Promoting liberalism

[Riverwind]

" He denied cabinet had stepped up appointments to ensure positions were filled by Liberals before a possible election."

I checked mail,I didn't get an appointment. Did any of you Liberals out there get one?

And your point is? Every political party would do/has done exactly the same thing. The Repuplicans, the ideological kissing cousins of the CPC in the US, arecompletely unapologetic about stuffing the justice system with people that represent its views on society.

That said, I don't think it the appointment system is right - I just think it is hypocritical of any other party to claim that they would not do the same.

[Canuck E Stan]

"However,Marc Roy,a PMO spokesman,denied the increase in appointments was related to the precarious situation and an apparent unavoidable spring election."

" He denied cabinet had stepped up appointments to ensure positions were filled by Liberals before a possible election."

Did You see the word "Denied"? Twice. You didn't deny it. Why would the PMO's office?

[Riverwind]

"However,Marc Roy,a PMO spokesman,denied the increase in appointments was related to the precarious situation and an apparent unavoidable spring election."

" He denied cabinet had stepped up appointments to ensure positions were filled by Liberals before a possible election."

Did You see the word "Denied"? Twice. You didn't deny it. Why would the PMO's office?

It sounds silly. Probably because many people automatically assume that someone appointed by a political party must not be qualified. I think most people would agree the Frank McKenna was a good choice as ambassador to the US even if he is a Liberal.

That said, I am not going to defend all politically motived appointments. I don't like them any better than you do.

[Canuck E Stan]

The Political appointments is one issue.The other is the denial part by the PMO official. Is not denial the same as lying, or at worse trying to deceive the public?

[August1991]

QUOTE(Argus @ May 28 2005, 09:49 AM)

You are in denial. You can't admit, even to yourself, perhaps, that your party is uttelry corrupt in everything it has been doing over the past twenty years, so you simply hold your hands over your ears and shout "Nna-naa-naa-naaa-naaa".

Sorry, there is no evidence to back up such sweeping accusations about the entire Liberal party or even the current Liberal leadership. Gomery is supposed to sort through the various accusations and claims by people that have a vested interest in making it look like they were not responsible. His terms of reference are broad enough that his report will seperate fact from fiction even if he cannot specifically assign blame to individuals or organizations.

Huh? Do you mean to ask: Jos Blos, Liberal member in Tickle-Me Nfld, is not corrupt. Paul Martin, Liberal member in Verdun Que, is corrupt. IMV, that's not the issue.

For historical reasons and to get votes in Ontario and Quebec, the federal Liberal Party has presented itself as the only national party in Canada. In this, Canada put all its eggs in one basket.

In English Canada, to use the word "systemic" raises the question whether Paul Martin knew about this or not. Was it a small group of people or more extensive?

The issue in Quebec is not really about Paul Martin's knowledge of Jos Blos putting money in an envelope for Giuseppi Untel. Jacques Parizeau said, on 30 October 1995, that Quebec lost because of "money and the ethnic vote". That's the issue. And the evidence is now clear.

To put this in context for many posters on this forum, how would you feel if it became known that a small group of Republicans had been making illegal payments to Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party?

Very, very roughly. There are about 20% of the Quebec population who are non-francophones and will not go along with this project. There is another 20% of the population, francophones, who have been more-or-less securely bought by the federal government. They too will vote "no". That leaves about 60% in favour. Hence the current poll numbers.

I happen to think that what the federal Liberals have done to this country is beyond scandalous. And I also think that this country needs some sophisticated honesty. And finally, I think the country has survived worse.

[shoe-in]

I think the country has survived worse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

NAME ONE !!!!

BTW - WHERE IS MY UNCLE JOE HANGING AROUND THESE DAYS ??????????????????

[Riverwind]

The issue in Quebec is not really about Paul Martin's knowledge of Jos Blos putting money in an envelope for Giuseppi Untel. Jacques Parizeau said, on 30 October 1995, that Quebec lost because of "money and the ethnic vote". That's the issue. And the evidence is now clear.

I agree that whether or not Martin had a hand it in is irrelevant from the point of of Quebequers. I defend Paul Martin in this forum because I really believe he has a lot of personal integrity and he does not deserve to be called corrupt.

I happen to think that what the federal Liberals have done to this country is beyond scandalous.  And I also think that this country needs some sophisticated honesty.

I agree with you 100%, and I really would like to see a national party which can be an alternative to the Liberals and would send a message to Quebequers that Canadians do not consider this behavoir acceptable.

That is why many of my posts to this forum have been 'this is what the CPC has to do to get my vote' type of post vs. the 'if you don't vote Liberal you will destroy the country' type of post.

The fact that so many of the conservative members of this forum have more or less responded to with 'a take or leave it attitude' when it comes to key policy issues makes me feel that the CPC just does not understand the urban voters in Canada. Particularily in Ontario.

[Guest eureka]

Perhaps you should both give your opinions a little more fresh air! What the Liberals have done to this country is fight to save it from the attempts of the Conservatives to break it up.

Ever since Diefenbaker, the Conservatives have had as a guiding principle the aim of balkanising the country to buy Quebec votes. Mulroney almost succeded.

The Liberals have fought to prevent that. I have been highly critical of their policies but they are preferable to the cynical demagoguery of the Conservatives.

[Canuck E Stan]

Eureka, Your suppport for the Liberals is strong and passionate, as is your hate for the Conservatives. My question to you is, if you feel so strong about these two parties and with 25% of the population being is Quebec, and who have voted heavily for the Bloc, and all indications show they will vote Bloc even more so in the next election. Why are you not trying to convince Quebecors to vote Liberal as passionately as you are trying to persuade non-Quebecors? After all there is 25% of Canada's people living in that province.

[Argus]

Perhaps you should both give your opinions a little more fresh air! What the Liberals have done to this country is fight to save it from the attempts of the Conservatives to break it up.

No doubt you can provide us with innumerable examples of how the Tories have tried to break up this country.

Ever since Diefenbaker, the Conservatives have had as a guiding principle the aim of balkanising the country to buy Quebec votes. Mulroney almost succeded.

This from a rabid supporter of the party which has based all of its political efforts over the last half century on dividing and conquering, on playing off the west and and east against the centre, Quebec against the rest of Canada, and ethnics against each other and against the mainstream.

That this country is as divided as it is can be laid squarely at the doors of cynical, corrupt Liberal politicians who have never hesitated to put their own welfare and profit ahead of Canada's.

[Argus]

Worth repeating:

"Whether you liked it or not, there was once in this country a party that stood for something. Liberalism held sway and the vague yet compelling notions of constant progress and social justice attracted mass support. We could vote for or against such a party. Conservatives may not have approved of the Liberals, but they grudgingly acknowlledged the greatness of the party. Canadian liberalism was a yardstick with which to measure the body politic.

The stick is now broken, the party is gone, the philosophy has evaporated. Instead of something solid and impressive, we now have a mush and mess. A vehicle for power, an entity obsessed with government for its own sake, a symbol of empty boasts and plastic politics..... The Liberal Party is for the most part not even an ideological grouping any longer; but merely a conduit for political and social influence. There are, of course, Liberals who are of a different calibre, but their voices are increasingly weak and are rarely listened to by the full-fed princes who control the party." - Michael Coren

[Guest eureka]

I have provided those examples, Argus, over and over again. I have shown how Canada is the most decentralized nation in the world and how the "Conservatives are struggling to decentralize it further.

It is interesting that you now call me a "rabid supporter of the (Liberals) when formerly yu called me a rabid left-winger. Does your calumny swithch to what is convenient for your daily position? I have spent the last thirty some years fighting against the Liberal policies, nationally and provincially ( in Quebec) as destructive.

Those policies are, however, far less dangerous than the policies of the Conservatives and what you call playing off one region against another, I call an attempt to balance the acute regional stresses that are the product of decades of demagoguery.

[Guest eureka]

Canuck!

I was fighting against those who comprise the Bloc long ago and trying to convice Quebeckers that they were being manipulated for a sorry vision of the future of Quebec. Probably before you knew what a liberal is and certainly before you knew what makes a nation judging by your posts.

[Argus]

I have provided those examples, Argus, over and over again. I have shown how Canada is the most decentralized nation in the world and how the "Conservatives are struggling to decentralize it further.

No, you have stated your opinion about its level of decentralization. You have never actually understood that your opinions are not actually graven in stone and come down from the mountains. Nor have you demonstrated in any way how decentralization will destroy Canada.

Nor have you provided any examples of the tories wanting to "break up this country."

[Canuck E Stan]

So Eureka, your fighting the BLOC for the sake of unity makes you the Mother Theresa of Canada. Meanwhile, back 10 years, all the rah,rah, rah about keeping Quebec in Canada becomes a priority and the Liberal party gets their big propaganda machine in action to persuade Quebec that Canada is great. And what is this big machine? There is none. The Liberals don't have a war room for unity. all they got is cash but no ideas on how to convince Quebec that Canada is good. So they hire a bunch of second rate ad agencies and look for ideas from them.wonderful ideas like putting flags on race cars,flags on billboards,flags in trade shows.Some real convincing stuff.No GM and Pepsi kind of stuff, no real convincing marketing stuff,just flags.And to boot,no one is monitoring how the "campaign" is going. Just keep feeding the bucks, that will make the flags work. Then,10 years later when the Bloc take a stanglehold of the province because Quebecors are offended by Liberals and sponsorship, the fault is not with the Liberals,it becomes the fault of the Conservatives. Eureka your enemy is you.

[Argus]

I agree that whether or not Martin had a hand it in is irrelevant from the point of of Quebequers. I defend Paul Martin in this forum because I really believe he has a lot of personal integrity and he does not deserve to be called corrupt.

Paul Martin? Integrity? Hmmm

This is a man who, while he was Finance Minister, raising our taxes and cutting spending to things like hospitals while telling us we had to tighten our belts, moved his companies offshore to a tax haven to dodge Canada's taxes. Then, ignored years of demands and calls for him to close the tax loopholes which allowed companies to operate here while paying no taxes. The opposition, the Auditor General, Tax Review Board, the media, everyone. They all kept telling him to close those tax loopholes, but his own companies were benefiting from them.

When he finally acted, he closed the offshore tax haven loopholes - except to the Bahamas, where his companies were registered.

Integrity?

Despite being told by CSIS, External Affairs, and the American CIA that the group was a front for terrorism, he attended a fund raising dinner for the Tamil Tigers, then chorteled and sneered at the opposition who demanded to know what he was doing there. He stood up in the house, stuck his self righteous chest out, and denounced the opposition for beinng "bigots" against ethnic groups. Then sat down and all but elbowed Jean Chretien as the two giggled and snickered before the camera pulled away.

Integrity?

Despite having the slickest political machine in Canada, centred on Quebec, with well over half the party behind him, despite being Finance Minister for a decade, he took an oath to tell the truth and then told the Gomery Commision he hadn't had a clue about what was going on. The BQ knew. But not him.

Integrity?

Paul Martin swore to get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal, yet when the Public Accounts Committee began looking into it the Liberals on that committee did everything possible to frustrate any efforts at calling the witnesses who have been testifying before Gomery over the last month. They fought tooth and nail against efforts at gathering documents, insisted on re-interviewing friendly witnesses again and again to waste time, and then shut down the hearings while claiming that there was really nothing more to find and it was all really the work of a couple of rogue bureaucrats.

Ingegrity?

Paul Martin shut down the Ports Police, against all advice to the contrary. Now a senate report states our ports are in the control of organized crime, and wide open to smuggling of drugs, goods, and penetration by terrorism. His government has ignored the reports, and has refused to reinstitute the Ports Police. Not coincidentally, Paul Martin's ships transport goods through those ports, and last year one was found carrying drugs.

Integrity?

You have a strange definition of the word.

[Guest eureka]

I have not merely given you opinion, Argus. I have given you enough facts about the level of decentralization to convince any but the ideologically bound.

Of course further decentralization will destroy Canada: it is nearly ungovernable now as the Sponsorship fiasco demonstrates. It was an attempt to do what government cannot do since it does not have the authority.

Unless you think that Canada will still be Canada when it is ten equal states under the Umbrella name of Canada.

[Guest eureka]

Canuck! Your posts suggest that you may be the Rip Van Winkle of Canada since you seem to be unaware of what has been happening over the past twenty years.

[Riverwind]

Paul Martin shut down the Ports Police, against all advice to the contrary. Now a senate report states our ports are in the control of organized crime, and wide open to smuggling of drugs, goods, and penetration by terrorism. His government has ignored the reports, and has refused to reinstitute the Ports Police. Not coincidentally, Paul Martin's ships transport goods through those ports, and last year one was found carrying drugs.

So you are accusing the prime minister setting gov't policy to facilitate a drug traffiking business he has on the side? That is so absurd, I find it hard to believe that you consider a reasonable thing to say.

What you are doing is taking complex issues of gov't policy and over simplfying them by omitting many of the facts and circumstances that lead up to the decision and inventing some nefarious motive that suits your partisan objectives.

Too many times I have seen media stories about something that the gov't does that make it sound like the people in the gov't must have been idiots to make such as decision only to find out later that the decision makes sense if you take into account all of completing interests and facts. I don't have a good example at the moment, but I will post one when I find one.

[cybercoma]

Perhaps you should both give your opinions a little more fresh air! What the Liberals have done to this country is fight to save it from the attempts of the Conservatives to break it up.

Ever since Diefenbaker, the Conservatives have had as a guiding principle the aim of balkanising the country to buy Quebec votes. Mulroney almost succeded.

The Liberals have fought to prevent that. I have been highly critical of their policies but they are preferable to the cynical demagoguery of the Conservatives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please explain to me how the Conservatives are breaking up Canada.

And why decentralization is such a horrible thing.

[Guest eureka]

You tell me why it is not since I have given the explanation for the other view many times.

No federation or nation in all of history has survived the degree of regional authority that Canada now has. It is only the spending power that enables the government of Canada to function now.

The Conservatives, like Quebec, want to devolve further jurisdictions and to curtail the federal spending power - or rather to just turn over the money to the provinces on request.

[cybercoma]

You tell me why it is not since I have given the explanation for the other view many times.

No federation or nation in all of history has survived the degree of regional authority that Canada now has. It is only the spending power that enables the government of Canada to function now.

The Conservatives, like Quebec, want to devolve further jurisdictions and to curtail the federal spending power - or rather to just turn over the money to the provinces on request.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You've already told me on many occassions that I'm much too stupid to understand the things that you understand.

I figure you have a lot to teach me, so why should I be the one explaining anything to you?

Honestly now, what nations have failed due to the decentralization of government to the extent in which the Conservative Party feels it needs to be regionalized. I'm not familiar with what you're implying and I'd really like to know some more details. I wouldn't want to back something that could potentially destroy our country.

[Guest eureka]

I really don't think I have said you "are much too stupid many times." Stupid, maybe and once or twice, maybe. But what's that between friends.. There are not many examples since there have been few such decentralized entities.

You could go back to some of the old Eutopean combines: the most recent would be the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Holy Roman Empire, perhaps. None now exist.

There might be some similarity in the Old China that became the new centralized China after many wars.

There was the United States that fought a savage, centralizing civil war to prevent its disintegration. Nigeria and Biafra that solved its Quebec like problem through civil war.

The point is to recognise the degree of regional jurisdiction that now exists in Canada and get past the ambitions of the Regionalists.

All the major powers that are the core of nationality reside - in Canada - with the provinces.

[Canuck E Stan]

Switzerland is a federative, democratic, constitutional state. The form of government specified in the Constitution for Confederation and cantons is that of a democratic republic, in the form of either direct or representative democracy. In its foreign policy Switzerland is neutral. The legislative body is the Federal Assembly, with TWO Chambers possessing equal rights: the Council of States (46 representatives of the cantons) and the National Council (200 representatives of the people). The Federal Assembly elects the seven Federal Councillors (the executive) and each year, from this group, the President of the Confederation. The highest judicial authority is vested in the Federal Court, which sits in Lausanne; the Federal Insurance Court in Lucerne is responsible for dealing with questions related to the Confederation's social Insurance.

The cantons have their own constitutions, parliaments, governments and courts. The Federal Constitution grants only restricted, precisely defined powers to the Confederation. Within the cantons, the approximately 2'800 communes also have a fairly large measure of autonomy. all of this within one country.

Switzerland today is viewed as a peaceful,prosperous country. It works on a direct democracy system and gives it's people a strong voice.With four differences languages and 26 cantons, Switzerland's diversities proves that decentralization can work. It is an excellent model for Canadians who deeply needs to change the democratic deficiency that plagues us.With our two languages and our various regions a similar model could make help Canadians co-exist in harmony.

[Guest eureka]

Thank you for your lieel selection from some children's encyclopoedia.

Switzerland is much more complicated than that. It is also more centralized than Canada now is as the federal government there has jurisdictional authority or interest that is forbidden to the Canadian government.The Swiss federal government also spends more of national income on regional matters than does the Canadian owing to its greater responsibilities.

Apart from those consideration, Switzerland is not a good model for Canada. Switzrland could possibly have survived in its initial purpose as a defensive federation simply because of geophysical factors that are not applicable to Canada. Switzerland, too, was constituted from sovereign states. Canada was not and was, a basically homogeneous society.

Switzerland is an example, though, of how all federations, except Canada, are centralizing major responsibilities due to the increasing complexity of government needs in this technological world.