Conservative Govt.

[The Honest Politician]

How can you be so blind?

Harper ran a campaign of "Ethics in Government", and "Accountability", which included having elected senators, and condemming the crossing of the floor by Stronach. Never forget that some CPC members called her a Whore, for what she did. And Belinda atleast had an opposing view to SSM, and the proposed budget, to her party's official stance. She did not change political parties simply to be on the winning side. The Govt. was poised to fall within days of her crossing, so it is not like she was moving into a secure position.

Harper has tossed out his election platform like the piece of garbage it was. He has about as much morality as the crack dealer on the streetcorner.

[Hicksey]

I can't say Harper's messed up that bad. If you were to say Harper's stepped knee deep in it, I could agree with that right now. After the Liberals, I am at least prepared to wait and see how he functions within the minority parliament, and within that parliament what he can/cannot achieve. It is pretty obvious to everyone that Harper will have to be quite the consensus builder to get anything passed with barely 37% of the house under his power. If Harper gets a fair amount done (note: I'm not holding my breath, but hopeful nonetheless) I think that can overshadow these rather disappointing missteps. If not, 20/20 hindsight will show that they were a foreshadow to the demise of this parliament.

I agree Hicksey.

These issues are only being raised because the CPC set the bar very high when it comes to ethics. If the Liberals had done these things, people would have barely noticed. I don't see these issues resonating with the voters either.

I'm more interested to see how Harper will handle his caucus now.

The only other thing that really disappoints me is that if they were contemplating these moves, why set the bar on ethics so high? Why set voters up to be let down on the first day?

I'd surely like to get into Harper's head on this and figure out what he was thinking.

Lots of Liberal/NDP posters are misunderstanding the discussions going on between conservatives trying to discern the possible motives for such moves for an endorsement of the bahavior. I've had one even call me hyporcrite and then bail out sans apology when the poster found out I was the first to call Emerson a whore cut from the same cloth as Stronach.

I don't remember any Liberals being so negative about Stronach's defection. In some circles Paul Martin was being called a genius for engineering the defection. The major difference between the two is the timing. If Stronach hadn't defected when she did, this election would have taken place in late June or early July. The conservatives didn't need Emerson or Fortier to win, they did so without them. They did not solicit them to save their political butts, and they're taking appropriate heat for the moves. Still, the motivation of the move is no excuse. It was wrong either way.

I'm just still struggling with the possible reasons. Harper already had a government. He didn't need Emerson as Martin needed Stronach (to survive the confidence motion) so Emerson wasn't in a position to extort a cabinet position as Stronach would have been.

It just doesn't make sense why Harper would undermine himself. He's very intelligent. He would have forseen this coming. But he forged ahead anyway. Why?

[tml12]

Hicksey,

"It just doesn't make sense why Harper would undermine himself. He's very intelligent. He would have forseen this coming. But he forged ahead anyway. Why?"

Apparently he is either quite stupid or he has a plan to govern this country. Either way, let us wait until we see all that he does before we evaluate his government.

If you get a C on the mid-term, it doesn't mean you get a C in the course. All that it means is that the C, along with other term grades, will be factored into the final mark.

Critics and supporters of the Harper government ought to live by that analogy.

[Hicksey]

Hicksey,

"It just doesn't make sense why Harper would undermine himself. He's very intelligent. He would have forseen this coming. But he forged ahead anyway. Why?"

Apparently he is either quite stupid or he has a plan to govern this country. Either way, let us wait until we see all that he does before we evaluate his government.

If you get a C on the mid-term, it doesn't mean you get a C in the course. All that it means is that the C, along with other term grades, will be factored into the final mark.

Critics and supporters of the Harper government ought to live by that analogy.

Oh, don't me wrong here. I'm still standing by to at least see if he can engineer some deals and get some of his agenda through the house of commons before the Liberals get too organized.

There's just no rhyme or reason for it is all. And for such an intelligent guy to do this, set himself up to be tarred and feathered, after 8 weeks of pledging a more ethical Ottawa just rings wrong with me. There's more to this and we're just not seeing it. We'd expect this kind of thing from a Chretien or a Martin, and probably a Mulroney too. Maybe I wanted so badly for him to be different I attached too much hope to seeing real change in the way things are done in Ottawa. But, Harper set the bar for change and accountability very high during his campaign. My thought throughout the campaign was that he has to come through or it will be political suicide.

I wasn't naive enough that he'd be without scandal, but to open pandora's box on day one, in hour one?! That's just too much. It stinks.

There's a saying along that line when I talk about Liberals (big L) being corrupt and the liberals all retort with "they're not all bad you know." I would then point out that should one decide to carry around a bag of crap, they shouldn't expect the smell not to follow them around.

At first reading that one might surmise that the Liberal Party was the crap. But seeing that the conduct seems to be continuing with this parliament, under a new leader--maybe corruption and ethe culture of entitlement is what the crap really symbolizes.

I know, talking analogies and crap all at once and trying not to sound juvenile is difficult but please bear with me--I used that word because it fits. The crap that goes on around Ottawa seems to be following those in power and who come to power.

And now it seems with these moves that Harper has his own bag of crap.

I know its early, but this is becoming very frustrating. This isn't what I pay taxes for. These people are really just investment councillors for Canadians to help us best invest our tax dollars in ways that we all benefit. They take our suggestions (on rare occasions) and suggest how our money would be best spent to get the most capital back in return, whether that return be in the form of actual monies or social capital. We, as Canadians, need to hold them much more accountable MUCH MORE OFTEN. We need someone in office that will forsake the status-quo and FORCE reform in Ottawa. Canadians deserve much better than a bunch of politicians and their friends getting rich while we suffer. Whether its big business (Lib/Con) or unions (NDP) we keep taking a back seat to politicians and those who fund their efforts--Canadians always end up the party on the short end of the stick. This country is a lot more broken than anyone wants to admit. We've transformed from a country of diverse interests into regions divided against one another. We're a group of differing languages and cultures at odds with one another. Here we're a bunch of partisans too blinded by our politics to see the damage that is being inflicted upon our country on before our eyes.

Maybe its not regions or cultures or partisans that need to do battle to solve this. Maybe we need to somehow collectively send our representatives a message. We need to tell them as a nation that we DEMAND change and unless we get it, we'll bring this country to a standstill. Without Canadians, Canada isn't. And those in Ottawa cannot be.

And I guess this is my reply turned rant. Enjoy.

[Argus]

Irony, of course, would elude you completely. This is the kind of rant that your kind delights in smearing conservatives for. In fact, if it was said by anyone even remotely associated with the Conservative party you and your ilk would be screaming it from the rooftops to show how heartless and vile conservatives are, and how they "hate" the poor and want to destroy social programs.

Handing out $100 a month is not a Social Program it is an Election Bribe designed to buy votes for the CPC. Congrats it worked.

Oh, I see. So when the Liberals or NDP want to spend money on people it's a social program but when the Tories do it it's just a bribe. Sure, that makes sense. Why don't we eliminate other "bribes", like the canada pension plan and baby bonus?

[Argus]

How can you be so blind?

Harper ran a campaign of "Ethics in Government", and "Accountability", which included having elected senators, and condemming the crossing of the floor by Stronach.

He also said he was against any law or rule which would ban people crossing the floor. Stronach was seen as more of an opportunistic thing. She had only joined the party a couple of years earlier, only just missed the leadership, and now suddenly was jumping to the Liberals. On top of that, it was just before a big vote. AND, she had been around long enough for them to realize that she was no great prize as a representative, not very quick on her feet and with little knowledge of the issues. Emerson is a hell of a lot more of a catch than Stronach, and can be said to be acquiescing to an argument that the government should have a representative from his city, and that he was the best guy to handle the olympics and softwood files on behalf of his people.

Never forget that some CPC members called her a Whore, for what she did. And Belinda atleast had an opposing view to SSM, and the proposed budget, to her party's official stance. She did not change political parties simply to be on the winning side.

Oh, of course she did. Don't be silly.

[The Honest Politician]

How did she join the winning side when the Govt. was poised to fall within two days?

She jumped from a Conservative party that was increasing in popularity, to a Liberal party that was going to be thrown out of govt. in 48hrs. Let's not kid ourselves here. Stronach was pissed when Harper bluntly made it clear she would never be leader of the CPC. But she also disagreed with the CPC stance on SSM, and wanted to pass the budget which had money ear marked for her riding. But to say she just wanted to be on the winning team is silly. You don't join a winning team, by jumping onto a sinking ship. She joined a party that could only have 48hrs left in power. Harper is an fool for not keeping her.

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact Harper is an Idiot, who couldn't even wait until the spring session of Parliament to start breaking promises and committing the same immoral acts he blasted the Liberals for.

I called Harper an Idiot all along, and I must say Vindication feels good.

Half a day! Not even Kim Campbell was that quick to start screwing things up.

Oh well, enjoy all the power a 120-something seat minority brings. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

I say we're having another election campaign by Canada Day.

By the time Harper is done kissing Quebec's arse he will have alienated half of his western supporters. How does he plan on fixing fiscal imbalance without taking Oil money from Alberta?

Speaking of Alberta, remember the show where they took an Ontario Liberal out to Alberta to meet some real "conservative" people? They showed some fancey privately funded shelter, and suggested that the healthcare in Alberta was doing great. Well I have been listening to Edmonton and Calgary hockey games, and have heard some disturbing news. There is a growing crisis in Alberta's big cities, of a shortage of Ambulances and Paramedics. Not that there isn't enough for any normal city, it is that there is a law which mandates the paramedics have to stay with their patient until they are admitted, or something along those lines. The point is, the Paramedics are spending up to 7 hours waitng at local hospitals to pass off care of the patient. The News story I was listening to, said there were no ambulances available at all for several hours, because of the hospital wait times.

Gotta love those Conservative social programs.

But what can you expect from a party that considers $100 a month a "Social Program"?

Bottom line is Harper is/was and always will be full of $#!T. He is nothing more than a greasy, slimy, used-car salesman of a politician, and his policies, which are doomed to fail, are nothing more than pleasantries, and empty promises he used to get elected.

Government Accounability? Where? Not in Ottawa! Not with Harper!

[shoop]

*If* your news story was true it would be quite the damnation. Let's put it through the credibility test.

Both Edmonton and Calgary are cities right around the million mark, counting the suburbs. You honestly mean to say one (or both) of them had no ambulances available for *several* hours? This wasn't a national story??? Come one. Lying that big definitely hurts your credibility.

The News story I was listening to, said there were no ambulances available at all for several hours, because of the hospital wait times.

Wow, with such well thought-out and considered criticism I think you have hit the nail on the head. Harper clearly is a bad guy because you say he is full of shit and a *greasy*, *slimy* used car salesman.

We get the point. You are angry about losing the election. There is nothing Harper could do to correct his image in your eyes. Have fun stewing in your own anger until fall of 2008 at least.

Bottom line is Harper is/was and always will be full of $#!T. He is nothing more than a greasy, slimy, used-car salesman of a politician, and his policies, which are doomed to fail, are nothing more than pleasantries, and empty promises he used to get elected.

Government Accounability? Where? Not in Ottawa! Not with Harper!

[The Honest Politician]

It's not a lie Snoopy.

That was the news report out of Edmonton.

No Ambulances available because paramedics were waiting up to 7 hours with their patients, at local hospitals.

[The Honest Politician]

Just for you Snoopy: Snoopy's proof

Next time you want to call me a liar get your facts straight before you do. OK snoopy?

[The Honest Politician]

11 times in January alone snoopy: Snoopy proof

But I'm a liar right?

Not suprising you opened your mouth before checking the facts. I'll keep that in mind from now on.

[sage]

Yo, Honest Politician, if Belinda was so troubled by the values of the Conservative Party why did she wait for 2 days before a major vote before jumping ship? Did she just wake up that day read the party platform and suddenly realize its policy on SSM. Not very god-damn likely. She jumped ship for one thing - a cabinet post.

Let's see the other possibilities that were available to her:

A. She could have sat as an independent and accomplished the moral superiority she spoke about having when she crossed the floor; OR

B. She could have left the party once its platform was clear and she disagreed with it.

Instead she did neither, which implies her greed/ambition was the motiviation in the whole fiasco.

[The Honest Politician]

What glamorous choices she had.

Belinda did what was best for her, her conscience and her constituents.

Sitting as an independant would have got her nothing. Joining the Liberals got her a cabinet post.

By the way, she did leave the party when the platform was made clear. That platform was the destruction of the Liberal Govt. by any means necessary, even if it meant ignoring the best interests of the people who elected them to parliament. If Harper had agreed to let the budget pass, Belinda would most likely still be a Conservative.

The Platform also included, ensuring a male was the head of the party. Understandably Belinda was pissed when Harper said "You will never be leader of this party."

So it isn't as cut and dry as you would like to make it. Regardless, the blatent purchase of Emerson by the CPC, far exceeds anything Belinda did. Especially when Harper just ran a campaign against such actions.

May I suggest you do some research.

[wellandboy]

The Platform also included, ensuring a male was the head of the party. Understandably Belinda was pissed when Harper said "You will never be leader of this party."

And your source for this statement is.......?

[The Honest Politician]

Go find it yourself. It was reportedly said during a meeting with Harper before Belinda left.

Do your own work.

Edit: I found it. You having trouble? Do you need instructions for Google?

[wellandboy]

Go find it yourself. It was reportedly said during a meeting with Harper before Belinda left.

Do your own work.

Edit: I found it. You having trouble? Do you need instructions for Google?

I have a copy of the platform. Nowhere does it have any mention of your patriarchal fiction. The rest is hearsay form dubious sources.

[geoffrey]

Go find it yourself. It was reportedly said during a meeting with Harper before Belinda left.

Do your own work.

Edit: I found it. You having trouble? Do you need instructions for Google?

When you post such a statement, the ball is in your court to show the source.

Otherwise its just irrelevant plagarism.

[Argus]

How did she join the winning side when the Govt. was poised to fall within two days?

Without her it would have. With her, it managed to hang on. Apparently someone, likely her father, could count.

She jumped from a Conservative party that was increasing in popularity, to a Liberal party that was going to be thrown out of govt. in 48hrs.

No. Her crossing secured the Liberals in power, and let's face it, the Liberals are the national governing party. Few thought the Tories were going to unseat them, and few, even now, think they will be in office very long before the Liberals are back.

Let's not kid ourselves here. Stronach was pissed when Harper bluntly made it clear she would never be leader of the CPC.

It was patently obvious she did not have the education, knowledge, experience, personality, or intellect to lead a major political party.

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact Harper is an Idiot, who couldn't even wait until the spring session of Parliament to start breaking promises and committing the same immoral acts he blasted the Liberals for.

What promise did he break and what immoral act did he commit?

Bottom line is Harper is/was and always will be full of $#!T. He is nothing more than a greasy, slimy, used-car salesman of a politician, and his policies, which are doomed to fail, are nothing more than pleasantries, and empty promises he used to get elected.

Government Accounability? Where? Not in Ottawa! Not with Harper!

The sheer bitterness of the failure of your beloved corruption party to gain power again seems to be eating away at what little coherence you once posessed. Like the irony of a dedicated Liberal terming himself "honest politician" your posts are nothing more than shrill bigotry and hate spewed out against anyone who disagrees with your politics.

[sage]

Is it your ignorance, lack of intelligence, or blind partisanship that makes it impossible for you to appreciate or understand the dynamics of belinda's defection? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume its door #3 for now.

Now to deal summarily with each your assertions

By the way, she did leave the party when the platform was made clear. That platform was the destruction of the Liberal Govt.

Your last post referenced her difference on SSM "But she also disagreed with the CPC stance on SSM" as the reason for defection. Which one is it?

The Platform also included, ensuring a male was the head of the party.

How many liberals are serious contenders for the liberal leadership? None.

Belinda did what was best for her, her conscience and her constituents.

Sitting as an independant would have got her nothing. Joining the Liberals got her a cabinet post.

Regardless, the blatent purchase of Emerson by the CPC, far exceeds anything Belinda did.

How are these different? Please, please, show me the insight that I'm lacking here.

May I suggest you do some research.

May I suggest you quit researching if its what leads to your asinine conclusions. Common sense would better serve you.

I will grant you (as I have in previous posts) that this Emerson brings the CPC party directly in line with the antics it was campaigning against.

[Argus]

11 times in January alone snoopy: Snoopy proof

But I'm a liar right?

Not suprising you opened your mouth before checking the facts. I'll keep that in mind from now on.

Your cite said nothing at all about there being no ambulances available for 7 hours. Doing a casual google I found that Calgarys EMS response time for emergencies was 6 minutes and 40 seconds in 2005. By way of contrast, a recent report on Ottawa's EMS emergency response time was very upbeat. Apparently, they are meeting their target of 9 minutes about 70% of the time. I also see a headline from the cbc which says "Toronto ambulance response times continue to grow because of backups at city hospitals"

The fact is that all health services across the country have been in a cash crunch since the federal Liberals sapped health care of funding years ago and never returned it.

[shoop]

Let's see, I called bullsh*t on this quote.

The News story I was listening to, said there were no ambulances available at all for several hours, because of the hospital wait times.

The unbelieveable part being no ambulances available for several hours.

So you respond with this quote and *evidence*.

11 times in January alone snoopy: Snoopy proof

But I'm a liar right? Not suprising you opened your mouth before checking the facts. I'll keep that in mind from now on.

According to this evidence

The longest (period without ambulance service) lasted just over six minutes while the shortest was 11 seconds.

Childish insults aside HP you really should be somewhat credible. Several hours with no ambulance service ... my arse.

[The Honest Politician]

Gee thanks snoopy.

The wait times at the hospitals where several hours. But of course you are the Grammar master, and everything must be said perfectly around your precious little ears.

And to all of you who doubt me. Look it up. Do it yourself. Do some of your own reseasrch to refute what I say.

Glad to see this place is still pumpng out the Idiot Fuel I came back for.

[shoop]

There is a big difference between grammatical mistakes and flat out lying. You are guilty of both.

There is no reason to do my own research when your *evidence* proved what you said was wrong.

Boy, good for you Greg is tied up with more important business or you would definitely be gone.

But of course you are the Grammar master, and everything must be said perfectly around your precious little ears.

And to all of you who doubt me. Look it up. Do it yourself. Do some of your own reseasrch to refute what I say.

Glad to see this place is still pumpng out the Idiot Fuel I came back for.

[newbie]

Boy, good for you Greg is tied up with more important business or you would definitely be gone.

Read the articles again. You can't deny we have a major medicare crisis in this Province. And using bully tactics like the above quote maybe works on the schoolyard, but this is an adult forum. And speaking of Greg, you would be well advised to read over "Greg's" rules yourself.

[geoffrey]

Boy, good for you Greg is tied up with more important business or you would definitely be gone.

Read the articles again. You can't deny we have a major medicare crisis in this Province. And using bully tactics like the above quote maybe works on the schoolyard, but this is an adult forum. And speaking of Greg, you would be well advised to read over "Greg's" rules yourself.

It was an outright lie. He said that there was "no ambulances available at all for several hours", when in fact, the delay was was 6 minutes and 11 seconds.

You don't deal with medicare crisis by misinformation. That wasn't even the key issue.

Way to go champ.