normanchateau Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 Actually Dion received surprisingly little "establishment" support. 1. Dion came in at 3rd/4th place entering this (depending on the poll you listened to) and was never expected to win. 2. Dion made previous agreements with Kennedy that they would back each other. 3. 6 of 8 candidates backed Rae - NOT Dion (because they knew #2). 4. Chretien/young Trudeau backed Dion/Kennedy 5. Only 4,600 people voted. 6. Rae spent over 2 million dollars on his campaign, Dion less than 'six figures' (or 'seven'.. can't remember.. wasn't paying attention during that moment.. someone clarify). 7. People on this very forum and everywhere you went were backing Iggy. Statements 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are true. Re statement 4, what evidence do you have that Chretien backed Dion/Kennedy? Statement 7 is misleading. People on this forum and everywhere also backed other leadership candidates. Statements 1-3 and 5-7 are also consistent with my point that Dion received surprisingly little establishment support. But to you, they apparently suggest a Liberal conspiracy... You'll believe what you want to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 Norman I have read just about all your bellyaching posts about us being in Afghanistan, Good. Keep reading. Eventually you'll learn that a majority of Canadians do not support the mission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 I would have gladly voted Liberal if Kennedy were the leader, but I'm not voting for Chretien II.Yet your guy Kennedy made Dion leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 I would have gladly voted Liberal if Kennedy were the leader, but I'm not voting for Chretien II.Yet your guy Kennedy made Dion leader. Like I said, Kennedy did it for selfish reasons, he realised it wasn't going to be him this time, so he let the Quebecois win. Iggy and Rae being elected would have destroyed any chance of him ever being leader. Dion is his ticket. I would have given my support to Dion in his situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stignasty Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 Like I said, Kennedy did it for selfish reasons, he realised it wasn't going to be him this time, so he let the Quebecois win. Iggy and Rae being elected would have destroyed any chance of him ever being leader. Dion is his ticket. I would have given my support to Dion in his situation. It's win/win for Kennedy. Even if Dion manages to become PM, Kennedy's sure to get a prime cabinet appointment. That will only strengthen his chances next leadership campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sex Panther Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 Damn it, Ralph Nader got totally screwed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 Like I said, Kennedy did it for selfish reasons, he realised it wasn't going to be him this time, so he let the Quebecois win. Iggy and Rae being elected would have destroyed any chance of him ever being leader. Dion is his ticket. I would have given my support to Dion in his situation. It's win/win for Kennedy. Even if Dion manages to become PM, Kennedy's sure to get a prime cabinet appointment. That will only strengthen his chances next leadership campaign. Exactly why he crossed the floor to Dion, no other reason. Some people here think our politicans are far less selfish then they really are. All these motives, for the betterment of the party, ect. ect.. Ha! Kennedy went to Dion to gain himself the PM spot 4 years from now. Nothing at all else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abcon99 Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 Who cares, the days of the liberals being able to lie about being either left or right are over. You can be center left, or center right, or do nothing, but you can't be in the center. Dion is on the left, and should help a number of people in the liberal party, or who vote liberal, to leave and join the Conservatives. Also Dion doesn't recognize the fiscal imblance, or the rights of provinces and the juristiction they have in the Constitution. He won't get more seats in Quebec, and he won't thrill people anywhere else, and the eastern media from the press gallery can kiss his arse all they want, it will not make him PM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikedavid00 Posted December 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 If we left Afghanistan, then we have basically done the same thing the Belgian's did in Rwanda. We are no better, and would not be able to ever be taken seriously by NATO. NATO is not to be taken seriously. Canada got next to nothing at the last meeting. That will become all too clear in the next months when we watch the rest of Europe run from its commitments. Another thing, how is such a small populous country over a large landmass producing any kind of harmful greenhouse emitions as compared to the rest of the world. That's assuming you believe in all this gump. People will see through this and Dion will be out the door. I think in this day and age looking at someone's 'vision' for Canada and the world is a bit tiresom and insulting to the average Canadian voter. Why not a vision of fixing our pathetic healthcare system and immigration crisis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 Why not a vision of fixing our pathetic healthcare system and immigration crisis. Perhaps Harper will do something about waiting times as it was one of his chief promises in the election. And maybe he could appoint some immigration officials to positions he has left unfilled since he was elected. How many months ago is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saturn Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 If we left Afghanistan, then we have basically done the same thing the Belgian's did in Rwanda. We are no better, and would not be able to ever be taken seriously by NATO. NATO is not to be taken seriously. Canada got next to nothing at the last meeting. That will become all too clear in the next months when we watch the rest of Europe run from its commitments. Why should NATO be taken seriously in this case? NATO was never serious about Afghanistan in the first place - it was all hype by the Americans who didn't take it seriously either. Afghanistan is a lost case any way you look at it and the Europeans aren't as stupid as we are to get their soldiers killed for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikedavid00 Posted December 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2006 Why not a vision of fixing our pathetic healthcare system and immigration crisis. Perhaps Harper will do something about waiting times as it was one of his chief promises in the election. And maybe he could appoint some immigration officials to positions he has left unfilled since he was elected. How many months ago is that? Harper can't afford... sorry.. we as tax payers can't afford to reduce waiting times. We simply can't. All we can do is make sure that the people using teh system have paid into it and that's not happening. The only thing that will save our health care system if immigration is not to be elliminated is to open private hospitals and move to a 2 tier healthcare system. There's no other way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted December 5, 2006 Report Share Posted December 5, 2006 Harper can't afford... sorry.. we as tax payers can't afford to reduce waiting times. We simply can't. All we can do is make sure that the people using teh system have paid into it and that's not happening. The only thing that will save our health care system if immigration is not to be elliminated is to open private hospitals and move to a 2 tier healthcare system. There's no other way. Perhaps he should thought about that before promising it in an election. I would have thought you would have said full privatization of healthcare. And if not, why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abcon99 Posted December 6, 2006 Report Share Posted December 6, 2006 To Norm: All Harper needs is 38-42% to support, and vote for him, and we stay in and keep fighting. Even if 33-38% support him and the war, he can still stay Prime Minister in a minority parliment, and since he only promised to have the votes before deployment, not that he would listen, we stay in that case. As a Conservative I do not agree that the Prime Minister should have this power, but you Eastern people never let us guys from Alberta change any of the other anti democratic stuff in the country, so why should I cry for you over this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikedavid00 Posted December 6, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2006 Harper can't afford... sorry.. we as tax payers can't afford to reduce waiting times. We simply can't. All we can do is make sure that the people using teh system have paid into it and that's not happening. The only thing that will save our health care system if immigration is not to be elliminated is to open private hospitals and move to a 2 tier healthcare system. There's no other way. Perhaps he should thought about that before promising it in an election. I would have thought you would have said full privatization of healthcare. And if not, why not? Becuase the US has a public system for the poeple that can't afford it. That's why it always has to be a 2 tier system. WHen you got to clinic here in Canada, it's actually a private owned or a franchise and the doctors make money through payments from the gov't. I feel that are whole public system including the hosptials should be like this. Then there are fully private hospitals that do not accept HMO in the US. They have to for emergancy patients though. These hospitlals provide the best care, have their own hellicopters, the highest tech cat-scans and exrays etc. And no waiting times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted December 9, 2006 Report Share Posted December 9, 2006 Why should NATO be taken seriously in this case? NATO was never serious about Afghanistan in the first place - it was all hype by the Americans who didn't take it seriously either. Afghanistan is a lost case any way you look at it and the Europeans aren't as stupid as we are to get their soldiers killed for nothing. Maybe Canada needs to adopt the strategy of most NATO countries...station our troops in northern Afghanistan instead of southern Afghanistan. That way we can still claim to prop up the corrupt Islamic theocracy of Afghanistan, thereby fulfilling the wishes of Harper and NATO, while minimizing risks to Canadian forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.