Evening Star Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 You know, I would cheerfully support positions or situations championed by one or both of the other parties. It's just that they propose even fewer that I can agree with than the Tories! Especially since they tend not to propose much specific of their own. They just keep knocking anything done by Harper's bunch. Say what you will about the NDP, this is certainly not true of them. They've got pages of specific proposals listed on their website and have even been actively putting forth private members' bills. I can virtually guarantee you won't agree with most of them, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Say what you will about the NDP, this is certainly not true of them. They've got pages of specific proposals listed on their website and have even been actively putting forth private members' bills. I can virtually guarantee you won't agree with most of them, though. I respect the NDP for being clear and consistent on where they stand on issues. As things stand, I view the NDP a more worthy opposition than the Liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Nothing you've said has ANYTHING to do with what EC is doing nor why it's doing it... Simple as that... What I am saying is the EC is saying is "We have spending caps in this country and the Cons went around them." This boils down to should you be allowed to spend the money your supporters give you, or at least this is the framing for the right of the nation. I would say 40-50% of the country would say "Yes you should" while the other half would say "You can't buy an election." This is not a wedge issue that is the problem it brings people to the Conservative camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) What I am saying is the EC is saying is "We have spending caps in this country and the Cons went around them." This boils down to should you be allowed to spend the money your supporters give you, or at least this is the framing for the right of the nation. I would say 40-50% of the country would say "Yes you should" while the other half would say "You can't buy an election." This is not a wedge issue that is the problem it brings people to the Conservative camp. That's it in a nutshell... The party that the Corporations want to buy to implement the Corporate agenda has all the money they want to do so just as the Republican party in the USA has done... Election spending caps are there so that a takeover of Canadian politics by any one interest group does not occur; a more level playing field if you will... Circumventing these caps give the party circumventing them an UNFAIR advantage in an election... Kinda a strange thing to be defending in a DEMOCRACY which is supposed to represent CANADIANS first and only isn't it? Edited February 27, 2011 by GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 That's it in a nutshell... The party that the Corporations want to buy to implement the Corporate agenda has all the money they want to do so just as the Republican party in the USA has done... Election spending caps are there so that a takeover of Canadian politics by any one interest group does not occur; a more level playing field if you will... Circumventing these caps give the party circumventing them an UNFAIR advantage in an election... Kinda a strange thing to be defending in a DEMOCRACY which is supposed to represent CANADIANS first and only isn't it? I agree however I am the left of the country I would never vote Con. See that is what I am saying this isn't a populous issue or a wedge issue because the right of the Liberal party thinks the spending caps not a good thing, because it prevents a party from spending the money they raise. The whole Corporations will buy the nation thing is satisfied by the Limiting of donations to 1100 per person. So in the end the right wing of the country including some in the Liberal party think the spending cap undemocratic. So this issue actually gains the Cons some votes when framed as a question of being able to spend what you raise from your donors. The other problem arises when you actually look at which parties get the most from the large corporate donors. The Conservatives actually aren't as bought and paid for as the Libs. The Conservatives only get like 15% of their donations form the 1100 donors while the Liberals it is like 30%. So when you frame it that way the Liberals are being silly. That is my point it isn't a winning issue for anyone really unless you when to drive the right from the Liberals to the Cons and the left from the Liberals to the NDP. The problem boils down to the fact that the Liberals are a brokerage party which is great when they win an election but when they are in opposition it really takes the party in power to self destruct to bring a win for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGmann Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) Election spending caps are there so that a takeover of Canadian politics by any one interest group does not occur; a more level playing field if you will... Circumventing these caps give the party circumventing them an UNFAIR advantage in an election... Kinda a strange thing to be defending in a DEMOCRACY which is supposed to represent CANADIANS first and only isn't it? I may be wrong but the idea of the in-and-out scheme is that the spending cap for the party is not exceeded. In the national-wide scale. EC interpretation of the rules is purely arbitrary. EC demands the party to spend less than its national cap. Democracy is OK here. All parties have equal conditions. It is the EC demand that is undemocratic. Edited February 27, 2011 by YEGmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 I may be wrong but the idea of the in-and-out scheme is that the spending cap for the party is not exceeded. In the national-wide scale. EC interpretation of the rules is purely arbitrary. EC demands the party to spend less than its national cap. Democracy is OK here. All parties have equal conditions. It is the EC demand that is undemocratic. Have you ever run in an election? The "rules" are in FACT very clear on this issue... The CONS purposely tried to circumvent them... Simple as that... EC as a matter of FACT has little to no say in how Canada's elections are run... That "criteria" is standing legislated policy that applies equally to all CANDIDATES and to their "official agents"... That's why it's NOT the "party" being found having breached the rules, it's individual candidates and their official agents that have been so found by EC... Any "legal" ruling, whether criminal or not, can be appealed so the "appeal" is extrenuous to the EC ruling... Hope you approve of YOUR tax dollars (and mine) being spent by the CONS on this appeal since the GOVERNING PARTY has chosen to become involved... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 I agree however I am the left of the country I would never vote Con. See that is what I am saying this isn't a populous issue or a wedge issue because the right of the Liberal party thinks the spending caps not a good thing, because it prevents a party from spending the money they raise. The whole Corporations will buy the nation thing is satisfied by the Limiting of donations to 1100 per person. So in the end the right wing of the country including some in the Liberal party think the spending cap undemocratic. So this issue actually gains the Cons some votes when framed as a question of being able to spend what you raise from your donors. The other problem arises when you actually look at which parties get the most from the large corporate donors. The Conservatives actually aren't as bought and paid for as the Libs. The Conservatives only get like 15% of their donations form the 1100 donors while the Liberals it is like 30%. So when you frame it that way the Liberals are being silly. That is my point it isn't a winning issue for anyone really unless you when to drive the right from the Liberals to the Cons and the left from the Liberals to the NDP. The problem boils down to the fact that the Liberals are a brokerage party which is great when they win an election but when they are in opposition it really takes the party in power to self destruct to bring a win for them. Didn't you get the memo on who you HAVE TO contribute to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) The thread title is accurate in that it reflects the title of the opening article. thread allready started here http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18087&view=&hl=&fromsearch=1 Now there is a whopper...... The Title of the article is Tory senators face Elections Canada charges over campaign spending whereas your title is ..... Ottawa Bureaucrats vs. Conservatives Lets look at these CPC bagmen... Patronage to the Senate. Those charged include Senator Doug Finley, a former party campaign manager, and Senator Irving Gerstein, a major Tory fundraiser. Edited February 28, 2011 by madmax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Now there is a whopper...... The Title of the article is Tory senators face Elections Canada charges over campaign spending whereas your title is ..... Ottawa Bureaucrats vs. Conservatives Lets look at these CPC bagmen... Patronage to the Senate. Those charged include Senator Doug Finley, a former party campaign manager, and Senator Irving Gerstein, a major Tory fundraiser. Same old same old! Tell me something that this Harper Gov has done to show some R.E.S.P.E.C.T. for parliament, Canadian democracy, and/or the Canadian public? That's a whole lot harder to do than listing where they've shown their disrespect for Canadians and Canadian institutions... These CONartists are as useless as tits on the preverbial bull whose excrement they are quite full of... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 I've said before, show me a Liberal who acts like a classic Liberal and I very well might vote for him! Most classical liberals called for laissez-faire government up only until a point. John Stuart Mill, pretty much the father of Liberalism believed very much in the most freedom possible. He said in "On Liberty" that people should have freedom to the extent where such freedom doesn't harm others or impairs their own freedom. Considering conservative rhetoric today, this philosophy is the bedrock of what Conservatives believe. Of course, though, modern Conservatives read that and closed the book. They don't read the rest of that work nor do they read his work "On Political Economy" where he calls for the foundation of the modern welfare state. So, before we get into the terms of voting on the basis of what a classical Liberal is or not, perhaps we should assail what precisely a classical liberal is. In this sense, you're voting for people who YOU think are classical liberals. As I've pointed out, there is a distinction. So really, all this boils down to is you calling yourself something you're not so you can feel better about not calling yourself what you actually are. You're a conservative. Just admit it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) Most classical liberals called for laissez-faire government up only until a point. John Stuart Mill, pretty much the father of Liberalism believed very much in the most freedom possible. He said in "On Liberty" that people should have freedom to the extent where such freedom doesn't harm others or impairs their own freedom. Considering conservative rhetoric today, this philosophy is the bedrock of what Conservatives believe. Of course, though, modern Conservatives read that and closed the book. They don't read the rest of that work nor do they read his work "On Political Economy" where he calls for the foundation of the modern welfare state. So, before we get into the terms of voting on the basis of what a classical Liberal is or not, perhaps we should assail what precisely a classical liberal is. In this sense, you're voting for people who YOU think are classical liberals. As I've pointed out, there is a distinction. So really, all this boils down to is you calling yourself something you're not so you can feel better about not calling yourself what you actually are. You're a conservative. Just admit it. Your classic Liberal party's of the world and the Liberal "philosophy" have nothing in common. The Liberals are a classic brokerage party which were very popular in 1900's they won votes on promises of jobs and blowing with the wind. In most countries your classic Liberal parties died a quick death with the right/left squeeze around the world. You only have to look at countries in Europe to see this happen. Canadians have been fairly happy with the middle but it can't play forever. Edited March 1, 2011 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Most classical liberals called for laissez-faire government up only until a point. John Stuart Mill, pretty much the father of Liberalism believed very much in the most freedom possible. He said in "On Liberty" that people should have freedom to the extent where such freedom doesn't harm others or impairs their own freedom. Considering conservative rhetoric today, this philosophy is the bedrock of what Conservatives believe. Of course, though, modern Conservatives read that and closed the book. They don't read the rest of that work nor do they read his work "On Political Economy" where he calls for the foundation of the modern welfare state. So, before we get into the terms of voting on the basis of what a classical Liberal is or not, perhaps we should assail what precisely a classical liberal is. In this sense, you're voting for people who YOU think are classical liberals. As I've pointed out, there is a distinction. So really, all this boils down to is you calling yourself something you're not so you can feel better about not calling yourself what you actually are. You're a conservative. Just admit it. You're stretching things here. I really don't care how close modern Conservatives come to the classic definition of a Liberal. I support them because the modern Liberal Party is EVEN FARTHER from that definition! I judge that by a lifetime of watching the actions of the Liberal Party, not by listening to their words. Near as I can tell, they don't have any actual philosophical roots or values! They are purely and simply a brokerage party of convenience. They're just looking for a parade to get out in front. Any parade will do! I'm a Canadian! I don't get a perfect choice! If I understand your post you're telling me that because the modern Tory party is not a perfect example of laissez-fair classic liberalism I'm supposed to support the modern LIBERAL Party? That's just nuts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Who cares? Seriously, who really cares? I know I don't, at least not much, it's something that's more "background noise" than a substantive issue... There's WAY too much "big stuff" happening in the world today for things like this to matter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) In addition to the two new senators there is also two other party officials charged, AS WELL AS THE PARTY "The decision-to-prosecute test is very simple," said Brien, before reading verbatim from the public prosecutors' deskbook."In the assessment of the evidence, the evidence must demonstrate that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction." And if there is, added Brien, "does the public interest require a prosecution to be pursued?" Liquidating assets and deregistering the party are not beyond the scope of the act. A party conducting itself regularly in an illegal fashion shouldn't be a party at all. The fact their "electoral win" was on the backs of an illegal election scheme doesn't really legitimize the government. Election rigging is a fairly serious act and the epitomy of antidemocracy. a demgogue The Conservative Party the Antichrist itself. And before you say anything ._________ .__________ + - Edited March 1, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 In addition to the two new senators there is also two other party officials charged, AS WELL AS THE PARTY Liquidating assets and deregistering the party are not beyond the scope of the act. A party conducting itself regularly in an illegal fashion shouldn't be a party at all. The fact their "electoral win" was on the backs of an illegal election scheme doesn't really legitimize the government. Election rigging is a fairly serious act and the epitomy of antidemocracy. a demigouge The Conservative Party the Antichrist itself. You might want to take this up with the Liberals who get around the ridding cap very often by not counting salaries. You might want to look at elections costs often times there are people who work the whole campaign but get paid "centrally" to advert that cap. I mean if we are going to be talking about things that are wrong lets talk about them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) You might want to take this up with the Liberals who get around the ridding cap very often by not counting salaries. You might want to look at elections costs often times there are people who work the whole campaign but get paid "centrally" to advert that cap. I mean if we are going to be talking about things that are wrong lets talk about them. I don't see the liberals being charged here your comments are entirely nonsense. If you question the legality bring it up with the public prosecutor or courts. I'm not the prosecutor and if I was I would be spending way more time prosecuting. I'm not liberal, I'm not conservative (I'm social), this isn't a partisan issue for me. You have the evidence the liberals or anyone else is doing the same thing post it but otherwise you are just posting MORE LIES. Something people on this board have a nasty habit of doing. SOCIAL: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/social THE FEDERAL PROSUCTOR IS A SUB MANAGER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE - THEY ARE POLITICALLY APPOINTED AND WERE DONE SO BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL A MEMBER OF THE CONSERVATIVE CABINET---- THIS IS THEIR OWN PARTY ADMINISTRATION PROSECUTING THEMSELVES ONLY AKIN TO A PURGE. THE LEGITIMACY OF THESE CHARGES SEEMS DEMONSTRATED THIS IS NOT A GRAND CONSPIRACY BY THE LIBERALS. THE PARTY WOULD NOT DISBAR ITSELF IF THE CHARGES WERE NOT LEGITIMATE. Edited March 1, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) I don't see the liberals being charged here your comments are entirely nonsense. If you question the legality bring it up with the public prosecutor or courts. I'm not the prosecutor and if I was I would be spending way more time prosecuting. I'm not liberal, I'm not conservative (I'm social), this isn't a partisan issue for me. You have the evidence the liberals or anyone else is doing the same thing post it but otherwise you are just posting MORE LIES. Something people on this board have a nasty habit of doing. No offense but when in Canada are you guilty till proven innocent now? As for my prof I think you just have to go to the elections Canada website to see that. Here don't believe me look at Justin Trudeau's financial reports. Some how that guy ran an whole campaign and didn't pay anyone a salary. If you look at any Liberal financial report from the last election in close elections where wages would put them over the top almost all of them have no salaries accounted for. What they do is transfer this salary out of the campaign to central campaign that way they can spend above the cap. This is just an in and out scheme to. Unless you think the Liberal run campaign with out paying people which I know for a fact isn't true. I don't like being called a Liar by the way so I will wait for my apology. http://www.elections.ca/scripts/webpep/fin2/detail_report.aspx PS I could care less how you label yourself. Edited March 1, 2011 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) I've said before, show me a Liberal who acts like a classic Liberal and I very well might vote for him! http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tbz5no4pQQY/SwcL28npSOI/AAAAAAAAAG0/f4qxRxc4XK4/s1600/Wilfrid_Laurier.jpg Edited March 1, 2011 by madmax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tbz5no4pQQY/SwcL28npSOI/AAAAAAAAAG0/f4qxRxc4XK4/s1600/Wilfrid_Laurier.jpg Geez, Max! Has it been THAT long? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted March 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 . He said in "On Liberty" that people should have freedom to the extent where such freedom doesn't harm others or impairs their own freedom. Considering conservative rhetoric today, this philosophy is the bedrock of what Conservatives believe. Are you serious? This is as far from Con ideology as possible. How does prohibition fit in to this "bedrock"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 So why is Election Canada singling out the Tories? Because the head man of EC tried this before and got his knuckles wrapped for it. This is nothing but a witch hunt and the EC head better start looking for a new job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Because the head man of EC tried this before and got his knuckles wrapped for it. This is nothing but a witch hunt and the EC head better start looking for a new job. Oooops - http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18143&view=findpost&p=633613 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 Because the head man of EC tried this before and got his knuckles wrapped for it. This is nothing but a witch hunt and the EC head better start looking for a new job. Fantastic! The optics on that one will be great! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) Because the head man of EC tried this before and got his knuckles wrapped for it. This is nothing but a witch hunt and the EC head better start looking for a new job. Yes yes yes, Tories can do no wrong, and everyone else is out to get the Tories. You sound like some sort of a paranoid schizophrenic, except instead of men in dark sunglasses and helicopters flying overhead, you imagine bureaucrats and judges with axes to grind against the poor ol' Conservative Party. Admit it, the Tories got busted on a shady campaign funding stunt. There's no doubt that the other major parties are doing the same thing, but like drunk drivers, only some get busted while the others manage to get home. But trying to defend a political party that gets nailed doing bad things by accusing the accusers of some sort of vendetta is well, just paranoid and cheap, a classic defense mechanism that more shows the absurdity of the party and its supporters. Quite frankly, I would make contributions to national parties unlawful, with massive fines and prison sentences for anyone trying to do it. I would make it the law that only local riding associations can raise money, and every nickel must stay within the riding, and anyone caught trying to move money around gets to sit in a prison cell with rapists and molesters as their punishment. Edited March 2, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.