Hidden agenda

[Bro]

Before the next election,could a liberal supporter please explain all the hidden agendas the Conservatives have in store for us. Please leave out healthcare,because that is a problem that needs discussion,and they are the only party so far willing to admit the system needs repair.

[August1991]

There's a new buzz word, "deep integration". It means that Harper plans to link Canada more strongly to the US.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Let "deep integration", be number one (and it's certainly a whopper!), then...

2 - irresponsible decentralization;

3 - religious catering;

4 - 'recapture' (my own creation, a term for unravelling social progress); and

5 - privatizing gains while socializing costs (and outright profiteering).

So much for the agenda. Meanwhile there is always pure amatuerish incompetence.

[sir_springer]

Hidden agenda???

We're all getting a first hand look at exactly what a "hidden agenda" truly is.

The Liberals are masters at it, lining the pockets of party hacks and cronies with tens of millions of our tax dollars so that they can skim millions back into their own hands.

Anyone buying into this typical Liberal demagogery and utter crap needs their head examined to see if there's any functioning braincells left.

[cybercoma]

There's a new buzz word, "deep integration". It means that Harper plans to link Canada more strongly to the US.

You make this sound like a bad thing.

[sir_springer]

1) Deep integration?

This would mean Canada actually coming to the table to participate in the defense of our own country for a change...as opposed to leaving it up to Americans to cover our butts for us, and even pick up the tab for it.

Yes, I can see that this is definitely a "hidden agenda" of which to be frightened. God forbid Canadians should enjoy national defense on their own dime.

2) Irresponsible decentralization?

Yes, Trudeau federalism, code for centralization of power in Ottawa, has certainly created a united Canada.

Well, except for the time we came within a hair of blowing apart in 1995.

And except for the reality of western alienation and rampant comtempt for Ottawa.

And except for growing contempt for confederation in Newfoundland.

And a political map that reflects a degree of fractured regionalism reminiscent of post WW1 Europe.

Not to mention that we now have a bloated federal government that literally can't do one damn thing right...like, f'rinstance, manage its most primary responsibility, our national defense, or our trading relationship with our largest market, or our international political relationships that now find more in common with bastions of democratic principle and freedom such as Russia, China, and a host of banana belt dictators than it does with the likes of Britain, Australia, Japan, and America.

Or forget the fact that federal coffers are bulging with billions in surpluses each year, while provincial governments are sucking the hind teat in perpetual defits and mountains of growing debt.

Yep, proud times to be a Canadian in this world, that's for damn sure.

3) Religious catering?

That's rich!

Forget that this entire nation history is premised upon Christian values enshrined directly in our Constitution and Charter of Rights, or that hundreds of thousands come from around world each year to live in Canada primarily so they can engage their religious beliefs and values without fear of repression and persecution.

I'm agnostic, and even I find this assertion preposterous...if not intellectually insulting.

4) Recapturing of social progress?

I certainly hope so.

14 yearold children turned loose by liberal laws to be preyed upon by pedofiles is revolting and a disgrace.

Our children beating the bloody crap out of each other, when they're not actually using knives or guns, on school grounds, while teachers stand paralized by legal crap and political correctness.

And the best the Liberals can come up with in a policy convention is legalizing both prostitution and smoke dope.

No surprize here, from a party that's been busy lining its bank account from the public purse for a decade, eh?

And we wonder why our children are confused about ethics and morality?

We re-elect proven liars and thieves as a matter of general rule in this sorry ass country.

5) Privatizing gains while socializing costs?

Ah, yes. I assume you're referring to our wonderful healthcare system...a model for all the world to avoid, which they do.

My family has had four run ins with this sacred healthcare system in the last 5 years.

Final score: 1 dead from a misdiagnosed appendicitis that nobody had the time to deal with 6 weeks earlier. 1 permanently injured from an undiagnosed hematoma due to concussion because nobody could be bothered to use an available MRI. 1 who agonized for years waiting for hip replacements. And 1 doomed ultimately to life on anti-psychotics because it took 9 GD months for doctors to finally concede she needed serious attention.

Why did this litany of avoidable tragedy upon tragedy happen?

Because we have a GD healtcare system that is predicated first and formost upon a half-century old obsolete ideology raised to the status of freakin' religion in this country.

And we don't give a rat's ass how many people we have to kill or torture to make sure it remains there, either.

Our healthcare system is an unmitigated disaster and a revolting national disgrace.

Been there, done that. The sooner it's overhauled into something workable, the sooner we'll all be a hundred times better off.

:angry:

[I Miss Trudeau]

This would mean Canada actually coming to the table to participate in the defense of our own country for a change...as opposed to leaving it up to Americans to cover our butts for us, and even pick up the tab for it.

Protect ourselves from what, exactly?

Yes, I can see that this is definitely a "hidden agenda" of which to be frightened. God forbid Canadians should enjoy national defense on their own dime.

We already enjoy national defense on a nickel. Why spend a dime?

Yes, Trudeau federalism, code for centralization of power in Ottawa, has certainly created a united  Canada.

The only barrier to a united Canada are two regional seperatist parties. I'm sure you can figure out which two.

And except for the reality of western alienation and rampant comtempt for Ottawa.

Western alienation is grossly overstated, not to mention the fact that it is manufactured for political gain by certain people in the west.

Not to mention that we now have a bloated federal government that literally can't do one damn thing right...

You mean like trying to ensure equal rights and recognition for minority groups?

our national defense,

A small influx of cash is needed to improve the safety of our soldiers. Thats about it.

or our trading relationship with our largest market

You may not have noticed, but that market is sending clear messages that our exports are not welcome. Or perhaps you haven't heard of softwood lumber or cows.

That market makes it policy to violate agreements that it signed with Canada, and you blame Canada for tense relations?!

or our international political relationships that now find more in common with bastions of democratic principle and freedom such as Russia, China, and a host of banana belt dictators than it does with the likes of Britain, Australia, Japan, and America.

Right. All countries that precipitated an illegal war of aggression on a sovereign nation. Let freedom ring!

Yep, proud times to be a Canadian in this world, that's for damn sure.

It truly is.

Forget that this entire nation history is premised upon Christian values enshrined directly in our Constitution and Charter of Rights, or that hundreds of thousands come from around world each year to live in Canada primarily so they can engage their religious beliefs and values without fear of repression and persecution.

Which is great, unless you happen to be from the United church, in which case Harper thinks that your beliefs need to be legislated against.

Or, unless you just want to get on with your life, but are prohibited from doing so because others want to dictate what you can or can't do, regardless of the fact that your actions have no impact on others.

So, from your post, I assume that this protection from persecution and repression is not to be extended to homosexuals?

I'm agnostic, and even I find this assertion preposterous...if not intellectually insulting.

Thats ok. I find your entire post devoid of fact or reason. It goes well past intellectually insulting.

14 yearold children turned loose by liberal laws to be preyed upon by pedofiles is revolting and a disgrace.

This kind of tripe is really good for getting the talk radio listeners stirred into a frenzy of rhetorical nonsense, but its rather lacking as, well, anything resembling rational discourse.

Parents are responsible for the actions of their underage children, not the state.

Perhaps you think the government should have a greater hand in the upbringing of the children of Canada. Maybe they should instill progressive values in children, instead of the hate-filled nonsense of many parents. But, wait, we wouldn't want them doing that, would we?!

To what extent should the government interfere with the upbringing of children?

Our children beating the bloody crap out of each other, when they're not actually using knives or guns, on school grounds, while teachers stand paralized by legal crap and political correctness.

Or just an unwillingness to get involved.

And the best the Liberals can come up with in a policy convention is legalizing both prostitution and smoke dope.

No surprize here, from a party that's been busy lining its bank account from the public purse for a decade, eh?

Ohhh! Nice rhetorical flourish. Limbaugh would be proud. Unfortuantly, its not connected to anything else in your post and merely makes you look like an idiot.

And we wonder why our children are confused about ethics and morality?

Actually, thay tend to have a much clearer and defensible view of ethics and morality than the bulk of the adult population.

We re-elect proven liars and thieves as a matter of general rule in this sorry ass country.

"Liars and thieve"s are preferable to "liars and religious whackos" in my opinion.

But hey, if you don't like it, move to the bible belt. You'd love it there. The best part is that your ignorant rhetoric passes for sound argument there.

Because we have a GD healtcare system that is predicated first and formost upon a half-century old obsolete ideology raised to the status of freakin' religion in this country.

Right, as opposed to the ideological religion of the free market that opposes the health care system.

And we don't give a rat's ass how many people we have to kill or torture to make sure it remains there, either.

Limbaugh better be careful... you can sling imbecilic rhetoric with the best of them.

Our healthcare system is an unmitigated disaster and a revolting national disgrace.

A disgrace that 95% of the world would love to live with.

[sir_springer]

Miss Trudeau...

Afraid I'll have to pass on a rebutal.

My computer doesn't allow me to employ crayons enabling me draw a few pictures that you'd understand.

[cybercoma]

Who needs a military to enforce our interests in the world, when we can just sit back whining and complaining about things going on, but not being able to lift a finger to do anything about it?

Pretty tough for us to threaten dictatorships and such if we have no military power to do anything about it.

"Protection against what?"

Protecting our neighbours and people around the world from oppression.

We like to pretend we're some huge peacekeeping nation, meanwhile we couldn't topple a thridworld country if we tried.

Leaving the United States and its citizens responsible for our protection is just stupid and unfair to them. Especially if we're going to spit in their face when they try to enforce peacekeeping missions around the world.

[August1991]

Yes, Trudeau federalism, code for centralization of power in Ottawa, has certainly created a united  Canada.

The only barrier to a united Canada are two regional seperatist parties. I'm sure you can figure out which two.

You just don't get it, do you IMT.

If there is any threat to Canadian unity right now, it has been caused by Jean Chretien and the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Bro]

to imt,

you leave me speechless.You are so obviously misinformed or uneducated about what is evolving in this

country,that your right to vote in this country should be at question.

[Conservative1]

Protect ourselves from what, exactly?

What kind of statement is that? The military is a saftey net there to protect us when something unforseen comes along! Further it should be in a constant state of readiness. It should also be there to back up our tough rhetoric when the time comes. Need I even mention Dafour.

We already enjoy national defense on a nickel. Why spend a dime?

We have quite the military on that nickel don't we....oh wait NO we don't. Our military is smaller in size than croatia's!

I find almost everything else from that post equally apaulling...alas i am not going to take the time out of my day to reply to all of that duzy...

[I Miss Trudeau]

If there is any threat to Canadian unity right now, it has been caused by Jean Chretien and the Liberal Party of Canada.

Right. Because there were no separatists in Canada prior to Chretiens time as PM.

Yes, Adscam has obviously had a very negative impact on the chance for a unified Canada, but I don't see how a conservative government would improve english-french relations in the slightest. Go look at the thread on "let those @!#$%& in quebec go" to see how the Conservative power base views the issue, and what we can expect from Harper.

[I Miss Trudeau]

to imt,

you leave me speechless.You are so obviously misinformed or uneducated about what is evolving in this

country,that your right to vote in this country should be at question.

Look, produce some evidence that the country is going to hell. That means, don't just make absurd claims designed to outrage anyone that hears them. Give me facts. Back up your claims. And perhaps, when you realize that you can't, you'll actually question all this nonsense.

[Guest eureka]

Isn't it interesting that the some protagonists in this are not going to respond. One because no one will help him to use his crayons; another because he can't think of anything to say.

And August, the threat to National Unity was not a consequence of the LiberalParty and Chretien. It was the existence of the Bloc and the PQ. They bear the ultimate responsibility for Adsca, too. It was to defeat their scheming that the progeamme was devised. That it was misused is secondary to that - and not very significant in comparison.

[cybercoma]

Let's face it. Not much is going to help English/French relations in this country. We've been at war with each other since day 1.

[kimmy]

And August, the threat to National Unity was not a consequence of the LiberalParty and Chretien. It was the existence of the Bloc and the PQ. They bear the ultimate responsibility for Adsca, too. It was to defeat their scheming that the progeamme was devised. That it was misused is secondary to that - and not very significant in comparison.

Surely you're kidding us.

"Ad-scam" was created by the PQ and BQ?

Yes, the PQ and BQ may have motivated the "Ads" part of the equation, but the "scam" part, that was 100% LPC. If the Sponsorship Program had operated according to the government's own rules, and limited its expenses to doing what it was supposed to do, there'd be no "scam" to discuss. There'd be no Gomery inquiry. There'd be no daily allegations of criminal activity committed in the name of "defending federalism". The worst the opposition and the BQ in particular would have to complain about was that the benefits of the program are somewhat dubious.

It is the scam part, not the ads part, which has disgraced the Liberals and discredited the cause of federalism in Quebec, and the blame for that falls squarely on the shoulders of those members of the LPC who just couldn't keep their hands out of the cookie jar.

And then there's the question of whether the sponsorship program was even intended to "defend federalism", or if it was conceived from the ground up as a money-laundering scheme. I'm sure we'll never know for sure. But did people really think that sponsoring boat shows and petting zoos would prevent another referendum? Obviously I don't understand Quebecers very well, because if that's the sort of thing that would build their sense of federalism, I guess Quebecers must like boat shows and petting zoos a lot more than I'd have expected.

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

You seem to understand neither Quebec or the programme.

How could a money laundering scheme be one where a small fraction of the money involved was skimmed by some crooks who had no part in the supply of the money. Neither was it 100% Liberal. Brault, at least, is now said to have been a closet PQ supporter and did give them some of the proceeds.

This kind of thing has been going on for a few decades now. Mulroney Conservatives also used advertising agencies and contracts without the excuse of national unity.

ForQuebec, the programme was a worthwhile idea. In Quebec it is an article of faith that everything good comes from the Provincial government and that Ottawa is the drag on progress. There is little evidence of a federal presence and less knowledge. Canada gets no traction for the billions of dollars it pours into the province and for equalization payments.

Indeed, Quebeckers have been taught to believe that Quebec is "bled" by Canada.

The sponsorship programme was designed to show the flag and raise awareness. It was to counter the propaganda of both the PQ and the Provincial Liberals.

It could have worked.

[sir_springer]

When someone pipes up with statements like, "Protect us from what?", "Yes, national defense cheap as possible!", and "14 yearold children don't need the protection of the State."...

There's no point even going there because a) I don't have 3 hours worth of my valuable time just to bring them up to date on reality, and if they don't know any better than this already, nothing I'm going to say isn't going to make an iota of difference.

Boy, if there's one thing in this world that never ceases to shock and amaze me, it's the unrelenting, yet remarkably self-righteous, naivity of your average Liberal Lefty.

I'm starting to wonder lately if long term exposure to freedom, democracy, and relatively safe and easy living doesn't somehow negatively mutate DNA from one generation to the next.

The people who built this country, and fought and died for it, must be turnin' in their graves right about now.

[Guest eureka]

But those were not the statements, were they? One was a question and a valid one. The others were not even close to what you say they were.

Isn't it just that you cannot answer?

You might also remember that those who fought and died for this country had been voting Liberal: those who survived also vote, in the main, Liberal.

The ones who did fight fought to ensure that this country would never fall into the hands of those of your persuasion. They must be spinning fast if they know how their dreams and sacrifices have been dismissed and betrayed.

[The Terrible Sweal]

1) Deep integration?

This would mean Canada actually coming to the table to participate in the defense of our own country for a change...as opposed to leaving it up to Americans to cover our butts for us, and even pick up the tab for it.

Yes, I can see that this is definitely a "hidden agenda" of which to be frightened. God forbid Canadians should enjoy national defense on their own dime.

Strawman argument. Deep integration is not the same thing as a strong national military capability. I support the latter to stave off the former.

2) Irresponsible decentralization?

...

Well, I'm not sure what your point is there, but I can't help but notice that you neither denied that is part of the agenda, nor argued that is is a good thing.

3) Religious catering?

That's rich!

Forget that this entire nation history is premised upon Christian values enshrined directly in our Constitution and Charter of Rights, ...

Well, that's just plain wrong. Now don't bother to quote that line of the Charter to me. It does not mean much of anything.

...or that hundreds of thousands come from around world each year to live in Canada primarily so they can engage their religious beliefs ...

Because we presently avoid catering to any religions, all are welcome. Start catering to religion, as the Neo-tories secret agenda provides, and you head straight for tyrrany.

Again, I can't help but notice that you didn't make any sort of argument here, either.

4) Recapturing of social progress?

I certainly hope so.

So, you admit it. Good to speak frankly, isn't it.

5) Privatizing gains while socializing costs?

Ah, yes. I assume you're referring to our wonderful healthcare system...a model for all the world to avoid, which they do.

It seems clear from this response that you don't understand what I am talking about.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Yes, Trudeau federalism, code for centralization of power in Ottawa, has certainly created a united  Canada.

The only barrier to a united Canada are two regional seperatist parties. I'm sure you can figure out which two.

You just don't get it, do you IMT.

If there is any threat to Canadian unity right now, it has been caused by Jean Chretien and the Liberal Party of Canada.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ludicrous. If there is any threat to Canadian unity right now it remains the separatist opportunists we have known lo these many years.

[fracan]

I don't fear "deep integration" or whatever you'd like to call it because I'm realistic about our position on this planet, and the shared history we have with our neighbors to the south. What Liberals like to pretend is that the entire population of the US was all for killing Iraqi babies, when the country itself is still deeply divided on that issue and pretty much reflects the same division we have here in our country.

We don't need a military to protect ourselves - yet. There could come a day when we do, because Al Qaeda isn't stupid and they know who the allies of the Americans are and we are on the short list. What we do need a military for is getting into places like Darfur when we had a chance to actually prevent a massacre and provide a shining example to the world of our values -- values that are held by both conservative and liberal alike. Right now we're a laughingstock on the international stage.

Catering to Christian phobias won't happen even if they get a majority because they'll like their power and want to keep it. They know if they pull social conservative stuff like a full ban on abortion (which they've come right out and said they wouldn't touch) or using the notwithstanding clause to ban SSM that they aren't going to be re-elected, and as we've seen from the Liberals, politicians love power and they love keeping power once they get it. And that's assuming they get a majority, which probably won't happen in which case you've got three opposition parties who skew left of centre on social issues anyways to stop anything like that.

[Pateris]

Our trading relationship with the US is doing quite fine. Softwood lumber and Beef are minor irritants.

For instance, softwood lumber has forced BC lumber producers to become more efficient so they can compete even with the US tariffs. And can ship product overseas more effectively.

The beef issue should push the beef industry to slaughter more cows in Canada and ship packaged beef instead of cows. The Americans are still accepting beef, just not live animals.

And we are now the largest single supplier of OIL to the USA and they are spending BILLIONS of dollars in Canada to get more of it.

And we still export a lot more CARS to the USA than we import from them.

And we still export more electricity to the USA than we import.

Interesting isn't it. We still have a trade SURPLUS with the Americans yet you claim they don't want our stuff.

[kimmy]

You seem to understand neither Quebec or the programme.

How could a money laundering scheme be one where a small fraction of the money involved was skimmed by some crooks who had no part in the supply of the money. Neither was it 100% Liberal. Brault, at least, is now said to have been a closet PQ supporter and did give them some of the proceeds.

If you want to get caught up into the semantics of whether "money laundering scheme" is a fair description of the program, you'll have to do it with someone else. Certainly not all the participants were Liberals, but all the participants who weren't Liberals seem to have profited greatly by playing along with the Liberals. And certainly one feature common to a great deal of the testimony and from a number of different witnesses has been the creation of false claims, false expenses, false contracts, all deliberately intended to conceal that the real destination of the money was the pockets of Liberal party officials. Now, whether that's exactly the "textbook" definition of money-laundering, I'm not sure... but I think it's pretty close to the mark. Close enough for horse-shoes and message boards.

The sponsorship programme was designed to show the flag and raise awareness. It was to counter the propaganda of both the PQ and the Provincial Liberals.

It could have worked.

The notion seems to be that either Quebecers' affections could be bought with these cheesy little gifts, or else that Quebecers are too dumb to see through something so transparent. Either way, I'm not terribly surprised that many of them seem to have been offended.

-kimmy