betsy Posted January 12, 2006 Report Posted January 12, 2006 They're talking about that on CPAC radio phone-in, this time by Dave Rutherford. Apparently if Martin takes away the not-withstanding clause, the courts will have the final decision and Parliament will have no other option. But, the courts had already decided that it is unconstitutional for the public not to have private care. So, there goes public healthcare? They're pointing out that he's going against his own policy on healthcare that is written in the red book. Oh boy.... Quote
Hicksey Posted January 12, 2006 Report Posted January 12, 2006 They're talking about that on CPAC radio phone-in, this time by Dave Rutherford.Apparently if Martin takes away the not-withstanding clause, the courts will have the final decision and Parliament will have no other option. But, the courts had already decided that it is unconstitutional for the public not to have private care. So, there goes public healthcare? They're pointing out that he's going against his own policy on healthcare that is written in the red book. Oh boy.... Check out this post I posted last nite. Martin really screwed the pooch letting that bomb drop. Last Night's Post Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
betsy Posted January 12, 2006 Author Report Posted January 12, 2006 They're talking about that on CPAC radio phone-in, this time by Dave Rutherford. Apparently if Martin takes away the not-withstanding clause, the courts will have the final decision and Parliament will have no other option. But, the courts had already decided that it is unconstitutional for the public not to have private care. So, there goes public healthcare? They're pointing out that he's going against his own policy on healthcare that is written in the red book. Oh boy.... Check out this post I posted last nite. Martin really screwed the pooch letting that bomb drop. Last Night's Post Thanks for the link. Boy, if there is any solid proof needed showing they're not only desperate....but running around like chickens with their heads cut off, this is it. Imagine that. Quote
Hicksey Posted January 12, 2006 Report Posted January 12, 2006 They're talking about that on CPAC radio phone-in, this time by Dave Rutherford. Apparently if Martin takes away the not-withstanding clause, the courts will have the final decision and Parliament will have no other option. But, the courts had already decided that it is unconstitutional for the public not to have private care. So, there goes public healthcare? They're pointing out that he's going against his own policy on healthcare that is written in the red book. Oh boy.... Check out this post I posted last nite. Martin really screwed the pooch letting that bomb drop. Last Night's Post Thanks for the link. Boy, if there is any solid proof needed showing they're not only desperate....but running around like chickens with their heads cut off, this is it. Imagine that. I know. Martin can't run his own election campaign let alone a whole country. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
Leafless Posted January 12, 2006 Report Posted January 12, 2006 Paul Martin and the liberals should be charged with potentially enciting the ingredients to induce a revolution playing with a clause that was put there as a safety valve. This person is plain dangerous. Quote
Hicksey Posted January 12, 2006 Report Posted January 12, 2006 Paul Martin and the liberals should be charged with potentially enciting the ingredients to induce a revolution playing with a clause that was put there as a safety valve. This person is plain dangerous. .I know. And Harper's the scary one?!? You gotta be a broken-glass Liberal to believe that. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
Guest eureka Posted January 12, 2006 Report Posted January 12, 2006 Of course there is another option. That is to fix healthcare and to opt out of NAFTA or renegotiete the provisions that would allow American private providers in if it is opened up to private concerns. The Charter is not the be all and end all. Quote
Hicksey Posted January 12, 2006 Report Posted January 12, 2006 Of course there is another option. That is to fix healthcare and to opt out of NAFTA or renegotiete the provisions that would allow American private providers in if it is opened up to private concerns.The Charter is not the be all and end all. That's funny, if you listen to our Prime Minister as of late one would think the rights it gives us are very important and protecting them is of utmost importance. The Liberals had near 13 years to fix those things and still we stand where we are. Why can't people just accept that sometimes change is the right recipe. I don't want a Harper majority, but a strong minority to see if he stands up to the test of being PM would be fine with me. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.