New Conservative in trouble

[scribblet]

Harper claims that he had no idea about Khan's woes even though Elections Canada deregistered Khan's association before Khan joined the Conservatives. Effectively, Harper claims ignorance as his defense.

Why wasn't he kicked out of the Liberal caucus for this de-registration?

Why has nobody here complained about the Liberals not sanctioning Kahn while he was in their caucus?

Is there any reason for this double-standard?

Good question. It only becomes and issue for the Liberals when Khan switches parties.

The CPC said the PM was not notified of the problems in Mr. Khan's former riding, or of the Elections Canada penalty against the association before Mr. Khan switched parties. They also pointed out that if the Liberal Party, or Elections Canada, de-registers one of their riding associations, they do not notify the Prime Minister.

What we should be asking is why the Liberals were quiet about the riding association problems when Mr. Khan was a Liberal, but have now had a sudden change of heart.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Why would you want to defend this opportunist?

I haven't defended Khan at all. Simply questioned the double-standard of the Liberal supporters here.

Stronach and Brison already went through an election and got re-elected.

They stood as candidates for their party in the General Election immediately following their floor crossing. I am completely confident Khan will do the same.

[madmax]

I haven't defended Khan at all. Simply questioned the double-standard of the Liberal supporters here.

Would you expect any less?

Do you think Wajid Khan is a good addition to the CPC. Do you think he brings accountability and integrity to the party?

[Ricki Bobbi]

Do you think Wajid Khan is a good addition to the CPC?

Yes.

Do you think he brings accountability and integrity to the party?

A mixed bag on that one.

Not the cleanest MP out there, but I guess there are dirtier .... in every caucus.

[HoratioCaine]

Do you think Wajid Khan is a good addition to the CPC?

Yes.

Do you think he brings accountability and integrity to the party?

A mixed bag on that one.

Not the cleanest MP out there, but I guess there are dirtier .... in every caucus.

I imagine you think anyone that brings you closer to 155 is a good addition to the CPC.

[jdobbin]

I imagine you think anyone that brings you closer to 155 is a good addition to the CPC.

Hard to think that he will be elected again in Mississauga. The fact that he doesn't live there has always stuck in the craw of the locals.

[HoratioCaine]

Hopefully he and a lot of his new colleauges go down.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Hopefully he and a lot of his new colleauges go down.

Hey, weren't you just questioning if there were any Liberals I'd like to see win?

Hypocrisy and bralnlesness. Classic Liberal behaviour.

[HoratioCaine]

Hopefully he and a lot of his new colleauges go down.

Hey, weren't you just questioning if there were any Liberals I'd like to see win?

Ok, #1 I said "new" colleagues.

#2

Hypocrisy and bralnlesness. Classic Liberal behaviour.

Hey, enough insulting groups of voters.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Ok, #1 I said "new" colleagues.

So there are no Conservatives you want to see win?

[HoratioCaine]

Ok, #1 I said "new" colleagues.

So there are no Conservatives you want to see win?

Well, no. my flow chart is Liberal, NDP, Green, Conservative. however if the Conservatives could extracate this far right "Alliance" element from their ranks they'd jump to number 2.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Well, no. my flow chart is Liberal, NDP, Green, Conservative. however if the Conservatives could extracate this far right "Alliance" element from their ranks they'd jump to number 2.

Explain your original question?

You ask if there are any Liberals I would like to see win. Ignorant question and I respond by giving MPs I want to see win.

You respond by saying you can't think of one Conservative you want to see win???

There isn't one Conservative who is a credit to the House of Commons and serves his constituents well???

[HoratioCaine]

Well, no. my flow chart is Liberal, NDP, Green, Conservative. however if the Conservatives could extracate this far right "Alliance" element from their ranks they'd jump to number 2.

Explain your original question?

You ask if there are any Liberals I would like to see win. Ignorant question and I respond by giving MPs I want to see win.

You respond by saying you can't think of one Conservative you want to see win???

There isn't one Conservative who is a credit to the House of Commons and serves his constituents well???

Ok, first I'd like to apologize for the question, it was ignorant and I realize that.

However, I do think this conversation can continue without animosity and I'm anxious to do so.

In answer to your question I was being honest. I don't think Conservative MPs are good because I don't think that any aspect of Conservatism is good. This is just a personal feeling here. The only aspect of Conservatism I can sort of get behind is the desire to have a strong military. But while I agree with that I think that my reasons for wanting it are different than manta Conservatism. My reason is I think that Canada should be a beacon of light and peace in the world, and our soldiers should be used in peacekeeping roles and the like. I get the feeling that hard core Conservatives want a strong military because they feel preemptive strikes are the only solution. i.e. Iraq.

[Ricki Bobbi]

In answer to your question I was being honest. I don't think Conservative MPs are good because I don't think that any aspect of Conservatism is good.

Do you honestly feel that we would be running budget surpluses now if there had never been small-c conservatives in the House during the Chretien era?

Do you believe that the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA have been bad things for Canada?

Do you realize that the accords with the US on acid rain were passed by a Conservative Prime Minsiter?

btw, have you really taken a look at the Green Party platform?

[geoffrey]

Do you honestly feel that we would be running budget surpluses now if there had never been small-c conservatives in the House during the Chretien era?

Paul Martin was more a conservative than a Liberal. Biggest cutter of programs in Canada's history. Voted against same-sex marriage as well, before it was vogue to join the pride parade.

[Catchme]

What small c conservatives brought Chretien his budget surpluses? Now you are really stretching it!

[Canadian Blue]

Paul Martin was on the right wing of the party, and yes the Liberal's in a sense were the biggest cutters of government spending.

[scribblet]

I did have some hope for Paul Martin in that respect, but he disappointed as a PM. I for one, have never forgotten his proposal to cut the old age pension benefits. Fortunately it caused enough flak that he had to withdraw it.

He also cut $6.3 billion from provincial transfer payments, causing serious underfunding to health and education. Not to mention his cuts to EI benefits.

[HoratioCaine]

In answer to your question I was being honest. I don't think Conservative MPs are good because I don't think that any aspect of Conservatism is good.

Do you honestly feel that we would be running budget surpluses now if there had never been small-c conservatives in the House during the Chretien era?

Do you believe that the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA have been bad things for Canada?

Do you realize that the accords with the US on acid rain were passed by a Conservative Prime Minsiter?

btw, have you really taken a look at the Green Party platform?

LOL. It there anything good Conservatives haven't done?

Seriously though Conservatives have done some good things in spite of themselves, but what I was saying was to me their overall philosophy is flawed.

Tax cuts > debt reduction.

Looking to pick a fight > Peacekeepers

Private Systems > Public Systems

Missle Defence > Actually freakin talking to rouge states.

Protecting Religion > Gay Rights (This one should be =)

etc. The old Progressive Conservatives, all I felt about them is that they were misguided. But at least I felt like they had Canada's best interests at heart. And when they screwed up as was inevitable we Liberals could comein and fix the mess. This new group however I don't get that feeling. They want to do things to Canada that would damage it so much it would be unfixable. That's why I and a lot of other Liberals are so disturbed by the thought of them gaining a majority.

As for Martin I wasn't a big fan of him either, Chretien was of course one of the best PMs ever and to shove him out the door was unforgivable. I still supported him because the alternative was unthinkable, but it was more a party thing than a leader thing.

[jbg]

In answer to your question I was being honest. I don't think Conservative MPs are good because I don't think that any aspect of Conservatism is good. This is just a personal feeling here.

I have a lot of problems with this statement. The first, obviously, is that conservatives appear to be better at "conserving" a Canadian culture rather than pushing a mishmash called "multiculturalism" on the country. Canada is a great couintry with a great history and great people, and has no need to import the hatreds and strife that make places like Pakistan and Iraq into sh*tholes. Also, conservatism is better at emphasing that real crime, not "politically correct crime" such as gun ownership must be addressed, and now. Also, conservatives are more likely to cooperate with other freedom loving nations in capturing terrorists and those that hate freedom.

The only aspect of Conservatism I can sort of get behind is the desire to have a strong military. But while I agree with that I think that my reasons for wanting it are different than manta Conservatism. My reason is I think that Canada should be a beacon of light and peace in the world, and our soldiers should be used in peacekeeping roles and the like. I get the feeling that hard core Conservatives want a strong military because they feel preemptive strikes are the only solution. i.e. Iraq.

Peace must be made before it can be "kept". Canada needs to assist other Anglosphere countries in maintaining what's left of Pax Brittanica. The US is as much "a beacon of light and peace in the world" by virtue of having accepted so many of the world's needy, and letting them make something of themselves, as did Canada.

[jbg]

Tax cuts > debt reduction.

How does one prevent politicians from using surpluses as "throw around money" which has immediate, politically pleasing results as opposed to debt reduction, which excites only accountants?

Looking to pick a fight > Peacekeepers

Peace has to be made before it's kept. There's a reason that both the Brits and the Romans maintained colonial empires; the people in the areas kept under their thumb posed some danger to the home countries, either their existence or their commercial activities. The Americans, early in their existence, had to swat down the Barbary Coast pirates. The September 11 attacks showed that most of these so-called "independent" Fourth World countries cannot or will not prevent nongovernmental, irregular groups from organizing on their territories to "fight" the rest of the world. The attitude that people of your stripe take is that any retaliation must not affect "innocent civilians". Thus, the West is effectively disabled from protecting itself.

Private Systems > Public Systems

Public systems, with their huge beaurocracies (sp) doen't work all that well in delivering services other than transportation, defense, education and maybe a few others. Even the quality of some of those services leaves something to be desired (I was really unimpressed when I, a Yank, was teaching Peterborough, Ontario schoolteachers who Montcalm and Wolfe were).

Missle Defence > Actually freakin talking to rouge states.

Abouit what? If these "rogue states" cannot control their territories what is the use in talking to them? About how much we should fatten the rulers' Swiss bank accounts? Are leaders such as Assad or the mullahs that really control Iran going to deliver, honest, credible compliance with agreed compromises?

Protecting Religion > Gay Rights (This one should be =)

Has anyone, even the Bible Thumpers, suggested taking away gays' rights to employment, association, etc?

[HoratioCaine]

How does one prevent politicians from using surpluses as "throw around money" which has immediate, politically pleasing results as opposed to debt reduction, which excites only accountants?

Well, you vote Liberal.

There's a reason that both the Brits and the Romans maintained colonial empires

Ah, I see, lets just kill everyone who opposes us.

Public systems, with their huge beaurocracies (sp) doen't work all that well in delivering services other than transportation, defense, education and maybe a few others. Even the quality of some of those services leaves something to be desired (I was really unimpressed when I, a Yank, was teaching Peterborough, Ontario schoolteachers who Montcalm and Wolfe were).

Well that makes me feel much better. Cuz I'd sure rather go in to a private hospital and put my life in to the hands of a system who's only accountability is to shareholders. And I mean seriously who cares if poor people couldn't afford health care or police or firefighters? They shouldn't be so damned poor.

Abouit what? If these "rogue states" cannot control their territories what is the use in talking to them? About how much we should fatten the rulers' Swiss bank accounts? Are leaders such as Assad or the mullahs that really control Iran going to deliver, honest, credible compliance with agreed compromises?

I was referring more to Iraq, North Korea, etc. Afghanistan I will agree is a whole other kettle of fish.

Has anyone, even the Bible Thumpers, suggested taking away gays' rights to employment, association, etc?

Would you say you were going to do these things before you were given the power to do them? Of course not, because then they'd never get voted in.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Would you say you were going to do these things before you were given the power to do them? Of course not, because then they'd never get voted in.

Sort of like the Liberals legalizing SSM without saying they were going to do so in the election?