The Liberal Party Must Be Destroyed

[August1991]

As far as goverment is concerned - I don't want legislators running government, they ought to be crafting guidelines, not running it.

Guidelines?

Ashley, you are in the world of ideology. In federal Canada, it is a world of regions.

[William Ashley]

Guidelines?

Ashley, you are in the world of ideology. In federal Canada, it is a world of regions.

A world of regions by regionalists. I've lived and traveled in various parts of Canada. To tell you the truth I felt as at home in Nova Scotia as in Quebec or in Ontario. While I am principly grounded in Ontario I know ontario itself isn't "One Region" it is multiple areas with different cultures. The same is true of Quebec or Nova Scotia.

We live in a world with localities.

Your region argument is BS. That is the problem - we have senators to represent regional interests we have regional courts to hear cases before going to the federal level - in England they even have local Lt.'s for royal matters.

There use to be some counties with county seats now you have regions and municipalities but even then you don't have everything the same.

Even in Toronto you have areas broken down into different areas and leanings. Fact is though, it is that way all over Canada.

The key to federal politics isn't pandering to regional or local interests, it is to take a consensus of what the whole of Canada requires, and how by facilitating local areas Canada can prosper, not the other way around.

That is the role of riding representatives to bring their ridings wishes to the drawing board. The conflict of interest comes in when a minister who is a representative gives 50 million to their riding in their own profolio.

Or a government gives 10% more to a federal program in all their own ridings.

You call it idealism, I call it my opinion -atleast one thing agreed, it is seen as what ought to be, atleast you can agree to my opinions as being right.

That is even more of a reason not to let MP's sit in cabinet. - although they could be involved in the process of selecting cabinet - rather than a caucus.

Just because you say who cares not in touch with the realities - I say who cares you are jumpin on the wrong train, I'm not going there anyway. And even while the distance increases, the view is as clear as day. I know what I'm looking at, and I know why I'm looking at it. You might not see the forest for the trees, but I'm not blind or oblivious to my position or yours or the reasons there of. What is the carrot what is your point, is there something more than whining for you. I'm mearly giving my opinion, you are trying to say how it doesn't have merit because the world doesn't work that way. Well I don't work for your world, so we are on the same page.

If you see error beyond - I'm not gonna support it then let me know, otherwise it is asinine and rhetorical nonsense in a nonevent.

I'm a realist, you appear to be a panderer sensationalizing weakly destructiveness and painting to create negative sentiments.

What is your point, your comment lacks one other than painting, grow up. Trying saying something other than bs.

Edited June 12, 2010 by William Ashley

[August1991]

Your region argument is BS. That is the problem - ....

It may be a problem for you but it is a fact.

I am tired of people (politicians, people like you) who want to make Canada as they imagine it is, rather than the way it is.

Ashley, there are some 30 million people in Canada. These people manage well where they live. Leave them alone and let them be. If they speak French, if they are Catholic, if they prefer Newfoundland, or Alberta, let them be.

Canada is a good, civilized place when individuals are free to be what they are.

Canada fails when the federal government forces individuals to choose between Canada, and the place where they live.

Edited June 12, 2010 by August1991

[Molly]

Whew, August!

Canada is a good, civilized place when individuals are free to be what they are.

Canada fails when the federal government forces individuals to choose between Canada, and the place where they live.

Good comment. Byline material.

[eyeball]

Canada is a good, civilized place when individuals are free to be what they are.

Canada fails when the federal government forces individuals to choose between Canada, and the place where they live.

People start to fail when the government gets it's way.

[madmax]

After the crap he's pulled, Harper is never going to win a majority. Until he's gone, no party will win one. Harper has become the log jam.

Don't count on it.

As for the Party - there's a vision, there are principles and core values but there isn't a platform and it won't be released until the campaign starts because it'll be smeared up and down simply because the CPC has money to burn.

Their are "principles" and "Core" values. Erm. This is the Liberal party we are talking about. What on earth are you talking about. No party has there platform out now, nor are is anyparty talking about one. The Liberal Principles seeem to be MIA or perhaps they are joined at the hip with the CPC principles.

As for being leaderless, every party is leaderless until the first campaign. They're unknown and almost always treated in a hostile manner - see Harper, Chretien etc. Does Ignatieff have what it takes? I don't know. However, for those saying he doesn't, just remember that they all get this treatment.

He doesn't have it because he hasn't had to EARN any of it. The LPC dropped their principles for expediency and choose someone not up the job. No history in politics. No history in the country. No history in holding a principle. No history in leadership. No History in organization.

So the question needs to be asked.

What were the Liberals thinking?

Leadership conventions with no leadership race.

Policy conventions were policies aren't discussed.

Idea Forums where Ideas are immediately tossed into the wastebasket.

So.. Where do the liberals stand on ....

ANYTHING!!!

The only difference between the LPC and the CPC is the LPC who drives the fake boat on the fake lake.

[nicky10013]

Don't count on it.

Harper is stagnated at 32% of the polls. He fought an election against the weakest Liberal Party leader in Canadian history and STILL couldn't win an election.

Their are "principles" and "Core" values. Erm. This is the Liberal party we are talking about. What on earth are you talking about. No party has there platform out now, nor are is anyparty talking about one. The Liberal Principles seeem to be MIA or perhaps they are joined at the hip with the CPC principles.

So, it's a problem for the Liberals but not the Conservatives that there is no platform yet?

He doesn't have it because he hasn't had to EARN any of it. The LPC dropped their principles for expediency and choose someone not up the job. No history in politics. No history in the country. No history in holding a principle. No history in leadership. No History in organization.

The voters will have to decide whether he's earned it. As for the rest, it's a bunch of CPC talking points. I'm pretty sure he's got quite a long history of holding principles, in fact he's written quite a few books. Perhaps you should read them. No history in politics? Here I thought Canadians were getting tired of the old breed. No history of leadership? He was a professor at Harvard and Oxford and was a journalist for the BBC. You don't get to where he's been without tremendous skills.

So the question needs to be asked.

What were the Liberals thinking?

Leadership conventions with no leadership race.

What does it matter to non-members of the party? The party members I talk to don't seem to have a problem with it.

Policy conventions were policies aren't discussed.

Idea Forums where Ideas are immediately tossed into the wastebasket.

Just got back from one actually. There was one in Quebec City last weekend and one in the maritimes yesterday. I can also assure you that the ideas from Canada 150 aren't being thrown in the waste basket. The entire policy session was based on the lessons learned at Canada 150.

So.. Where do the liberals stand on ....

ANYTHING!!!

The only difference between the LPC and the CPC is the LPC who drives the fake boat on the fake lake.

The Liberal Party stands for a fiscally responsible and socially progressive government. Easy. Specific policies haven't been released yet.

Edited June 14, 2010 by nicky10013

[dre]

I agree entirely - that the Liberal Party has to be re-made from the ground up. As several pundits have said, the Liberals have been backstabbing each other for 30 years - Chretien/Turner, Martin/Chretien, Martin/the Liberal Party, Dion/the Liberal Party, now Ignatieff/ the Liberal Party. The Chretien divisive majorities only served to mask the fratricide within the party. Socialized/Welfare State countries are imploding all over the world. This did not happen yesterday - it's been a slow decline as national debts and taxation mounted. The economic crisis is just the straw that broke the camel's back. As with all things political, the pendulum has swung back. Countries simply cannot afford the grand plans of yesterday. There is a fine balance between socialism and fiscal responsibility - one that is out of kilter in many countries. As a result, countries have been moving to Center/Right governments. Since Trudeau, the Liberals have always done waht's best for the Liberal Party - not what's best for Canada.

One illustrative example was featured on CBC Politics yesterday. Two guests were asked to analyse the government's new legislation on making it harder to obtain Canadian citizenship and not so nearly impossible to lose it. Originally you needed to be in Canada for 5 years before you could apply for citizenship. Both agreed that the Liberals changed it to 3 years so they could "get those people's votes". They both agreed that it was a bad thing to do and welcomed the new changes - even though "they don't go far enough".

Good for the Liberals, bad for Canada. They need to be re-built - and re-conscioused.

This did not happen yesterday - it's been a slow decline as national debts and taxation mounted. The economic crisis is just the straw that broke the camel's back. As with all things political, the pendulum has swung back. Countries simply cannot afford the grand plans of yesterday. There is a fine balance between socialism and fiscal responsibility - one that is out of kilter in many countries. As a result, countries have been moving to Center/Right governments. Since Trudeau, the Liberals have always done waht's best for the Liberal Party - not what's best for Canada.

All parties principly want whats best for themselves.

And as far as debt and spending the idea that moving to the right will get you less of it is a complete fallacy.... at least in North America.

Every single time a major party loses the inevitable cries come from pundits that the party is finished. But people will get sick of Harper at some point and the Liberals will get another chance... not on the strength of any great new ideas but simply because of encumbant fatigue.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

All parties principly want whats best for themselves.

And as far as debt and spending the idea that moving to the right will get you less of it is a complete fallacy.... at least in North America.

Every single time a major party loses the inevitable cries come from pundits that the party is finished. But people will get sick of Harper at some point and the Liberals will get another chance... not on the strength of any great new ideas but simply because of encumbant fatigue.

encumbant fatigue

I like that! Nice way of conveying a thought. I also agree with it...

[Keepitsimple]

I like that! Nice way of conveying a thought. I also agree with it...

I agree with it also.....it's like a pendulum...we had 15 years of Liberal rule.....so it's not surprising that it's time for 15 years of Conservative rule and by then, the inevitable "fatigue" will set in.

[nicky10013]

I agree with it also.....it's like a pendulum...we had 15 years of Liberal rule.....so it's not surprising that it's time for 15 years of Conservative rule and by then, the inevitable "fatigue" will set in.

And people think Liberals are arrogant. How hypocritical. I thought the PM had to "earn it."

[madmax]

Harper is stagnated at 32% of the polls. He fought an election against the weakest Liberal Party leader in Canadian history and STILL couldn't win an election.

You might want to take note that Harper Ran against the "weakest" Liberal leader in history and couldn't win an election. While that is true, it was only a period in time as the "weakest" Liberal leader in History appears to be Ignatieff. His polling numbers are no better then Dions and He speaks perfect English, something that Dion didn't have as an asset. Which tells me this perfect English speaking communicator and leader is in big trouble.

[Moonbox]

The voters will have to decide whether he's earned it. As for the rest, it's a bunch of CPC talking points. I'm pretty sure he's got quite a long history of holding principles, in fact he's written quite a few books. Perhaps you should read them.

Writing books and articles has nothing to do with 'holding' principles. It's a matter of practising what you're preaching. You can preach all you want but unless you practise it's all irrelevant.

No history in politics? Here I thought Canadians were getting tired of the old breed. No history of leadership? He was a professor at Harvard and Oxford and was a journalist for the BBC. You don't get to where he's been without tremendous skills.

Nobody's arguing that he's not intelligent. Intelligence, however, doesn't equate to political success. I would say the majority of full-time professors I had at university were social disasters or walking on clouds. Thus far, he's shown very little political skill. Canada's biggest deficits ever should have been a free ride to a majority, or at least a minority, such as what happened in the US and GB. In Canada, however, Ignatieff was able to use the recession to bury himself.

The Liberal Party stands for a fiscally responsible and socially progressive government. Easy. Specific policies haven't been released yet.

Oh god. Please. Wake up. Was Trudeau fiscally responsible? No. He was the biggest spending PM we've ever had and the biggest actual contributor to our national debt. Was Martin? No, he spent and spent and spent as soon as the right united. So of our last 3 Liberal PMs, we had one that was fiscally responsible.

The Liberal Party stands for nothing. None of the parties stand for anything really, except for the ones who have no chance of being elected.

[nicky10013]

You might want to take note that Harper Ran against the "weakest" Liberal leader in history and couldn't win an election. While that is true, it was only a period in time as the "weakest" Liberal leader in History appears to be Ignatieff. His polling numbers are no better then Dions and He speaks perfect English, something that Dion didn't have as an asset. Which tells me this perfect English speaking communicator and leader is in big trouble.

Harper's numbers against Dion's were much higher. Also, opposition leaders are never given the benefit of the doubt. Two recent PMs were given absolutely no chance of making it to 24 Sussex - Chretien and Harper.

[nicky10013]

Writing books and articles has nothing to do with 'holding' principles. It's a matter of practising what you're preaching. You can preach all you want but unless you practise it's all irrelevant.

How would you know he isn't? Clearly, you've demonstrated you don't know much. You're essentially repeating attack ads because you're too lazy or too conservative to go out and get the info yourself.

Nobody's arguing that he's not intelligent. Intelligence, however, doesn't equate to political success. I would say the majority of full-time professors I had at university were social disasters or walking on clouds. Thus far, he's shown very little political skill. Canada's biggest deficits ever should have been a free ride to a majority, or at least a minority, such as what happened in the US and GB. In Canada, however, Ignatieff was able to use the recession to bury himself.

Ignatieff used the recession to force stimulus which was horribly bungled. Funny how we forget...

Oh god. Please. Wake up. Was Trudeau fiscally responsible? No. He was the biggest spending PM we've ever had and the biggest actual contributor to our national debt. Was Martin? No, he spent and spent and spent as soon as the right united. So of our last 3 Liberal PMs, we had one that was fiscally responsible.

The last time I checked, Martin left the PMO with a financial surplus which was destroyed by Flaherty. As for Trudeau, why don't you wake up. That was 30 years ago. The fact is the two largest spending governments with the largest expansion in the size of government have been Mulroney and Harper's. Lest we forget the country was in deficit before stimulus spending.

The Liberal Party stands for nothing. None of the parties stand for anything really, except for the ones who have no chance of being elected.

Of course they do.

[madmax]

So, it's a problem for the Liberals but not the Conservatives that there is no platform yet?

Please stop talking like a Liberal or in twisted speak. While there is room for misunderstanding on forums, I think I have been pretty clear.

The voters will have to decide whether he's earned it. As for the rest, it's a bunch of CPC talking points. I'm pretty sure he's got quite a long history of holding principles, in fact he's written quite a few books. Perhaps you should read them. No history in politics? Here I thought Canadians were getting tired of the old breed. No history of leadership? He was a professor at Harvard and Oxford and was a journalist for the BBC. You don't get to where he's been without tremendous skills.

Yeah, and Mike Duffys a Senator.

He may have skills. They are not political skills. I believe Canadians want democracy. The LPC forgot about that when he was Appointed Leader in the name of expediency.

What does it matter to non-members of the party? The party members I talk to don't seem to have a problem with it.

Exactly. Which is probably why there is a problem in LPC land.

Just got back from one actually. There was one in Quebec City last weekend and one in the maritimes yesterday. I can also assure you that the ideas from Canada 150 aren't being thrown in the waste basket. The entire policy session was based on the lessons learned at Canada 150.

I look forward to hearing about them.

The Liberal Party stands for a fiscally responsible and socially progressive government. Easy. Specific policies haven't been released yet.

Wow!!! Is that ever different from the other parties.

Unfortuneately there is so little here, that Scribblet won't even need to comment.

But seriously, how you can't seem to understand that Dions Polling data is similar to Ignatieffs is beyond me. Dion was likeable if not goofy. Ignatieff is not likeable.

Choosing between two unlikeable leaders.... Harper and Ignatieff, people will go with the one then know vs the interloper.

[nicky10013]

Please stop talking like a Liberal or in twisted speak. While there is room for misunderstanding on forums, I think I have been pretty clear.

I don't think you have. The things that people rail on the Liberals for, the Conservatives are usually guilty as well. Why not call people out on that?

Yeah, and Mike Duffys a Senator.

He may have skills. They are not political skills. I believe Canadians want democracy. The LPC forgot about that when he was Appointed Leader in the name of expediency.

Are non-liberal party members going to remember/care?

Exactly. Which is probably why there is a problem in LPC land.

No, party members came to the realization that he would win hands down anyway. There are people in the party that like him and there are people in the party that don't, but not because of how he came to the leadership.

I look forward to hearing about them.

Lots of good ideas put around, I as well look forward to seeing how it boils down into the platform.

Wow!!! Is that ever different from the other parties.

Unfortuneately there is so little here, that Scribblet won't even need to comment.

It is. Conservatives claim to be fiscally responsible but they aren't. God knows they aren't socially progressive. The NDP is a fiscal mess and the bloc is the bloc. It's not like the Liberals haven't lived up to those ideals either. The two perfect examples are the balancing of the books and the legalization of gay marriage.

But seriously, how you can't seem to understand that Dions Polling data is similar to Ignatieffs is beyond me. Dion was likeable if not goofy. Ignatieff is not likeable.

Choosing between two unlikeable leaders.... Harper and Ignatieff, people will go with the one then know vs the interloper.

How can you not understand that leaders aren't really put to the test until the campaign? Ignatieff isn't liked because no one knows him. He only gets small sound bites here and there if he's on TV at all simply because he's the leader of the opposition. Could he be doing a better job of getting himself out there? Sure, but then again he can't force the media to cover him. The biggest knock against him last summer came from papers like the National Post and the Globe that he wasn't doing anything, but he actually did a cross canada tour going to summer BBQs in most cities and attending festivals like the Calgary Stampede. Kind of hypocritical no? "We don't see him at these events, he's a bad leader...then again we weren't interested in covering him when he actually was there." Come campaign time, he'll be on TV every night and Canadians will be able to get a better sense of who he is and where he stands. It's a process that hasn't really changed. Every leader of the opposition has had to go through this.

Will they like him more? I don't know. He was at the policy event I was at last night and he gave a closing speech. Having actually never heard a full speech from him I didn't know what to expect. He was fantastic. He was clear, concise, articulate and incredibly passionate, which considering his demeanour I found particularly surprising. Certainly light years ahead of anything Dion could ever muster. Will Canadians see that and like that? Only during the campaign will we find out.

Edited June 14, 2010 by nicky10013

[dre]

People went on and on and about how Harper was a terrible leader too and how it would never change the voting dynamics outside of Alberta. But then the Liberals shot their own feet off, Harper won, and now history will tell a different story.

The voters in Canada are fickle and things can turn on a dime. And its not anything fantastic about the other options that causes the public to boot encumbants out of office... the encumbants eventually destroy themselves.

[madmax]

The things that people rail on the Liberals for, the Conservatives are usually guilty as well. Why not call people out on that?

This isn't helping your case.

Are non-liberal party members going to remember/care?

No, infact they didn't before. But Liberals appear to be to thick to understand the problem, which is where the problem lies.

No, party members came to the realization that he would win hands down anyway. There are people in the party that like him and there are people in the party that don't, but not because of how he came to the leadership.

You just proved my point. Thank you.

Lots of good ideas put around, I as well look forward to seeing how it boils down into the platform.

I look forward to the new Red Book.

Conservatives claim to be fiscally responsible but they aren't.

Correct.

God knows they aren't socially progressive. It's not like the Liberals haven't lived up to those ideals either. The two perfect examples are the balancing of the books and the legalization of gay marriage.

Fiscally responsible also refers to Adscam. Stealing from the EI fund to the tune of $48Billion and being responsible by downloading to the PRovinces. Yes, it was a great shell game while it lasted.

IRonically, the Conservatives can't Balance books with those same schemes.

The NDP is a fiscal mess

The NDP has never held federal government so there is either no facts to base that on, or you are going on the Provincial NDP record. The NDP Fiscal record is superior to the LPC and the CPC according to all data gathered and not including TommyDouglas 5 Consecuteve Terms of Government and balanced books.

and the bloc is the bloc.

Not sure what you are getting at... IIRC the LPC adscam gave the BQ a nice 2nd wind as well as allowed for the CPC to get some footing in the Province while the NDP grab a toehold.

How can you not understand that leaders aren't really put to the test until the campaign?

I do.

Ignatieff isn't liked because no one knows him. He only gets small sound bites here and there if he's on TV at all simply because he's the leader of the opposition.

Do you realize how silly this comment is....

Could he be doing a better job of getting himself out there? Sure, but then again he can't force the media to cover him. The biggest knock against him last summer came from papers like the National Post and the Globe that he wasn't doing anything, but he actually did a cross canada tour going to summer BBQs in most cities and attending festivals like the Calgary Stampede. Kind of hypocritical no?

Hardly. The LPC has their papers, and the CPC has their papers. The only thing hypocritical is Liberal Whining, when they have corporate Canada and National Media behind them and still complain.

"We don't see him at these events, he's a bad leader...then again we weren't interested in covering him when he actually was there." Come campaign time, he'll be on TV every night and Canadians will be able to get a better sense of who he is and where he stands. It's a process that hasn't really changed. Every leader of the opposition has had to go through this.

Will they like him more? I don't know. He was at the policy event I was at last night and he gave a closing speech. Having actually never heard a full speech from him I didn't know what to expect. He was fantastic. He was clear, concise, articulate and incredibly passionate, which considering his demeanour I found particularly surprising. Certainly light years ahead of anything Dion could ever muster. Will Canadians see that and like that? Only during the campaign will we find out.

I believe those were all the reasons he was chosen in the first place.

I was thinking.....

Since its clear that the CPC are going to win the next election.

Lets just skip it and have Harper our Prime Minister and then the LPC can choose their next leader.

Ironically, you talk a better game then the LPC.

The Liberals didn't enact Gay Marriage until under a MINORITY GOVERNMENT, not while they held a Majority or when these Marriages were coming to the forefront.

People were being Married in Ontario under the Harris Conservative Government.

The Liberals didn't uphold anything regarding Gay Marriage without the help of the BQ whom you dismiss and the NDP.

Gay Marriage has been upheld under 3 different PrimeMinisters of 3 Consecutive Governments.

Regardless, the Liberals have done a great job of abandoning its "Progressive" voice on women.

I met with a group of women on Saturday. The are actually Progressive Conservatives and Liberals who are uniting it appears to fight once again for womens rights. And their comments on Ignatieff were none to flattering.

Perhaps the LPC policy is to surrender everything so they can fight for it again.

Kinda like the CPC gun Registery.

The gift that keeps giving.

Seriously. You have said more then the LPC and even then. There is nothing coming from the Red team that has any substance of truth or conviction.

[nicky10013]

This isn't helping your case.

I never meant it to help anyone's case. I'm just pointing out hypocrisy. If you can't understand that, that's your problem.

No, infact they didn't before. But Liberals appear to be to thick to understand the problem, which is where the problem lies.

You're contradicting yourself. You're admitting that Canadians don't care, but then are trying to act as if that's a problem. The LPC may very well have a problem in terms of communicating with the electorate, but even you've just admitted that how Ignatieff came into power has nothing to do with that.

You just proved my point. Thank you.

I'm not sure you know what your point is.

I look forward to the new Red Book.

As do I.

Correct.

Fiscally responsible also refers to Adscam. Stealing from the EI fund to the tune of $48Billion and being responsible by downloading to the PRovinces. Yes, it was a great shell game while it lasted.

You don't see anyone defending what the government did on Adscam, indeed, it was Paul Martin who called the inquiry. I haven't heard of the EI so I'd see stats on that and MPs today are fully aware that downloading took place and have stated it can't happen again.

IRonically, the Conservatives can't Balance books with those same schemes.

Because they're fiscally incompetent.

The NDP has never held federal government so there is either no facts to base that on, or you are going on the Provincial NDP record. The NDP Fiscal record is superior to the LPC and the CPC according to all data gathered and not including TommyDouglas 5 Consecuteve Terms of Government and balanced books.

Federal and provincial NDP parties are different. A lot of NDP governments have come to power by ripping off Liberal fiscal policy. You can't honestly tell me that any of Jack Layton's proposals are costed/smart.

Not sure what you are getting at... IIRC the LPC adscam gave the BQ a nice 2nd wind as well as allowed for the CPC to get some footing in the Province while the NDP grab a toehold.

I'm saying the sole reason for the existence of the bloc is for seperation. How you can compare that to the LPC, I'll never understand.

I do.

Do you realize how silly this comment is....

Apparently you don't.

Hardly. The LPC has their papers, and the CPC has their papers. The only thing hypocritical is Liberal Whining, when they have corporate Canada and National Media behind them and still complain.

Which corporation supports the LPC, which national media outlet besides the star (which I've found has gone borderline NDP) has endorsed the Liberal Party in the last 4 years? My only point was that I find it ironic that these columnists complain about him not being seen anywhere when their own outlets don't send people to cover him. I wasn't complaining or whining because, though you may have missed it, I said multiple times that this is common treatment for anyone in parliament not named Prime Minister.

I believe those were all the reasons he was chosen in the first place.

Yep. During the campaign we'll see whether or not it was a good choice or not

I was thinking.....

Since its clear that the CPC are going to win the next election.

Lets just skip it and have Harper our Prime Minister and then the LPC can choose their next leader.

Parties are private organizations and can pick leaders how they want. To compare a political party to a national election is stupid and petty and I think you know that.

Ironically, you talk a better game then the LPC.

I don't have to impress people. I can say what's on my mind.

The Liberals didn't enact Gay Marriage until under a MINORITY GOVERNMENT, not while they held a Majority or when these Marriages were coming to the forefront.

How does that matter? They still did it.

People were being Married in Ontario under the Harris Conservative Government.

I've been doing searches. Can't find anything to support this claim. Indeed, the only thing I can find is that the first union was performed in 2001 and wasn't registered until 2003 due to a court case saying that heterosexual only marriage violated the constitution.

The Liberals didn't uphold anything regarding Gay Marriage without the help of the BQ whom you dismiss and the NDP.

So you're saying that since they were a minority they can't be given credit for introducing and passing the motion. Wow.

Gay Marriage has been upheld under 3 different PrimeMinisters of 3 Consecutive Governments.

Regardless, the Liberals have done a great job of abandoning its "Progressive" voice on women.

I met with a group of women on Saturday. The are actually Progressive Conservatives and Liberals who are uniting it appears to fight once again for womens rights. And their comments on Ignatieff were none to flattering.

What did the party abandon? It fought against the maternal healthcare deal defending abortion. They got beat. It was embarassing but it happens. If these womens groups are PC and Liberal, really, there's only one choice in terms of women's rights.

Perhaps the LPC policy is to surrender everything so they can fight for it again.

Kinda like the CPC gun Registery.

The gift that keeps giving.

I think we're forgetting that pretty much every police assocation across Canada wants it. For a party that loves law and order, you'd think that the Conservatives would want to support cops. Nope, apparently even for the tough on crime tories, the safety of Canadians comes second to the gun lobby.

Seriously. You have said more then the LPC and even then. There is nothing coming from the Red team that has any substance of truth or conviction.

There is nothing coming from the Liberals because the CPC has such deep pockets that if a platform were released today, every ad on the TV between now and any election call would be conservative smear ads. I say release it and let them do it. Negative ads haven't worked for the Conservatives so far and I think that considering the CPC is holding so low, it would only hurt them further. However, I'm no professional so whichever. When it comes out, it comes out.

Edited June 14, 2010 by nicky10013

[madmax]

What did the party abandon? It fought against the maternal healthcare deal defending abortion. They got beat. It was embarassing but it happens.

Explain how this happened? Edited June 14, 2010 by madmax

[nicky10013]

Explain how this happened?

The whip didn't do his job.

[ToadBrother]

I never meant it to help anyone's case. I'm just pointing out hypocrisy. If you can't understand that, that's I think we're forgetting that pretty much every police assocation across Canada wants it. For a party that loves law and order, you'd think that the Conservatives would want to support cops. Nope, apparently even for the tough on crime tories, the safety of Canadians comes second to the gun lobby.

I'm not really convinced that a democracy should just blindly follow what the police want. Quite the opposite, I think any such requests be taken with some skepticism. Considering that much of the gun-related crime going on is being done with illegal firearms by people with criminal records who wouldn't likely be able to own a firearm anyways, I fail to see how any of this would actually stop gun crime.

What it boils down to, at the end of the day, is that cops look out for cops first, and if they can disarm citizens, that makes them feel all the more powerful. The police are a necessary evil, and not one that should simply get what it wants automatically.

What's really happened here, of course, is that Urban Canada has imposed ludicrous restrictions on Rural Canada, because, shocking as it seems, every once in a while some maniac manages to get his hand on some firepower and kills a bunch of people, so therefore every farmer with a shotgun clearly is a potential lunatic that will walk into a big city university and kill a bunch of women. The current gun laws are nothing more than pandering to the kneejerk reactions of Urban Canada.

If you really wanted to curb gun crime, you'd take all the money wasted on registries and put it into beefing up patrols on the Great Lakes, where a fair chunk of the smuggling (guns, drugs, cigarettes, people) happens. But of course this has nothing at all to do with crime prevention.

Edited June 14, 2010 by ToadBrother

[fellowtraveller]

Guidelines?

Ashley, you are in the world of ideology. In federal Canada, it is a world of regions.

definitely, and that is a phenomenon of the last 30 years or so.

Every province or group of provinces is on their own, fighting with each other for money, with the feds pitted agaisnt them too.

[nicky10013]

I'm not really convinced that a democracy should just blindly follow what the police want. Quite the opposite, I think any such requests be taken with some skepticism. Considering that much of the gun-related crime going on is being done with illegal firearms by people with criminal records who wouldn't likely be able to own a firearm anyways, I fail to see how any of this would actually stop gun crime.

What it boils down to, at the end of the day, is that cops look out for cops first, and if they can disarm citizens, that makes them feel all the more powerful. The police are a necessary evil, and not one that should simply get what it wants automatically.

What's really happened here, of course, is that Urban Canada has imposed ludicrous restrictions on Rural Canada, because, shocking as it seems, every once in a while some maniac manages to get his hand on some firepower and kills a bunch of people, so therefore every farmer with a shotgun clearly is a potential lunatic that will walk into a big city university and kill a bunch of women. The current gun laws are nothing more than pandering to the kneejerk reactions of Urban Canada.

If you really wanted to curb gun crime, you'd take all the money wasted on registries and put it into beefing up patrols on the Great Lakes, where a fair chunk of the smuggling (guns, drugs, cigarettes, people) happens. But of course this has nothing at all to do with crime prevention.

I think we're forgetting that "Urban Canada" is 90% of the population. Why should thos 90% should be held hostage?