Plain and simple

[Argus]

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.

Then why the big scare campaign? The Liberals aren't running against Conservative policies, which, as you say, nobody wants. Instead they're running against George Bush, and against seperatists, and against people who won't jump up and down and scream about their love of Canada.

Could it be that the people aren't actually so very opposed to the Tory policies as you seem to be suggesting? I mean, if those policies were really so detested by the public the Liberals would have no difficulty at all in attacking them openly.

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}>

I, and I think most Canadians, according to polls, believe Martin is lying through his teeth about his knowledge of Sponsorgate. And I require more from my prime minister than the fact he can't be put in prison. Martin knew, and if he didn't know, he should have known. That's it. There is no more to say about it. Martin will never gain my vote no matter who he's running against.

[August1991]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sparhawk, I don't want to encourage thread drift but our PM and the Toronto Mayor may well answer "yes" to your questions. According to them, we have a handgun problem in Canada because American factories are fighting over the ability to supply, uh, gangsters in urban centres. Various Canadian governments consider the problem severe enough that extra border controls (and inspectors) have been suggested.

My point was a little more serious however. Surely sovereignty must mean the ability to run our own affairs our own way. Even US laws vary from state to state. In about 15 American states, marijuana possession has been decriminalized.

If Canada were to decriminalize or even legalize marijuana, then I guess it would become a border problem. Well, we have those problems for many other things. I think we've all met an American who was astonished to learn that he couldn't bring his rack gun into Canada.

BTW, Canada held a national plebiscite in 1898 to prohibit alcohol but although it obtained a small majority, Laurier did not enact legislation leaving it up to the provinces. Quebec had prohibition for the shortest time, 1919-1920. (US prohibition was by constitutional amendment from 1919-1933.)

I have no particular opinion about marijuana laws but I like the following quote:

Prohibition will work great injury on the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime of out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes at the very principle upon which our government was founded.

Abraham Linclon, 1840

I cannot help but notice a strain of Anglo-Protestant prudery on both sides in these (modern) debates of so-called temperance.

[err]

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.

Then why the big scare campaign? The Liberals aren't running against Conservative policies, which, as you say, nobody wants.

CPC party policies... not to be confused with Progressive Conservative. At least the PC party was socially liberal, with no demonstrable discrimination against homosexuals, women who want abortions, or Bubber's favourite pot smokers....

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}>

And I require more from my prime minister than the fact he can't be put in prison. Martin knew, and if he didn't know, he should have known.

Am I just confused, or did Gomery not praise Paul Martin in his first report...... stating that Martin was completely exonerated, that he had no access to the sponsorship program, and for his efforts to unroot those involved in the scandal....

Personally, I am not a fan of Paul Martin, but see you CPC types tarring Martin with the Cretien Liberal's brush.... Should we be blaming Harper for the GST ??? ... just because Mulroney, the leader of the last government with the word "Conservative" in their party name put the GST in....

[Riverwind]

Then why the big scare campaign? The Liberals aren't running against Conservative policies, which, as you say, nobody wants. Instead they're running against George Bush, and against seperatists, and against people who won't jump up and down and scream about their love of Canada.

Could it be that the people aren't actually so very opposed to the Tory policies as you seem to be suggesting? I mean, if those policies were really so detested by the public the Liberals would have no difficulty at all in attacking them openly.

Argus,

I agree with you - Martin's campaign has been pathetic compared to Harper's. At one level Martin is doing exactly what Harper was doing in June and I believe it will hurt him in the end. The only trouble is it takes time for opinion to shift and the new realities to sink in.

[normanchateau]

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.  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Calling someone a liar or engaging in other foolish or inane personal attacks doesn't change the fact that Harper opposed adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation.

"Status of bill C-250:

The bill was given royal assent by the Queen's representative in Canada on 2004-APR-29. It took immediate effect. It is now part of the legal code of Canada. Some propaganda directing hatred against persons of any sexual orientation, heterosexuals, homosexuals and/or bisexuals, is now a crime in Canada. Sexual orientation now joins four other groups protected against hate speech on the basis of their "colour, race, religion, or ethnic origin." However, a "not withstanding clause" allows religiously motivated hate speech."

Source:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat7.htm

What's especially telling about Harper's opposition to adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation is that he has no problem with hate crimes legislation per se but only the addition of sexual orientation to that legislation.

[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}>

Using terms like fool and dishonesty does not change the facts. Are you not aware that Harper voted against bill C-250? Bill C-250 made it a crime to kill someone merely because that person is gay. Bill C-250 also made it a crime to engage in hate propaganda against gays and lesbians. Harper might not see killing someone merely because he's gay as "gay bashing", but I suspect most Canadians do.

Here's bill C-250 which was passed by the Liberals, NDP and BQ but was opposed by Harper:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-250

Harper's party was not the only one to oppose adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. The Christian Heritage Party also opposed it and urged Harper to do so as well. But the legislation passed despite the objections of religious conservatives. Harper can pretend to be as moderate as he likes at election time but his opposition to the passage of C-250 remains an unequivocal fact.

[Slim MacSquinty]

quote:

Bill C-250 made it a crime to kill someone merely because that person is gay.

So it wasn't a crime to kill gay people before, by god you're right!

Never mind that there was a great number of legal experts that indicated this was a law that had the potential to infringe on Religeous freedom, but then why should bigots be free right?

[g_bambino]

"Status of bill C-250:

The bill was given royal assent by the Queen's representative in Canada on 2004-APR-29.  It took immediate effect. It is now part of the legal code of Canada. Some propaganda directing hatred against persons of any sexual orientation, heterosexuals, homosexuals and/or bisexuals, is now a crime in Canada.  Sexual orientation now joins four other groups protected against hate speech on the basis of their "colour, race, religion, or ethnic origin." However, a "not withstanding clause" allows religiously motivated hate speech."

and:

Bill C-250 made it a crime to kill someone merely because that person is gay. Bill C-250 also made it a crime to engage in hate propaganda against gays and lesbians.

So, Bill C-250 therefore also made it a crime to kill someone merely because that person is straight. Bill C-250 also made it a crime to engage in hate propaganda against straights.

If Harper opposed this, then he's biased against heterosexuals too? Wasn't killing and hate speech already illegal, regardless of sexual orientation?

[kimmy]

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?

Calling someone a liar or engaging in other foolish or inane personal attacks doesn't change the fact that Harper opposed adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation.

"Status of bill C-250:

The bill was given royal assent by the Queen's representative in Canada on 2004-APR-29. It took immediate effect. It is now part of the legal code of Canada. Some propaganda directing hatred against persons of any sexual orientation, heterosexuals, homosexuals and/or bisexuals, is now a crime in Canada. Sexual orientation now joins four other groups protected against hate speech on the basis of their "colour, race, religion, or ethnic origin." However, a "not withstanding clause" allows religiously motivated hate speech."

Source:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat7.htm

What's especially telling about Harper's opposition to adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation is that he has no problem with hate crimes legislation per se but only the addition of sexual orientation to that legislation.

You're quite bluntly wrong. Neither you, nor "religioustolerance.org" (whoever they are) can offer one scrap of evidence to support the claim that Bill C-250 had anything to do with "gay bashing" or "making it a crime to kill gays just because they're gay."

The scope of Bill C-250 is limited to broadening the definition of "hate propaganda".

-k

[Argus]

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.

Has nothing to do with rumours. It has to do with the responsibilities of a senior member of the government, and his abrogation of those responsibilities for personal gain.

[Argus]

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}>

Using terms like fool and dishonesty does not change the facts. Are you not aware that Harper voted against bill C-250? Bill C-250 made it a crime to kill someone merely because that person is gay.

Kimmy asked earlier if you were a compulsive liar. I think you'd have saved time and space by simply saying "yes.".

Of course, we all knew that anyway.

[Argus]

That why people are still voting for the Liberals: they want a party that provides the same policies without the corruption.

Then why the big scare campaign? The Liberals aren't running against Conservative policies, which, as you say, nobody wants.

CPC party policies... not to be confused with Progressive Conservative. At least the PC party was socially liberal, with no demonstrable discrimination against homosexuals, women who want abortions, or Bubber's favourite pot smokers....

Sorry, I've been trying to figure out just how your response is in ANY way related to anything which came before. It doesn't appear there is any such relationship. So what is it you're trying to say and why are you saying it here?

And I require more from my prime minister than the fact he can't be put in prison. Martin knew, and if he didn't know, he should have known.

Am I just confused, or did Gomery not praise Paul Martin in his first report...... stating that Martin was completely exonerated,

You're confused.

What Gomery said was that all the ministers of Chretien's cabinet, including Martin were "entitled to be exonngerated" because there was no evidence they knew about Sponsorgate. What kind of evidence anyone would expect to find is beyond me. In any event, Gomery is a lawyer. Gomery would also say Adolph Hitler was "entiltled" to be though of as innocent unless and until enough evidence had been presented before a court and he was found guilty.

I don't need court statements, just knowledge and logical inference. Martin's guilt under that is overwhelming and obvious. He knew, or he should have known. That makes him a worthless excuse for a candidate, as far as I'm concerned.

, and for his efforts to unroot those involved in the scandal....

Would those "efforts" including fighting to delay Gomery's acquisition of evidence, refusing to turn over information and evidence to the parliamentary committe which was investigating Sponsorship, refusing to hear the witnesses the commitee wanted, and closing down the committee early? Setting the date for Gomery's commision to start well after any election? Having his people begin the rumormongering about Gomery, that he was wasting money, that his commision was spending more than was originally lost and should be shut down - rumours which would have been the prelude to closing down the commision early if the Liberals had been able to get any of the opposition leaders to agree?

Personally, I am not a fan of Paul Martin, but see you CPC types tarring Martin with the Cretien Liberal's brush....  Should we be blaming Harper for the GST ??? ... just because Mulroney, the leader of the last government with the word "Conservative" in their party name put the GST in....

Was Harper the number two man in Mulroney's government for 12 years, deputy prime minister, VP of treasury? No? Then stupid question.

[Bro]

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.

Hello,anyone home?With a historical low dollar set by the liberals,who do you think set up Canada for sale to the Americans?That is why the the liberals are pissed off with the Americans,they actually took advantage of the vulnerable position the liberals put us in.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Yes, darn it, of course I am afraid of what MY Canada would become under a Harper govt.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Martin DID go nuts during that second debate, didn't he?

"MY Canada" "MY Canada", he screamed.

Thanks for pointing it out.

O Canada "our" home and native land ....

[Kiraly]

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.

Hello,anyone home?With a historical low dollar set by the liberals,who do you think set up Canada for sale to the Americans?That is why the the liberals are pissed off with the Americans,they actually took advantage of the vulnerable position the liberals put us in.

Historically low dollar? Today?

Anyways, admittedly I must be lacking in the brains department, because I don't know how Harper would sell us off to the Americans to become the 51st state.

Perhaps you could elaborate.

I imagine the royalties from the Democratic party would be quite substantial though. Definitely alter the balance of power in the U.S.

[Bro]

Kiraly,

go have a little sleep,then get on the program.

[err]

That why people are still voting for the Liberals: they want a party that provides the same policies without the corruption.

Then why the big scare campaign? The Liberals aren't running against Conservative policies, which, as you say, nobody wants.

CPC party policies... not to be confused with Progressive Conservative. At least the PC party was socially liberal, with no demonstrable discrimination against homosexuals, women who want abortions, or Bubber's favourite pot smokers....

Sorry, I've been trying to figure out just how your response is in ANY way related to anything which came before. It doesn't appear there is any such relationship. So what is it you're trying to say and why are you saying it here?

First, look at the inside quote, and their responses.... (hint) The CPC party and their policies are totally different from the Progressive Conservative party.

Personally, I am not a fan of Paul Martin, but see you CPC types tarring Martin with the Cretien Liberal's brush....  Should we be blaming Harper for the GST ??? ... just because Mulroney, the leader of the last government with the word "Conservative" in their party name put the GST in....

Was Harper the number two man in Mulroney's government for 12 years, deputy prime minister, VP of treasury? No? Then stupid question.

The Martin government is not the same thing as the Cretien government. In fact, Cretien didn't personally get along well with Martin, but kept him as finance minister because Martin was capable of "fixing the deficit" and other financial woes inherited from the previous PC government... From all accounts, Gomery particularly exonerated Martin because it was made clear that Cretien wouldn't allow Martin near the program....