Party with most lies

[Bro]

The Liberals tell more lies to get elected than any other party in Canadian history,federally,and provincially,especially where Ontario is concerned.

I still can't find a majority of people in my daily travels who agree with them,or who voted for them.

Do they really represent the majority[36%]of Canadians

who voted for them,or should we get an independant inquiry into Elections Canada to see if tampering with votes was not an issue in the past federal election.

This is not an issue only I have thought .There are many other Canadians I have talked to,can't understand how

they were elected ,meaning it is hard to find anybody that will admit they voted liberal.Or is it that sadly ,most Canadians are liars like the political party they put in power?

[caesar]

Well Bro; guess you travel in the wrong circles. What are you....an Albertan??

Most of us did as Joe Clarke suggest; better the devil you know. We didn't want to be bush butt kissers.

[playfullfellow]

I would have to agree with you bro, the liberals are the ones with the most lies. Maybe you should have posed the question as to which party would be "least" likely to keep it's election promises. The liberals would still top the list I think, even before the election.

[Guest eureka]

I don't know about the most lies but they have the most liars. That is because they have the most adherents.

Most lies would depend on who thinks what is a lie. The new Conservatives have to limited to only one lie. The party lives a lie. One lie but one that is so huge it is more massive than all the lies of all the other parties combined.

[Slavik44]

I don't know about the most lies but they have the most liars. That is because they have the most adherents.

Most lies would depend on who thinks what is a lie. The new Conservatives have to limited to only one lie. The party lives a lie. One lie but one that is so huge it is more massive than all the lies of all the other parties combined.

well I am gonna help you get ont he right track eureka.

1.If the whole party is a lie, and every thing in it is a lie, then it must contain more then one lie, it most contain an innumerable amount of lies.

2. For a party to be all lies nothing it says must be truth, so lets look at what the party says;

As Harper says, the border closure is based on politics, not science (now you may not agree with kissing bush butt and that is fine but you cannot dissagree that the border is bieng closed because of politics can you? it may be childish politics in your opinion but the border is closed due to politics. This being said makes you a liar and scraps your arguement it may be fun to make such disgustign exagerations about a party but in the end your statements are "based on politics, not science."

[Guest eureka]

Any assertion based on the title of this thread will be based on politics, not science.

I said that the Conservatives live a lie. Therefore, is anything else they say a lie if it is part of their belief system? Can a lie be told if the teller does not know it is a lie?

[The Terrible Sweal]

As Harper says, the border closure is based on politics, not science (now you may not agree with kissing bush butt and that is fine but you cannot dissagree that the border is bieng closed because of politics can you?

Actually, I do disagree with that. This 'politics-not-science' line is just the lie that Canada's beef industry and politicians have as their chosen spin.

The science says this ...

1) If you have BSE it came from somewhere. If you can't find where and remove it, then it may still be there.

2) BSE come from animals being fed animal remains.

Another lie is that some body parts are safe and others not. This lie is based on the concept that the dangerous prions do their damage in the brain and nerve tissue, so muscle cuts are probably OK.

Well, that's nonsense. The prion enters the animal thru ingestion. How then does it end up in the brain tissue? Through the BLOODSTREAM. The bloodstream feeds the tissues throughout the animal, so if the blood carries the prion to the brain, it is carrying it everywhere, muscle, bone, and fat.

[Argus]

Most lies would depend on who thinks what is a lie. The new Conservatives have to limited to only one lie. The party lives a lie. One lie but one that is so huge it is more massive than all the lies of all the other parties combined.

And what would that lie be, child? Would it be anything like the lie the left lives by, that you can run a government based on academic theories which have been proven wrong in the real world about ten thousand times - if only you just keep at it?

[Guest eureka]

I don't know who the child is but I do know the Conservative lie. The lie is that it is a conservative party when it is a radical reactionary movement without a conservative pronciple.

Come to think of it, I have yet to see any principle.

[playfullfellow]

If you have BSE it came from somewhere. If you can't find where and remove it, then it may still be there.

The same can be said for just about every disease known to man kind. But what do say since there have been no new cases found in all the animals tested to date? Was this cow a random case? Was this some form of naturally occuring BSE? There are naturally occuring forms of similar diseases in ungulates such as deer and elk known as CWD (chronic wasting disease). Science can not tell us enough about prions yet to know how or why they occure.

BSE come from animals being fed animal remains.

To date, this is the accepted view and I am not going to disagree with it. In all actuallity, I have never been a fan of feeding animal byproducts to herbivores just cut a few days off the time to market. A lot of farmers never did feed fats to their animals so they are not a worry. Now, I think all farmers (well, at least the ones that think a bit) have taken animal byproducts out of their feed.

So we are looking at a situation where we have found no new cases and we have eliminated the possible cause of infection from the food chain. Canada has demonstrated quite well that they are doing the right thing. Even US scientists are saying that this is purely a political move on the part of the US. It may not be because we have a bunch of bone heads in Ottawa but the current "we hate the US: stance of the Liberals does not help the situation.

[Argus]

I don't know who the child is but I do know the Conservative lie. The lie is that it is a conservative party when it is a radical reactionary movement without a conservative pronciple.

Come to think of it, I have yet to see any principle.

You don't think you're a tad radical and reactionary yourself? As for pincipals, well, if, as you claim, they're championing positions most Canadians oppose wouldn't that mean they're doing so out of principal?

[Guest eureka]

No, I would not. I think they champion their positions out of a demagoguery: out of greed and a desire for power. I can tolerate conservatism. I cannot tolerate what the Reform based crowd would do to Canada and to civil society for nothing but personal interest. Everything they stand for is both philosophically and economically unsound. Everything they stand for would create in Canada what America has become - two nations in a divided house.

[Argus]

No, I would not. I think they champion their positions out of a demagoguery: out of greed and a desire for power.

I don't have any particular want or expectation of power. As for greed, I would like to hang on to as much of my pay cheque as possible, so I'd like to keep taxes reasonably low. I don't think that constitutes greed.

I can tolerate conservatism. I cannot tolerate what the Reform based crowd would do to Canada and to civil society for nothing but personal interest.

You don't think most conservatives believe that their programs, or policies would make the country a better place to live - just as you believe yours would? That's silliness, frankly. I might think little of most leftists but I believe they think their crackpot ideas are for the best.

Everything they stand for is both philosophically and economically unsound.

Which is pretty much what they say about everything you stand for.

Everything they stand for would create in Canada what America has become - two nations in a divided house.

So no change, then? So why worry?

[Guest eureka]

I do think that most people who call themselves believe that. I don't think any of the leadership does. They think only of a better place for themselves and the wealthier part of the growing divide.

How can any seriously think that a Bill of Goods sold to the American and British of lower taxes, less government and privatized services that was a resounding failure except for the wealthy, could be for the betterment of society. It took America a decade or more to recover from the disaster and Britain still has not been able to get the railways or the water supplies workiing again.

Tax cuts; getting government of one's back resonates and sells to the naive and the greedy but it works for only the wealthy in the short run and no one in the long run.

Are you aware. for one instance of this "Conservative" party's philosophy, that Harper stood for means tested access to healthcare? Do you accept the widening disparity in incomes and the reducing real incomes of half of society as an acceptable goal?

[Bro]

Eureka,can you understand this very simplicitic reality.

Lower taxes create more business and jobs.More business and jobs creates a larger body from which taxes can be collected,instead of paying out ui claims or welfare because there are no jobs.

Do you see the benefit of having a lower taxed,employed society instead of a welfare state?

[takeanumber]

The Liberals tell more lies to get elected than any other party in Canadian history,federally,and provincially,especially where Ontario is concerned.

Would you like a banana?

[Bro]

The Liberals tell more lies to get elected than any other party in Canadian history,federally,and provincially,especially where Ontario is concerned.

Would you like a banana?

I guess.

Would you like a zucchini?

[takeanumber]

Bipeds prefer corn.

[Bro]

Bipeds prefer corn.

Biped,does that mean you can peddle with two feet,or what?

[takeanumber]

I, being a small l liberal, walk on two feet.

The banana is on its way.

[Bro]

If you are a small liberal,then you won't have far too fall.

Is that what you are trying to say?

[takeanumber]

Nope.

I don't eat banana's.

But my original question is just as sophisticated as this topic was.

And Trivial.

"Politicians lie"

Stop the presses.

[Guest eureka]

So where do you find the evidence that lower taxes create more business and jobs? Recent economic history points to the opposite conclusion. And, economists have come to the opposite conclusion.

Job creation in the USA is at an all time low in a recovery period following the tax cuts there. In Canada it is stalled with the majority of those that are created being temporary or minimum wage.

There is far more than taxes to be considered but taxes cut beyond a level where services are sustainable damage the economy and are a drag on job creation.

[CANADIEN]

Instead of saying which parties lie the most, I'll tell which parties lie the less in my opinion.

Simple... those that don't have power and/or have no change of ever getting power. Power, it is said, corrups absolutely; it also makes liars of people who have or seek it. It's in the very nature of power. People will lie and cheat to get or keep power if they feel they have to. Sometimes, it's for the sake of power itself. Or it is rationalize on the grounds it is necessary to achieve a greater goal. Or the liar does it because he knows the truth won't be accepted.

In the last election campaign, the only politicians close to be truthful were the newbies, the idealistics and those from fringe parties. After all, you can afford to be honest when you'll lose anyway.

Of the four main parties, I would say the least disohonest (not based on voting preference) where the NDP and the Bloc. The NDP could afford to be so because they knew they are far from power and will be for a long time. The Bloc could afford it because they don't want power. No worries, both still served us a good heaping of lies.

Incidently, I am still surpirsed at the numbers of colleagues of mine (English-speakers in Toronto, no less) who told me they would vote for Duceppe if they could, based to his demeanor at the debates. Proof that image has become more important than substance.

[CANADIEN]

Bro,

Your argument about taxes is indeed, as you said yourself. Which is not the same as being simple. Are we witnessing here the results of a public education system strapped for cash?

The argument that the lower taxes there are the better things are sounds fine on paper, but it is an oversimplification that fails to take into account a very simple fact: there is a point when public institutions will crumble if they are not properly funded.

Look, for example, at Ontario during the Harris years. As a result of massive tax cuts, and despite more money being put in them (apparently), the public infrastructure (schools, hospitals, roads, public transit) is crumbling around us. Cuts in the investment in the government's monitoring role was a contributing factor in the Walkerton tragedy, in the opinion of the Tory-appointed commissioner who looked into it. The Tory-appointed envrionment ombudsman (hope I get the title right) blasted the government for cutting environment stadards and inspection.

Oh, but some will say, look at how we cut welfare rolls and increased the number of jobs, thanks to the cuts. Indeed it happened. But it is not the only thing that happened.

Most of the jobs created are low-end jobs that barely provide enough money for the necessities of life. Not surprising, given that the government relaxed employment standards, a natural complement to its tax-cutting. The biggest increase in the number of food bank users come from... people with jobs. Cuts in university funding and the resulting increase in tuition fees have been so big that we now have food banks in our universities.

As for the cuts in welfare rolls. They occured, but how many got jobs that lifted them out of poverty, and how many didn't get one at all? A professor of mine used this equation: "before Harris, the average lenght of stay on welfare rolls was 18 months. Now, it is one year and a half".

And, there's the deficit Harris left behind.