Gomery Commission?

[BQSupporter]

Oh its fine for business to give money to political parties, but not the money of the people of Quebec to keep the liberals in power.

Stop talking about Harper.

Address the payoffs and kickbacks?

Address the racketeering?

Address the money laundering?

Ad exc meeting with former cabinet ministers?

Martin friends saying "keep close to *****?

MP's getting orginizers to work for them with adscam money?

[kimmy]

I can predict how the next Canadian election will turn out, with or without the publication ban.

The Liberals will be reelected with a majority government.

They can't do it. They couldn't win a majority last time out, and they won't do it next time when Quebec kicks the legs out from underneath them.

They need Quebec. When you turn your backs on them, they're dead. Watch and see.

-kimmy

[kimmy]

This scandel and the doors on this scandel are about to blast right open Watergate style.

And you support a separatist party?

Show me the law where a company that gets a government contract is not allowed to make a political donation!

I'll be waiting!

Of all the comedy comments that Liberal apologists have made on this board during my time here, this is one of the funniest.

We've had testimony from Gilles Gosselin saying he was told that if he didn't make donations to the Liberals, he wouldn't be getting contracts.

We've heard testimony from Bernard Thiboutot that his company was given money by Groupaction to donate to the Liberals.

We've had testimony from Lafleur Communications saying that employees were given money to donate to the Liberals.

So, while you might wish to explain this as just "a company making a donation", I think that objective observers would use phrases more like "kickbacks" and "evasion of political donation disclosure rules."

-kimmy

{was that worth the wait?}

[Guest eureka]

Argus, the credibility of everything you say is shot by your insistence that the Civil Service is bigger than ever.

We have been through that one before and I have shown that civil service employment preaked in 1993 and is not back to the levels of that year in spite of a population groth of more than 15%.

I even, reluctantly, searched fo and provided a link for August on that. I think it convinced August that some people might know something without searching the Web for everything. But not you.

[Black Dog]

A Conservative Government would make the government smaller, and give more money back to the provinces to meet the primary services they deliver.

NDP government would centralize control, grow the government and increase taxes.

Here's the thing: there's plenty of examples of Conservative style governments that have promised to shrink government, increrases services, put a chicken in every pot blah blah blah. And in every case, they've failed. Conservative governments on the balance tend to be the most fiscally irresponisble. But that';s a debate for another day.

You don't need to vilify me to like your own position. I am comfortable with you having your position. I think we are both democrats. So shall we just let the voters sort it out?

Except the current archaic FPTP voting system guarantees a distorted election outcome.

The voting part I am excited about because I think we will win. Don't you think so as well? This is what makes you angry.

I don't think the Cons will win, at least not a majority. they'll be shut out of Quebec, that much is certain.

More people agree with the Conservatives than the NDP.

Well this is a ludicrous statement. For one thing, casting a vote for one party does not necessarily reflect a deep-seated belief in whatever that party stands for. There's many reasons why that is, but, quite frankly, I'm not interested in having this discussion.

 

There is absolutely no logical reason to say that you'd vote for the Liberals no matter how corrupt they are except that you're blinded by ideological hatred. The real difference between the positions of these parties and the demographics they appeal to is not that great. If you can't imagine yourself making the jump from one to the other and back again then the problem isn't their extremism it's yours.

Which kinda make sone wonder why anyone who doesn't like the Liberals would vote Con. I mean, the Cons have no vision, no desire to change anything. 

Utter drivel.

Gee, Argie baby, you sure flip-flopped in a hurry.

What happened to, and I quote:

Aside from thoroughly disliking Martin I can see no reason whatever to vote for the Tories. What do they stand for? Uhm, multiculturalism, official bilingualism, more immigration, no private health care, sucking up to Quebec... or was that the Liberals? Oh wait, it's both!

Your party hasn't got an original idea in its platform. There's no vision, nothing inspirational, no economic ideas, no social ideas, no nothing. Just bland pablum dished out in a desperate effort to win approval from the media.

As for Harper's "growing" charisma? All I can say is it's got a lot of growing to do. He'll have a lot of time, of course, since I don't see anything but Liberal governments well into the future.

?

Did you have a epihany? Or is it just crass opportunism on your part that has you leaping back on the Con bandwagon?

[waynej625]

Instead of Chretien getting a speedy hearing in federal court in his attempts to have Gomery removed, he should be geeting a speedy trip right into the prisoner's box with the rest of the thieves who helped steal Canadian taxpayer's money through the sponsorship program.

Chretien is as dirty as any one of those ad ageny flunkies and should not be treated special just because he was PM, he was crooked just like them, and should pay for it with some time behind bars.

[BQSupporter]

If and when their is an election im sure that the Conservatives will be shut out of Quebec. But the BQ during a leadership race and under a new leader will gladly prop up the Conversatives in a minority government that would benifit the interest of Quebec and the the separatist movement.

Of course the CPC would have to govern like a center right moderate government with focus on reform of the government, relations with the provinces and economic and social devolution.

Such an arrangement would course have to last pass the Quebec elections in 2007.

[I miss Reagan]

Chretien is as dirty as any one of those ad ageny flunkies and should not be treated special just because he was PM, he was crooked just like them, and should pay for it with some time behind bars.

Careful, the moderators are very defensive about calling Chretien names. Feel free to go at the CON servatives unfettered though.

[willy]

The Liberal Brand is on the way out. Here is a story to the first name change.

http://www.canada.com/fortstjohn/story.htm...25-84782eab7c25

[CAGERATTLER]

-kimmy

{was that worth the wait?}

No it wasn't actually. I asked you to show me the law that states a company who has gotten a government contract is not allowed to make political donations.

Once again I'll be waiting for your reply!

[CAGERATTLER]

Chretien is as dirty as any one of those ad ageny flunkies and should not be treated special just because he was PM, he was crooked just like them, and should pay for it with some time behind bars.

So you have him tried and convicted!

Guilty until proven innocent! Wonderful system you have there!

Do the same principles apply to CON servatives also?

How come Vic Toews is still a member of your party he pleaded guilty in a court of law already.

You do have double standards don't you!

[CAGERATTLER]

They need Quebec.

And without Quebec the CON servatives can win?

You dream a lot!

[Conservative1]

I asked you to show me the law that states a company who has gotten a government contract is not allowed to make political donations.

There is no law stateing that. However what this whole inquiry is about is not just a normal political donation; rather the illegal funneling of funds back to the liberal party, through bogus contracts, and other illegal activities.

Hey CAGERATTLER why don't you stop unabashadly supporting the liberals, especially when you simply spout nonsense, and rhetoric! If you are going to support them at least bring some solid facts.

[Argus]

This scandel and the doors on this scandel are about to blast right open Watergate style.

And you support a separatist party?

Show me the law where a company that gets a government contract is not allowed to make a political donation!

Under the table? Yes, actually, there are such laws.

[Argus]

Did you have a epihany? Or is it just crass opportunism on your part that has you leaping back on the Con bandwagon?

First, I'm not on the Tories' band wagon. I'm not fond of Harper. And I still think the platform they have established lacks anything which will catch the public eye. It is full of bland generalities run out by spin doctors designed to coast and not offend anyone. What I said was they needed to put out bold, specific new proposals which would excite the public, and they haven't done that. As such, there is no reason to vote for them other than to get rid of Martin and his Liberals - which many would agree is plenty of reason, of course.

To say that they don't want to change anything, however, is utterly nonsensical. As you know full well, because if you believed it for a second you and the other shrill left wingers here wouldn't be so terrified of them getting into power.

[Argus]

If and when their is an election im sure that the Conservatives will be shut out of Quebec. But the BQ during a leadership race and under a new leader will gladly prop up the Conversatives in a minority government that would benifit the interest of Quebec and the the separatist movement.

Of course the CPC would have to govern like a center right moderate government with focus on reform of the government, relations with the provinces and economic and social devolution.

I'm not sure how easy that would be even excluding the seperatist bent of the BQ. I would think the BQ would be cooperative on introducing privatization into Health Care, but they're pretty much a left wing party, as left as the NDP, and I don't know what kind of agreement they could find with a centre right Tory government.

[Argus]

-kimmy

{was that worth the wait?}

No it wasn't actually. I asked you to show me the law that states a company who has gotten a government contract is not allowed to make political donations.

Once again I'll be waiting for your reply!

Show us the law which says it's okay for a federal minister to extort money out of companies which do business with the government.

[Argus]

Do the same principles apply to CON servatives also?

How come Vic Toews is still a member of your party he pleaded guilty in a court of law already.

You do have double standards don't you!

Well, you certainly do.

Towes overspent during an election. Big deal. At least he didn't steal the money he overspent. Pretty soon I suspect we're going to see a lot of Liberals trying to do a lot of explaining about where their election funding was coming from and why much of it was never reported to Elections Canada.

[kimmy]

No it wasn't actually. I asked you to show me the law that states a company who has gotten a government contract is not allowed to make political donations.

Once again I'll be waiting for your reply!

If you think the Liberals are being persecuted because they received donations, then either your astoundingly stupid, or you believe everybody else is.

-kimmy

{that's about all the reply your ridiculous line of argument deserves.}

[Black Dog]

First, I'm not on the Tories' band wagon. I'm not fond of Harper. And I still think the platform they have established lacks anything which will catch the public eye. It is full of bland generalities run out by spin doctors designed to coast and not offend anyone. What I said was they needed to put out bold, specific new proposals which would excite the public, and they haven't done that. As such, there is no reason to vote for them other than to get rid of Martin and his Liberals - which many would agree is plenty of reason, of course.

So when you say there's no fundamental difference between the Cons and Liberals, it's gospel, yet when I say the exact same thing, it's "utter drivel".

In other words, you're earlier comment was just about you being a snarky d**k.

To say that they don't want to change anything, however, is utterly nonsensical. As you know full well, because if you believed it for a second you and the other shrill left wingers here wouldn't be so terrified of them getting into power.

May I remind you that you yourself, in the previous thread and your reply above, have intimated that he Cons don't want to change anything.

Again:

It is full of bland generalities run out by spin doctors designed to coast and not offend anyone.

Why, that doesn't seem like you earnestly believe they want change, does it?

See, unlike my peers, I don't beleive the Cons will make any dramatic changes should they get power. They'll be too intoxicated by the rarified air of government to do anything that would seriously jeapordixe their position. Sure, they'll chip away at things like health care, education, Canadian sovereignty, just like the Liberals and PCs before them. But sweeping change is not in the cards. The only real changes will come in who'se pockets are being lined and who's pals get appointed to prominent posts. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Towes overspent during an election. Big deal. At least he didn't steal the money he overspent.

No Teows didn't steal the money, just the votes!

[Argus]

They need Quebec.

And without Quebec the CON servatives can win?

You dream a lot!

Yes, they can. They own the west. If they can get the same support in Ontario they used to get prior to the split they can win.

[Argus]

So when you say there's no fundamental difference between the Cons and Liberals, it's gospel, yet when I say the exact same thing, it's "utter drivel".

I never said there was no difference between the Conservatives and Liberals. I said there was hardy any difference in their platforms. Big difference. And you said the tories didn't want to change anything, which is utter drivel and you know it.

To say that they don't want to change anything, however, is utterly nonsensical. As you know full well, because if you believed it for a second you and the other shrill left wingers here wouldn't be so terrified of them getting into power.

May I remind you that you yourself, in the previous thread and your reply above, have intimated that he Cons don't want to change anything.

Nope. Never suggested any such thing. I've said that their platform was designed to be mush, pablum, bland generalities, appealing to the same brainless, mushy middle ground as the liberals. What I said was they should stand up for what they believe in and not hide it behind bland BS.

One of the reasons to like the Tories is that, like the NDP, they believe in something other than lining their own pockets. That's why a bland, wishy-washy public platform irritates me. Instead of sticking to their guns and convincing Canadians they're right the platform prefers to stay silent or mouth bland reassurances and platitudes.

[Argus]

Towes overspent during an election. Big deal. At least he didn't steal the money he overspent.

No Teows didn't steal the money, just the votes!

Towes overspent on a technicality, a total of $2,000 I believe. That's chump change, and he never would have been prosucuted if he'd been a Liberal.

Dredging that up out of history in order to try and distract from a multi million dollar fraud, extortion, theft and corruption scandal is just ... pathetic.

[Fortunata]

Sure, it was a technicality.

It's always DIFFERENT when the CPCers do it yes?

Toews kept his post. There goes any notion of morality in the CPC. Yet they lecture all the others on morality.

What's that word again?

Oh yes........

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y