Plain and simple

[Riverwind]

Finally, using Quebec to make hay against Harper doesn't help your argument because no party is making a dent in the Bloc, do you think its cause they have an overwhelmingly better policy position for Canada?

The Bloc has a lock on Quebec after the sponsership scandal thanks to the failure of the Consevatives to provide a federalist alternative that Qubequers could vote for. Obessions with policies like SSM have created an image of Harper as someone who belongs in anouther country rather than a leader Quebequers could vote for.

It is true that many of the Conservatives fiscal polcies would appeal to Quebequers more than the Liberals, however, that message has been lost because of the useless social policies.

[normanchateau]

This is just patently foolish, what is your agenda in the "gay bashing" comments? If you think your making a point you're only fooling yourself. Harper most certainly is not advocating anything like this and if you do not realize your own dishonesty then you are a fool.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Harper certainly is advocating exactly what I said he was advocating about "gay bashing". Have you never heard of Bill C-250, the legislation which added sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation? That legislation passed thanks to the unanimity of the Liberals, NDP and BQ. That legislation added gay bashing to hate crimes legislation. But Harper and his party voted against it.

The fact you are totally unaware of this legislation is hardly an intelligent reason to accuse someone else of being either dishonest or a fool.

[kimmy]

Harper certainly is advocating exactly what I said he was advocating about "gay bashing".  Have you never heard of Bill C-250, the legislation which added sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation?  That legislation passed thanks to the unanimity of the Liberals, NDP and BQ.  That legislation added gay bashing to hate crimes legislation. But Harper and his party voted against it.

The fact you are totally unaware of this legislation is hardly an intelligent reason to accuse someone else of being either dishonest or a fool. 

Speaking of looking either dishonest or foolish, Norman, you've been repeatedly been corrected on what C-250 actually contains. Yet you continue to write this fiction about what C-250 contains. Are you a compulsive liar, or just afflicted with some sort of comprehension handicap?

-k

[Drea]

SSM is a done deal.

Harper is not going to win this election so it's still and will continue to be a done deal.

Pot WILL be legalized in the near future.

Senseless that it isn't today.

Imagine if tobacco were illegal? You would have the exact same problems with it as with marijuana.

Imagine if booze were illegal... oh wait a minute! It WAS illegal and it spawned the likes of Al Capone and his cronies.... as soon as it was legal, crime reveloving around the "trade" of booze stopped. Amazing innit?

Went to a Christmas party the other night. Fighting and brawling all over the place by those who had ingested too much booze.

If they would've smoked pot they would've gotten tired, eaten the buffet and gone home to sleep.

How can people in this day and age still beleive that pot makes a person "all wonky" is beyond me. OBVIOUSLY they have not been with someone who smoked it, nor have they tried it themselves.

And don't try to use "Oh, but it harms the lungs!" argument... it can be put into food if you prefer.

[Riverwind]

Pot WILL be legalized in the near future.

Senseless that it isn't today.

Pot cannot and should not be legallized until the US federal gov't stops restricting it. Legalizing pot only in Canada would not solve the crime problem because there would still be a market in the US. Creating a legitmate business in Canada to sell an distribute pot would simply make it easier for organize crime to avoid prosecution. In addition, criminals that supply the US would seek to undermine any regulation that we might want to put on the sale of pot (i.e. if we treated pot like alcohol then we would not allow sales to minors and have taxation levels high enough to discourage use - both polices would be impossible to enforce due to black market competition).

[fellowtraveller]

You are presuming that Conservative gov't would be more accountable. I frankly belive that after 2 majorities a Conservative gov't would be just as 'corrupt' as the Liberals supposedly are. Many other people fell the same way which is why concerns about policy trump concerns about corruption.

An absolutely astonishing justification for voting Liberal.....

On the one hand, we have a government that is demonstrably corrupt and exhausted.

On the other, we have an Opposition with no record of either. None at all.

Tarred with the same speculative brush.

I guess this passes for coherent thought in some of the better crackhouses.

BTW, the OP doesn't tell you to vote Tory, nor do his subsequent posts.

[Riverwind]

On the one hand, we have a government that is demonstrably corrupt and exhausted.

On the other, we have an Opposition with no record of either.  None at all.

You miss the point: the issue is whether the opposition offers policies that people want or whether it offers policies that appeal to a minority of people and expects the rest to vote for them simply because they have not had the opportunity to be corrupt.

That why people are still voting for the Liberals: they want a party that provides the same policies without the corruption. The problem this country has is that neither the NDP or the CPC are offering that alternative since both parties are wedded to an ideological agenda which many Canadians find distasteful. As a result, many Canadians are still willing to hold their nose an vote Liberal.

You also forget that Martin was not implicated in the scandal no matter what the opposition parties want to believe so most people know they are not voting for the Chertien Liberal party that created the mess: they are voting for the Martin Liberal party who can clean up the mess.

[Leader Circle]

On the one hand, we have a government that is demonstrably corrupt and exhausted.

On the other, we have an Opposition with no record of either.  None at all.

You miss the point: the issue is whether the opposition offers policies that people want or whether it offers policies that appeal to a minority of people and expects the rest to vote for them simply because they have not had the opportunity to be corrupt.

That why people are still voting for the Liberals: they want a party that provides the same policies without the corruption. The problem this country has is that neither the NDP or the CPC are offering that alternative since both parties are wedded to an ideological agenda which many Canadians find distasteful. As a result, many Canadians are still willing to hold their nose an vote Liberal.

You also forget that Martin was not implicated in the scandal no matter what the opposition parties want to believe so most people know they are not voting for the Chertien Liberal party that created the mess: they are voting for the Martin Liberal party who can clean up the mess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

12 years and not a goddamn thing cleaned up, what has he done to prove he is the man to clean it up(other than making the national divide look like the Atlantic Ocean)?

At least Harper can go into this with a clean slate and start by implementing the Accountability act.

Martin will always be the ditherer who did nothing!

[Riverwind]

At least Harper can go into this with a clean slate and start by implementing the Accountability act.

I agree but Harper will not have the chance unless he will offer the policies that people want. He has started to do that but, as I said before, it may be too late. He wasted way to much time expecting a free ride because of Gomery.

[fellowtraveller]

You also forget that Martin was not implicated in the scandal no matter what the opposition parties want to believe so most people know they are not voting for the Chertien Liberal party that created the mess: they are voting for the Martin Liberal party who can clean up the mess.

You'd have to be mildly retarded or gullible to an unforgivable degree to believe that Martin had no knowledge of Adscam. I am neither.

He could give himself some instant credibility by answering M. Duceppes question of which ridings and which MPs received the money from Adscam. Martin has not done this, and you expect me to believe he will somehow be accountable, and any government he leads will be accountable? Please......

As a citizen I see a lot of my money stolen, and no politicians going to jail for this crime.

It is not waste, mismanagement, bad accounting or any of that. It was money stolen from me and directed by Liberal politicians. So far, all Martin has done is make kissy noises and talk. No action, No accountablity. Oh yes, he did decide that somehow the Liberal Party of Canada somehow owed me $1.4 million. And the vast bulk of the money is still gone. And you want citizens to vote for this? Please......

[Riverwind]

You'd have to be mildly retarded or gullible to an unforgivable degree to believe that Martin had no knowledge of Adscam. I am neither.

And you are apparently incapable of seperating fact from fiction - hearing rumors is not the same as being part of the scheme yet that is what the opposition contends.

He could give himself some instant credibility by answering M. Duceppes question of which ridings and which MPs received the money from Adscam.  Martin has not done this, and you expect me to believe he will somehow be accountable, and any government he leads will be accountable?  Please......

This is yet another example of opportunistic muckraking on the part of the opposition. Gomery did establish that Cote was collecting illegal donations and funneling them to the Liberal party, however, there is no evidence that the recipicants of the money would have known where it came from and that it was tainted - even the PQ and PLQ received some money from the companies in question. It is unreasonable to expect Martin to release the naems when he knows the people in question would be presumed guilty even if there was overwhelming evidence of their innocence.

[newbie]

Some of these folks seem to forget that Martin has only been Prime Minister for 2 years, under a minority government, not 12 as Leader Circle suggests. Sponsorship was run out of Public Works. Seems to me that Martin could very well have had a hands off re adsacam approach given the affair was run out of PMO's office. Add to that the volatile relationship he had with Cretien and it is entirely believable.

[BubberMiley]

This is my favourite debate topic, so please indulge me once again

Pot cannot and should not be legallized until the US federal gov't stops restricting it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes, it can (we’re still a sovereign country). Whether it should not be is what we’re debating.

Legalizing pot only in Canada would not solve the crime problem because there would still be a market in the US.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's no logical evidence that allowing people to have less than an ounce of weed would increase cross-border trafficking.

Creating a legitmate business in Canada to sell an distribute pot would simply make it easier for organize crime to avoid prosecution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, again, we’re talking decriminalization of less than an ounce. The penalties for trafficking and for possession of large quantities could be increased. This would actually target organized crime more effectively than wasting resources on small-time users.

In addition, criminals that supply the US would seek to undermine any regulation that we might want to put on the sale of pot (i.e. if we treated pot like alcohol then we would not allow sales to minors and have taxation levels high enough to discourage use - both polices would be impossible to enforce due to black market competition).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The sale to minors is too small a segment to warrant a black market. If a consenting adult were allowed to grow two plants for personal use, the black market would collapse. Again, you could increase the penalties to anyone above that limit. Decriminalization of small amounts would just free up resources to target organized crime, and limit (as much as the law has ever been successful at limiting) cross-border trade.

[BubberMiley]

You'd have to be mildly retarded or gullible to an unforgivable degree to believe that Martin had no knowledge of Adscam.  I am neither.

Can you provide evidence of this?

[August1991]

Pot WILL be legalized in the near future.

Senseless that it isn't today.

Pot cannot and should not be legallized until the US federal gov't stops restricting it. Legalizing pot only in Canada would not solve the crime problem because there would still be a market in the US. Creating a legitmate business in Canada to sell an distribute pot would simply make it easier for organize crime to avoid prosecution. In addition, criminals that supply the US would seek to undermine any regulation that we might want to put on the sale of pot (i.e. if we treated pot like alcohol then we would not allow sales to minors and have taxation levels high enough to discourage use - both polices would be impossible to enforce due to black market competition).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Should we not follow a similar argument for handguns and make them legal in Canada, as in the US?

[Yaro]

You'd have to be mildly retarded or gullible to an unforgivable degree to believe that Martin had no knowledge of Adscam. I am neither.

Actually anyone who has ever held a position at his level knows that its not only possible he didn't know, its highly likely that he didn't know. Only people who operate in non-directional capacities can't understand how someone could not know.

As a citizen I see a lot of my money stolen, and no politicians going to jail for this crime.

On a more reasoned and practical note, you have seen very little money stolen. In fact far less then in virtually any other western democracy, if you followed the politics of other countries you would know that.

[Riverwind]

Should we not follow a similar argument for handguns and make them legal in Canada, as in the US?

Do criminals set up illegal gun factories in the US to supply the Canadian market? Do they get involved in turf wars in suburban neighborhoods over which gang has the right to supply the Canadian market? Is the cross border gun trade likely to cause Canada to shutdown or severely limit legimate trade across the border in order to stop the flow of illegal guns?

The answer to all these questions no and that is why your analogy does not apply.

The sale to minors is too small a segment to warrant a black market. If a consenting adult were allowed to grow two plants for personal use, the black market would collapse. Again, you could increase the penalties to anyone above that limit. Decriminalization of small amounts would just free up resources to target organized crime, and limit (as much as the law has ever been successful at limiting) cross-border trade.

Supplying the US market would still encourage people to set grow ops in residential neighborhoods. Criminal gangs would still be killing each other over turf. Selling to kids would be an easy sideline to make some extra money for these people.

In addition, most people don't have the time or inclination to grow their own weed (how many people buy alcohol at the store instead of brewing their own?) So there would still be a huge market for the product via illegal channels (i.e. the gangs). In other words, there can be no half measures either the product is completely legal for all quantities or it is illegal.

[BubberMiley]

I'm not convinced there are no half measures here. I think if the law were enforced and there were severe legal ramifications for taking part in the black market, most regular pot-smokers would be happy to grow their own. Not to mention they'd get to avoid paying $200 an ounce for what is essentially, literally, a weed. It's not that big a deal to grow a plant in your basement. A lot less of a deal than operating a home distillery.

And it would still be possible to make large grow-ops as illegal as they are now, with even harsher penalties as it would be apparent that such an operation is to fuel the black market. And, once again, existing resources that are spent on casual weed-smokers could be focused on these larger operations.

[Riverwind]

It's not that big a deal to grow a plant in your basement. A lot less of a deal than operating a home distillery.

Assuming you have a basement. Many people live in appartments or rental properties where growing marijuana would likely be prohibited by either the condo association or the landlord (just like they do with pets today). These people would likely find it easier to use the black market than find more flexible accomodation.

And it would still be possible to make large grow-ops as illegal as they are now, with even harsher penalties as it would be apparent that such an operation is to fuel the black market.

That is what police do today. The difference is once they catch somebody they have an easier time getting a convictions because they don't have to prove the marijuana was not intended for the personal use.

You have to realize that if a few plants for personal use were legal you would see so-op warehouses set up where people could tend their plants in a more ideal growing conditions. It would be difficult to distiniguish between legit warehouses and black market warehouses.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Although I agree that small amounts of pot could be relatively harmless, just imagine what the border crossings would be like if the Americans figured even a small number of Canadians were coming over with a little bag?

A lot of credible Americans hae made the argument and a couple of more administration changes may see movement. Comparing pot to guns does not work.

quote:

This is yet another example of opportunistic muckraking on the part of the opposition. Gomery did establish that Cote was collecting illegal donations and funneling them to the Liberal party, however, there is no evidence that the recipicants of the money would have known where it came from and that it was tainted - even the PQ and PLQ received some money from the companies in question. It is unreasonable to expect Martin to release the naems when he knows the people in question would be presumed guilty even if there was overwhelming evidence of their innocence.

You've got your head in the sand, all political donations are supposed to have reciepts issued, not cash in paper bags, the loot was also widely distributed so lots of folks involved, this was not a few people this was fairly widespread. No candidate should be accepting bags of cash without asking questions.

quote:

You also forget that Martin was not implicated in the scandal no matter what the opposition parties want to believe so most people know they are not voting for the Chertien Liberal party that created the mess: they are voting for the Martin Liberal party who can clean up the mess

Martin was not implicated because he ensured two things in setting up the Gomery commission, Finance was not under scrutiny, and no blame could be placed.

Now as for plausibility, any large organization conducts business roughly the same way, when an expenditure program (like sponsorship) is set up finance dept. sets up an account which the spending dept.(PM's office) can draw on, no cash changes hands. when each of the contracts was to be drawn on a invoice should have been submitted, cleared and signed by usually two persons from the spending dept. (PM's office) then forwarded to finance where it would get a third signature and a cheque would be drawn up. The large amounts of money should have required fairly important people to sign.

Given this scenario there are only three possible ways this thing could have happened, they set it all up in advance and therefore had knowledge, they did it on the fly (and therfore had knowledge) or they had no control whatsoever over expenditures (they were incompetent). Either way not worthy of a great deal of trust.

[BubberMiley]

Assuming you have a basement. Many people live in appartments or rental properties where growing marijuana would likely be prohibited by either the condo association or the landlord (just like they do with pets today). These people would likely find it easier to use the black market than find more flexible accomodation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, that's possible, but these people are using the black market now, so there would be no change. Decriminalization would still decrease the black market--maybe eliminate it (perhaps that's idealistic but that's what happened with alcohole, so why not?)

You have to realize that if a few plants for personal use were legal you would see so-op warehouses set up where people could tend their plants in a more ideal growing conditions. It would be difficult to distiniguish between legit warehouses and black market warehouses.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, there would be no legit warehouses. We're talking a plant or two--half an ounce. Everything else would be as illegitimate as it is right now. There wouldn't be increased trade across the border, because it wouldn't be worth going across the border with half an ounce (and it would still be as illegal to do so as it is today).

[Riverwind]

You've got your head in the sand, all political donations are supposed to have reciepts issued, not cash in paper bags, the loot was also widely distributed so lots of folks involved, this was not a few people this was fairly widespread. No candidate should be accepting bags of cash without asking questions.

You are assuming that every cent that Cote misappropriated was distributed as bags of cash - I do not believe this is the case. If Gomery found that 'bags of cash' were given to sitting MPs then I agree that it is impossible for these MPs to claim ignorance.

(PM's office) then forwarded to finance where it would get a third signature and a cheque would be drawn up. The large amounts of money should have required fairly important people to sign.

The amounts of money were insignificant compared to the budget of the federal gov't which is $200 billion/year. In addition, the Gagliano/Guite attempted to cover up the spending by routing it through crown corporations which would prevent the MOF from detecting any abnormalities.

Given this scenario there are only three possible ways this thing could have happened, they set it all up in advance and therefore had knowledge, they did it on the fly (and therfore had knowledge)  or they had no control whatsoever over expenditures (they were incompetent). Either way not worthy of a great deal of trust.

Or the amounts involved were so trivial compared to the budget that it is not reasonable to expect anyone in the MOF to detect the problem without a complete audit - which, incidently, is exactly how the problem was uncovered

[err]

well, i don't know what to say to all that, but voting for the liberals seems to me to be the same as trusting someone you know has robbed you.

And you would prefer the rape and brutalization option ????

[legamus]

well, i don't know what to say to all that, but voting for the liberals seems to me to be the same as trusting someone you know has robbed you.

And you would prefer the rape and brutalization option ????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i don't live in a world where the choice is limited to liberals or rape.

[Argus]

Funny

How those who say the Liberals are using "fear" in their campaign are THE VERY SAME PEOPLE who say that (their hero) George Bush DID NOT use fear to get elected. Pfft.

I don't like Bush. I've never liked Bush.

And those very same people who say stuff like "that lying liberal media" ALSO admire FOX news in the USA that spews ONLY rightwing republican propaganda.

I don't like FOX news. I've enver liked FOX news.

Yes, darn it, of course I am afraid of what MY Canada would become under a Harper govt. Anyone with any brains knows that he'd sell us off to the Americans. Bye bye Canada, hello 51st state.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you made a typo You meant "Anyone without any brain" right?