the next federal elections

[old_bold&cold]

The whole problem of picking a PM is that there really is no one person who would meet everyone's idea of what they wish for in the party and the man. I am old and retired and I have lived thru the likes of many Liberal PM's and I also was so very mad at Mulroney and the ings he did just before leaving, that I wished someone would have just blown head head off. Chretien and most of the liberal party I feel should be jailed for all the corrupt things that went on during their time, so I will never conside the Liberals ever again until I can see that everyone who were members of the party during this time, are gone. I will not forgive any of them, as they all were part of the corruption and they did nothing to speak up about it. So they are all not worthy of holding any office in government ever again, in my own view. Dion is nothing but a place holder only there because he was the lesser of a problem then all the others running for leader. I personally think of him as an idiot, and can not help but smile when he proposes things as he does not do a very good job of explaining anything. I must also say I wonder at those who still support the liberal party, as it does make me try to imagine just how far it have to go before they see that corruption is not supposed to be part of daily workings of the government.

So yes you can say that Harper is my man, for now atleast, as there really is not much else to choose fom is there? I do think that he should be given the chance at a majority. Mostly because I think that he may well then go after the rest of the corrupt Liberals who thing they have managed to slide under the legal radar. If it has not been made clear by me yet, I want revenge, and I want to know that those in government who are caught in the corruption, will be tried and sentenced to the maximum allowed by law. Because they who are in those positions of trust, who then use those positions to do their corruption deserve the max sentence, they are far worse then any other kind of criminal.

Because of the Liberals I now can not trust anyone anymore. It has made be question even the small things, only because that is where you will see the roots of the bigger things lieing in wait of a chance to again betray the Canadian people. I never bothered much about thinking about how I was being used by the government, until I started seeing just how things were going. I saw here in Ottawa how much of the government courier contracts were being signed and deals made while playing golf at Upplands Golf course. The payback and graft was not even hidden back then. Printing contracts were dependent on donations made to the Liberal Party. I remeber on Printer being very Upset when Mulroney came to power, because that meant a whole new set of things that may or maynot be corruptible, as opposed to the already known and corrupted Liberal methods. There still were many openly questionable practices, where people and companies would work on MP"S cottages for no charge. Does anyone even think that there was not corruption going on for those things to happen. I could go on and on. It was more of the fact that I saw what I did and thought it was not my place to report it and so on. But then it got to be even worse and finally lead up to the Sponsorship scandal. I can tell you that was not even a small part of what was going on. I am glad that the liberals are gone and I hope they are gone for at least 3 decades, because as I said before, I will not ever consider them until I am sure that all those that were here during that time are long gone.

Harper has done many things I disagree with but he has also done many that i do agree with. I do not see the corruption in the higher government levels, but the civil service and its apointees, are still getting things done in ways they should not do. I can only hope that once Harper does get a majority, that it look inward to the civil service and give it a good cleaning, as that also is long over due. If I caught Harper being corrupt or his party being that same way, I would drop him in a heart beat. For now I just hope that things proceed on time and on track. The liberal know that to bring down the PC's now, they would probaly still lose and may even give him that majority. So I do not think that will happen. But it does seem to me that the PC's may make it so they themselves can call for an election. The Liberal holding things up in the senate, will soon be enough cause for doing so. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

[CLRV]

I'd be willing to bet that if you looked, you'd find that most of the things Harper has done that you liked were under pressure from the NDP in exchange for their not swinging parliamentary votes against the PC's flimsy minority government and triggering an election Harper knows he'd lose. It's a safe bet that if such a threat of loss didn't exist, the PC's would be up to the same skullduggery that made you (and most of the rest of Canada) hate Mulroney so much.

Maybe you should consider voting NDP for a change.

[old_bold&cold]

Oh you have got to be kidding me right? Flap Jack Layton and the NDP do not have any policies that Iwould ever want even considered by any party. I look at the NDP as being the court jester. Also if you look at the ways and methods that they do all their posturing, it would be like babes in the woods for those who are just waiting for a method to go back to the old corruption. I think a vote for the NDP as one less for the Liberals but I never even try to look at it ever being taken from the PC's.

I do not mean to be so offensive in my reply but I truly believe that when calling NDP candidates into parliament they should just paly the theme "Send in the Clowns". I may want to see the PC's slightly more left, but never as far left as the NDP. I would rather see the government go down and a vote held then ever let the NDP manage to apply their agendas in anything. Anything done by Harper to get deals made with NDP, would probably be considered by me as the things I disagree with what Harper has done. It is the soul selling that was in the government that I want to see stamped out almost as much as the corruption.

[Fortunata]

He has served as either official leader of the opposition or Prime Minister for 3 1/2 years now.

You can count Iraq as a flip flop if you want.

The firewall letter ain't all that bad. Harper's basic governing philosophy is in line with the contents of the letter. So judge him on what he has done recently which is in line with the contents of the letter.

Health care? Hmmm, the two-tier health care booger man again?

The Environment? They are setting solid goals on emissions reductions. Buying carbon credits is just plain stupid. A made in Canada solution is the best thing for Canadians.

The instillation of fear is pathetic. The people crying scary scary scary 'if he gets a majority' are the same one's who were crying scary scary scary 'if he ever becomes PM'. That's a pretty big flop flop there.

See you write off legitimate concerns with flippancy and your scary, scary, scary mantra but those concerns are keeping your Cons in minority territory. You spout history and yet, when given history, you go hmmm, the two-tier health care booger man. Well that's the history; you try to discount it but you can't change it.

[M.Dancer]

Maybe you should consider voting NDP for a change.

How do you politically articulate limp wristed surrender?

[Michael Bluth]

See you write off legitimate concerns with flippancy and your scary, scary, scary mantra but those concerns are keeping your Cons in minority territory. You spout history and yet, when given history, you go hmmm, the two-tier health care booger man. Well that's the history; you try to discount it but you can't change it.

What has Harper done since becoming PM to push forward two-tier health care?

Bonus points to anyone who gets the booger man allusion.

[old_bold&cold]

I really find it hard to again be taken in by the scary Healthcare and two teirs or three teirs, or what ever they want to call it now. To me I know that I can get my health care for non threatening things is a delayed but starting to be reasonable time frame. If there were another teir to the system, then it would make much more room for those who can not aford it, and therefore quicker times, because those who can afford it can pay extra and get theirs in the ways they want. I no longer fear two teir healthcare, as long as the basic teir has al the same coverages, as the higher teir and on issues where things are life threatening are really as timely as each other. Let me just say that being retired and on pension I would not pay the extra for the higher teir, but I do not begrudge those who think it is in their best interests to do so. Hell those who can afford it always had the ability to fly else where and get special tratment for any and everything. Even organ transplant. So you tell me just why would having two teir be so bad, as long as the basic teir was equal to the present quality of care and rose equally with the same changes over time?

The other arguements you propose are also not really things I would want to see an election run on, as there are more important issues with protecting Canada's north and it resources. Being able to defend our lands and have reasonably well equipped Armed Forces. I would love to see the federal government take on some large scale infastructure projects aimed aat allowing better roads across Canada. Such as a truly 4 lane transCanada hwy. or maybe even roads to finally go to James Bay and Hudson Bay. year round roads to our northeren territories. These are the kind of things I would like to see happen. I would also like to know that I can feel secure in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that no government can over-ride any of these things, no matter if it is times of war or disaster. I want a government that will actually say where the limits are on every agreement they make, and have that put plainly in the first paragraph of all agreements, so we all know the spirit and limit of scope this agreement has. I also want to see that no documents held but our security agencies are kept for the public for the so called publics safety. That has been used to hide way too much illegal activity by the government, and it should not be allowed to go on.

So yes I can also say flipancy is not a good way of getting things done, but I can also say that gievn the way things have been getting done is also a good reason for people to be flipant about it. Sometimes it just is an easy way to deal with it.

[M.Dancer]

What has Harper done since becoming PM to push forward two-tier health care?

Bonus points to anyone who gets the booger man allusion.

Not categorically oppose it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Expect the notion to return to the table this fall after the talks with Mexico and the United States have once again attempted to harmonize Fortress North America. Make no mistake folks our economic prosperity depends on a strong union of these three countries. Unless you want to anger the Americans, then you would want to diversify our trade interests and go with the Pacific Rim concept. Either way, the Conservatives are in for a rough ride with declining manufacturing in Ontario and rising costs from Quebec.

[Argus]

I'd be willing to bet that if you looked, you'd find that most of the things Harper has done that you liked were under pressure from the NDP in exchange for their not swinging parliamentary votes against the PC's flimsy minority government and triggering an election Harper knows he'd lose. It's a safe bet that if such a threat of loss didn't exist, the PC's would be up to the same skullduggery that made you (and most of the rest of Canada) hate Mulroney so much.

People got tired of Mulroney's attitude. The honesty of his government was no worse, and in many cases better than that of Trudeau, which preceded him, and certainly than Chretien's, which followed.

I see nothing to indicate an agreement with the NDP on any particular issue. If the NDP thought it could do better in an election - and certainly if the Liberals thought they could - they'd have been pushing for one, not temporizing as they've been doing. If there was an election now it would be unlikely to result in any serious changes. Most likely the Tories would lose a few seats in Quebec, and pick up a few more seats in Ontario, but still be well shy of a majority.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Argus

[Michael Bluth]

I see nothing to indicate an agreement with the NDP on any particular issue. If the NDP thought it could do better in an election - and certainly if the Liberals thought they could - they'd have been pushing for one, not temporizing as they've been doing. If there was an election now it would be unlikely to result in any serious changes. Most likely the Tories would lose a few seats in Quebec, and pick up a few more seats in Ontario, but still be well shy of a majority.

The Conservatives would assuredly pick up seats. Enough for a majority? Probably not.

With the fixed election date law it is becoming less and less likely this Government will tumble before October 2009.

A lot can change in 2 years, so it will be interesting to see how things shake out.

[flaquisimo]

The Conservatives would assuredly pick up seats. Enough for a majority? Probably not.

With the fixed election date law it is becoming less and less likely this Government will tumble before October 2009.

A lot can change in 2 years, so it will be interesting to see how things shake out.

Michael,

I feel that you have a very realistic view of the next election. Political parties - the reactionary as well as the democratic ones - are really private clubs to advance the interest of the inner sanctum of the parties. Polical parties are the antitesis of democracy because they divide the people and the society becomes a bunch of groups fighting for power for the sake of power. The most you can expect - as I proposed to launch this interesting debate - is a temporary coalition of the center and left to defeat the present reactionary government of Harper. Once in power, the coalition would implement all the promises on which they would have won, and then they can disband to return to politics as a fight among priviledged groups that want to have power over the others.

If not, Bush will continue governing Canada.

Flaquisimo

[flaquisimo]

People got tired of Mulroney's attitude. The honesty of his government was no worse, and in many cases better than that of Trudeau, which preceded him, and certainly than Chretien's, which followed.

I see nothing to indicate an agreement with the NDP on any particular issue. If the NDP thought it could do better in an election - and certainly if the Liberals thought they could - they'd have been pushing for one, not temporizing as they've been doing. If there was an election now it would be unlikely to result in any serious changes. Most likely the Tories would lose a few seats in Quebec, and pick up a few more seats in Ontario, but still be well shy of a majority.

Dear Angus,

Even if I disagree with your wrong comparison of Mulroney and Trudeau I let it stand because what happened in those times is ancient history. Now, we are preparing to have an election that will make or break Canada, and we must make a choice with the facts of today. Dion is considered ineperience and not a political animal like fibbing Mr. Harper.

Harper has proven to be George W. Harper and Dion has proven to be honest, intelligent, factual and educated in matters that are of extreme global importance today. We have to make a choice between an American politician disguised as a Canadian, and a legitimate Canadian that has prepared himself for the job. I believe that the majority of Canadians, mainly thanks to the patriotic and courageous stand of Mr. Danny Williams, are viewing mr. George W. Harper for what he is and they will not entrust him again with the government of Canada.

So, Angus, difamate Trudeau as you wish. Digging skeletons in the past will not make Harper a credible leader or a trustworthy Prime Minister.

flaquisimo

[bush_cheney2004]

...If not, Bush will continue governing Canada.

So it was OK for Bill Clinton to govern Canada (e.g. NAFTA, Kosovo), but not George W. Bush? When convenient to do so, alignment and allegiance to an American president and his policies are quite acceptable in the pursuit of political power? It is even desirable to have Americans as keynote speakers during political conventions?

It would appear that the problem is neither Bush or Clinton, but Canada's own political process...so dependent on the American foils to define itself.

[flaquisimo]

It would appear that the problem is neither Bush or Clinton, but Canada's own political process...so dependent on the American foils to define itself.

Your last sentence makes sense. The rest made me laugh. Clinton was a rogue but he fostered realistic objectives that were considered favorably but our politicians, even if joining Clinton was not in the interest of Canada. That was a political choice approved by the House of Commons. Now, you are talking of Harper obeying to a man that is considered all over the world as a mentally derailed despot that went to war on Irak lying to the Senate, the Congress, the American people and the whole world. Because George W. Harper is listening to his American boss Canadians are dying like flies in Afghanistan in a new mission not approved by the House and with a budget given to a lobbyist that was not even dis cussed in the House.

Mulroney, Chretien and Martin betrayed Canada with the approval of the House of Commons. Their action was bad but was constitutional. Fibbing Harper has betrayed Canada and all Canadians giving the finger to Parliament. His betrayal is criminal and unconstitutional on top of it.

flaquisimo

[bush_cheney2004]

Mulroney, Chretien and Martin betrayed Canada with the approval of the House of Commons. Their action was bad but was constitutional. Fibbing Harper has betrayed Canada and all Canadians giving the finger to Parliament. His betrayal is criminal and unconstitutional on top of it.

Whoa....far be it from me to tell you about Canadian history, but the HoC most definitely did not approve PM Chretien's actions (CF-18s ) in the illegal NATO war against Serbia. He only promised a vote for deploying ground troops if needed. And it was not PM Harper who entrenched Canada in Afghanistan.

So please, if you are going to pretend which things are or are not "constitutional", please include a complete can of worms.

[Michael Bluth]

Whoa....far be it from me to tell you about Canadian history, but the HoC most definitely did not approve PM Chretien's actions (CF-18s ) in the illegal NATO war against Serbia. He only promised a vote for deploying ground troops if needed. And it was not PM Harper who entrenched Canada in Afghanistan.

So please, if you are going to pretend which things are or are not "constitutional", please include a complete can of worms.

Honestly presenting the facts in this case would hollow out the 'arguments' about George W. Harper. The point of the posts doesn't appear to be making any rational case about the current PM. meh appears to be just venting for the sake of it.

[flaquisimo]

Whoa....far be it from me to tell you about Canadian history, but the HoC most definitely did not approve PM Chretien's actions (CF-18s ) in the illegal NATO war against Serbia. He only promised a vote for deploying ground troops if needed. And it was not PM Harper who entrenched Canada in Afghanistan.

So please, if you are going to pretend which things are or are not "constitutional", please include a complete can of worms.

It is always a reactionary strategy to target minor details to avoid the subject of the comments. I really do not care if Chretien, Mulroney or Martin always respected the House, becaus they are equally uncanadians as Harper. The mission inherited by Harper was non belligerant and he obeyed Bush and made it belligerant without consultation of the House and with the massive death of brave and honorable Canadian Soldiers. That point is important if we are discussing the next federal election - which is the subject of this column - not a learned discussion on the meticulous recent history as recorded by the reactionary press.

My comments are oriented to affirm that Danny Williams is absolutely right: We must all remember ABC (anybody but conservative). Williams proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that George W. Harper is a liar, and his word and signature are worth nothing. That's the central point of the subject of this debate and the petty details, tangents and arrogant irony by reactionaries show the weakness of the supporters of a fraudulent government totally subordinated to the mentally unbalanced Bush.

Sorry, reactionaries, I am concerned with the next election, not with the fate of your present fraud in Ottawa.

flaquisimo

[Keepitsimple]

That's the central point of the subject of this debate and the petty details, tangents and arrogant irony by reactionaries show the weakness of the supporters of a fraudulent government totally subordinated to the mentally unbalanced Bush.

What planet is this guy from? Let's put an end to this kindergarten thread.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is always a reactionary strategy to target minor details to avoid the subject of the comments. I really do not care if Chretien, Mulroney or Martin always respected the House, becaus they are equally uncanadians as Harper.

Oh, in other words, you made a mistake in your sweeping allegations. I agree that it really doesn't matter, because you have declared not only past and present PM's as unfit and treacherous, but will likely feel the same way about any future PM as well. No matter what happens in the next federal election, you are destined to ultimately be disappointed.

[Canuck E Stan]

Dear Angus,

Even if I disagree with your wrong comparison of Mulroney and Trudeau I let it stand because what happened in those times is ancient history. Now, we are preparing to have an election that will make or break Canada, and we must make a choice with the facts of today. Dion is considered ineperience and not a political animal like fibbing Mr. Harper.

Harper has proven to be George W. Harper and Dion has proven to be honest, intelligent, factual and educated in matters that are of extreme global importance today. We have to make a choice between an American politician disguised as a Canadian, and a legitimate Canadian that has prepared himself for the job. I believe that the majority of Canadians, mainly thanks to the patriotic and courageous stand of Mr. Danny Williams, are viewing mr. George W. Harper for what he is and they will not entrust him again with the government of Canada.

So, Angus, difamate Trudeau as you wish. Digging skeletons in the past will not make Harper a credible leader or a trustworthy Prime Minister.

flaquisimo

Jorge Torrealba,

I suggest you read the rules on this forum in regards to calling people names other than the ones they were born with.

Also the fibbing part is a no-no.

-CES

[flaquisimo]

Jorge Torrealba,

I suggest you read the rules on this forum in regards to calling people names other than the ones they were born with.

Also the fibbing part is a no-no.

-CES

Cannuck E. Stan,

I check in the members list and you have no particular authority to give order to your equals. Fibbing is a kinder word that liar used profusely by the Hon, Premier of NL, when he gives conferences in Universities advising the young generation that they must vote or anybody but conservative. Kindly email me the rules of this INVISION and the names of those that have authorioty to establish rules.

You use my real name which I purposely gave in a previous comment as a tangential menace of the dictatordship in which you dwell.

Best regards,

flaquisimo.

[Charles Anthony]

I check in the members list and you have no particular authority to give order to your equals.

Every member of the forum is welcome to remind eachother of the forum rules and to report any violations.

The rules explicitly start with:

BE POLITE AND RESPECT OTHERS

Mapleleafweb operates these forums in the hopes that they will promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion. We encourage you to speak your mind on relevant issues in a thoughtful way. Please respect others using this board and treat them with respect and dignity.

NO TROLLING/FLAMING

Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people.

You may read the rest here.

Fibbing is a kinder word that liar used profusely by the Hon, Premier of NL, when he gives conferences in Universities advising

We are expected to do better in the online discussions.

If you believe an other member has violated the forum rules or guidelines, report it in turn.

Charles Anthony

moderator

The rest of the moderating team is available for viewing on the link at the bottom of the opening page of the forum just above the Board Statistics section.