Are You Up To The Liberal Challenge?

[The Baron of Banality]

- Blatant lies, huge money laundering and kick back schemes, hundreds of broken promises, breathtaking hypocrisy - this is the view from Parliament Hill and Queen's Park these days. So it's not easy being Red these days - being a large L Liberal in canadian politics.

- Even Liberal PM PM is not immune from criticism in recent days. Of course to me, Paul Martin is still a hero! In fact, he is one of the cast of Hogan's Heros. Remember Sergeant Schultz with his constant plea "I know nuting, nuting ... I see nuting ... I hear nuting!"? Clearly, Paul is doing the Sergeant Schultz ploy regarding the mafia like money laundering program that went through over $100 million in Quebec, mainly between 1996-2001.

- So yes, it is hard to be a Liberal at the moment. You first of all have to be someone who, in John Diefenbaker's immortal phrase "will believe anything - twice." But you also have to capable of double think, double talk, stopping on a dime and reversing yourself 180 degrees and then denying that you reversed yourself at all, and be able to leap tall constructs of logic, reason and fact in a single bound. Are you up for the Liberal Challenge?

- To find out if you have what it takes to be a good Liberal in these tough times, please review your responses to the following ten questions. Strong and true Liberals in Canada today score ten out of ten on this review. Rate yourself accordingly.

1/ A good Liberal will believe Dolt-on McWeasel's election assertions last September that those tight fisted heartless Tory bastards short sheeted the health and education systems by not spending enough on them and will also believe McWeasel's assertions now that those footloose, irresponsible, spendthrift Tory wastrels spent far too much on health and education so there is no money left in the provincial till.

2/ A good Liberal will believe PM Paul Martin's pleadings that he knew nothing at all about a $100 million, five year money laundering and kick backs scheme by the Liberal party in Quebec while also believing that Mike Harris knew every detail of the criminal Keobel brothers' activites in Walkerton concerning the municipal water supply and that Ernie Eves knew everything there was to know about the tainted meat being shiped out of the Aylmer meat processing plant.

3/ A good Liberal will believe that former gossip columnist and current gutter press author Stevie Cameron (whose Liberal appointed husband was fired by Mulroney) wrote an authoritative, objective and truthful book about Mulroney and chronies titled "On The Take" while the Report prepared by the AG and her professional CA staff in the Auditor General's Office who spent years investigating the frauds and boondoggles of the Chretien years was probably overstated and sensationalized and full of errors.

4/ A good Liberal will believe that the Chretien government led by Finance Minister Martin cutting billions from the health, education and welfare transfers to the provinces so that the federal contribution to medicare went from 26% to under 16% between 1995 and 2001 while the Ontario Harris government increased health care spending by roughly 20% means that the Liberals are the saviours of medicare while the tories are the defilers and destroyers of medicare.

5/ A good Liberal will believe that Trudeau's increasing the federal debt by over 2000% during his reign, almost all of it on program spending, and Mulroney's increasing of the debt by 150% during his reign, almost all of it due to the annual interest charges to carry Trudeau's profligate debt means that MULRONEY not Trudeau is clearly the Godfather of the horrendous federal debt in Canada.

6/ A good Liberal will believe that the Chretien government - despite doing nothing except to impliment the Mulroney policy agenda for the economy and to ride on the coattails of the US economic boom of the 1990s -deserves the credit for the relative economic prosperity of Canada over the past ten years.

7/ A good Liberal will believe that the Liberals under Chretien and Martin slayed the deficit by selflessly tightening their Ottawa belts even though Finance Minister Martin cut spending in direct federal operations by just 2% while cutting the transfer payments to the provinces and to individuals by upwards of 30%.

8/ A good Liberal will believe that Mulroney's spending of $350,000 for the PM's cadillac lemo and over $3 million to upgrade the PM's jet aircraft were examples of disusting tory waste while Chretien's spending of $320,000 for his PM chevy lemo and over $100 million for two new executive jets that were not needed or tendered were examples of responsible Liberal financial behaviour in safeguarding the tapped out tax payers' money.

9/ A good Liberal will believe that a mid term review of the Ontario financial situtation which assumes that nothing whatsoever will change on either the revenue or the expenditure sides for the final six months of the year is PROOF POSITIVE that the final numbers six months later will reveal a "Tory" deficit of $5.6 billion even though everyone with half a clue knows that revenues are climbing and emergency expenses are dropping and other changes will inevtiably occur before the year is out.

10/ A good Liberal will believe that Lyin Brian is the right name for a PM in Mulroney who promised to take specific tough and unpopular decisions and then took them but that Chretien who never kept a single major promise from his Red Book and McWeasel who so far has kept but 2 of his 231 cynical election promises are honest, sincere, transparent leaders.

A good Liberal is a little bit stupid or a little bit crooked.

The best Liberals are a little bit of both.

Did you measure up to the Liberal challenge?

[SirRiff]

well most of that post is nonsense so i will just say,

that since i am liberal, i really have no alternative but to vote Liberal. as the NDP guys are total nuts. the PC guys are so focused on pretending they have strong moral values they are completely unappealing to most.

so IF there was an alternative party that really really really did treat money with respect, but didnt come from insane religous nonsense that nobody cared about, i would consider voting for them. unfortunately, they dont exist. thus if i have to choose between the Liberals who waste money and wont set Canada back socially 20 years, or the PCs who waste money and get thier noses out of Canadians business, i choose Liberal. lesser of two evils.

corruption is not linked to political philosophy. else Liberals would never exist and PCs would rule.

[Michael Hardner]

i choose Liberal. lesser of two evils.

I know many people who vote Liberal for similar reasons to yours. In fact, I know of no one who enthusiastically votes Liberal.

You would think this means that the CPC has a good shot at winning the election, but a number of obvious obstacles are in their way.

[The Baron of Banality]

well most of that post is nonsense

- Sir Riff ... You are clearly a good Liberal since you totally dismiss my post with the pithy comment "well most of that post is nonsense" and then quickly change the subject from defending the indefensible to taking the offense in specious attacks on the Conservative Party and its predecessors. Liberals are very good at such diversions and intellectual slight of hand.

- Now, Sir Riff, lets get serious, shall we?

- Since you contend that most of my post and therefore most of my ten points are nonsense while I happen to know that all of them are valid, PICK ONE, yes, just pick one which you feel capable of debating in an intelligent, factual and rational manner and I shall be delighted to debate it with you.

- After you and I have finished our discussion on whichever of my ten points you choose to try to debunk,

I shall then do the same with your idiotic defence of why you "are forced" to vote Liberal.

It will be lots of fun, Sir Riff.

Yours expectantly,

THE BARON

[RB]

I am going to vote liberal because I do not believe in Stronach is qualified or experience to do a good job in politics currently but is going to appear on my voting ballot whether she wins the leadership or not - thats my dilemma and also the diversion from the good argument above

here is my argument - Stronach says she leads 72,000 employees in 22 countries. There is something called core competencies that all her 72,000 workers were pre-screened for and interviewed for before they were hired.

Well Stronach should know this, the call is also filtering … usually includes minimum requirements, educational, then experience, then qualification, the soft skills mesh, and team “player”. the important question ask is can the incumbent do the job? well did you develop or implement these public policies, any public agenda worthwhile mentioning and the eye is always pointed to “bottom line” which also coincides with the NET line, I don’t believe that Stonach will take such a 100% risk to trained a fresh one for perhaps important CEO job with a very steep learning curve starting from 0 and certainly not without any competencies and now I am afraid I would indeed be a “sucker” to believe she will hire someone based on creative alternative strategy such as, public charm, showing of leg, or those that come with bagging rights of wardrobe of size 0.

I am fearless in my quest to encourage women to advance themselves but not to the disgrace of those who are (talking about women in politics currently) bona fide smart, intelligent, persevere and experienced women and men in politics somehow Stonach does not relate to the same.

just to use one of her example of being a single parent is sorrowful of course but to the average person here is a little bit of what being a female single parent means in layman terms:

- environmental issues: represents the distraught, housing needs, child care, transportation

- social and economic problems, worries about how to hold down 2 or more jobs

- lack of skills to return to work, takes survival jobs, hard time securing in permanent work, hardly advancement

- limited qualification or education

- pressure galore, painful is the effects the moods, morale

- and the usual visitations, custody

so you see i am voting for the liberal of my choice is clear in my riding. i will choose between the evils, and I will favor ones that come with the full minimum requirement and with a potential to do a good job and not just talk, walk, rant, or rank and media show.

[SirRiff]

uh, The Baron of Banality, when i say the points are nonsense i mean it. none are worth debating further, hell i thought it was tounge in cheek for a while since i couldnt figure out what any of them really ment.

like

1/ A good Liberal will believe Dolt-on McWeasel's election assertions last September

sounds like a little girl

3/ A good Liberal will believe that former gossip columnist and current gutter press author Stevie Cameron

which is pretty weird to base a conclusion on "liberals" believing gossip more easily then others

with these two in the first 3, everything after that is likely to just be typical ranting and raving and it seems like you arent really in the market for a real answer anyways, since you end with this

A good Liberal is a little bit stupid or a little bit crooked.

The best Liberals are a little bit of both.

so no, few will accept you are looking for a serious discussion.

write seriously, and we may take the time to respond seriously.

to RB:

i also gree the conservatives are not a credible alternative to the liberals yet. there is no reason to believe they will handle money any better over the long run. and the insane right wing social baggage they come with is just not worth it. a drop in the polls may be enough to light a fire under martin on the corruption issue, else his leadership will end before it begins.