Paul Martin - SLIME

[politicalman]

Whatever happened to the old adage, stage your point of view and arguments for support and that should suffice even the toughest of critics. I think what Seinfeld is saying is well versed and should not be hounded or made to feel guilty for his stance on an issue such the one under discussion.

[Riverwind]

I'll say it again:  it is NOT partisan.  But you're right.  It's how I see it.  I have provided my reasons.

Now instead of attacking me ad hominem why don't you try to refute?

I did refute each one of your points in my first response. You responded with something like 'you are an idiot for not understanding me.'. Re-read the thread.

[mcqueen625]

Hey, if you want to leave I'll pass the hat around see if we can't get you a one way ticket to, oh say Alabama? Or perhaps Texas? that should be just perfect.

Oh BTW, would you like some cheese with that wine?

You know the old saying; "Fiddling while Rome is burning." That's exactly what is happeing in this country. We have a government who are actually laughing at democracy, and rubbing our faces in it, while at the same time stripping this country of any resemblance of democracy. We have a country where rules and laws are being made up by an unelected and unaccountable judiciary. A judiciary by the way that was for the most part appointed by this very government to do their bidding. Independance my ass, these judges are simply former Liberal Party members, who are being rewarded for party loyalty, and they know who signs their pay-cheques, and who was responsible for insuring their appointment's.

This is nothing to be proud of, instead Canada should be mournig the loss of our country to a Party who feels they have a devine right to govern. I'm just wondering when this regime will decide that they can get away with suspending elections altogether, and just declaring themselves the permanent government. Don't laugh the people of Canada have proven themselves to be anything but motivated to move this country ahead. We would rather concentrate on Gay Rights, and to hell with the loss of our freedoms, hell we are allowing a minority to set social policy in this country. We are way too apathetic, and with a populus like that I put nothing past this government if it meant hanging onto power.

[Riverwind]

We have a government who are actually laughing at democracy, and rubbing our faces in it, while at the same time stripping this country of any resemblance of democracy.

Just because the gov't does something that you disagree with does not mean it is undemocratic. I am sure that Harper and crew would do the exact same things if they were in power with a minority and you would be cheering them on.

We would rather concentrate on Gay Rights, and to hell with the loss of our freedoms, hell we are allowing a minority to set social policy in this country.

Whose fault is this? The CPC has been tying up the debate trying to make it a wedge issue.

We are way too apathetic, and with a populus like that I put nothing past this government if it meant hanging onto power.

Many people do not share your opinion that the country is going to hell in a hand basket- it does not make them apathetic. In fact, a lot of people care about the country a lot which is why they are not willing to hand power over to bunch of people that frequently sound like a bunch of right wing extremists.

[JerrySeinfeld]

We have a government who are actually laughing at democracy, and rubbing our faces in it, while at the same time stripping this country of any resemblance of democracy.

Just because the gov't does something that you disagree with does not mean it is undemocratic. I am sure that Harper and crew would do the exact same things if they were in power with a minority and you would be cheering them on.

We would rather concentrate on Gay Rights, and to hell with the loss of our freedoms, hell we are allowing a minority to set social policy in this country.

Whose fault is this? The CPC has been tying up the debate trying to make it a wedge issue.

We are way too apathetic, and with a populus like that I put nothing past this government if it meant hanging onto power.

Many people do not share your opinion that the country is going to hell in a hand basket- it does not make them apathetic. In fact, a lot of people care about the country a lot which is why they are not willing to hand power over to bunch of people that frequently sound like a bunch of right wing extremists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This government lost the confidence of the house a month ago and said "well we're staying in power on a technicality, we want a do-over next week."

That is about as weak as it gets, democratically speaking.

[Riverwind]

This government lost the confidence of the house a month ago and said "well we're staying in power on a technicality, we want a do-over next week."

That is about as weak as it gets, democratically speaking.

That is the most ridiculous argument because:

1) Every respectable parlimentary expert agreed that the motion voted down was not a confidence matter. This is not a technicality since our parlimentary system could not function without clear rules regarding what is and is not a confidence motion.

2) The CPC screamed about their sick MPs missing the vote a week later but they did not really care that two sick MPs supporting the libs were missing for this so called confidence matter. Conservative hypocrisy at its best.

3) There is nothing undemocratic about waiting a week to confirm that the gov't had the confidence of the house. Waiting until after the Queen's visit was the appropriate thing to do.

4) If the tables were reversed the Conservatives would have done exactly the same thing.

[Argus]

I think we will all agree that you speak the truth as you see it, Jerry. That is what is so sad about your posturing. You post constantly as though the truth was revealed to you on your birthing day. Not that you have had an epiphany since that would suggest that you once had an open mind.

You actually are rarely even close to trtuh and make it clear that you will never let anything outside of your limited supply of information find a way into your mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If he has anything in his mind but mush that still puts him several pegs up on ignorant, self righteous ideological loonies like you.

[Guest eureka]

Back on form, Argus!

[kimmy]

The problem with attacking Martin in extreme terms, Kimmy, is that you will be taken for a crackpot like so many of those who are using extreme terms in this "discussion."

I opposed Martin from his days as Finance Minister. I opposed him for his methods chosen to "cure" the deficit. I don't oppose him for much else other than the near suicidal struggle with Chretien.

Isn't it interesting how all this Right Wing fury comes down to nothing more than slander. unfounded allegations and insiuations.

This government does not have a great track record so far, but it is not all that bad considering the obstructionism it has had to deal with. With a little prodding from the NDP, it has moved to the right track - as in moving away from the "Right" track.

I didn't say "extreme", eureka, I said "graphic". As in, I've suggested on several occassions that PMPM has testicles the size of Tic-Tacs.

I don't believe that Paul Martin personally participated in scamming money in the sponsorship program, but I'm still far from impressed with him. I can't imagine why anybody else would be either.

We've discussed the 1995 budget before, and the subsequent effects on our social institutions.

I know you're a fierce federalist and centralist, eureka... surely you can't be impressed by Martin's catch-phrase "asymmetrical federalism" or his penchant for bending over forward to accomodate every premier that wants to pick a fight with Ottawa.

You're something of a traditionalist, so you probably have little interest in seeing any effort to "address the democratic deficit"; still, that was one of his major themes prior to taking over from Chretien, and during the election campaign; nary a peep has been spoken of it since, at least up to last week's announcement that Bernard Shapiro and Belinda Stronach are (apparently) shining examples of this government's efforts on that issue.

How about Martin's weak-kneed handling of Sgro? He left her pretty much on her own, and if I recall correctly the decision to step down from the Immigration portfolio was her decision, not his. What about him getting bullied around by his own backbencher, Carolyn Parrish, who not only called him out publicly and dared him to discipline her, but actually had to tell the press that she didn't give a crap about her own party or the leader to provoke him to take action. How about hanging two of his cabinet ministers out to dry (Ralph Goodale re:changes to his budget, and Bill Graham on BMD) as he publicly undermined their credibility for the sake of political expedience. You can see where I'm going with this, right? Tic-Tacs.

-k

[Canuck E Stan]

For the Paul Martin test

go to this link(it works)

http://www.torsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists...105189-sun.html

[Shakeyhands]

what a conservative circle jerk this topic has become... keep posting that link kids...

whaaaaaa... slime ball..... whaaaaa...flipflopper (my fav! you're like Faux News Jerry!!!) whaaaa.... crooks

Again, for there to be a viable alternate the Conservatives need to start adopting the values that the majority of Canadians do, things like equality and tolerance of different groups, not just the whacko religious types that feel the need to push their beliefs on everyone else.

Until then, the Liberals with PM PM at the helm makes the most sense for ALL Canadians.

And you should probably give the Sponsorship stuff a rest, until we hear that there was direct involvment by actual Members it will be confined to a few bad apples that have no bearing on the actual Gov't.

[Argus]

And you should probably give the Sponsorship stuff a rest, until we hear that there was direct involvment by actual Members it will be confined to a few bad apples that have no bearing on the actual Gov't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's a clue for you, the only people who can actually dole out sponsorship contracts are actual politicians. You and the others who defend mafia style government can snivel all you want about there being no smoking gun, but when a campaign operator promises contracts in exchange for donations - and those contracts come through, well guess what? It wasn't him giving the orders! I doubt there was a Lilberal MP in the party who didn't know what was going on with the sponsorship contract. Further, I doubt there is a single government department that doesn't have its own equivilent of the sponsorhip program.

If the tories were smart, what they should be doing is improve the power and budget of the Auditor General's office. The NDP wouldn't dare oppose that. Open up the books at places like CIDA and the Business Development Bank, and those secret trusts that Martin poured billions of dollars into. My guess is any one of them would make Sponsorgate look like a kids picnic.

[JerrySeinfeld]

what a conservative circle jerk this topic has become... keep posting that link kids...

whaaaaaa... slime ball..... whaaaaa...flipflopper (my fav! you're like Faux News Jerry!!!) whaaaa.... crooks

Again, for there to be a viable alternate the Conservatives need to start adopting the values that the majority of Canadians do, things like equality and tolerance of different groups, not just the whacko religious types that feel the need to push their beliefs on everyone else. 

Until then, the Liberals with PM PM at the helm makes the most sense for ALL Canadians. 

And you should probably give the Sponsorship stuff a rest, until we hear that there was direct involvment by actual Members it will be confined to a few bad apples that have no bearing on the actual Gov't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your Liberal ad style BS about "whack religious" is a ploy to deflect attention from how disgustingly deceptive the Liberals have been.

Stop making fasle accusation of the CPC to deflect the topic of this forum: Paul Martin and his disgraceful tenure as PM.

[Guest eureka]

I am all for addressing the democratic deficit, Kimmy. I just have to find out what it is. At this time, it is just another slogan used for sniping.

I am not a "centralist" but a federalist for all the reasons that are argued in the favour of a federal system. Though, seeing what "federalism" is leading us to in Canada sometimes makes me wonder whether I should not be a centralist.. The problem is that we no lnger have a federal system but a confederal one and a mania for trying to loosen the ties even further. We urgently need a move several degrees back to the centralizartion of authority.

Martin is not my idea of a Prime Minister although he is far better than his detractors would have it. Much of the perceived weakness is the fault of the times and the pressures of the "decentralists. I do not object to "asymetrical" federalism; just to what the proponents want in further reducing the federal government. My position is that we should take rather less powers from some provonces than others.

I am in agreement of his handling of Sgro and Parrish. The idea of "Ministerial responsibility" should not include mass resignations for every pecadillo of underlings. I think his handling of Parrish was exactly right. He allowed her to express what many Canadians were saying - addressed one part of the democratic deficit - but banished her from the party when she crossed the line.

I doubt that the credibility of either Goodale or Graham has suffered. There are not many who do not understand how or why the changes in the budget wre made and most applaud them. The changes were also last minute without time for those ministers to affirm their agreement with them.

But, yes, Martin now has to be seen to be tougher and to have the ability to make hard choices. That, though, is more in the perception than the reality since the public has been fed the line of "weak- kneed" dithering.

[Canuck E Stan]

Have you read the news today...oh boy...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...onal/TopStories

"The problem is that too many leaders have committed to things that are a decade away knowing that they may not be around when the time comes to fulfill that commitment," Mr. Martin said. "I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that to Canadians, I'm not going to do that to people in the rest of the world who are hoping."

-Paul Martin

http://www1.pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=515

The External Advisory Committee on Cities and Communities, created by Prime Minister Paul Martin and chaired by the Honourable Mike Harcourt, former mayor of Vancouver and Premier of British Columbia, was assigned the mandate to develop a 30-year vision for Canadian cities and communities.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive...5/02/c0436.html

"Yes, Canada commits itself - more than ever - to the fight so that we can

also bequeath to our children a healthier environment and a more prosperous

economy. It will take more than one budget to win this battle. It will require

a truly long-term effort", Mr. Dion concluded.

http://www.acpd.ca/acpd.cfm/en/section/canaid/articleID/219

Our foreign aid budget has been so severely cut over the last decade that, according to the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, to double it over the next 8 years will only bring it, as a percentage of GNI, to 0.35% by 2010.

Canada's ranking among OECD countries with respect to ODA as a percentage of GNI has merely gone from a dismal 18th place among 22 countries in 2001 to a somewhat less than mediocre 12th place in 2002. Canada still trails Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Sweden, Belgium, Ireland, France, Finland, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Looking at the 2005 Federal Budget sure has a lot of long term stuff for 2010-11 and 2015. These are way beyond the mandate for the government, including foreign aid.

Paul isn't any better than anyone else and should think before he makes statements like he did today about not making commitments decades into the future.

[Riverwind]

Canada's ranking among OECD countries with respect to ODA as a percentage of GNI has merely gone from a dismal 18th place among 22 countries in 2001 to a somewhat less than mediocre 12th place in 2002. Canada still trails Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Sweden, Belgium, Ireland, France, Finland, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

The ratio aid to GDP is a rediculous measure to use, particularily for Canada where the federal goverment budget is only about 18% of the GDP of the country (in other countries the national gov't budget is closer to 30%). What this means that if the economy grows faster than the government budget (a very good thing for all fiscal conservatives out there) then the commitment to 0.07% of GDP will eat an ever larger percentage of the federal government budget.

As it stands today, a 0.7 of GDP commitment is equal to 4% of government revenues and would require a 2% increase in the GST to pay for it. I am sure 90%+ of Canadians would say forget about foriegn aid if given a choice between a 9% GST and the 0.07 of GDP target.

Personally, I hope this is a sign that PM PM has found his backbone again. However, it will take more than once such announcement to convince me of that.

[JerrySeinfeld]

what a conservative circle jerk this topic has become... keep posting that link kids...

whaaaaaa... slime ball..... whaaaaa...flipflopper (my fav! you're like Faux News Jerry!!!) whaaaa.... crooks

Again, for there to be a viable alternate the Conservatives need to start adopting the values that the majority of Canadians do, things like equality and tolerance of different groups, not just the whacko religious types that feel the need to push their beliefs on everyone else. 

Until then, the Liberals with PM PM at the helm makes the most sense for ALL Canadians. 

And you should probably give the Sponsorship stuff a rest, until we hear that there was direct involvment by actual Members it will be confined to a few bad apples that have no bearing on the actual Gov't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Funny: you bring up another reason PMPM is such a slimeball: Paul called a snap election last year and shut down the commission that was already in progress investigating ADSCAM.

I thought he "wanted to knwo all the faact" before an election.

Answer me this: if that is the case, why did he call a snap election last year?

[Riverwind]

Answer me this:  if that is the case, why did he call a snap election last year?

Because he would have been critised for staying in power without a mandate from the voter - that is what always happens when parties change leaders in mid term.

Furthermore, Martin had planned a spring election long before the sponsership stuff exploded so you cannot accuse him of suddenly deciding on a spring election - that was his plan all along.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Answer me this:  if that is the case, why did he call a snap election last year?

Because he would have been critised for staying in power without a mandate from the voter - that is what always happens when parties change leaders in mid term.

Furthermore, Martin had planned a spring election long before the sponsership stuff exploded so you cannot accuse him of suddenly deciding on a spring election - that was his plan all along.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Because he would've been criticzed" is hardly a reason.

Politicians get criticized all the time.

Why did martin promise an election 30 days after Gomery?

[kimmy]

I am all for addressing the democratic deficit, Kimmy. I just have to find out what it is. At this time, it is just another slogan used for sniping.

I am not a "centralist" but a federalist for all the reasons that are argued in the favour of a federal system. Though, seeing what "federalism" is leading us to in Canada sometimes makes me wonder whether I should not be a centralist.. The problem is that we no lnger have a federal system but a confederal one and a mania for trying to loosen the ties even further. We urgently need a move several degrees back to the centralizartion of authority.

I'm certainly not well-versed enough to recognize at one point one stops being a federalist and becomes a centralist; if I've applied an inaccurate term to your views, I apologize. In my year here at MLW, you've argued that provinces have too much power in virtually every area of government; I can't recall seeing a single kind word from you toward any provincial government on any subject, ever. I often get the feeling that in your vision of how Canada should be, the provinces would be little more than oversized building-improvement districts.

Nonetheless, my point was not to open a discussion on that subject, merely to ask whether Paul Martin Jr is somebody you feel can stand up to the premiers and the "decentralists".

Martin is not my idea of a Prime Minister although he is far better than his detractors would have it. Much of the perceived weakness is the fault of the times and the pressures of the "decentralists. I do not object to "asymetrical" federalism; just to what the proponents want in further reducing the federal government. My position is that we should take rather less powers from some provonces than others.

This is a rather elaborate way of saying that no, Paul Martin is not really standing up to the premiers and the decentralists in a way you're confident in... correct?

But, yes, Martin now has to be seen to be tougher and to have the ability to make hard choices. That, though, is more in the perception than the reality since the public has been fed the line of "weak- kneed" dithering.

I really disagree. I don't think "weak-kneed dithering" is an image that's just been invented by Martin's opponents. I think it's a fair assessment of his time in office. I honestly don't think he's shown leadership on any issue or any challenge that's faced him. I don't think he's made any "hard choices". I think hard choices have been made for him by circumstances. I can't think of any issue where he's taken the initiative. While Martin's supporters might blame the perception of him on his foes, that just seems like an excuse to me. I'd be much more impressed if Martin's supporters could make some kind of case about all the dynamic, assertive things he's done rather than blaming the media or the opposition for his image problems.

-k

[THELIBERAL]

RE::This guy is a complete SNAKE with NO integrity at all.

Guess what? He's our Prime Minister. And the worst of it is, the morons in Ontario are going to re-elect him.

This is why I'll never vote Conservative. The attitude is just unreal. Call people in Ontario morons because they vote Liberal!! Great way do get someone to come on your side by calling them morons.

Why doesn't this guy get banned? Is it because he's a Conservative?

[THELIBERAL]

RE::I can't think of any issue where he's taken the initiative.

Well we all know why! Answer: you're a Conservative!

All the mayors like what he's done. Nova Scotia and NFLD like what he's done!

Of course you think he's done nothing!

[Argus]

RE::This guy is a complete SNAKE with NO integrity at all.

Guess what? He's our Prime Minister. And the worst of it is, the morons in Ontario are going to re-elect him.

This is why I'll never vote Conservative. The attitude is just unreal. Call people in Ontario morons because they vote Liberal!! Great way do get someone to come on your side by calling them morons.

Why doesn't this guy get banned? Is it because he's a Conservative?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for once again supporting my contention that the left lacks any support for freedom of speech, and that it is the left on this site who whine constantly to the moderators.

[Argus]

RE::I can't think of any issue where he's taken the initiative.

Well we all know why!  Answer: you're a Conservative!

All the mayors like what he's done. Nova Scotia and NFLD like what he's done!

Of course you think he's done nothing!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The proper, intelligent response for someone determined to defend PMJ is "Here are the items on which my glorious leader has bravely taken the initiative!"

You didn't do that. Why?

The mayors like being bribed. Quelle surprise. But money to the cities was hardly PMJ's idea. What else ya got?

[Argus]

I am all for addressing the democratic deficit, Kimmy. I just have to find out what it is. At this time, it is just another slogan used for sniping.

The democratic deficit is a lack of democracy, and a lack of interest in democracy. It is brought about by politicians who see their jobs (and whose parties see their jobs) as explaining why the people must support their initiatives instead of asking the people what initiatives they support. It is MPs representing their parties' positioins to their constituents rather than representing their constituents in Parliament. The democratic deficit is politicians who rarely tell the truth, media which rarely challenges them on it, and people who then become blase and believe that all politicians are liars and crooks so there's no purpose in even voting. The democratic deficit is a political and bureacratic culture of paranoid secrecy which refuses to tell Canadians what they are doing, or where, or how, or what it will all cost, or even, for that matter, what their money is being spent on.

The democratic deficit existed back when Mulroney lost. It inspired the Reform Party. Back when they were a reform party. They took up causes of widespread concern to Canadians which the main parties had ignored. Things like Immigration, Abortion, and Billingualism. Half, more than half, or close to half the population had serious problems with issues like these, yet all three political parties were 100% supportive of the current policy and would not even discuss alternatives. The Reform Party did - and of course, was crucified by the media for that. For the media was and remains nearly 100% in lockstep with what might be termed the prevailing political opinion among the elites.

I personally am pro choice. But I recognize that a huge number of Canadians are in opposition to abortion, especially abortion on demand. In a true democracy they would have representation, not be shut entirely out of the political process. We're talking about, according to the polls, anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 the adult population, after all, who don't like the current policy. Immigration was the same, so was Official Bilingualism.

Those numbers haven't really changed, but guess what? The Reform Party is gone and in its place is the Conservative Party, which, surprise surprise, is nearly 100% in lockstep with the Liberals on these issues, and with the major media, of course.

What democratic deficit?

Where are the elites taking us? We don't know. And we're not allowed to ask. The country will travel in whatever direction the elites and their allies, the petty bourgeois in the media decide for us. This is the democratic deficit.

Twenty five years ago the elites decided to change Canada, to open its doors wide and allow in millions and millions from cultures which were far different from ours, had far different origins, principals and morals. I recall arguing at the time that this would be disastrous for the Canada which was. That so many people would soon have a profound impact on our national culture, would seep aside many of our cherished traditions, and would make this nation and entirely different place. Many sneered at my statement.

Not today. People might say they like the way the country has changed, that they like the fact more than half the population in some of our major cities is foreign-born. I don't. The point, however, is that no one ever consulted the people on this new direction, no one ever asked Canadians if they wanted to change, to throw out many of their traditions and adopt new ones.

Nor is anyone asking now. When they want you to know something, they'll tell you.