Liberal Khan to cross floor to Tory backbench

[mikedavid00]

(like a down payment on a condo in this crazy city).

You should get a house. Better investment

Here's one

[mikedavid00]

MikeDavid is far from representative of most Conservatives.

... in Canada.

[Argus]

How ironic that most of us won't vote Liberal because they can't be trusted.

Well, now you have two Liberals in the caucus. You can show just how true that is by not voting for them next election. Afterall, they can't trusted.

Perhaps they only take in those very few Liberals who CAN be trusted.

[Argus]

Then that would seem to make it a rather universal argument, would it not?

So much for not doing things differently.

Despite what many of you on that side of the fence like to pretend, there is not really very much ideological difference between the two main parties. And many of their main policies are designed more for what they think Canadians want - to get votes - then any personal belief in its rightness.

The Liberals, however, are rotten from the inside. I'm sure many of their MPs and members are well-meaning. But the party hierarchy and controlling leadership is morally and intellectually corrupt and bankrupt, and cares about nothing and no one but power. That is the main reason I hold them in contempt, and support the Tories.

[Argus]

Your fellow conservative MikeDavid has made that suggestion over and over.

MikeDavid is far from representative of most Conservatives.

Actually, in many ways, he does represent those sometimes called "lunchbucket" conservatives. And much of what he says is not that far off from conservative mainstream thinking.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Actually, in many ways, he does represent those sometimes called "lunchbucket" conservatives. And much of what he says is not that far off from conservative mainstream thinking.

You say that about MD00 but you say the following below.

Despite what many of you on that side of the fence like to pretend, there is not really very much ideological difference between the two main parties. And many of their main policies are designed more for what they think Canadians want - to get votes - then any personal belief in its rightness.

If MD00 truly represents Conservative *mainstream* thinking why is the CPC so ideologically similar to the Liberals?

[jdobbin]

Despite what many of you on that side of the fence like to pretend, there is not really very much ideological difference between the two main parties. And many of their main policies are designed more for what they think Canadians want - to get votes - then any personal belief in its rightness.

The Liberals, however, are rotten from the inside. I'm sure many of their MPs and members are well-meaning. But the party hierarchy and controlling leadership is morally and intellectually corrupt and bankrupt, and cares about nothing and no one but power. That is the main reason I hold them in contempt, and support the Tories.

Funny, and that is how the other side characterizes the Tories.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Funny, and that is how the other side characterizes the Tories.

Uhh, but here is the rub. And a valid response to the "I know you are but what am I" response to the Liberals moral corruption.

Justice Gomery proved Liberal party operatives stole $1.14 Million of taxpayer money.

Any proof for the claims of Conservative moral corruption???

[madmax]

Despite what many of you on that side of the fence like to pretend, there is not really very much ideological difference between the two main parties. And many of their main policies are designed more for what they think Canadians want - to get votes - then any personal belief in its rightness.

I can't see the difference, can you see the difference, is there a difference?

Just the smell.

[madmax]

Perhaps they only take in those very few Liberals who CAN be trusted.

I have never heard such a load of bollocks. Both Emerson and Khan are opportunists. Both Claim to switch parties to serve their country. Plenty of Liberals and Conservatives switch parties. Some have ran for Liberal in 2004 only to support a conservative in 2006. Some have ran campaigns for the Conservatives in 2006 only to support a Liberal in a bi election. This is going on behind the scenes, and most of it to me seems personally motivated.

Party switchers aren't to be trusted, nor does one count on their re election.

[madmax]

Actually, in many ways, he does represent those sometimes called "lunchbucket" conservatives. And much of what he says is not that far off from conservative mainstream thinking.

Mike David, Conservative Mainstream Thinking.

I'll listen to the Silent Majority instead.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Mike David, Conservative Mainstream Thinking.

That's just more of the same old same old *scary* scary* *scary*...

[mikedavid00]

Actually, in many ways, he does represent those sometimes called "lunchbucket" conservatives. And much of what he says is not that far off from conservative mainstream thinking.

I agree mostly with Lou Dobb's, Bill O'reilly, and Pat Buchanan.

Everyone can laugh at me sure, but I actually find Buchanan to be a 'great'. A historic writer of our times. A living legend. Only after we're all dead will they look back his writings and see the things he was able to predict:

"I couldn’t imagine life without multiculturalism. Of course, I recognize the destructiveness of multiculturalism as a policy or agenda. We know how the Left exploits multiculturalism as a vehicle to wreak havoc in society."

"Overall, Buchanan is right that certain peoples and nationalities are shrinking, while others expand. Yes, in some contexts, there is a threat in this phenomenon. For instance, Buchanan is correct that there exists a danger that the United States today harbors a "nation within a nation," in the sense that an Islamic-Arab-African invasion has created millions of American citizens who not only have failed to assimilate in America, but are hostile to it and seek to destroy it from within."

"Buchanan makes some legitimate points in regard to the ethnic population growth. Yes, it is undeniable that there are certain groups and cultures that do not assimilate into the American melting pot, and they do pose a danger to American society in terms of the hegemony they might gain – and in some cases have already gained. This danger needs to be addressed."

"Buchanan is right that the presidency of Bill Clinton revealed the Left's success in overthrowing the old moral order, along with its standards of truth, virtue, and justice. To be sure, there is a serious problem in the contempt for Western civilization that the Left has nurtured, and Buchanan is correct in emphasizing that Conservatives are losing the culture war.

"Buchanan deserves much credit in demonstrating how Leftist intellectuals have succeeded in destroying the sacredness of the nuclear family, since they have worked, for years, to trivialize and minimize the importance of the father in the family. As we know, the destruction of the nuclear family is one of the main vehicles through which Marxism seeks to destroy civil society."

"Christianity has been, and is, under attack by the Left and the secularists. American is being de-Christianized and Christianity must be defended. Indeed, Christians are today one of the few groups that are not protected by the hypocrisy inherent in political correctness. For instance, a painting of a crucifix submerged in a bucket of urine can be hung in a publicly funded art gallery and defended as free speech. But imagine if the crucifix were replaced by an image of the prophet Mohammed."

"I have painstakingly searched to find one redeeming aspect of Islamic culture, and after an agonizing search I must admit that I have desisted from the experiment in despair. So I agree with Buchanan that a great threat exists from Islam within America." - years later and read my sig.

Funny to see how everything is falling into place.

[mikedavid00]

Actually, in many ways, he does represent those sometimes called "lunchbucket" conservatives. And much of what he says is not that far off from conservative mainstream thinking.

Mike David, Conservative Mainstream Thinking.

I'll listen to the Silent Majority instead.

Well I mean.. Conservative ideoligies would be Preston Manning, Bill O'Rielly, Lou Dobbs and such. The modern CPC party IMO is a left wing party or center at best. A true right wing, conservative party wouldn't be allowing me as a tax payer to fund the 20,000 people a month who wander into Canada on a monthly basis. It violates right wing fundementatls.

Also, conservatives believe in family values and religion. We care about each other as humans. We don't have a cold athiest 'screw you' view on our fellow citizens. We have pride, we're not self loathing or self hating. We wouldn't let our own die in hallways of hospitals. We would surely allow private healthcare in Canada.

I don't expect anyone here to have real conservative values at heart due to the CBC or just growing up in Canada. I must admit, I never really whatched Canadian TV or news growing up. I'm very used to CNN, Fox, and American TV. I don't 'get' the Canadian dictatorship style of governance. It's illogical to me. I actually feel very American at heart. I feel the gov't belongs to the people. But it doesn't. The system is setup to be corrupt and to leverage to keep parties in power. It's a non-democratic game. ALmost a joke if you will. It's old world. It's not North American.

Harper is playing politics for votes and certainly doesn't live up to conservative ideoligy. I do think it's an act until he gets a majority. I do believe he wants to fix the country and knows what's wrong with it.

[geoffrey]

Both Emerson and Khan are opportunists. Both Claim to switch parties to serve their country.

Wrong. Emerson wasn't an opportunist. If he was operating for personal gain, he'd be a lumber CEO right now, not earning an pitance in Ottawa. Emerson was acting, whether you agree with him or not, in what he believed to be the best interests of Canadians.

I tend to agree with Mr. Emerson and have a great deal of respect for him.

[jdobbin]

Wrong. Emerson wasn't an opportunist. If he was operating for personal gain, he'd be a lumber CEO right now, not earning an pitance in Ottawa. Emerson was acting, whether you agree with him or not, in what he believed to be the best interests of Canadians.

I tend to agree with Mr. Emerson and have a great deal of respect for him.

Emerson might not have been doing what was in the interest of his constituency. By all accounts, he runs behind whoever will be running for the Liberals next time.

[geoffrey]

Wrong. Emerson wasn't an opportunist. If he was operating for personal gain, he'd be a lumber CEO right now, not earning an pitance in Ottawa. Emerson was acting, whether you agree with him or not, in what he believed to be the best interests of Canadians.

I tend to agree with Mr. Emerson and have a great deal of respect for him.

Emerson might not have been doing what was in the interest of his constituency. By all accounts, he runs behind whoever will be running for the Liberals next time.

That's the idea of parliamentary democracy. Don't represent your constitutants, you get the boot.

[jdobbin]

That's the idea of parliamentary democracy. Don't represent your constitutants, you get the boot.

Very true. But at least he got a limber deal. I think. He did get the lumber deal, didn't he?

[jdobbin]

Khan's report that was promised to all political parties is now only for the Tories.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National