Harper hits out from the gutter

[scribblet]

alot of the darkness of Steve.

That almost sounds poetic. It also sounds like Stephen-envy to me.

Nobody could envy such depravity in a human, such pettiness, such a mean spirit. That is something to avoid.

Gee it sounds just like someone who just couldn't stand that their idol Stockwell Day lost to Harper so goes ballistic because of it. Talk about mean spirited hmmmm

[CrazyCanuck]

That's exactly the point, though. If they have done no good, and if they present an opportunity to be bad, then they are bad. That is why they were sunsetted in the first place, so that if they did no good, they would fade away.

sorry, but your deductive argument is very flawed. By your logic, anything that could possibly have a negative consequence, is therefore negative by nature. Driving, for example, can POSSIBLY result in bad things happening(like accidents), therefore driving is bad? Voting can possibly result in a negative outcome if an evil man (or the NDP) is voted in, therefore, voting is bad? Drinking water COULD result in poisoning, if the water is not clean, therefore drinking water is bad? Breathing air presents an opportunity to be bad if the air is contaminated. Therefore, breathing air is bad? Hospitals are havens for bacteria and infection, and it is known that sometimes person will get more sick from going to the hospital. Therefore, a hospital presents an opportunity to be bad. So by your logic, hospitals are bad?

[madmax]

Oh yes he is!!! He took $1 billion from the lumber industry and gave it to his buddy Shrub Bush.

Harper wanted a deal for a deals sake. Emerson, who is a Liberal or Conservative on the basis of need, cut the deal.

Just more of the same. I also believe the figure was 500,000 IIRC.

[Remiel]

Nice try. Everyone can clearly see how you completely ignored the first part of the sentence, and focused on the second part, since you were so considerate as to quote it.

Driving has proven to produce good results, as has voting, as has drinking water, as has breathing, as has going to the hospital. The sunset clauses, on the other hand, have not.

[madmax]

Steve is scum.

Elevating the debate?

Decorum would suggest that "Prime Minister Stephen Harper is Scum". No that doesn't seem any better than the actions of Stephen Harper. I am really against this kind of stuff, even if I am trying to bring some humour into the mix.

I don't think this is going to have legs, even if the Conservatives throw more dirt at the Liberals to get peoples attention away from his indescretion. Immediately they went on the attack. Basically suggesting the Liberals support Sikh Terrorists organizations, Islamic Terrorists Organizations. This only lowers the perceptions of the CPC and the Liberals.

No wonder they are stalled in the polls. And Harpers rosy numbers, can depreciate if this does get out of control, like his 2004 gaffe. This could take off all the attention from their bills and could lower any benefits gained from the negative add campaign.

Does sell newspapers though.

[CrazyCanuck]

Nice try. Everyone can clearly see how you completely ignored the first part of the sentence, and focused on the second part, since you were so considerate as to quote it.

Driving has proven to produce good results, as has voting, as has drinking water, as has breathing, as has going to the hospital. The sunset clauses, on the other hand, have not.

I ignored your first premise because it prevents one from ever being able to determine the value of something that has yet to be utilized. You should thank me for that because if i did consider it, your argument becomes the antithesis to itself. I'll explain. You're saying that if something has yet to be proven to be good, and it also can potentially(potentially meaning that it hasn't been, but it could be) yield bad results, then it is bad. Could you not you argue, then, that if something has yet to be proven to be bad, and it can also potentially yield good results, it is therefore good?

And....

since this legislation has yet to produce negative results, and it could potentially lead to a positive result (ie/ solving the crime), it is therefore positive.

[Spike22]

Great Harper laid it on the table get rid of all the terorists in this country no matter their background...or political persuasion

[Remiel]

Positive, when? It may have a potential to do something positive, but that something may never happen, they could be used negatively at any time, however. Temptation can be a powerful thing, and as long as something that can be abused is on the books, people will be tempted to abuse it. Security and liberty must be balanced, and you have to be on the watch for things that upset the balance. It is no good to say that anything that may gives more security one day is good. That is one of the ways authoritarianism and tyranny develop.

[CrazyCanuck]

Positive, when? It may have a potential to do something positive, but that something may never happen, they could be used negatively at any time, however. Temptation can be a powerful thing, and as long as something that can be abused is on the books, people will be tempted to abuse it. Security and liberty must be balanced, and you have to be on the watch for things that upset the balance. It is no good to say that anything that may gives more security one day is good. That is one of the ways authoritarianism and tyranny develop.

the legislation could also be used positively at any time, and may never be used in a negative way. so what? do you honestly not see what is wrong with what you are trying to say?

[Remiel]

I think what I see is that I am failing to get my point across very well here.

Try to scrutinize the two laws a different way: Given a full, rational debate, should they ever have been passed in the first place? The fact that they added sunset clauses is really a strong indicator that the answer is no. The passed them into law for the sake of expediency, essentially putting off having to worry about the ethical implcations for five years. If they had really believed in the merits of them, there would have been no sunset clauses. The clauses themselves can be seen as an admission of the faults of the new laws. It doesn't make sense to renew faulty legislation just because it has been sitting around for five years collecting dust. If anything, perhaps what they should do is allow them to fall off the books, and work on a replacement that is fit to be placed permanently into law.

[CrazyCanuck]

I think what I see is that I am failing to get my point across very well here.

Try to scrutinize the two laws a different way: Given a full, rational debate, should they ever have been passed in the first place? The fact that they added sunset clauses is really a strong indicator that the answer is no. The passed them into law for the sake of expediency, essentially putting off having to worry about the ethical implcations for five years. If they had really believed in the merits of them, there would have been no sunset clauses. The clauses themselves can be seen as an admission of the faults of the new laws. It doesn't make sense to renew faulty legislation just because it has been sitting around for five years collecting dust. If anything, perhaps what they should do is allow them to fall off the books, and work on a replacement that is fit to be placed permanently into law.

The clauses themselves are a check, not an admission of fault. Since there has thus far been no abuse of power or exploitation of the new laws, how is it reasonable to allow them to expire right when they are to be utilized for the first time; when they are necessary in order to conduct a criminal investigation?

The Conservatives aren't trying to renew them because they have been sitting around collecting dust. They believe that the legislation works to protect national security and allow the police to better deal with the threats of terrorism.

Why do so many people on the left fear the police? Overall, I am quite proud of the RCMP. I don't believe that the RCMP are gonna start violating the human rights of Canadian citizens. We have a very honorable and trustworthy police force in this country. You should try and find out what its like to live in a country where you can't trust the cops. Just imagine it: being as scared of the police as you are of the criminals.

Of course, there could be an abuse of power, but that fact is relevent to almost any law. If potentiality for abuse is a precursor to abolish laws, then we really wouldn't be able to have any laws at all because there would be no way to be certain that those assigned to enforce the laws would NEVER abuse the power given to them?

Certainty is generally unattainable. Therefore we must rely on faith in the goodness of things, if we seek to value anything at all.

[Remiel]

The Conservatives also think its OK to violate House rules to make spurious implications about members of Parliaments family who have so far, cooperated with law enforcement agencies. Forgive me if I don't trust them more than one whit.

[Figleaf]

The interesting thing is how that pundits are noticing that Harper's scurrilous attack on MP Bains is part of a pattern of intemperance. And it's true.

He never misses an chance, whether openning a new mall, or greeting a visiting head of state, to slag the former government. (Psssst, Steve-- we know. We voted them out, remember?)

He and his ministers have reduced question period to and even merer vestige of its former self. Question period now goes like this: An opposition member rises with a question, whether a valid technical or constituent issue, or an effort to put a minister on the defensive. The government member then rises to reply -- and ignores the question, ignores the topic of the question, and fires a malicious insult at someone on the other side. It goes on and on.

'OPMP1: Mr Speaker, could the minister of public works please indicate if he has any information on the scheduled date of completion of the bridge in my riding of XYZ (Manitoba)? The town council is budgeting and would like to predict when their portion of the final contract payment will be due.

GOVMINA: Mr Speaker, in 2001 the honorable member voted against the act to enhance sentencing of young offenders which represents the stance of his whole party, soft on crime, and suspiciously soft on children. It's disgusting Mr Speaker.

OPMP2: Mr Speaker, could the Prime Minister indicate his response to the thousands of Canadians seeking a national holiday to brighten our cold dark February?

PMHARPER: Mr Speaker, I read from the record of the family court of Ontario respecting in a case naming the Honorable Member quoting the honorable member's ex spouse, "... he looks at other women, he won't listen, and I don't think he shares the same family values as I do ...". Mr Speaker, clearly the honorable member has more important things to look into than asking me questions here in Parliament.'

[Argus]

He and his ministers have reduced question period to and even merer vestige of its former self. Question period now goes like this: An opposition member rises with a question, whether a valid technical or constituent issue, or an effort to put a minister on the defensive. The government member then rises to reply -- and ignores the question, ignores the topic of the question, and fires a malicious insult at someone on the other side. It goes on and on.

Systemic problems: ie, infrastructure falling apart, health care not working, miltary underfunded, the environment a mess, immigration a mess, happen over many years of neglect and incompetent leadership. The tories have only been in power a year. You cannot honestly blame any systemic problems on them yet because all those problems are a result of years of Liberal government misbehaviour, inactivity or incompetence.

For the Liberals to rise in the house and self-righteously complain to the Tories about our environment, or health care, or any of the other problems they themselves caused can not possibly give rise to any other response from the government.

[Figleaf]

He and his ministers have reduced question period to and even merer vestige of its former self. Question period now goes like this: An opposition member rises with a question, whether a valid technical or constituent issue, or an effort to put a minister on the defensive. The government member then rises to reply -- and ignores the question, ignores the topic of the question, and fires a malicious insult at someone on the other side. It goes on and on.

Systemic problems: ie, infrastructure falling apart, health care not working, miltary underfunded, the environment a mess, immigration a mess, happen over many years of neglect and incompetent leadership. The tories have only been in power a year. You cannot honestly blame any systemic problems on them yet because all those problems are a result of years of Liberal government misbehaviour, inactivity or incompetence.

Peculiar digression there, Argie.

For the Liberals to rise in the house and self-righteously complain to the Tories about our environment, or health care, or any of the other problems they themselves caused can not possibly give rise to any other response from the government.

Any other response than an off topic malicious attack? Of course they could. They could respond on topic, with their actual opinion on the subject. You know, like is intended in Parliamentary tradition.

[scribblet]

Actually what is is disgusting is the Liberal's behaviour in refusing to let him speak, after all after all, they were always allowed to give their spin on questions relating to the sponsorship scandal. Just another example of how they want to deny free speech - absolutely appalling conduct.

Regardless, The Liberal MP in question does have a father in law who is/was a witness in the Air India Bombing so Harper was obviously attempting to use that relationship and the Sun article to emphasize how important it is for the Libs to support anti-terror legislation. It is my understanding that these proceedings (with the father in law as a witness) cannot continue with the change in laws.

Besides, the Libs are hypocrites because didn't they (Bob Rae etal) just a while back make make the same points linking Nav Bains, Omar Alghabra and Tamil activists to terrorism. They also implied they were hijacking the party and shaping Liberal policy based on their own "vendettas" Didn't see the Liberal party getting their knickers in a knot over that one.

[Saturn]

Systemic problems: ie, infrastructure falling apart, health care not working, miltary underfunded, the environment a mess, immigration a mess, happen over many years of neglect and incompetent leadership. The tories have only been in power a year. You cannot honestly blame any systemic problems on them yet because all those problems are a result of years of Liberal government misbehaviour, inactivity or incompetence.

For the Liberals to rise in the house and self-righteously complain to the Tories about our environment, or health care, or any of the other problems they themselves caused can not possibly give rise to any other response from the government.

Much of the systemic problems arise from chronic underfunding, thanks to the Tories who brought Canada to the edge of bankruptcy. Consistent increases in spending and decreases in revenues resulting in piling up debt (the Tory way) is neither possible nor plausible in perpetuity. That Mr. Harper has had the ability to send billions to parents, seniors, the military, etc. and spend another $10 billion in the last 2 months, is entirely due to Liberal incompetence - leaving him with a massive surplus to blow in no time and with a substantially lower debt. Had he inherited his predecessor or Harris, whose buddies are now running Harper's top departments, he would have been buried in deficits and debt.

[Argus]

He and his ministers have reduced question period to and even merer vestige of its former self. Question period now goes like this: An opposition member rises with a question, whether a valid technical or constituent issue, or an effort to put a minister on the defensive. The government member then rises to reply -- and ignores the question, ignores the topic of the question, and fires a malicious insult at someone on the other side. It goes on and on.

Systemic problems: ie, infrastructure falling apart, health care not working, miltary underfunded, the environment a mess, immigration a mess, happen over many years of neglect and incompetent leadership. The tories have only been in power a year. You cannot honestly blame any systemic problems on them yet because all those problems are a result of years of Liberal government misbehaviour, inactivity or incompetence.

Peculiar digression there, Argie.

For the Liberals to rise in the house and self-righteously complain to the Tories about our environment, or health care, or any of the other problems they themselves caused can not possibly give rise to any other response from the government.

Any other response than an off topic malicious attack? Of course they could. They could respond on topic, with their actual opinion on the subject. You know, like is intended in Parliamentary tradition.

I'm not sure how you could say I'm off topic when you were whining about the Tories turning Liberal accusations around on them in the House. Maybe you'd like to tell me what you imagine the topic is.

[Argus]

Systemic problems: ie, infrastructure falling apart, health care not working, miltary underfunded, the environment a mess, immigration a mess, happen over many years of neglect and incompetent leadership. The tories have only been in power a year. You cannot honestly blame any systemic problems on them yet because all those problems are a result of years of Liberal government misbehaviour, inactivity or incompetence.

For the Liberals to rise in the house and self-righteously complain to the Tories about our environment, or health care, or any of the other problems they themselves caused can not possibly give rise to any other response from the government.

Much of the systemic problems arise from chronic underfunding, thanks to the Tories who brought Canada to the edge of bankruptcy

Oh please. This is sheer ignorance on multiple levels. First, the economic problems were caused by Trudeau's thoughtless and arrogant overspending. Second, we had years of surplus budgets - big surpluses - so big Martin played financial games to hide it which would have been illegal anywhere else. And the Liberals didn't show any interest in pouring that money back into the programs they had deprived until the Alliance and Conservatives melded into a new party that actually threatened their hold on power. Only THEN, the taps were turned on and the money was allowed to flow.

[Catchme]

The Conservatives also think its OK to violate House rules to make spurious implications about members of Parliaments family who have so far, cooperated with law enforcement agencies. Forgive me if I don't trust them more than one whit.

Yes, it seems Harper and the CPC, so think they have a right to violate perhaps most anything so they can play dirty politics.

Because there is a bigger breach than just House rules that has occurred.

The information the Van Sun and Harper used, was sealed and secret information, for reasons of National Security, that was somehow, by someone, leaked to the Vancouver Sun.

One wonders why Harper is not inestigating who broke National Security measures and linked the information? Oh, right, he used the leaked information, why would he investigate who broke National Security?

More on this treacherous action in this thread:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....5&gopid=189049&

[hiti]

Liberals question PMO role in leak

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/185323

Ralph Goodale demands to know `who in the government is responsible' for `premeditated slander' against MP Bains

Feb 24, 2007 04:30 AM

bruce campion-smith

ottawa bureau

OTTAWA–Federal Liberals are questioning whether officials in the Prime Minister's Office are responsible for the "politically convenient" leak of security information that caused a furor in the Commons this week.

The revelation that the father-in-law of Liberal MP Navdeep Bains is reportedly on the RCMP's list of potential witnesses for an investigative hearing into the Air India bombing may have even broken the law, Liberal MP Ralph Goodale said yesterday.

"We have seen here the disclosure of secret security information to personally smear a member of Parliament. Canadians need to know who in the government is responsible," Goodale (Wascana) said in question period.

In question period, Goodale noted Harper's staff distributed copies of the newspaper story to reporters on Parliament Hill Wednesday.

"From beginning to end, this was contrived, premeditated slander," he said.

"So let us go right to the source. Who in the government disclosed secret security information? Was it or was it not the Prime Minister's Office?" he asked. -end quote

So this was an orchestrated drive-by-smear by Steve and his PMO. Nice one.

[hiti]

Garth Turner writes on his blog;

PMSH lowered the boom on three senators in the past three days, stripping them of their committee duties, apparently for the crime of having brains that still function.

Another talented guy with old PC roots, Michael Meighen, was also unceremoniously turfed by LeBreton as vice-chair of a committee after leading politicians on a trip to explore what’s happening in Afghanistan. And Segal’s crime seems to be that his committee published a major report critical of the federal government’s aid policy in Africa. The senator also stood up the rights of terror suspects being held in a Canadian prison, and voted against a section of Harper’s Federal Accountability Act.

So, off with his head.

As Liberal Senator Peter Stollery told Canadian Press, “Hugh Segal has been a terrific chairman, he’s a great communicator and I was completely astonished to find that only a few days after we tabled our major report he was forced to resign. You’ll have to ask him. I guess he was fired.”

Of course, Senator Segal is too much the gentleman, and far too Tory, to dump on his political leadership. He’s quoted as saying the loss of his position is all just due to administrative changes.

But there’s a pattern here. Let’s hope Canadians discern it in time. -end quote

More from CP; http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/070221/n0221127A.html

Stevie just can't stand anyone disagreeing with him. LOLOLOLOL

[B. Max]

Garth Turner writes on his blog;

Of course, Senator Segal is too much the gentleman, and far too Tory,

Stevie just can't stand anyone disagreeing with him. LOLOLOLOL

I thought Segal was an original red Tory. Since he should not have been there in the first place it's time he was turfed.

[geoffrey]

Garth's blog is so full of inconsistancies when you compare it to the rest of the news. He's more trouble then worth to anyone, and he's nearly libel territory with some of his claims IMO. He doesn't get parliamentary privledge with his blog.

[hiti]

Garth's blog is so full of inconsistancies when you compare it to the rest of the news. He's more trouble then worth to anyone, and he's nearly libel territory with some of his claims IMO. He doesn't get parliamentary privledge with his blog.

CP reported the same as Turner.