If the Canadian military remains at its present size or slightly larger, this will be the only mission that it ever does for several years. Given that Harper only spends 1.2% of GDP on the military, we are not going to see a huge number of new soldiers.

Depends what your GDP is. If it is bugger all, 100% will still be bugger all. If it is massive, 1.2% could be quite a bit. Whatever the percentage, the only thing that matters is whether it is enough to achieve your objective. The actual number of soldiers is less important than how well they are trained, equipped and treated as long as they aren't spending half their lives in the place during a war of this kind, because that should not be necessary in a small war. It is very difficult to rapidly expand an organization when it has been cut back to the bone, because the people left are too busy working to train the new people needed. I've seen it happen in a couple of companies I have worked for. If we ever wind up in a situation where our country is directly threatened, it would be a whole new ball game and present philosophy would go out the window.

We forget in this day age that tens of thousands of Canadians went overseas in WW2 and if they survived, didn't see their home for 5 or more years. My old man was one of them.

In time, even the Conservatives might tire of Afghanistan if there is a lack of progress.

Sure didn't take the Liberals long, all they had to do was lose an election.

[jdobbin]

Has any party in Canada ever been so thoroughly and completely crooked all the way down to the bone before, so crooked they don't even understand what corruption means?

Yes, the Conservatives have been that party in the past. They might be headed that way again if they keep trying to politicize sponsorship funding.

Edited April 6, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Depends what your GDP is. If it is bugger all, 100% will still be bugger all. If it is massive, 1.2% could be quite a bit. Whatever the percentage, the only thing that matters is whether it is enough to achieve your objective. The actual number of soldiers is less important than how well they are trained, equipped and treated as long as they aren't spending half their lives in the place during a war of this kind, because that should not be necessary in a small war. It is very difficult to rapidly expand an organization when it has been cut back to the bone, because the people left are too busy working to train the new people needed. I've seen it happen in a couple of companies I have worked for. If we ever wind up in a situation where our country is directly threatened, it would be a whole new ball game and present philosophy would go out the window.

I am going based on our projected GDP by the Conference Board over the next five or six years and Flaherty's own numbers. It won't be massive and Mackenzie said so in his interview with this forum. We are paying just enough to fund Afghanistan and if we keep up with 1.2% of GDP for the next five years, we will still have a hard time funding an expansion of the military. In other words, we couldn't really do any other major deployment.

We forget in this day age that tens of thousands of Canadians went overseas in WW2 and if they survived, didn't see their home for 5 or more years. My old man was one of them.

A huge part of my family was overseas the entire war. If we are willing to kick up funding and recruiting for an emergency we could do anything. However, even in World War 2, we still had to build for a year or so before we were even close to being for any task.

If we had a short disaster in Canada, I can imagine we'd have a hard time responding. If we were asked to deploy to the former Yugoslavia again or Darfur, we just don't have the horses for it.

Sure didn't take the Liberals long, all they had to do was lose an election.

Martin had set a deadline. It is NATO's response that has been disappointing. It is Afghanistan's response that has been disappointing.

The Tories saying the Liberals support the Taliban is about as cynical as anything they've ever done.

Sadly, the debate we have now could be repeated again in 2011 and every two years after for the next few decades. If the Liberals win an election in the interim, I can well imagine it is the Tories who say we need to stick to a deadline. The deadline was to force NATO and Afghanistan's hand. The last extension didn't do that.

Edited April 6, 2008 by jdobbin

[jbg]

Depends what your GDP is. If it is bugger all, 100% will still be bugger all. If it is massive, 1.2% could be quite a bit. Whatever the percentage, the only thing that matters is whether it is enough to achieve your objective.

Keep in mind, many Muslim and African countries have military expenditures exceeding GDP. The difference comes from Western taxpayers via the UN.

[Argus]

Yes, the Conservatives have been that party in the past. They might be headed that way again if they keep trying to politicize sponsorship funding.

I can remember disliking Mulroney a lot, and many of his policies, but I cannot remember any corruption under Mulroney which began to match the kind of sleaze under Chretien, from stealing government money from the IBC to funnel to his own business partner - and then back to himself, to accepting kickbacks from phony contracts, to selling judgeships to lawyers in return for free election "volunteering".

And I remind you that conservatives abandoned that party in droves - including me. While Liberals have stayed resolutely dedicated to the same Liberals who stole from us to begin with, and refuse to this day to acknowledge just how corrupt they were. Where was the purge in the Liberal Party? There was none for Liberals were simply conducting business as usual, and saw nothing wrong with it. The public purse is theirs to do with as they choose. That's simply how Liberals think.

To my thinking that means that even if Mulroney was corrupt those who left hold no guilt. On the other hand, the reek of the Liberal party extends right down to you, and others like you, who sat with them laughing and clapping gleefully while they stole from us, and then refused and continue to this day to refuse to acknowledge just how thoroughly corrupt and criminal your party was and is.

No one who has any sense of or interest in honesty or integrity votes Liberal.

Edited April 6, 2008 by Argus