ToadBrother Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 Exactly. Crooks, crooks, crooks. It's a shame because there is a large group of them who are not, but they're all being painted with the same brush.Harper’s onetime lawyer faces hearing - His legal work for Harper while acting as a lobbyist drew attention to high-profile cases of prominent Conservatives who became lobbyists after the election of the Harper government. They include former MP John Reynolds from B.C., at Lang Michener in Vancouver, and Ken Boessenkool, one of Harper’s closest former confidantes. There's a simple solution. The honest Conservatives can toss Harper and the other crooks out on their ear at any moment simply by threatening to bring down the government next week if they're not replaced. MPs have the power, but by defending the crooks, they became accessories to their crimes. Quote
Argus Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 Bunkum! Who set up the Gomery Inquiry into AdScam? The Liberals. As if they had a choice! After days of howls in the commons, and then that hellaciously damning Auditor General report they could not possibly have done anything else. But I clearly remember the committee hearings on this, and how the Liberals stonewalled during them, how they stacked the witness lists with the small fish - even having them come back more than once, and refused to bring in the key Liberal insiders involved, and how they then shut down the committee. Oh yes, I remember it quite clearly. When the Conservatives break the law, they cover up. You really consider a public court challenge to be "covering up"? And to repeat, there is a difference between inadvertently violating a technical regulation - if they indeed have done so - and deliberately violating the criminal code. This is something which seems to be completely beyond your understanding. AdScam involved no elected officials. Only the supremely ignorant could make such a claim. Anyone who has the slightest clue about how the public service operates, or even who listened to the testimony and read the reports, knows otherwise. It was quite clear that only protection from the PMO allowed this to go through, despite serious concern from senior bureacrats. The Conservatives "Electiongate" is filthy with their MPs. The Conservatives consulted with lawyers, who studied the regulations, and gave them the green light. They then went ahead and did this. Elections Canada said they couldn't, the Conservative lawyers said they could. Now they're discussing it in court. That's the nature of democracy. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 Exactly. Crooks, crooks, crooks. If corruption gave you the slightest problem you wouldn't be a Liberal, so stop whining. Harper’s onetime lawyer faces hearing - His legal work for Harper while acting as a lobbyist drew attention to high-profile cases of prominent Conservatives who became lobbyists after the election of the Harper government. They include former MP John Reynolds from B.C., at Lang Michener in Vancouver, and Ken Boessenkool, one of Harper’s closest former confidantes. You're whining about conservatives and lobbyists when lobbyists basically ran the last Liberal government, outright buying legislation on a whole host of issues? Are you forgetting that nowadays lobbyists have been robbed of their chief tool: bribe money? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
normanchateau Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 How did the millions flow out of the PMO without any MP knowing about it? Either they knew about ADSCAM or they were completely incompetent. How could an MP like Ignatieff know about it? He wasn't living in Canada when it happened. Does every CPC MP know that Harper once belonged to the Northern Foundation or are they completely incompetent? Quote
Mr.Canada Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 How could an MP like Ignatieff know about it? He wasn't living in Canada when it happened.Does every CPC MP know that Harper once belonged to the Northern Foundation or are they completely incompetent? Wow, another marker from the professor, thanks I've no idea. Try following the conversation once in a while before putting your 2 pence in the middle...mmmk? Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Progressive Tory Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 No, but it's something myself, nor you nor "Progressive Tory" (I still don't understand why he called himself that) likely understand it all that well.We don't know exactly what was done, or what exactly the 'laws' are, and to firmly decide that something criminal has happened is just stupid. It's just like the Cadman affair. The Liberals are so eager to fling mud that they'll accuse Harper of bribing the man even though he publicy asserted this did not happen and then his wife ran as a CPC MP afterwards. Seriously? I'll allow there is a POSSIBILITY that something criminal or fishy happened, but I'm not going to firmly claim it as fact until it's been proven. A lot of the people crying foul here are posting less on fact and more on wishful thinking. "Progressive Tory" (I still don't understand why he called himself that) likely understand it all that well. First off, not a HE. I have been a Progressive Conservative most of my adult life. Only officially became a Liberal when Iggy became leader. PC's swallowed up by Alliance/Reform - not my cup of tea. Harper called the term 'Progressive Conservative' an oxymoron. I'm keeping the 'oxy'; he's earned the rest. 2004 - Voted NDP with my old friend Flora MacDonald. 2006 - Still voted NDP because I didn't like Paul Martin as a PM. 2008 - voted Liberal as part of 'Strategic Voting'. Not a die-hard Liberal but a now a die-hard Ignatieff fan. He's the closest thing to a Red Tory that we have right now, and if anyone can bring those left of centre together, it's him. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Mr.Canada Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 "Progressive Tory" (I still don't understand why he called himself that) likely understand it all that well.First off, not a HE. I have been a Progressive Conservative most of my adult life. Only officially became a Liberal when Iggy became leader. PC's swallowed up by Alliance/Reform - not my cup of tea. Harper called the term 'Progressive Conservative' an oxymoron. I'm keeping the 'oxy'; he's earned the rest. 2004 - Voted NDP with my old friend Flora MacDonald. 2006 - Still voted NDP because I didn't like Paul Martin as a PM. 2008 - voted Liberal as part of 'Strategic Voting'. Not a die-hard Liberal but a now a die-hard Ignatieff fan. He's the closest thing to a Red Tory that we have right now, and if anyone can bring those left of centre together, it's him. In what ways are you conservative? As you've shown no evidence of that here. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
normanchateau Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 Wow, another marker from the professor, thanks I've no idea. So you seriously believe that Ignatieff knew about Adscam as it was happening? Quote
guyser Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 So you seriously believe that Ignatieff knew about Adscam as it was happening? You tripped him up. Thus the response. Besides he probably wont answer. Quote
Progressive Tory Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 In what ways are you conservative? As you've shown no evidence of that here. You're joking right? Do you know what the term 'conservative' means. I'm not a 'Socon' or a neo-con; just a good old middle of the road Conservative. Red Tory best describes it. The radicals hi-jacked the term 'conservative', but not the intent. I consider you to be one of the hi-jackers. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
normanchateau Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 You tripped him up. It's not often I have that effect on one of Mr. Harper's most eloquent spokesmen. Quote
Argus Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 You're joking right? Do you know what the term 'conservative' means. I'm not a 'Socon' or a neo-con; just a good old middle of the road Conservative. Red Tory best describes it.The radicals hi-jacked the term 'conservative', but not the intent. I consider you to be one of the hi-jackers. 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. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
normanchateau Posted January 24, 2009 Report Posted January 24, 2009 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 fiscal policies are similar but the increases in spending by Harper surpass the increases in spending by Mulroney. Long before the global recession was evident, Harper's government chose to increase government spending by a larger amount than any Prime Minister in the history of Canada: http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php And the handouts to Quebec by Harper surpass the handouts to Quebec by Mulroney. Mulroney was the only Conservative in half a century to win a majority. Harper can't possibly pull this off in that no matter how socially moderate he pretends to be, he can't escape the reality that he's known to Canadians as an Evangelical who personally opposes abortion, stem cell research and ssm. Harper supporters argue that he really is a fiscal conservative and has governed as a big spender because his is a minority government which must appease the opposition. Yet at the same time they argue unconvincibly that the identical rationale will not apply to his social conservatism... Quote
madmax Posted January 24, 2009 Report Posted January 24, 2009 In what ways are you conservative? As you've shown no evidence of that here. Having seen the response from many "Conservatives", to your posts, one can argue that you are not a Conservative. Quote
madmax Posted January 24, 2009 Report Posted January 24, 2009 (edited) 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. Big Cabinet Big Spending.... Big Deficits. Mulroney = Harper Edited January 24, 2009 by madmax Quote
Progressive Tory Posted January 24, 2009 Report Posted January 24, 2009 Having seen the response from many "Conservatives", to your posts, one can argue that you are not a Conservative. You're right. If that's what passes for conservatism these days, maybe I am a secular socialist. Still not sure what that is, but it has something to do with waving a white stick at Jesus. Can't say I've ever done that either. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
normanchateau Posted January 24, 2009 Report Posted January 24, 2009 Big Cabinet Big Spending.... Big Deficits.Mulroney = Harper Ironic that Harper now leads the latest version of the out-of-control spending Conservative Party. If you flash back 20 years to 1989, Mulroney was introducing the GST to Canada while Stephen Harper was founding the eugenics-oriented Northern Foundation. In retrospect, Mulroney doesn't look so bad. History will be kinder to him than to Harper. Quote
normanchateau Posted January 24, 2009 Report Posted January 24, 2009 maybe I am a secular socialist. Still not sure what that is, but it has something to do with waving a white stick at Jesus. I think it has something to do with being a follower of Satan. Quote
Progressive Tory Posted January 24, 2009 Report Posted January 24, 2009 I think it has something to do with being a follower of Satan. But I never voted for Stephen Harper. (Sorry Mr. C. I couldn't resist) Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Wild Bill Posted January 24, 2009 Report Posted January 24, 2009 Mulroney was the only Conservative in half a century to win a majority. Harper can't possibly pull this off in that no matter how socially moderate he pretends to be, he can't escape the reality that he's known to Canadians as an Evangelical who personally opposes abortion, stem cell research and ssm. 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. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Molly Posted January 24, 2009 Report Posted January 24, 2009 Wow. I was already permanently turned off Mulroney in '75. Danged relieved he didn't win the leadership then, and deeply disappointed and wary when he finally did. My gut had him pegged. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Mr.Canada Posted January 24, 2009 Report Posted January 24, 2009 Wow. I was already permanently turned off Mulroney in '75. Danged relieved he didn't win the leadership then, and deeply disappointed and wary when he finally did. My gut had him pegged. Yeah, Joe Clark fared much better, lol. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Molly Posted January 24, 2009 Report Posted January 24, 2009 No one is wondering how much money Joe Who accepted from a bag man. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
normanchateau Posted January 24, 2009 Report Posted January 24, 2009 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'. 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. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted January 24, 2009 Report Posted January 24, 2009 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. 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. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
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.