Harper's Flights...

[Topaz]

IF anyone thinks that Harper is pure as the driven -snow, well, the snow isn't pure any more and Harper and his gang aren't either! One only has to listen to what they say for their answers in the House of Commons. I haven't heard a sane answer from this group yet and when I think about it I haven't heard an actual answer to a question put to them!

[Argus]

This is another example of the lying and drive by smears of Steve and his conservatives. As Ralph Goodale says they are a, "bully who stoops to "character assassination ... slur, innuendo, falsehood and personal abuse" to score cheap political points."

And when they are caught in their lies.... like the canceled cheques from the Liberal party paying for personal use of the jets, there is no virtues displayed or retractions given. Seems like Steve and his conservatives do not have a hint of decency in their bodies. No sense of what is right and wrong. No compassion. No honour or honesty. Not even any dignity or self-respect in lying about the Liberal party and its MPs.

Their mamas must be hiding their heads in shame at the lack of ethics and morals displayed by Steve and company.

Maybe we could get some Liberals to teach them ethics, eh, like the ones who meet in dark Italian restaurants to slide stolen cash across the table in brown envelopes? Or maybe those lawyers who provided free legal services to the Liberals during election time in exchange for judge's robes? Maybe Martin could tell them about t the ethics of going to a fund raising dinner for a terrorist group. Or Chretien could talk to them about pressuring a government bank to loan money to a man who owes him money - a man who never paid it back - and then getting the RCMP to raid the home of the fired bank president who complains about it all.

Or just as well, all you Liberals who blissfully accepted all of that and so very much more, and now have the balls to snivel about ethics as if you knew what they were.

But of course, if ethics mattered to you at all you wouldn't be a Liberal.

[guyser]

Maybe we could get some Liberals to teach them ethics, eh, like the ones who meet in dark Italian restaurants to slide stolen cash across the table in brown envelopes? Or maybe those lawyers who provided free legal services to the Liberals during election time in exchange for judge's robes? Maybe Martin could tell them about t the ethics of going to a fund raising dinner for a terrorist group. Or Chretien could talk to them about pressuring a government bank to loan money to a man who owes him money - a man who never paid it back - and then getting the RCMP to raid the home of the fired bank president who complains about it all.

Or just as well, all you Liberals who blissfully accepted all of that and so very much more, and now have the balls to snivel about ethics as if you knew what they were.

But of course, if ethics mattered to you at all you wouldn't be a Liberal.

Just more pot meets kettle don't you think ?

I guess if you boil it all down, we are amused by the hypocrisy of the CPC...sqawk sqawk sqawk then get in power and do the same.

Ethics are mutually levelling device. Neither side has any authority

[Argus]

Just more pot meets kettle don't you think ?

I guess if you boil it all down, we are amused by the hypocrisy of the CPC...sqawk sqawk sqawk then get in power and do the same.

Without admitting this is entirely true - how, exactly, does this make you any better?

Perfectly fine with all the Liberals do, then squawk, squawk, squawk at the Tories doing similar things on a smaller scale.

[Who's Doing What?]

Just more pot meets kettle don't you think ?

I guess if you boil it all down, we are amused by the hypocrisy of the CPC...sqawk sqawk sqawk then get in power and do the same.

Without admitting this is entirely true - how, exactly, does this make you any better?

Perfectly fine with all the Liberals do, then squawk, squawk, squawk at the Tories doing similar things on a smaller scale.

You are missing the point. It is not the Liberals who are saying they are or were better. It was and is the Conservatives who ran an entire campaign on how they were different and morally and ethically superior to the Liberals and then turn around and showed within days of being elected that they are the same, and they have done nothing but continue this trend.

The hypocracy is, as guyser said, amusing. The blind faith of some in this govt. is even more so.

[guyser]

Without admitting this is entirely true - how, exactly, does this make you any better?

You are missing the point. It is not the Liberals who are saying they are or were better. It was and is the Conservatives who ran an entire campaign on how they were different and morally and ethically superior to the Liberals and then turn around and showed within days of being elected that they are the same, and they have done nothing but continue this trend.

The hypocracy is, as guyser said, amusing. The blind faith of some in this govt. is even more so.

That is as precise an answer as I could have given.

[Argus]

Perfectly fine with all the Liberals do, then squawk, squawk, squawk at the Tories doing similar things on a smaller scale.

You are missing the point. It is not the Liberals who are saying they are or were better. It was and is the Conservatives who ran an entire campaign on how they were different and morally and ethically superior to the Liberals

They are ethically and morally superior to the Liberals. But they are still politicians and they are still working within the political system of Canada. Anyone who expected them to be Mother Theresa in office must be pretty damned naive.

[Argus]

That is as precise an answer as I could have given.

And that's what's so sad about you all. Because, in effect, what you are saying is:

"Well, yes, the Liberals I support were crooks and liars, and yes I'm a God damned hypocrite" but you're no better!"

I mean, that IS your argument, that IS what all this boils down to. And the moment your party is back in power all your concern about misuse of aircraft, and patronage and waste will evaporate. And then you have the gall to accuse others of hypocrisy.

[jdobbin]

They are ethically and morally superior to the Liberals. But they are still politicians and they are still working within the political system of Canada. Anyone who expected them to be Mother Theresa in office must be pretty damned naive.

The hypocrisy of doing the same thing they accused the Liberals of doing pretty much defines Harper and the Conservatives. They have no ethical leg to stand on.

[Argus]

They are ethically and morally superior to the Liberals. But they are still politicians and they are still working within the political system of Canada. Anyone who expected them to be Mother Theresa in office must be pretty damned naive.

The hypocrisy of doing the same thing they accused the Liberals of doing pretty much defines Harper and the Conservatives. They have no ethical leg to stand on.

You're standing on the same leg.

And to repeat, they aren't as bad as the Liberals, not by a long shot.

[jdobbin]

You're standing on the same leg.

And to repeat, they aren't as bad as the Liberals, not by a long shot.

In your opinion. Conservatives seem to justify everything they do by saying that the Liberals did it first and that they are not as bad. It is actually kind of amusing to hear.

[Argus]

You're standing on the same leg.

And to repeat, they aren't as bad as the Liberals, not by a long shot.

In your opinion. Conservatives seem to justify everything they do by saying that the Liberals did it first and that they are not as bad. It is actually kind of amusing to hear.

And how do you justify wanting the same, corrupt Liberals back in power?

[jdobbin]

And how do you justify wanting the same, corrupt Liberals back in power?

I certainly don't want corruption back.

My preference, since this thread is about flights, is that an independent body (not the PMO) sets the rates for flights.

[Argus]

And how do you justify wanting the same, corrupt Liberals back in power?

I certainly don't want corruption back.

My preference, since this thread is about flights, is that an independent body (not the PMO) sets the rates for flights.

You are trying to deal with symptoms rather than the disease. The thing to focus on is not how much the damned things cost but the requirements placed upon those who use them to justify their use.

In my opinion, you can't lead without traveling around the country. Yes, that means on political missions - since our leader is a politician. And yes, that means by plane. Should the Opposition leader get the same benefit? I don't think so. Harper, whether you like it or not, is Prime Minister, and he gets the perks of that job, including the car, house, cottage and plane. For security reasons, and out of simple practicality, wherever he goes we take him, wherever he stays, we pay for it. I really don't have a problem with any of that - within reason.

The problem with Chretien was that he jetted all over the world on alleged government business which was really nothing more than vacations and sight-seeing, and he did it so damned often, and with so many people traveling along with him. I mean, I really didn't have a problem with him taking the jet to Florida for a golfing vacation, or wouldn't have if he didn't take about six or seven extended vacations every year on our dime.

And his cabinet was the same, most of them people of no consequence in roles of no significance, flying all over the place on government jets on personal and party business.

[jdobbin]

You are trying to deal with symptoms rather than the disease. The thing to focus on is not how much the damned things cost but the requirements placed upon those who use them to justify their use.

In my opinion, you can't lead without traveling around the country. Yes, that means on political missions - since our leader is a politician. And yes, that means by plane. Should the Opposition leader get the same benefit? I don't think so. Harper, whether you like it or not, is Prime Minister, and he gets the perks of that job, including the car, house, cottage and plane. For security reasons, and out of simple practicality, wherever he goes we take him, wherever he stays, we pay for it. I really don't have a problem with any of that - within reason.

The problem with Chretien was that he jetted all over the world on alleged government business which was really nothing more than vacations and sight-seeing, and he did it so damned often, and with so many people traveling along with him. I mean, I really didn't have a problem with him taking the jet to Florida for a golfing vacation, or wouldn't have if he didn't take about six or seven extended vacations every year on our dime.

And his cabinet was the same, most of them people of no consequence in roles of no significance, flying all over the place on government jets on personal and party business.

I can't recall advocating the Opposition get an aircraft for government business.

Nor have I ever defended Chretien's frivolous use of aircraft.

I did say that Martin paid for his flights despite what Tories said. I also said those flights costs exactly what Harper is paying now.

Harper said the flights cost $11,000. Now, the PMO seems to set the rates. This is wrong. Someone independent of the PMO needs to set the rates for flights. The question of flights needs to be taken out of the political arena.

[Saturn]

They are ethically and morally superior to the Liberals. But they are still politicians and they are still working within the political system of Canada. Anyone who expected them to be Mother Theresa in office must be pretty damned naive.

LOL! They sure are morally superior. Made a huge fuss about every cent of spending by the Liberals and then turned around and did worse. They are a bunch of hypocrites and shameless liars who talk about transparency and accountability, yet their actions show an enormous disconnect from what comes out of their mouths.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Get a grip people. Governments cost money to operate. Get over it. We should be thankful that Harper doesn't want to go out an buy a A-380 or something. As it stands we spend very little on the gravy train compared to other country's.

It could be far worse than it is. Want to talk about needless expense, then consider the Senate and the Governor General, these folks are not even elected but cost many millions of dollars a year.

[jdobbin]

Get a grip people. Governments cost money to operate. Get over it. We should be thankful that Harper doesn't want to go out an buy a A-380 or something. As it stands we spend very little on the gravy train compared to other country's.

It could be far worse than it is. Want to talk about needless expense, then consider the Senate and the Governor General, these folks are not even elected but cost many millions of dollars a year.

Governor-Generals are cheaper than elected heads of state. There have been several studies on that subject.

As far as the Senate goes, I agree. Abolish it.

I just don't want to open the Constitution unnecessarily.

As far as the flights go, let an independent body set the rates and then bill for non-government service.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It is necessary to open the constitution. Native land claims, democratic reforms and a list of many other issues require it. The government with the balls to do it will be beaten up for sure. Yet they will gain a great measure of respect for the effort. The largest opponent for this effort will come from the business community because it will divert government attention that has been bought and paid for by millions of dollars expended in lobby efforts.

[jdobbin]

It is necessary to open the constitution. Native land claims, democratic reforms and a list of many other issues require it. The government with the balls to do it will be beaten up for sure. Yet they will gain a great measure of respect for the effort. The largest opponent for this effort will come from the business community because it will divert government attention that has been bought and paid for by millions of dollars expended in lobby efforts.

I think it will be political suicide to open the Constitution and have it open ended as you say.

[Saturn]

Get a grip people. Governments cost money to operate. Get over it. We should be thankful that Harper doesn't want to go out an buy a A-380 or something.

He didn't buy A-380s. He just spend $8 billion on other planes and helicopters (handing the contract to a company of his choice without allowing other companies to bid for it).

[Who's Doing What?]

Perfectly fine with all the Liberals do, then squawk, squawk, squawk at the Tories doing similar things on a smaller scale.

You are missing the point. It is not the Liberals who are saying they are or were better. It was and is the Conservatives who ran an entire campaign on how they were different and morally and ethically superior to the Liberals

They are ethically and morally superior to the Liberals. But they are still politicians and they are still working within the political system of Canada. Anyone who expected them to be Mother Theresa in office must be pretty damned naive.

LMAO You really are blinded by your partisanship. They are the same. Both are a bunch of unethical liars who will do whatever suits them.

[Who's Doing What?]

That is as precise an answer as I could have given.

And that's what's so sad about you all. Because, in effect, what you are saying is:

"Well, yes, the Liberals I support were crooks and liars, and yes I'm a God damned hypocrite" but you're no better!"

I mean, that IS your argument, that IS what all this boils down to. And the moment your party is back in power all your concern about misuse of aircraft, and patronage and waste will evaporate. And then you have the gall to accuse others of hypocrisy.

The very same could be said of you and your blind devotion to Harper. How sad. You keep defending his "ethics" when he has time and again shown he has little or none. Atleast no more than the Liberals he replaced.

Is not the entire CPC argument " But we're not as bad as the Liberals." Like jeez man set the bar a little higher. Who cares if the CPC are a step above or below the Liberals on the Sleeze scale. They said they wouldn't be on it at all. INTEGRITY was the main focus of the campaign. It turned out to just be something that got tossed out the window within days of gettng elected.

[guyser]

And to repeat, they aren't as bad as the Liberals, not by a long shot.

Give them time, it took the Libs awhile to figure out how to scam.

This is the problem. You are saying that the CPC is not as bad. Perhaps not. But that is immaterial to the discussion.

CPC campaigned on being better, more open, more honest.

Now they get the keys, look out over the landscape from the vestibule, and say....hehehehe, lets see whats in the vault.

Two young boys, two broken windows but one small and one big window. Can one of those boys smile because his window was not "not as big as the other, not by a long shot"?

[Argus]

They are ethically and morally superior to the Liberals. But they are still politicians and they are still working within the political system of Canada. Anyone who expected them to be Mother Theresa in office must be pretty damned naive.

LOL! They sure are morally superior. Made a huge fuss about every cent of spending by the Liberals and then turned around and did worse.

They did worse? By what bizarro interpretation of facts and history do you deem them to have done worse? Direct comparisons, please.

They are a bunch of hypocrites and shameless liars who talk about transparency and accountability, yet their actions show an enormous disconnect from what comes out of their mouths.

Gee, and them politicians too. I seem to recall Jean Chretien boasting that lobbyists were going to have to find another job because none would be making any money in Ottawa now that he had taken over. What a joke that turned out to be.