Canada's Liberals

[bigdude]

(bigdude @ Jun 3 2005, 06:24 PM)

If there is any white trash in all this it is the government - the Liberal party! Where is that puke button?   :angry:

What did you just say?

It is a term that we use in North America for scum.

As long as PM Martin and his entourage are in control of the Liberal party, Liberals had better get used to it.

[bigdude]

Skunks have moved into the PMO. Does anyone know of a good exterminator?

The Liberal party has been out there in the last month making allegations that Gurmont has been involved in some criminal activity,'' he said in Calgary.

Then at the same time . . . they come to him and make an offer to him to join the party. So I guess he decided that he would show them up for the liars and crooks that they are.''

In a separate matter, the ethics commissioner has been investigating Liberal claims that Grewal asked people to post bonds before he would help them get visitor's visas for friends or family.

The tapes document Grewal raising the matter with Murphy, who suggests it might be helpful if Shapiro issued an interim report. That prompted critics to question if the Prime Minister's Office intended to try to influence the ethics commissioner.

[bigdude]

Article

Conservatives say the Liberal tactics could violate Criminal Code anti-corruption laws that carry penalties of 14 years maximum in prison.

Well at least we know that no Liberal is going to go to jail for more than 14 years for this.

[scribblet]

"Isn't the real reason the minister of health and the prime minister's chief of staff remain is because they were simply acting on the prime minister's instructions to do whatever was necessary to save his corrupt government?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It sure looks that way, clearly there were negotioations going on and the usual tactics of diversion and 'not me, it was the other guy' is going on. Grewal and the 3 liberal stooges should step down until an investigation is complete. There should be an election in the fall based on the honesty and integrity of the government (or lack thereof)

[Argus]

They simply know that the BQ, unlike the Tories or Liberals or NDP, will not have any reason to compromise in considering the interests of one part of the country against those of another. Because the BQ doesn't care what's in BC's interest, or Ontario's or New Brunswick's. They only care about Quebec. .

I have no idea why the people of Ontario vote Liberal. It's probably a combination of stupidity, gullibility, elastic values, a cynicism that all politicians are crooks anyway, the lack of charm of Stephen Harper, scaremongering by the Liberals and the media and too many foreign born people for whom this sort of corruption is just politics as usual anyway.

You praise Quebequers for being self-centered obstructionists

I do? Perhaps you'd like to point out the praise. I made a statement of opinion as to their motivation. I attached no judgement, pro or con.

but you call Ontario stupid for not giving Harper a blank check to govern.

I do? Do I seem like the kind of person who would give a blank cheque to anyone? Do I really seem like the trusting sort?

Sorry, my original point is still valid - if Quebequers really wanted the Liberals out of power they could vote Conservative.

To begin with, Quebecers never vote for a non Quebecer, especially an Anglo, if there is any choice (ie, a Quebecer/francophone). Second, stating the entire province should up and vote strategically is silly. They are depriving the Liberals of what used to be their power base. That is sufficient. If the rest of the country voted for some other party, be it Tory, NDP or Marxist Leninist, the Liberals would be gone.

So stop insulting and blaming the Ontario voter and try looking at the CPC policies that make it difficult for urban voters to vote Conservative.

Like what? Gay rights? Is that really all that matters to the urban residents of Ontario?

[Argus]

FYI I live in Canada.

Excellent for you. Now you know how to communicate a little better here.

All this nonsense about doctored tapes is an attempt to discredit what Dosanjh and Murphy said on the tapes which could lead to 14 years inprisonment.

Now this is NDP sleaze! Dosanj and Murphy broke no laws even going by the doctored tapes. On the other hand, you are skating pretty close to libel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The RCMP have the tapes, and they, and they alone will decide whether or not the tapes have been doctored.

Uhm, you do know that before he puts his pants on in the morning RCMP Commisioner Zachardelli calls up the PMO and asks which leg to put on first, eh? And if they forget to tell him to tuck it in before zipping you can hear the screams from one end of Rockliffe to the other.

The idea that the RCMP is in any way independant of the Liberal Party of Canada is laughable.

[Argus]

Consider this Dosanjh quotation from the transcript: "You have to be able to say that I did not make a deal. That's very important. That's why these kinds of deals are not made in that fashion."

The tapes make it clear that Murphy and Dosanj do not want to offer Grewal anything because he is not qualified.

That's an interesting take on them. I don't read it that way. It sounds to me like Dosanjh is pointing out tha "Nudge nude, wink wink" of course you have to be able to say that you got nothing and made no deal. Ans so we won't make one - now. But after you cross the floor, well, of course we can talk (nudge-nudge, wink wink) about the Senate or cabinet. And we would be very, very welcome, and you know that Mr. Murphy here always shows his gratitude in substantial ways.

He also reminded Grewal that when Scott Brison crossed the floor, in 2003, he came as a backbencher and was promoted to cabinet only later. (And which came first for Belinda Stronach, we wonder, Martin's offer of a cabinet post or her commitment to become a Liberal?).

Stronachs promotion to cabinet made perfect sense - she is a high profile MP and she was put in charge of a portfolio that really needed an outsider to handle. It is rediculous to suggest that there was something nefarious about her appointment.

She's an airhead, to be honest. Everyone knows it. She can't think on her feet, has no experience in government, no education, is a terrible speaker and from all accounts has learned little as she has not put in much effort to learn much, since she suddenly evidenced an interest in politics a couple of years ago. And you think it makes perfect sense to give her one of the most important jobs in cabinet??!

Morever, this happens all the time in industry - one company will hire away an executive from another company by offering an attractive position.

Uh yes, but those are to proven executives, to men, or women, who have shown over time their immense capability to manage complex corporate affairs. Stronach has shown no particular talent for anything. Well, except fashion accessorising.

[Riverwind]

So stop insulting and blaming the Ontario voter and try looking at the CPC policies that make it difficult for urban voters to vote Conservative.

Like what? Gay rights? Is that really all that matters to the urban residents of Ontario?

Gay rights is irrelevent. That fact that the CPC is the only party that is obessed with it raises a lot of red flags.

Maybe if the CPC stopped insulting the voters that still want to stick with the Liberals and start talking about something other than Gomery and 'corruption' then maybe somebody would notice.

[bigdude]

Part One of Two:

Criminal Code of Canada

119. (1) Every one who

(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, corruptly

(i) accepts or obtains,

(ii) agrees to accept, or

(iii) attempts to obtain,

any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or another person in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity, or

( gives or offers, corruptly, to a person mentioned in paragraph (a) any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity for himself or another person,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

[bigdude]

Part Two of Two:

The Transcripts

UD - I think (Belinda) has made it easier for you, if you want.

GG - That’s true.

UD - In fact, cabinet can be arranged right away. . .

TM - . . . those people who take risk, are ought to be rewarded for the risk they take.

TM - . . . let me make it absolutely clear that we are a welcoming party we will do everything we can, obviously for us continuing to expend our base in BC and in prominent communities in this country is a political priority for us. It is a welcoming mat that has a lot of nice Comfy fur on it.

UD - . . . if Chief of Staff say that certain conduct ought to be rewarded in due time that trust is kept 99.9% of the times. Sometimes you can’t do it circumstances will kill you.

UD - I do not care to use deal as a language because when you are asked you do not want to say no there is no deal because I do not think it is good for either of us, but I think we all understand what we are talking about.

TM - . . . I understand what you are saying in terms of wanting some sense of security for your wife and that is understandable. So that - so security is the kind of thing you can look at.

UD - I’m OK, I talked to Tim, I met him after lunch in his office. It can be OK but with some gap of time. Like Scott Brison, Scott Brison was made Parliamentary Secretary, that thing can not be ruled out. That, PRIME MINISTER can say to you or not. If that can not happen right now, that will be done in 2 or 4 weeks. You do understand that, right. Those are the thing that can happen. Gradually, when you hold the roots, while you sacrifice, I’m sure rewards are there at some point, right. No one can forget such gestures but they require certain degree of deniability. A Big Laugh. Right, You understand this.

[Riverwind]

Part One of Two:

Criminal Code of Canada

And your point is? It does not make a difference what the exact wording of the criminal code is. How it is usually applied is an important factor that the RCMP use when it comes to laying charges.

I heard a Professor of Law for York (I believe) on the radio say that this particular law was not intended to cover these kinds of activities. So get off your high horse, this is a political matter not a criminal one.

[bigdude]

Another expert, eh!

What do you think they have lawsuits? Lawyers don't agree - get it!

You don't have to be an expert - just read the criminal code.

[Riverwind]

Another expert, eh! 

What do you think they have lawsuits? Lawyers don't agree - get it!

You don't have to be an expert - just read the criminal code. 

Fair point, but the fact that lawyers can't even agree whether the criminal code applies suggests that this kind of issue is best solved in the political realm. Something that the RCMP will likely take into account.

[August1991]

Gawd, how many times does this need to be said.  People just don't get it.  The system is fundamentally broken.

August, I posted this question for you could you please answer it:

Please explain why it is OK for Quebequers to vote for a sovereigntist party that cannot be part of any government and then blame Ontario for not voting out the Liberals.

If Quebequers want the Liberals out then they should vote for a party that can boot them out. If you answer is, Quebequers can't vote Conservative because they do not represent Quebec's interest then please explain why Ontario should vote for a party that does not represent Ontario's interest?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have no simple answers to your legitimate questions.

In Quebec, the choice is between the BQ and the Liberals - which means that most will vote for the BQ. How can I explain that federalists here will generally not vote for the NDP or Tories?

I understand that in Ontario, many people do not want to vote for Harper, and they don't like the NDP. They will vote Liberal.

I will say that some people in Quebec have found a legitimate alternative to the corrupt Liberals. It seems that people in Ontario have no acceptable alternative.

Is it because Ontario has the duty to 'save' the country while Quebequers who claim to have affection for Canada sit back and do nothing by voting for a party that wants to destroy the system?

The BQ, like many in Quebec, wants a new Canadian arrangement with a sovereign Quebec. It is wrong to say that the BQ wants to 'destroy' the system. The BQ's idea is hardly the only possible solution.

The Canadian federation has fundamental problems and this latest Liberal scandal is just a symptom. Keep in mind how this situation arose in the first place.

Another symptom is that, for the foreseeable future, Canada will have federal minority governments where support from the BQ will always be problematic. I don't think new leaders would change things either. In the next federal election, the Liberals will lose a few seats to the BQ and the NDP. The Tories may gain a few seats.

For about 30 years or so - and certainly since 10 years - Quebec politics have become utterly blocked by the question nationale. This Quebec disease has now infected Canadian federal politics.

To avoid sounding pessimistic, let me say something positive. I am sure Canada will exist in 20 or 30 years, but I am fairly certain that the country will be different politically.

[Riverwind]

I will say that some people in Quebec have found a legitimate alternative to the corrupt Liberals.  It seems that people in Ontario have no acceptable alternative.

You hit exactly on the nature of the problem. Ontario needs an alternative to the Liberals. The CPC has not been able to demonstrate this. I believe that Harper has undermined his party by pushing wedge issues like SSM and focusing on the corruption scandal. He should have been talking about a positive vision for Canada and letting the Liberals destroy themselves.

To avoid sounding pessimistic, let me say something positive.  I am sure Canada will exist in 20 or 30 years, but I am fairly certain that the country will be different politically.

Canada is a very different country politically than it was 30 years ago. I have heard many former opponents to Meech Lake reconsidering their opposition. Whether we like it or not we will need to re-open the constitution question in the next few years.

[bigdude]

Canadians need new attitude: McKenna

In a surprisingly undiplomatic move, Frank McKenna, Canada's new ambassador to Washington, admonished Canadians for their self-righteous approach to Americans and paid heed to Ottawa's current political troubles.

"Where Americans take offence is when Canadians attack them gratuitously, carry large chips on their shoulder, endlessly moralize about what America should be doing," McKenna told the annual Canadian Press dinner last night. "In short, a self-righteousness that isn't very flattering."

What an absolute jerk PM Martin has appointed as our US Ambassador!

McKenna should be recalled and fired.

How dare this little Liberal weasel make comments like this to Canadians.

If he wants to kiss American butt he can go right ahead - maybe the US should be kissing Canadian ass for everything we do for them. And he represents Canada. Jeesh!

There has been something bothering me about McKenna ever since I became aware he was involved in politics. and I have been having a hard time putting my finger on it, but I think what it is, is a lack of sphistication, or savoir faire perhaps.

I really was hoping he was going to become the Liberal leader because with McKenna the Liberals would have sunk like a stone.

And actually Canada needs a new US Ambassador!!! :angry:

[Riverwind]

If he wants to kiss American butt he can go right ahead - maybe the US should be kissing Canadian ass for everything we do for them. And he represents Canada. Jeesh!

Bigdude, Here is a book I suggest you read. I am sure McKenna has read it.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846

Just because you disagree with someone does not mean you should look down your nose at them.

Just because someone is willing to treat Americans with the respect does not mean that person agrees with them.

IMHO, McKenna is the most competent US ambassdor we have had in a long time.

[Canuck E Stan]

Just because 85% of our trade is with the Americans........

[bigdude]

How dare McKenna talk to Canadians this way although I know MLW is full of US ass-kissers so I can just imagine the brilliant comments and books you will refer my way. Spare me your raw-raw US publications. The best thing Canada could do, and I know it isn't going to happen, would be to cancel all trade agreements with our Southern bully.

You go ahead and ass-kiss and see what good it does you.

Mad cow anyone!!!

Security anyone!!!

Mahar Arar anyone!!!

Softwood lumber anyone!!!

Give me a break - you folks are a bunch of clowns!

Why don't you go and audition at the Circque de Soleil?

[Riverwind]

How dare McKenna talk to Canadians this way although I know MLW is full of US ass-kissers so I can just imagine the brilliant comments and books you will refer my way. Spare me your raw-raw US publications.

You did not even click on the link! This is so absolutely hilarious I am literally ROFL.

Yep, Dale Carnagie is a real rah, rah US author.

[kimmy]

Canadians need new attitude: McKenna

In a surprisingly undiplomatic move, Frank McKenna, Canada's new ambassador to Washington, admonished Canadians for their self-righteous approach to Americans and paid heed to Ottawa's current political troubles.

"Where Americans take offence is when Canadians attack them gratuitously, carry large chips on their shoulder, endlessly moralize about what America should be doing," McKenna told the annual Canadian Press dinner last night. "In short, a self-righteousness that isn't very flattering."

Very wise words! We can be disagree without them without antagonizing them. We can be proud Canadians without being a bunch of pricks, right?

...can't we?

-k

[Fortunata]

We can be disagree without them without antagonizing them. We can be proud Canadians without being a bunch of pricks, right?

...can't we?

You are absolutely correct - we should be able to.

However, there are different views/actions at play here. On the far right we seem to have Canadians that would wish us to integrate more (to fully) with the USA. Those who put down everything Canadian and play up everything American. The reaction then is the far left who put down everything American to play up everything Canadian. This causes the far right to react again ... and the records plays over and over and over.

Then there are those of us in the middle in varying degrees who just want Canada to be Canada, - separate but equal; to carve out our own destiny on our own terms but that see the USA's actions, especially in trade, as sharp as the words directed against the USA have been. The more trade restrictions (or penalties) the sharper the words.

Also, we seem to have to over-react to get the government to hear the message. If politicians were a little more sensitive to the populace perhaps the populace would tone down the reactions somewhat.

I don't think it is insecurity that makes Canada appear anti-American, I think it is just sheer frustration, to their government and to our own.

[Argus]

Canadians need new attitude: McKenna

In a surprisingly undiplomatic move, Frank McKenna, Canada's new ambassador to Washington, admonished Canadians for their self-righteous approach to Americans and paid heed to Ottawa's current political troubles.

"Where Americans take offence is when Canadians attack them gratuitously, carry large chips on their shoulder, endlessly moralize about what America should be doing," McKenna told the annual Canadian Press dinner last night. "In short, a self-righteousness that isn't very flattering."

What an absolute jerk PM Martin has appointed as our US Ambassador!

McKenna should be recalled and fired.

How dare this little Liberal weasel make comments like this to Canadians.

If he wants to kiss American butt he can go right ahead - maybe the US should be kissing Canadian ass for everything we do for them. And he represents Canada. Jeesh!

There has been something bothering me about McKenna ever since I became aware he was involved in politics. and I have been having a hard time putting my finger on it, but I think what it is, is a lack of sphistication, or savoir faire perhaps.

I really was hoping he was going to become the Liberal leader because with McKenna the Liberals would have sunk like a stone.

And actually Canada needs a new US Ambassador!!! :angry:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sometimes, as with your other identies, I wonder if you are actually a troll. Can anyone really spout this much cliche'd drivel and believe in it?

[hiti]

Pardon me for changing the subject back to Liberals/Conservatives but I must reply this the following.

The CPC leadership was in exactly the same position as the Liberal leadership - one vote either way determined the result. Yet there is no evidence anywhere of Harper offering anything except what he told Cadman - a fair run at the nomination and access to central party funds.

Actually Harper told Cadman that the Conservatives would not run any opposition in his riding and that they would give him back his membership in the CON party. Mind Harper didn't have much else to offer.

Now what is the difference between Harper offering Cadman no opposition to the Liberals offering Grewal something (nobody yet knows what that was)?

And these tapes were a slam-dunk until they were analized and evidence showed the tapes had been tampered with and what was said was altered to be something else.

[bigdude]

Christians look to influence Liberals

Socially conservative Christian groups purportedly infiltrating the Conservative party have been equally involved in the ruling Liberal party for years.

"People of faith are engaging in the democratic process in the Liberal party as well as the Conservative party," Charles McVety, head of Canada Christian College and a founder of the Defend Marriage Coalition, said in an interview.

Recent headlines have said Christian activists have captured Conservative nominations in eight ridings across the country.

And some Tories warn that evangelical Christians are trying to hijack the party and impose an anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage agenda that will hurt the party's efforts to appear more moderate and mainstream.

But McVety and other Christian activists counter there's nothing new or threatening about their activities. Nor are they exclusive to the Conservative party.

McVety said his group, which opposes same-sex marriage, helped a number of like-minded Liberals secure nominations prior to last year's election.

Among them were Toronto-area MPs Paul Szabo, Tom Wappel, Jim Karygiannis, Dan McTeague and Albina Guarnieri, now veterans affairs minister, and Oshawa MP Judi Longfield.

"And those are just some of the Liberals we've helped."

The coalition encouraged its members to take out party memberships and vote for favoured nomination candidates and to enlist friends to do likewise, McVety said.