jdobbin Posted March 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 Wrong. You'll find the answer to big government then and now in three words...Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Your PET. You are denying the Tories have breezed past all the spending promises? This is another case of the right wing saying "But the Liberals..." The Tories have spent more each year than promised and can't seem to control themselves. Flaherty even authorized a train in his own riding in this budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 You are denying the Tories have breezed past all the spending promises? Not at all. The Conservatives must make program cuts and not create more useless social programs. For example axing the Canadian Book Exchange Centre: Opened 35 years ago, the exchange centre is a massive swap shop for public and academic libraries across Canada. Libraries donate books and periodicals their patrons no longer use and, in response to requests by other libraries, the centre redistributes them. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...896&k=57263 BTW, the book centre was one of PET's gems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 Not at all. The Conservatives must make program cuts and not create more useless social programs. For example axing the Canadian Book Exchange Centre:Opened 35 years ago, the exchange centre is a massive swap shop for public and academic libraries across Canada. Libraries donate books and periodicals their patrons no longer use and, in response to requests by other libraries, the centre redistributes them. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...896&k=57263 BTW, the book centre was one of PET's gems. Yes, I'm sure they needed the $500,000 budget to help pay for Flaherty's train in his riding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningdog Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 Oh thats easy, when Michael Vick was arrested. LMAO...gear!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 Am I right to say if Cadman had voted for the Cons Harper would have had a majority? Just trying to remember. Is so, how far were the Cons willing to go? Cadman must have been very angry because he got himself on a plane sick as he was and voted against the party that insulted his intelligence. The party that has nothing but good things to say about him and yet he voted against them because it was his last chance to get back at them before he died. Shame on this Con government! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 Am I right to say if Cadman had voted for the Cons Harper would have had a majority? No you are definately wrong. Harper wouldn't even have had a minority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 No you are definately wrong. Harper wouldn't even have had a minority. So why did he try so hard to get his vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 So why did he try so hard to get his vote? You just don't seem to know that much about Canadian politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 There's also another question I have IF the Cons thought that a offer was made to Belinda why didn't they go after the Liberals harder. Answer ...they didn't want to bring up the subject of offers for votes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 There's also another question I have IF the Cons thought that a offer was made to Belinda why didn't they go after the Liberals harder. Answer ...they didn't want to bring up the subject of offers for votes? As I have said, offering a cabinet post to a floor crosser is an accepted form of sleaze in our system. Thinking that someone has been made an offer isn't the same as proving it. Even so, it was brought up, the accusations were made, just as they were when Emerson crossed. They always are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 Am I right to say if Cadman had voted for the Cons Harper would have had a majority? Just trying to remember. Is so, how far were the Cons willing to go? Cadman must have been very angry because he got himself on a plane sick as he was and voted against the party that insulted his intelligence. The party that has nothing but good things to say about him and yet he voted against them because it was his last chance to get back at them before he died. Shame on this Con government! If you'll pardon a poor choice of words, you're dead wrong! Chuck was not the sort of man who would've got up from his death bed just to wreak revenge on the Tories. He went to Ottawa because he was the MP for his riding! It was his job and from all that I knew and heard about him he took his duties seriously. He was quoted as saying quite emphatically that he voted with the Liberals (who were in power! A loss for their motion would have meant the Liberal government would have fallen and we would have had an election. It was common knowledge that the Liberals were NOT confident enough at the time to want an election! Too much scandal!) for one simple reason. It was what his constituents wanted! I realize that this may be a hard concept for many folks to comprehend, particularly Liberals! Cadman came from the very bedrock of the Reform Party. One of their strongest principles was the idea that an MP was supposed to get a handle on what the majority of his constituents wanted, whether by formal plebescites, emails/telephone calls or even just walking around and talking to people, if his riding was small enough. He then should vote as THEY wished, regardless of the party line! If Chuck had felt that his citizens wanted to support the Conservative position then he would have cast his lot with them instead. I don't believe that he gave a damn what any party might have offered him! Harper would have known Cadman quite well and I believe that's why on the tape we hear Harper telling the others that they could try but he believed Cadman had already made up his mind, implying that they were wasting their time with such a man. You should understand that all a Conservative vote from Cadman would have done was trigger an election, giving the Tories a chance to overturn the Martin Liberals while they were mired in scandal. Polls consistently show that usually Canadians don't want such elections, considering them unnecessary. Look at the polls today! It may be important to an Opposition Party to trigger an election, or for a minority government to try for a majority win but most Canadians want them to pipe down and just keep working for at least a few years. All this partisan talk and no one seems to understand not only that Cadman was a man of integrity but that Harper knew it! One of the two who talked to Cadman was Tom Flanagan, another man of integrity. He would have been as likely to do something illegal as Preston Manning! These people were all very different from Mulroney. The Reform Party was founded in part to slay and bury the old Tory party! They were also nothing like the usual Liberal leaders and back room boys either. I'm not saying that it was impossible, but if you knew anything about those people and their party at the time you'd find all these attacks as probable as an Amish community being behind a vulgar Gay Pride parade! You'd be a fool to bet your paycheck. All this gutter sniping is coming from a Liberal party terrified to face the electorate at the polls. If they think they are so right and holy then let them stop abdicating their role as the Opposition and vote the government down. If they won't stand behind their convictions then they stand for nothing. No wonder my paper a few days ago referred to them as a "brokerage party" that has no real principles but just tries to get in front of every parade and hands out bread and circuses! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 If you'll pardon a poor choice of words, you're dead wrong!Chuck was not the sort of man who would've got up from his death bed just to wreak revenge on the Tories. He went to Ottawa because he was the MP for his riding! It was his job and from all that I knew and heard about him he took his duties seriously. He was quoted as saying quite emphatically that he voted with the Liberals (who were in power! A loss for their motion would have meant the Liberal government would have fallen and we would have had an election. It was common knowledge that the Liberals were NOT confident enough at the time to want an election! Too much scandal!) for one simple reason. It was what his constituents wanted! I realize that this may be a hard concept for many folks to comprehend, particularly Liberals! Cadman came from the very bedrock of the Reform Party. One of their strongest principles was the idea that an MP was supposed to get a handle on what the majority of his constituents wanted, whether by formal plebescites, emails/telephone calls or even just walking around and talking to people, if his riding was small enough. He then should vote as THEY wished, regardless of the party line! If Chuck had felt that his citizens wanted to support the Conservative position then he would have cast his lot with them instead. I don't believe that he gave a damn what any party might have offered him! Harper would have known Cadman quite well and I believe that's why on the tape we hear Harper telling the others that they could try but he believed Cadman had already made up his mind, implying that they were wasting their time with such a man. You should understand that all a Conservative vote from Cadman would have done was trigger an election, giving the Tories a chance to overturn the Martin Liberals while they were mired in scandal. Polls consistently show that usually Canadians don't want such elections, considering them unnecessary. Look at the polls today! It may be important to an Opposition Party to trigger an election, or for a minority government to try for a majority win but most Canadians want them to pipe down and just keep working for at least a few years. All this partisan talk and no one seems to understand not only that Cadman was a man of integrity but that Harper knew it! One of the two who talked to Cadman was Tom Flanagan, another man of integrity. He would have been as likely to do something illegal as Preston Manning! These people were all very different from Mulroney. The Reform Party was founded in part to slay and bury the old Tory party! They were also nothing like the usual Liberal leaders and back room boys either. I'm not saying that it was impossible, but if you knew anything about those people and their party at the time you'd find all these attacks as probable as an Amish community being behind a vulgar Gay Pride parade! You'd be a fool to bet your paycheck. All this gutter sniping is coming from a Liberal party terrified to face the electorate at the polls. If they think they are so right and holy then let them stop abdicating their role as the Opposition and vote the government down. If they won't stand behind their convictions then they stand for nothing. No wonder my paper a few days ago referred to them as a "brokerage party" that has no real principles but just tries to get in front of every parade and hands out bread and circuses! It's all right to take bribes. Everybody does it these days. We like the rest of the moraless world have regressed to the level of a grand bananna republic. Like the new 40 is a 60 year old - so the new sinisterism is now righteousness..what do we expect when there is not one single JUDGE left in the land...all is policy driven and I firmly believe that the title of Judge or "Your Honour" should be removed from the system - I have not seen one single judge actually make a judgement between what is right or what is wrong. They are appointed by seniour old lawyers who are common gangsters - and told to continue to harrass and dishearten society with their policy driven rulings..an abused and frustrated society is easy to control..seeing the guys in control are not bright and have all the power - they debase us all..like conditioned dogs..and we take a kicking like it is normal! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 As I have said, offering a cabinet post to a floor crosser is an accepted form of sleaze in our system. Thinking that someone has been made an offer isn't the same as proving it. Even so, it was brought up, the accusations were made, just as they were when Emerson crossed. They always are. Well just maybe its time for the majority of voters to want more from a government. Something like Harper promised and has never delivered and has corruption within his own government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 Well just maybe its time for the majority of voters to want more from a government. Something like Harper promised and has never delivered and has corruption within his own government. I assume you don't mean the Liberals. If you do, you forget why they lost the last election. I do think people want more from their government in this respect however. Don't know how they are going to get it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 "Whoa, Belinda! Put the coffee on!" - sung (I think!) by Ian Thomas. Or was it Ray Materek. Anyhow, it was certainly Belinda Stronach!In life as well as politics the Golden Rule is: "Do unto others as they have done unto you!" I thought the saying is "Do unto others as they have done unto you BUT doing FIRST!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 I assume you don't mean the Liberals. If you do, you forget why they lost the last election. I do think people want more from their government in this respect however. Don't know how they are going to get it though. Let's debate that scam of the Liberals. First, no proof as yet the PMO was involved, the parties that were involved were ALL from Quebec, probably a carry over from the Mulroney years. Today, none of those people are party of the Liberal party. There are new people now there. The same can be said for the Conservatives all new people BUT the differences is there's questionable things happening within THIS government and laws that have been broken and they don't care even though they were going to be the party of honesty! Yeah right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 6, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 All this partisan talk and no one seems to understand not only that Cadman was a man of integrity but that Harper knew it! One of the two who talked to Cadman was Tom Flanagan, another man of integrity. He would have been as likely to do something illegal as Preston Manning! The crux of it is that Cadman told his wife, daughter and his son-in-law that he was offered a $1 million. Is it partisan to wonder if that policy was actually offered in exchange for a vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 Let's debate that scam of the Liberals. First, no proof as yet the PMO was involved, the parties that were involved were ALL from Quebec, probably a carry over from the Mulroney years. Today, none of those people are party of the Liberal party. There are new people now there. The same can be said for the Conservatives all new people BUT the differences is there's questionable things happening within THIS government and laws that have been broken and they don't care even though they were going to be the party of honesty! Yeah right! Let's not debate it. The burden of proof is on the accuser. You shouldn't really call people corrupt unless you can prove it. You seem to abide by that principle with the Liberals but not with the Conservatives. Why is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 All this partisan talk and no one seems to understand not only that Cadman was a man of integrity but that Harper knew it! I disagree. At least one person unequivocally understands that Cadman was a man of integrity but that Harper knew it! In fact, that person said so during question period in Ottawa on February 29th. In case you missed his comments, here they are: "Hon. Garth Turner (l): Thank you, speaker. When I was a Conservative member of parliament, before that party threw me out, I heard the prime minister call Chuck Cadman a poor M.P. The prime minister said Mr. Cadman was more concerned with ethics and with the country than he was with political organization and power. Mr. Speaker, I have always wondered why the prime minister was so angry at the late Chuck Cadman, but now we know a lot more. Was it simply because he could not be bribed?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 The crux of it is that Cadman told his wife, daughter and his son-in-law that he was offered a $1 million. Is it partisan to wonder if that policy was actually offered in exchange for a vote? Actually it is not. The Cadmans have not made any accusations against anyone, they have only stated that Chuck Cadman was upset by conversations with unnamed parties. , recounted from memories How the author of the biography chose to represent the memories is and was out of the Cadmans' hands, and in fact, dates have been changed in the book because there is no proof of such dealings. Some people including MPs are getting pretty hysterical over who said what, and are themselves making the public accusations of bribery and other harmful statements without verification of any facts. If Dion actually has any facts, then he won't be intimidated and will be quite eager to have the opportunity to present those facts in court, but rather than chance that, they are demanding a police investigation in the hope that the police can uncover some evidence of wrongdoing which they obviously do not have. The Liberals are going to eat their you know what... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 6, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 (edited) Actually it is not.The Cadmans have not made any accusations against anyone, they have only stated that Chuck Cadman was upset by conversations with unnamed parties. , recounted from memories How the author of the biography chose to represent the memories is and was out of the Cadmans' hands, and in fact, dates have been changed in the book because there is no proof of such dealings. Unnamed Conservative parties. You forgot to add that. Edited March 6, 2008 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 One part of the PM's talks with the author is the following and I quote."I just, WE had all kinds of OUR GUYS were calling on him and trying to persuade him, but I just had to concluded that's where he stood and respected that." Then Harper says he talked to Cadman himself a couple times before and two and three weeks before that he talked to him. For someone who was dying of cancer why were these people (Cons) making the Cadman live even more of a hell??? The portray themselves as a desperate bunch to get his vote no matter what they had to offer. So we know that Harper had talked to Cadman several times and others besides the two on May 19th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 Unnamed Conservative parties. You forgot to add that. Good point. Someone might have got confused and thought it was the NDP.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 Then Harper says he talked to Cadman himself a couple times before and two and three weeks before that he talked to him. For someone who was dying of cancer why were these people (Cons) making the Cadman live even more of a hell??? The portray themselves as a desperate bunch to get his vote no matter what they had to offer. Cmon, Topaz. I know you think Harper is evil, corrupt and dangerous. Of course it would never occur to you that Harper had enough human compassion to contact a terminally ill colleague once in a while. How would showing concern make the Cadman's life more hellish? That may be one reason why Dona Cadman respects Harper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted March 6, 2008 Report Share Posted March 6, 2008 That may be one reason why Dona Cadman respects Harper. And I suppose you believe that nothing at all would happen to a Conservative candidate who does not "respect" Harper... After all, not a single Conservative candidate, once nominated, has been ousted... Her professed "respect" for Harper would have been slightly more credible had she mentioned it last Thursday or even Friday rather than four days later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.