The Conservatives have nothing to hide

[Progressive Tory]

You are a small l liberal. You simply don't know what a conservative or a liberal is. Your political views seem to be fairly simplistic.

In fact, the current Conservatives are ideologically identical to the Progressive Conservatives under Mulroney, and their policies are likewise very similar in all respects on all subjects.

The only way they're like Mulroney is that they're awash in scandal and will probably experience a resounding defeat. I don't really like labels: big 'C', little 'c'; Big 'L', little 'l'.

I'm starting my own political identity. Iggy-licous. I like that better. Big 'I'. All Iggy, all the time. Although he does have a Phd from Harvard, so I guess it's 'Dr. Iggy'.

[Wild Bill]

Wishes of the citizenry? Harper?

You think that the citizens wanted to revisit same sex marriage in December, 2006? Sure if by citizens you mean largely CPC voters.

A majority of citizens support the legalization of marijuana and and an overwhelming majority supports at least the decriminalization of marijuana yet Harper supports criminalization, including permanent criminal records and potential jail time for possession of even trace quantities of marijuana.

Not sure of your logic. You seem to be implying that CPC voters are not citizens! Perhaps english is not your first language. Anyhow, I had no problem with same sex marriages and I also voted CPC. Am I the only one?

That being said, I WANTED Harper to revisit it! I perfectly expected that nothing would be changed. I was just in favour as support for the principles of democracy. The Liberal vote was blatantly NOT democratic!

Harper knew nothing would change as well. He too was just paying lip service to democracy. It doesn't matter if you support the idea or not. A government shouldn't rig the vote. There were many Liberal MPs who had publicly declared themselves against same-sex marriage and when the time came to vote their party whip FORCED them to toe the party line! I remember watching it on TV. Some Liberals had tears on their face but they did what they were told.

Frankly, THIS was what I found disgusting! And also the reason why I didn't vote Liberal.

As for pot, you may be right. Depends on who's doing the poll, I guess. I would support total legalization, myself. Still, if the polling question was "Do you think the marijuana issue is important enough to be dealt with RIGHT NOW instead of more pressing issues?" I think the result would disappoint you.

Certainly if you expected me to back a Liberal government over Harper solely and only over marijuana I couldn't do it. Too high a price!

I care about more than one issue. Frankly, I'm not sure what is your stance about that.

[Progressive Tory]

Well, that's your opinion. Even if those were his views, his concept of government representing the wishes of the citizenry regardless of his personal views more than offsets his 'evangelicalism'.

I submit that he were a Liberal Prime Minister he WOULD impose his personal views! In 56 years I've never seen a Liberal leader consider a binding referendum. The closest ones ever faced were the Quebec independence referenda and they were not initiated by the federal government.

Still, when you mention Mulroney's majority (actually, TWO back to back majorities that were the greatest in our history!) I vividly remember my own feelings and that of many others at the time. There was a feeling in the land of disappointment with the old Trudeau style Liberals. Trudeau-mania had been over for a decade and enough time had passed for us to see the negatives develop, like deficits and the like.

We were all hungry for something new! Mulroney seemed to promise it! When he spoke it was always about change and new approaches for a new Canada!

Sound familiar? Same old, same old. He swept the Liberals almost completely. Yet what happened?

After two terms Canadians began to realize that he was really nothing new at all. Rather, he was the same as all the other old time politicians, just much better at it!

Reform didn't just spring up overnight. Members of the old PC party like Manning and other long time progressive individuals had tried to change it from within but finally grew just too frustrated! The power was all in the leadership and they either weren't listening or were deliberately ignoring any dissent.

So they started their own party. The 'market' for the first time had an option for their feelings of dissatisfaction with the old political style. The PC party simply fell apart. The saddest thing of all was that for some years they couldn't see it! They thought it was a temporary thing, like losing an election. In truth it was a structural change. All those generals who ignored their troops took years to notice that all their privates, corporals and sargeants had deserted them! Reform took all their key riding association people, the experienced volunteers. In short, all the people who actually knew what to do and had been loyal mules for the PCs, doing all the grunt work. That's what REALLY devastated the old PCs!

As Toadbrother pointed out in another post, Manning blew it with the Alliance, perhaps by being too impatient. He fell from grace and was replaced by Stockwell Day, who not only thought the Universe was created in 4004 B.C. as written in his Bible but also thought that the 'silent majority' of Canadian voters really agreed with him and just needed an opportunity to vote for someone of his persuasion. Just a few years before Harper had given a speech to the party warning them that mixing evangelical religion with party politics was a recipe for disaster. I guess the bible-thumpers had to learn it the hard way. Day nearly destroyed the Alliance before he was finally turfed. Has everyone forgotten Chuck Strahl, Deborah Grey and the other rebels that sat with the PCs rather than stay under Day's banner?

The fractured right gave Chretien and the Liberals a free ride for over a decade. Now things have changed again and there's a lot of confusion amongst the electorate as to what parties they want to back. From my POV, neither Harper nor Iggy have properly understood that the electorate is still hungry for something new! Just because our choices are restricted to 'same old, same old' doesn't mean that people are happy about it! This confusion could explain why polls are so volatile. People can get turned off quickly but they are flitting about seeking in vain for something that turns them ON!

I submit that the tone of many of the posters from the 'left' on this board supports my point. Post after post heaps negatives on Harper. Very little positive has been typed about Iggy! Dion of course should be left unmentioned.

Yet for all his ineptness even Dion illustrates how Canadians are hungry for something new and inspiring. Sure his 'Green Shift' was poorly thought out, if not totally out to lunch! When he first unveiled it Canadians seemed to be favourable to the idea. Finally someone was offering a new path! It was only when we looked close that we saw the flaws and backed away. It would have been interesting to have seen public reaction to a 'green shift' that was planned by someone more practical and down to earth, instead of just another academic.

We are overdue for a Canadian 'Obama'. None of the present choices are even in the league. We don't see much in the minor leagues coming up either.

That doesn't deny we're hungry! Surely, sooner or later we'll get a leader more appealing.

I agree with most of what you say. The Democratic Reform were a powerful group against Stockwell Day, proof that this Party MUST separate church and state. As far as Dion goes, the Green Shift and carbon tax was a good idea, but the Conservatives did such a good job of convincing Canadians that it was the devil incarnate, that people got scared away. Dion couldn't sell it. He's a brilliant man but not a leader. I knew that when I watched the leadership race.

I do sing Iggy from the rooftops, but it was not without listening, watching and reading. His years of teaching at universities enables him to develop a rapport with young voters. He can speak their language without talking down to them.

If you listen to the Tory spin, you might get caught up in it; but if you take a few minutes and read his resume, it's pretty impressive. Since when is being smart and well educated, a negative? Don't we want our Prime Minister to be the best this country has to offer? He may well be one of the most educated and experienced people in the country right now. Obama got it all. 'Elitist' because he graduated first in his class at Harvard. 'Socialist' because he dared to suggest that he share a bit of the wealth his country had to offer. He rose above it.

Give Iggy a chance.

[Progressive Tory]

Don't want a criminal record? Don't break the law. One can get a pardon after 3 years for summary offenses and 5 years for indictable offenses. Hardly permanent. Jail time for trace amounts? Lol, fear monger much? Pot is a gateway drug for many teens as people who smoke pot often know people who drink alcohol, snort coke or junk, drop acid, munch on 'shrooms or nowadays meth and xtasy.

WOW! "Pot is a gateway drug for many teens as people who smoke pot often know people who drink alcohol..." You're right. Probably their parents. Pot is only a gateway drug because it has to be bought from criminals. The only way it is a gateway drug is because of prohibition. I'm trying to sort through your gibberish but it sounds like you're also suggesting that alcohol leads to snorting coke and junk. Didn't you yourself say that you go to bars, drink and gamble a bit?

I don't smoke pot. Like most people I tried it in highschool. It didn't open any gates for me. I don't even drink now, by choice.

It needs to be legalized, de-criminalized and taxed. Get off the pot. (Pun intended).

[Mr.Canada]

I don't smoke pot, also tried it but it didn't take, much like you in that regard. I was drawing a parallel to teen's who smoke pot often know people who drink alcohol, snort coke or junk, drop acid, munch on 'shrooms or nowadays meth and xtasy.

[Progressive Tory]

I don't smoke pot, also tried it but it didn't take, much like you in that regard. I was drawing a parallel to teen's who smoke pot often know people who drink alcohol, snort coke or junk, drop acid, munch on 'shrooms or nowadays meth and xtasy.

If you asked every teenager in the country if they know someone who drinks alcohol, smokes pot, etc.; they'd probably say yes. That doesn't mean that they do. It's called life.

Pot needs to be treated the same as alcohol and cigarettes. The revenue from tax dollars alone would probably set us well on the road to economic recovery, not to mention the savings in law enforcement, prisons, etc. The difference is use and abuse. Raise them right but be there if they're in trouble.

[Mr.Canada]

If you asked every teenager in the country if they know someone who drinks alcohol, smokes pot, etc.; they'd probably say yes. That doesn't mean that they do. It's called life.

Pot needs to be treated the same as alcohol and cigarettes. The revenue from tax dollars alone would probably set us well on the road to economic recovery, not to mention the savings in law enforcement, prisons, etc. The difference is use and abuse. Raise them right but be there if they're in trouble.

Smoking pot leads to harder drugs. Be sure to tell the mothers of teens who have overdosed on drugs that the socialists are looking for support for legalizing drugs. I'm sure they'll support you.

[guyser]

Smoking pot leads to harder drugs.

Cite please. And no foul smelling farts from you either.

Be sure to tell the mothers of teens who have overdosed on drugs that the socialists are looking for support for legalizing drugs. I'm sure they'll support you.

Sure, why not?

You are a drug user too. So are your kids. Why be such a hypocrite?

[Progressive Tory]

Smoking pot leads to harder drugs. Be sure to tell the mothers of teens who have overdosed on drugs that the socialists are looking for support for legalizing drugs. I'm sure they'll support you.

That is absolutely ridiculous. Does drinking beer lead to a craving for Brandy?

Would it surprise you to know that Queen Victoria used cannibus for menstrual cramps. That Louis Hebert brought it back to France and it did such a good job reducing the Queen's migraines that she gave it a 'Royal Charter'. When Jacques Cartier visited Canada he wrote that 'hempe grows wild here'. It didn't. It was planted.

Where do you think the cries are the loudest not to legalize it? The criminals. They don't want to lose such a lucritive business. I say let's put them out of business. Farmers would have better use of the profits and we can use the extra tax dollars.

[capricorn]

Although he does have a Phd from Harvard, so I guess it's 'Dr. Iggy'.

I think Count Iggy suits him better than Dr. Iggy. And he almost was.

If it weren’t for nearly a century of history since the Bolshevik Revolution, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff would be a count today; perhaps living on the grand estate bequeathed to his ancestors by Catherine the Great, Empress of all the Russias.

That’s a big ‘if,’ of course. In fact, the Mestchersky country palace, where his grandmother Natasha was born a princess, was destroyed in 1917, the first year of the revolution that brought the 300-year Romanov dynasty to a bloody end.

Ignatieff says the idea of him being a Russian count “seems ridiculous” today, although it is a true account of what could have been.

Ignatieff’s chances of inheriting the title faded in 1919, as his grandparents, Count Paul and Countess Natasha, and their five sons steamed across the Black Sea on a filthy British troop ship, fleeing the Russian Revolution.

Ignatieff’s father George was the youngest son, age six. The boys’ English nanny, Peggy Meadowcroft, had arranged their passage to exile.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/p...e-canadian.aspx

Come to think of it, Iggy does portray an air of royalty.

[Mr.Canada]

We must put our faith in Jesus Christ. With much prayer and reflection all may see what really must be done. How dire the situation is and how close we are to losing our entire country.

[ToadBrother]

We must put our faith in Jesus Christ. With much prayer and reflection all may see what really must be done. How dire the situation is and how close we are to losing our entire country.

If there is some infinite being out there, are you actually saying it gives a crap about a country?

[jdobbin]

We must put our faith in Jesus Christ. With much prayer and reflection all may see what really must be done. How dire the situation is and how close we are to losing our entire country.

And take political direction from the Pope?

[ToadBrother]

Smoking pot leads to harder drugs.

I'm openly challenging you to provide evidence for that.

[Smallc]

how close we are to losing our entire country.

How close are we exactly? Are we from the same country?

[capricorn]

Don't we want our Prime Minister to be the best this country has to offer? He may well be one of the most educated and experienced people in the country right now.

Education and the experience he acquired in 30 years outside Canada cannot possibly provide him the true sense of the complexities of this country. When all the deep and sometimes painful debates on national issues took place, Iggy was in other countries and was not a participant. There is no way he could have gained an understanding of how we arrived at today's challenges by reading the news from afar. This places him at a disadvantage in seeking the highest office in the land.

Given his long years abroad, it's not unreasonable to conclude that Mr. Ignatieff's "experience" of Canada is not as deep as that of Mr. Harper's. To be sure, Mr. Ignatieff has spent his career thinking and writing about concepts of ethnicity, rights and multiculturalism, all of which are pertinent to Canada. And he did maintain his citizenship and Canadian ties with regular visits. However, as observers note, while living abroad he was not engaged in many of the crucial Canadian political debates of the past three decades, even though he was undoubtedly aware of them. But abstract knowledge is not the same as experiential knowledge.

As Denis Smith puts it: "Harper has been engrossed in the country for much longer than Ignatieff. If Harper is talking about things he knows, the view of Canada from the West, he knows it. With Ignatieff it's harder to detect his familiarity with the country. He's had three years of traveling and talking to people (since his return to Canada), but he still makes slips, which suggests the automatic feel for the country isn't always there."

More problematic, though, is Mr. Ignatieff's reputation as a public intellectual, Mr. Smith argues. "Ignatieff has placed Canada squarely within the world-wide system of U.S. power as a handmaid to the American military," he writes in his 2006 book Ignatieff's World: A Liberal Leader for the 21st Century? "Ignatieff shows no comprehension that Canada's history and character could possibly lead us in different directions from the United States or even that there can be any directions to take us in the modern world apart form those America has divined."

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Technology/Ph...2626/story.html

[Smallc]

This places him at a disadvantage in seeking the highest office in the land.

He's seeking no such thing....you can't even seek such office in this country.

[DrGreenthumb]

We must put our faith in Jesus Christ. With much prayer and reflection all may see what really must be done. How dire the situation is and how close we are to losing our entire country.

"I have given you every seed bearing plant and herb to use"-God, taken from the book of Genesis.

Pray and reflect on what gives you the right to deny man the plants he has been given by God himself.

Do you think you are an authority above God that has the right to take from us what God has provided?

To those who say we have more important issues to deal with than decriminalizing cannabis, I say we have more important things to deal with than criminalizing, prosecuting and jailing people who use Cannabis.

[Mr.Canada]

He's seeking no such thing....you can't even seek such office in this country.

I love how the socialists say this constantly. Layton ran the last election to become PM of Canada, he stated that throughout his campaign. Be sure to email him and tell him it isn't possible to run for PM in Canada. E mail Ignotieff as well. I'm sure he'd be interested to know that he's wasting his time and running for the PMO is impossible according to the posters at MLW.

Edited January 25, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[SocDem]

I love how the socialists say this constantly. Layton ran the last election to become PM of Canada, he stated that throughout his campaign. Be sure to email him and tell him it isn't possible to run for PM in Canada. E mail Ignotieff as well. I'm sure he'd be interested to know that he's wasting his time and running for the PMO is impossible according to the posters at MLW.

Someone needs to go back to civics class!

In Canada we do not vote for a prime minister. We vote for specific candidates in our specific riding. These are known as our representatives. The representatives are usually in a party. That party picks a leader. In the Conservatives case, they picked Stephan Harper, and as the Conservative representatives make up more of the House of Commons than any other political party, there leader, again in this case Stephan Harper, becomes Prime Minister.

However, in some special cases, like the one that just recently arose, if parties decide to group together and make a "coalition government", that means there representatives choose to do so. So, that coalition party now makes up more of the House of Commons than the previous party, then there leader, in this case Stephan Dion would become Prime Minster.

Hence is a Representative Democracy.

[Mr.Canada]

Someone needs to go back to civics class!

In Canada we do not vote for a prime minister. We vote for specific candidates in our specific riding. These are known as our representatives. The representatives are usually in a party. That party picks a leader. In the Conservatives case, they picked Stephan Harper, and as the Conservative representatives make up more of the House of Commons than any other political party, there leader, again in this case Stephan Harper, becomes Prime Minister.

However, in some special cases, like the one that just recently arose, if parties decide to group together and make a "coalition government", that means there representatives choose to do so. So, that coalition party now makes up more of the House of Commons than the previous party, then there leader, in this case Stephan Dion would become Prime Minster.

Hence is a Representative Democracy.

Be sure to email Layton, he said this many times throughout the last election. No matter what it may be which has been discussed here many times, we do vote for a PM.

[Smallc]

running for the PMO is impossible

It is....it also so happens that the PMO is not the highest office in the land.

[Mr.Canada]

It is....it also so happens that the PMO is not the highest office in the land.

Lol. So again be sure to email your leader Layton as he said this many times.

[Smallc]

Lol. So again be sure to email your leader Layton as he said this many times.

When did Layton say that the position of Prime Minister was the highest in Canada? Better yet, when did Layton become the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada?

[ToadBrother]

Education and the experience he acquired in 30 years outside Canada cannot possibly provide him the true sense of the complexities of this country.

Why, are we really that complex?

When all the deep and sometimes painful debates on national issues took place, Iggy was in other countries and was not a participant.

Most of the people I personally know weren't participants either, other than holding a bottle of beer and shouting at Nolton Nash "That goddamn Trudeau!"

There is no way he could have gained an understanding of how we arrived at today's challenges by reading the news from afar. This places him at a disadvantage in seeking the highest office in the land.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Technology/Ph...2626/story.html

Good grief. The only thing more pathetic than our collective inferiority complex to the Americans is our collective arrogance at our own situation.