TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- The Official TOTA Elections thread
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

The Official TOTA Elections thread

Instead of cluttering up the forum, let's try to keep all election related news and debate in this thread.

And for this morning, we have stupidity from Comrade Jack Layton, fuhrer of NDP.

http://www.herald.ns.ca/Search/470154.html

quote:

Halt troop deployment to Afghanistan Layton NDP promises to try and hike home care cash By MURRAY BREWSTER The Canadian Press ST. JOHN�S, N.L. � On what was supposed to be a day dedicated to seniors issues, Jack Layton trumped his own feel-good $1.5-billion seniors policy by calling for a halt to Canadian troop deployment in war-torn Afghanistan. The wounding of three special forces soldiers in a battle near Kandahar this week and the more aggressive posture of Canadian troops as they prepare to return to the region en masse highlights a delicate legal point. There has been no formal public debate � or declaration of war. As he arrived in St. John�s, N.L., Layton said he doesn�t want the country to drift into a war blindly or secretly. He called for an immediate halt to Canada�s buildup of troops in southern Afghanistan, and he demanded that Prime Minister Paul Martin define the goals of the mission, which has been in preparation for months. As well, Layton wants country�s involvement in the war on terror debated in the House of Commons. Earlier in Dartmouth, Layton promised seniors that the NDP would work to improve their lot. He said he would negotiate with any future minority government � Liberal or Conservative � to put $1.5 billion into home care and long-term care. The NDP plan would create a $1-billion annual transfer to the provinces to expand home-care services, which would allow seniors to stay in their own homes while receiving supervised care. It�s estimated the program would affect 100,000 households. Layton said he would also phase in a $500-million plan to create as many as 40,000 new long-term care spaces over four years. Improving home-care services is important because it would free up hospital beds, Layton says. Opinion polls have repeatedly suggested that health care remains Canadians� top priority. In Afghanistan, as many as 2,000 Canadian combat troops are expected to be on the ground by March, as the army joins other NATO countries in a mission to rebuild the southern region, including the former Taliban stronghold of Kandahar. Part of the mission will involve forays into the mountainous creases that surround the area to flush out resistance fighters.

Where was he piping up his objections when Martin and CDS announced the plans to move to Kandahar months ago?

What was he thinking Canadian soldiers were doing in Afghanistan since 2002? Singing kumbaya?

^^^^^

You think that announcement has something to do with this?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...alDecision2006/

Liberal Ploy Tasteless

quote:

Friday, December 23, 2005 Posted at 3:35 PM EST Canadian Press Calgary � So much for Peace on Earth. As political leaders began a break from the federal election campaign Friday, the spirit of brotherly love appeared to be decidedly absent. Conservative Leader Stephen Harper took time out from his last-minute Christmas shopping to lash out at the Liberals over a photograph suggesting his party would work with the separatist Bloc Quebecois. The photo of Harper and Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe talking quietly was taken during a Holocaust memorial last spring on Parliament Hill. Advertisements Click Heread1 Register ad1 The Liberals are using the picture in some of their internal instructions for candidates on the campaign trail. "I think it's beyond tasteless," said Mr. Harper, noting that Prime Minister Paul Martin and New Democrat Leader Jack Layton attended the same ceremony. "To imply that Mr. Duceppe and I share some sort of agenda other than opposing the Holocaust is disgraceful." An internal Liberal website has been distributing material for candidates warning of a Harper-Duceppe coalition and suggesting the two leaders could work together to weaken the federal government., Mr. Harper said the material foreshadows how the election campaign will become increasingly nasty when electioneering resumes in early January. "I think you're just seeing the beginning," said Mr. Harper, who spoke briefly to reporters after buying some presents for his children at a Calgary toy store. "A corrupt party that doesn't have a record to run on: this is the sort of stuff they're going to do." Mr. Harper said he would never form a coalition with the Bloc. "We may co-operate on the odd issue, but even there we're not naive," he said. "We understand that, even when the Bloc agrees with us, their motives are very different." Liberal spokeswoman Amy Butcher said in an e-mail that the material is not intended for a planned advertising campaign, but is part of a list of issues to help candidates who are knocking on voters' doors. The pieces were prepared by a volunteer and have been available on the internal Liberal websire since last spring. "They were never at any time prepared in the context of an advertising strategy, it was never our intention to use them in our strategy, nor will they be used in future ad spots," said Butcher. Mr. Martin has said his party will stress positive campaigning. On Friday, Mr. Harper refused to pledge that the Tories would stay above negative ads. "Anything we'll be saying in this campaign will be factual and accurate," he said. "I won't promise it will all be pretty. But these people want to play a dirty game. I won't say we won't be tough but we will at least be truthful. I certainly won't use a misleading photograph in that kind of manner."

quote:

How Harper fashioned his lead http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...ER07/TPNational By BRIAN LAGHI Saturday, January 7, 2006 Page A1 OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF It's time for Stephen Harper to cash in. With slightly more than two weeks to go before election day, the Conservative Leader heads into a pair of election debates Monday and Tuesday buoyed by a new poll that suggests Canadians, including Quebeckers, are listening hard to what he has to sell. The survey by the Strategic Counsel puts Mr. Harper's party in the lead over the Liberals by two percentage points for the first time in this campaign and indicates he also has a huge lead, even in Quebec, when voters are asked who has the momentum going into the Jan. 23 election. "This is really interesting that this is occurring right on the eve of the debate," said Allan Gregg, chairman of the Strategic Counsel, which conducted the poll for The Globe and Mail and CTV News. Advertisements click here ad1 click here "If we are in the midst of change and anything significant happens in the debate -- even if Stephen Harper looks moderate, temperate and prime-ministerial -- you could see things change really fast." Even in Quebec, the Tories are suddenly an option. Although the party continues to run third in the province after the Bloc Qu�b�cois, which is still substantially ahead, and the Liberals, 38 per cent of Quebeckers say the Tories have the most momentum heading into the election. It's a signal, Mr. Gregg said yesterday, Quebeckers are primed to hear Mr. Harper's message and a good performance in the debates will be critical. "He's there to close the deal." Conservatives have until now talked in hushed tones about the possibility of forming the next government. Too many remember what happened when Mr. Harper, in a similar leading position in 2004, mused aloud about the possibility of winning a majority. But 18 months later, Tories are quietly confident that they won't blow it this time, thanks to a series of lessons learned and a newly jelled campaign team to which Mr. Harper has delegated more authority. "He perhaps had a narrower base of advice last time," said Ken Hughes, a former Progressive Conservative MP from Alberta volunteering for the Tories in a riding south of Calgary. "But also, they were caught in the vice of no time to prepare and a lot of new people whose relationships weren't as open, experienced and tested." One of the key changes, said one Ottawa official, is Mr. Harper's willingness to farm out at least some of the workload that he took upon himself in 2004. Sources say, for example, it was a staff member whose close study of the 2004 Australian election resulted in the importing of certain tactics from Prime Minister John Howard's campaign. The Australian Prime Minister surprised many by not only winning a fourth mandate, but increasing the number of seats for his party. Patrick Muttart, one of Mr. Harper's chief strategists, studied the victory closely and saw things in it that might apply to the Tories. The result was the informal participation of Mr. Howard's federal party director, Brian Loughnane, in the Conservative campaign. While not a main player, insiders say Mr. Loughnane speaks regularly to campaign officials about strategy. The Tories have also leaned on the Australians for help on how to attract swing voters, a group that Mr. Loughnane and Mr. Howard have had some success in winning over in the past. The Australian example led the Tories to aim tax cuts at targeted groups. A Conservative promise that would give tax breaks to apprentices purchasing tools was lifted directly from Mr. Howard's 2004 election campaign. Sources also say that a few key changes at the top of the campaign structure have allowed Mr. Harper to cut back his involvement in certain tasks perhaps better left to others. One of the chief complaints against him in 2004 revolved around his insistence on being his own campaign strategist, press secretary and senior adviser. That has changed with a beefed-up staff on the road and the addition of a new chief of staff in Ian Brodie. Mr. Brodie, a political scientist who studied at the University of Calgary, has become a key conduit between the campaign plane and the party war room in Ottawa. In 2004, Mr. Harper communicated his ideas directly with the Ottawa staff, which colleagues said impaired his ability to concentrate on his most important job: that of campaign messenger. Unlike his predecessor, Phil Murphy, Mr. Brodie is seen to have more latitude in shaping campaign strategy and somewhat more independence from Mr. Harper. He is also even-tempered, a trait some say has tended to calm the enthusiasms of an Ottawa operation that, in 2004, delivered an ill-timed missive suggesting Liberal Leader Paul Martin supported child pornography. "The worst thing is to have the leader as his own tour director, his own director of communications, his own director of research," one source said. "So, I think there's been a refinement of the process." Mr. Harper has also taken to travelling with a larger retinue that sometimes includes former Progressive Conservatives such as Senator Hugh Segal and Senator Marjory LeBreton. Insiders say Mr. Harper listens closely to Mr. Segal, a former PC moderate who sources say has played the role of happy warrior, advising the Leader on communications and on projecting a positive image. Ms. LeBreton, who was an aide to then-prime minister Brian Mulroney, has been credited with being a friendly influence on the media. Her presence also alerts reporters to the fact that the two-year-old party is mostly over its internal growing pains. Ms. LeBreton was a Progressive Conservative and had been a strong foe of the Canadian Alliance-PC merger that created the Conservative Party. Other key recruits to the campaign include Guy Giorno, a former chief of staff to former Ontario premier Mike Harris. "These are all adults who have the ability to calm things down," said an insider. As for his old Calgary colleagues, Mr. Harper still relies on individuals such as his former political science professor at the University of Calgary, Tom Flanagan. Mr. Flanagan is a member of a small inner circle that is entrusted with crucial information, such as the nightly tracking polls in Ontario and British Columbia. Others include the party's pollster, Dimitri Pantazopoulos, campaign chair Doug Finley, Mr. Brodie and the party's advertiser, Perry Miele. Other key members of the team include Michael Coates, president of the Hill and Knowlton lobbying firm, and Mark Cameron, who writes many of Mr. Harper's speeches. Mr. Flanagan was responsible for putting together a postmortem of the 2004 campaign, the results of which have played a key role in two critical decisions this campaign. The first decision, which appears to have caught the Liberals flat-footed, was to move up Mr. Harper's daily policy announcement from midday in 2004 to first thing in the morning. The move has helped the Tories control the agenda, forcing the Liberals to respond to them rather than the other way around. The second decision, still to play out, was to avoid getting blown away by a Liberal advertising campaign without a response. In 2004, the Harper team failed to pre-buy prime-time advertising slots for the end of the campaign and could only watch as Liberal advertising ran unopposed. Insiders say that will not happen this time. If, for example, the Tories take fire over the next week or so, sources say the party has bought ad time in the Greater Toronto Area to capitalize on the situation. It is a simple matter of doing homework, an insider said. "After the [2004] campaign, the Liberals were more concerned with high-fiving and patting themselves on the back for being political geniuses," the source said. "We needed to find out what we had to do better."

we should consolidate all future tiesto and armin threads in the spirit of this one

I cannot stand attack ads, it's sooooo school yard bully tactics.. Insead of telling us What the other Party is doing, let's actually hear, what your party is gonna do. Not that it will be the same as their promises..

Harper will rip this country in half. I used to vote PC, but harper scares the shit out of me.. He reminds me of John Ashcroft.. LOOKOUT!!!

and well the NDP, Mr. Social Service Jack Layton. if he had his way, nobody would be working, cause we are all on welfare. I'm sick and tired of hearing that other people need this and that. Tough Shit, i'm tired of that money coming out of my pocket.


the way i see it, we are fux0red either way. Absolute powers Corrupts Absolutely.

no matter who you vote in, somebody's gonna turn out to be a crook, so which would you prefer, a liberal crook or a Conservative crook.
Being a Conniseur of all things herbal, i am voting Liberal.

quote:

Tories Surge in Poll http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...alDecision2006/ By CAROLINE ALPHONSO AND BRIAN LAGHI Monday, January 9, 2006 Posted at 12:52 AM EST From Monday's Globe and Mail Toronto and Ottawa � Stephen Harper's Conservatives have opened up an eight-percentage-point advantage over the Liberals, the biggest gap of the campaign going into tonight's crucial debate, a new poll shows. The survey, conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV News by the Strategic Counsel, also shows that voters believe the Conservatives hold values that are closest to theirs, a turnaround from the first week of the campaign when Canadians identified more closely with Liberal values. "This is huge," said Allan Gregg, chairman of the Strategic Counsel. "This really does show ..... that by virtue of the kind of campaign they've run, an issues-based, measured, moderate campaign, they have slowly convinced the population that they are not kind of offside the mainstream of Canada. "If they can maintain this, they have basically taken the Liberals' trump card away." Advertisements Click Heread1 Register ad1 If this result were to hold up, the Tories would end up with a strong minority government, it would appear. The widening gap comes as the four major leaders rev up for the final two-week sprint to the polls that includes the second and final set of televised leaders' debates tonight and tomorrow. The poll finds that 37 per cent of Canadians would vote for the Conservatives if an election were held today, ahead of the Liberals, who are at 29 per cent. The NDP is supported by 15 per cent of voters, while the Bloc Qu�b�cois has the backing of 13 per cent. Perhaps the only good news for Liberal Leader Paul Martin is that voters now expect him to perform the worst of the three candidates in debates tonight and tomorrow. With expectations so low, Mr. Martin may not have to do a lot to exceed them, while the greater pressure may be on Mr. Harper, who must avoid stumbling. The poll of 1,500 demonstrates that Mr. Martin and his Liberals will have to move quickly to try to dent Mr. Harper's credibility. But even that may be difficult, given the strong policy-heavy campaign the Conservative Leader laid down during the first half of the campaign. The Liberals are expected to run aggressive advertisements aimed at reminding Canadians about the Conservative Party's previous positions on issues like the notwithstanding clause and the Iraq war. Earlier in the campaign, however, Mr. Harper made an effort to inoculate himself against such attacks by ruling out using the clause to ban gay marriage and rejecting any notion of sending Canadian soldiers to join the U.S. in the Middle Eastern conflict. Mr. Harper's focus instead on family-friendly issues is winning him support as poll results show that Canadians believe the Conservatives have introduced the most appealing policies and platforms during the campaign. The poll is not good news for NDP Leader Jack Layton, who now sees his party trailing badly in Ontario. At 14 per cent, the NDP is now four percentage points behind where it was in the 2004 vote, while the Tories and Liberals are virtually tied at 41 per cent and 40 per cent, respectively. The NDP has been concerned about its soft voters rushing to the Liberals if it began to appear that the Tories were winning the election. The three parties are also running at almost the same support levels in B.C. as they did in the last election, with the Tories at 37 per cent and the NDP and Liberals tied at 26 per cent. Both the Liberals and the NDP have been hoping to make up seats in the province. Meanwhile, the Tories continue to build on their momentum. In increasing numbers, Canadians are saying the Conservatives have it and the Liberals don't. Nationally, 53 per cent said the Tories had the edge. That compares with 14 per cent who gave the nod to the Liberals. "Basically everyone is getting mowed over in the Conservative momentum and it's happening virtually everywhere," Mr. Gregg said. In Quebec, particularly, 47 per cent of voters in that province say the Conservatives have the most momentum heading toward the election, compared to 26 per cent for the Bloc and 12 per cent for the Liberals. Although momentum is not an indicator of voting intent, it does suggest that voters are giving the Tories a second look. Fully 52 per cent of Quebeckers still support the BQ, but the Tories now trail the Liberals by only two percentage points, 21-19, in the horse race for votes. That suggests that federalist voters are beginning to trickle Mr. Harper's way. Mr. Gregg said the coming debates are important as voters focus on Mr. Martin and how he will stop his slide. "That's his whole campaign," he said. "Why he's losing now, as opposed to what he's talking about."

Political animal can't hide neo-con spots, Linda McQuaig argues
Jan. 8, 2006. 01:00 AM

In January 2001, Stephen Harper and five others published an open letter in the National Post urging Alberta to beef up its fight with Ottawa by building a "firewall" around itself and take greater control over its own affairs.

Complaining that tax revenues from Alberta were subsidizing other Canadians, the "firewall letter" sounded downright hostile to the rest of the country.

Its attitude is typical of a group of right wingers, centred around U.S-born academic Tom Flanagan of the University of Calgary. This "Calgary school," with which Harper is very closely allied, peddles a Canadian version of Paul Wolfowitz-style neo-conservatism, and it likes the idea of using oil-rich Alberta as a right-wing battering ram against the more socially democratic vision of Canada that prevails in much of the rest of the country.

Certainly, the authors of the "firewall letter" don't sound much concerned about fostering national unity � presumably something we'd expect in a prime minister.

If the "firewall letter" had been published during this campaign, Harper would almost certainly be heading for a crushing defeat, instead of perhaps poised to become prime minister.

I bet most Canadians don't know about the letter, or have forgotten what's in it. After all, people don't have time to go looking up what Harper wrote years ago.

The media have time, but little interest. Instead, the media treat the campaign as a horse race, fixating on polls, offering voters little more than their own reflection in the mirror.

So, despite the "firewall letter," the Conservative campaign has largely gotten away with spinning Harper as a strong defender of Canada and Canadian sovereignty � and independent of Washington.

Carefully out of sight is Harper's attack on Ottawa two years ago for not joining the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Harper even stirred the waters of anti-Canadian feeling south of the border by denouncing Ottawa's decision in an interview with U.S. TV channel Fox News, and also in The Wall Street Journal.

No wonder Harper was recently lauded in the Washington Times as "pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto, and socially conservative ... the most pro-American leader in the western world."

Also gone from sight is Harper's suggestion three years ago that Canada was becoming a "second-tier socialistic country." Now, according to Harper, this is a "great country."

Is Harper showing a willingness to compromise?

Not likely.

As fellow right-wing Albertan Ted Byfield once noted in an interview with the Walrus magazine: "I don't think (Harper) knows how to compromise. It's not in his genes. The issue now is: How do we fool the world into thinking we're moving left when we're not?"

No problem.

With a co-operative media, Harper has managed to render largely invisible his links to a cabal of right wingers determined to transform Canada in the way their American counterparts transformed the U.S. � despite widespread Canadian revulsion for George W. Bush's America.

But, enough of that. Back at the horse race; it's neck and neck ...

oh oh oh debate.

I am sorry, is this a TA thread, or CPC pamphlet?

Feel free to post any relevant articles pertaining to the elections.

quote:

B.C. Tory candidate dumped over smuggling charges Last Updated Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:27:00 EST CBC News The federal Tories are dumping a B.C. candidate who faces charges of attempting to smuggle a car and booze across the Canada-U.S. border. Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said on Thursday that it's too late to replace Derek Zeisman as a candidate, but that he wouldn't be allowed to join the caucus. Derek Zeisman (courtesy derekzeisman.com) "Mr. Zeisman will not be sitting as a Conservative should he be elected," Harper said. "He'll have to get this matter resolved." Zeisman is running to replace retiring Conservative MP Jim Gouk in the riding of British Columbia Southern Interior. The party only found out about the six charges on Wednesday after it was contacted by the media. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency alleges Zeisman tried to smuggle a 1989 Mercedes-Benz as well as 112 bottles of liquor in July 2004 from the U.S. into Canada. He's also accused of lying to customs officers about the incident. If convicted, Zeisman could be fined up to $50,000 and face six months in jail. Zeisman, who is to appear in court next month, did not tell his party about the charges, which he called "unjustified." He said the information was leaked by someone in the government who had a grudge against him. Harper said he should have told the party about the charges. The Tory candidate has worked as a trade commissioner for Industry Canada and a foreign service officer with the Canadian diplomatic corps. Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, Thursday. Zeisman has other problems. He's currently in hospital because of a serious car accident just before Christmas. An NDP candidate running against Zeisman says he couldn't believe the news. "Shock and surprise. That was my first reaction," says Alex Atamanenko. Atamanenko says he's alarmed voters were unaware of such a serious allegation about a candidate, less than two weeks before the Jan. 23 election. But he also says it would have been far worse had Zeisman won the seat, and the news came out later.

How's that for stupidity?

Links to more papers

Liberals are getting desperate with their ad campaign... all they can say is that Harper is "pro-American"

Even if they had real dirt on Harper, it's stupid for them to be taking that approach. Martin is the incumbent; his campaign should be to inform Canadians what he's already done for the country. Slinging mud at Harper only proves that they have no track record to stand on.

Even better was the "soldiers with guns in our streets" ad that got pulled. I'm sure that all the Liberal campaign donors must be very happy that they've paid these people to mock our Armed Forces (don't take it from me, it's our servicemen who are pissed off). Oh, and then Anne McLellan says that Paul Martin didn't approve the ads... and John Duffy saying that the ad doesn't exist because it wasn't released on TV... lol. Duffy managed to piss off CTV's Mike Duffy too by taking cheap shots at him, implying that talking about the pulled ad made him a poor journalist.

Then there's the attack ad in Quebec, which is actually running, and Ralph Goodale says that the Liberal party never approved or released it.

All personal views on policy aside, the Libs really seem to be having a communication breakdown during this election campaign. All these crossed wires, and the rumoured "mole", and making policy announcements during the debate that were not in their Red Book or discussed with high-ranking party officials... even if I supported the Liberals, I'd be seriously worried about its internal cohesion right now. How could they ever hope to govern effectively if they can't even get their stories straight during the campaign?

an excerpt from an online article today's Toronto Star:

quote:

Tory evasive over comments Jan. 12, 2006. 11:16 PM KEVIN MCGRAN STAFF REPORTER Conservative candidate Rondo Thomas refused to answer questions yesterday about his comments that describe same-sex marriage issues as a battle between �righteousness� and �immorality.� �Show some respect,� Thomas said as he drove away from a Star reporter and photographer, refusing to say whether he stood by the comments captured on video last February, and whether he�d been ordered by Conservative party headquarters to remain tight-lipped. Thomas, an evangelical minister, missed two all-candidates debates this week in Ajax-Pickering just as Liberal incumbent Mark Holland posted Thomas�s video on his campaign website. On the video, Thomas says: �There is going to be a clash of morality views between those who believe in righteousness and those who believe in immorality and when we collide there is going to be conflict.� ...

but it's "fear mongering" to suggest that there are morality pushers in the Conservative party...well this was caught on video. Add that to the candidate mentioned above by Orko and it's more than a little amusing to hear the CPC refer to the whole Liberal party as corrupt.

if this is the behaviour of their candidates now, I can't wait to see how they act if they are elected

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT an excerpt from an online article today's Toronto Star: but it's "fear mongering" to suggest that there are morality pushers in the Conservative party...well this was caught on video. Add that to the candidate mentioned above by Orko and it's more than a little amusing to hear the CPC refer to the whole Liberal party as corrupt. if this is the behaviour of their candidates now, I can't wait to see how they act if they are elected

Oh noes, it's the dreaded Social Conservatives! OMG RUN AWAY!!!!!1111one

Let's recap: Liberals burst into anger (or tears) whenever somebody makes that pitiful "religious" argument that gay marriage is immoral. And yet...

- They accept that it is "moral" to have their property confiscated to pay for kickbacks to well-connected Liberals and Liberal supporters.

- They accept that it is "moral" to tell hardworking parents that instead of caring for their children, they waste their money on beer and popcorn.

- They accept that it is "moral" to paint a picture of our Armed Forces as a violent, fascist gestapo army that will occupy our streets and not allow us to leave our houses.

- They accept that it is "moral" for 9 unelected judges to have the final say over an entire house of elected officials, based on a set of totally arbitrary unwritten standards, and they accept that it is "moral" to be trying to take away our singular means of recourse if that system goes awry.

- They accept that it is "moral" for the government to be confiscating guns that people own legally, without any compensation. And they accept that it is "moral" to make it either illegal or impractical for our border guards to be armed, making it nearly impossible to keep the ILLEGAL guns out of our country.

- They accept that it is "moral" for murderers who supposedly had a tough time growing up to get out of jail in 6 months, while the families of the victims receive nothing.

- They accept that it is "moral" to demand that everybody receive the same quality of health care, and now child care, no matter how hard they've worked to earn themselves a better life.

- They accept that it is "moral" to be bringing strippers into our country by the boatload (provided they supply nude pictures as proof of their qualifications), as well as hundreds of thousands of unskilled people who will be supported on welfare, while simultaneously denying entry to doctors, engineers, and many other hard working immigrants.

- They accept that it is "moral" to be telling us we use too much electricity and should get used to freezing in our own homes, while simultaneously shutting down our coal-fired plants which would easily have met the excess demand.

- They accept that it is "moral" to engage in non-stop bashing of our most important friend and trading partner.

- They accept that it is "moral" to offer a cabinet position to a woman who defected from her own party for no reason other than personal advancement.

- They accept that it is "moral" to force every public servant in the most remote redneck woods of BC to learn to speak fluent French.

- They accept that it is "moral" to continue to slash our military budget, when our primary contribution to the post-9/11 effort in Afghanistan was a frigate that sank and had to be recovered by American troops, and when we can barely defend Hans Island from the Danes.

All of those things are okay, but being opposed to gay marriage... unforgivable!

Right?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Excellent post

Okay I made up my mind. I'm voting Conservative.

(now how about those lifetime no-cover passes to Viva, Jay? )

Speaking of getting desperate, apparently a Liberal runner, David Oliver, tried to bribe an NDP candidate to drop out of the raise. Of course, Martin and the LPC has since dumped him, so I guess in all fairness, Oliver's not a Liberal anymore.

Globe and mail article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...alDecision2006/

The sworn statement is here (PDF alert):
http://www.ccnmatthews.com/docs/npdstat.pdf

This is bad enough as is, but I've got a sinking feeling that there's some sort of plausible deniability at work and that David is taking the rap for someone else. Jeffrey Hanson-Carlson mentions getting promised a job in Ottawa... a guaranteed win... what is all this about? Or was this stuff all just bullcrap that David made up? We may never know...

yes, Martin dumped him...so he did the exact same thing (in stronger terms, actually) than Harper did with his MP.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Excellent post

actually I'd argue that it's not.

my post pointed out that their are members of the CPC who have a moral agenda that doesn't belong in politics...and that MPs in the CPC aren't all angels (the MP charged with smuggling a Mercedes and 100+ bottles of booze into Canada and lying to customs officials about it).

saying "well the Liberals are worse" does nothing to invalidate my post.

I'm not going to address each and every point he made...but the two-tier healthcare point is scary to say the least. So someone is born into a lower to middle class family and they aren't entitled to the same care that a person born into a wealthy family recieves. yikes.

I think our military would be insulted to have you say that our "most important" contribution to Afghanistan was a faulty ship...

I think insulting and flat-out ignorant to suggest that the decisions of our Supreme Court judges are "based on a set of totally arbitrary unwritten standards..."

whatever...if the Liberals are SO bad, you shouldn't need to stoop to such sensational exaggerations and outright falsehoods to make your points.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT I'm not going to address each and every point he made...but the two-tier healthcare point is scary to say the least. So someone is born into a lower to middle class family and they aren't entitled to the same care that a person born into a wealthy family recieves. yikes.

Where exactly have you been living??
The cat's waaaaay out of the bag on this arguement.
There are plently of private health care alternatives...

quote:

I think our military would be insulted to have you say that our "most important" contribution to Afghanistan was a faulty ship...

I'm more proud of the fact that they do so well with so little.
A totally embarrassing situation would be an understatement.

quote:

I think insulting and flat-out ignorant to suggest that the decisions of our Supreme Court judges are "based on a set of totally arbitrary unwritten standards..." whatever...if the Liberals are SO bad, you shouldn't need to stoop to such sensational exaggerations and outright falsehoods to make your points.

No need to; we can't make this stuff up...

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT my post pointed out that their are members of the CPC who have a moral agenda that doesn't belong in politics...

Undemocratically changing the traditional definition of marriage is itself a moral agenda.

You only rail against "moral agendas" when they go against your values. Otherwise, you have no problem imposing your own on others.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT I think insulting and flat-out ignorant to suggest that the decisions of our Supreme Court judges are "based on a set of totally arbitrary unwritten standards..."

While that's correct in many cases, it would be equally ignorant to think that the Supreme Court doesn't make arbitary and/or political decisions, usually based on unwritten standards. By her own admission, the Chief Justice said as much.

***

Gods -- or nine well-paid lawyers with jobs for life
By GORDON GIBSON
Globe and Mail
Friday, December 16, 2005

The Greeks had a word for it: hubris. It means overweening or excessive pride and arrogance. It is a disease of the powerful.

Two weeks ago, a very powerful person, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada, gave a speech in New Zealand that contained one big worry for those concerned with our democratic balance. She said, in effect, that the law is what the Supreme Court says the law is. "The task of the judge, confronted with conflict between a constitutional principle of the highest order on the one hand, and an ordinary law or executive act on the other, is to interpret and apply the law as a whole -- including unwritten constitutional principles."

Think about that. Who decides what these "unwritten constitutional principles" are? Why, the judges. This can trump clearly enacted laws? Might this amend even the Constitution?

Well, yes. Judge McLachlin also said that "even inclusive, written constitutions leave much out, requiring us to look at convention and usage." So the judges may supplement that list. They may discover new constitutional doctrine. And if they do, remember they really are "supreme."

Jurists may properly argue that someone has to "fill in the blanks" in legal interpretation, but the Canadian experience shows they may do so even in direct contravention of the intent of the constitutional framers. Two great examples over the past 15 years include Indian law and moral law.

In Indian law, the intent of the framers was quite clear: Aboriginal rights were to be confined to those existing in 1981, and the word "existing" was added in the final draft to underline that meaning. That did not constrain the Supreme Court from adventuring in this area: Simply include "existing" in whatever might be hidden, latent and as yet undiscovered, then get on with the discovery of new "rights." In moral law, Parliament, in designing the Charter, deliberately excluded sexual orientation as a constitutional element. The court, nevertheless, added this claim to the Charter on its own initiative in the 1998 Vriend gay-rights case.

And the court does what it wants. In a Nov. 22 speech, the Chief Justice said: "When a legal issue is properly before a court, not deciding is not an option." Oh? Just a year earlier, the court declined to answer the most important of four questions posed to it by the Martin government on same-sex marriage, namely whether existing law was valid. An answer was refused notwithstanding that the Supreme Court Act explicitly requires one to be given.

The court is well known for its "living tree" view of the Constitution -- that the meaning must change as society changes. But there is a danger here. Given a pair of shears, fertilizer and a number of years, a skilled gardener can shape a tree in any direction. So can the court. With parliamentary supremacy eroded, the check and balance for this no longer exists.

Strip away the grand stone building of the Supreme Court and the judges' ermine robes and what do we really have? God-like creatures? No. Something much less: nine well-paid lawyers with jobs for life.

And how were these lawyers appointed? By our elected representatives after due debate? By cardinals in solemn conclave? By peers of the realm? No. These people were appointed at the whim of one person, the prime minister. And why were they appointed? Undoubtedly, for their good legal minds. But also, well, politics?

One kind is the usual regional, gender, ethnic balance that, at any given time, rules out 90 per cent of the best candidates. That is political life. The second is of a far baser kind: What will make the prime minister look good? Imagine, to give a far-fetched example, if a prime minister appointed someone with no civic record as governor-general because it would please a fawning media and gain some ethnic votes.

In Canada, the provenance of the Supremes is the arbitrary choice of one person. For these arbitrary fortunate few to infuse themselves with the power to not just interpret law but to make the law is surely a bridge too far. But that claim is another part of the culture of entitlement. We have learned that the top elected people in Ottawa think they own the power of government and the money of taxpayers to use as they wish. But at least we can throw them out.

Another bunch of top people in Ottawa, these ones with jobs for life, think they own the law. And you know what? They do. Because they say so. Who in this election campaign will have something to say about that?

[email protected]

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT my post pointed out that their are members of the CPC who have a moral agenda that doesn't belong in politics

Welfare, multiculturalism, Official Languages, state-run health care, state-run day care, state-sponsored abortions, rent control, gun control, legalization of marijuana, and rewriting the marriage law to include homosexuals, are all "moral agendas".

They're all based on:
(a) Sympathy (often misplaced)
(b) Anger (often misdirected)
(c) Entitlement

Politics is all about moral agendas. I am not suggesting that the Conservative platform is free from moral agenda, or even that I agree with all of it, but from what I've seen, their agenda is mainly based on:
(a) Civil liberties and Economic Freedom
(b) Responsible and accountable government
(c) Tradition and community standards

I do not like that part of their platform is traditional-based. But it is a very small part of their platform, and I prefer that immensely to a moral agenda born out of raw negative emotion.

As ShadoWolf rightly pointed out: you only seem to have a problem with (I should say, you only ever seem to notice) the moral agenda when it goes against your own morals.

quote:

I'm not going to address each and every point he made...but the two-tier healthcare point is scary to say the least. So someone is born into a lower to middle class family and they aren't entitled to the same care that a person born into a wealthy family recieves. yikes.

Liberals always reference the "born into a wealthy family" argument. It's commonly known that most wealthy people (aside from Liberal/Democratic politicians and Hollywood stars) worked hard for their wealth and were not born into it. And let's hypothetically say that someone is born into wealth; does the hard work of their parents count for nothing? Are you suggesting that the only pay off for hard work should be the ability to care for oneself, and not one's children or grandchildren?

A more realistic contrast is that of:
- Person A, who drops out of high school, gets involved in gangs and drugs, frequently has unprotected sex and ends up having a kid at 17, alternates between various unskilled jobs - never working hard to excel and advance at any of them, and never does anything to further develop his/her skills or education, consistently tries to buy unaffordable things, and ends up broke with bad credit; and
- Person B, who works like a dog to get straight A's in high school and get accepted into a prestigious university to work equally hard there, OR moves onto an accredited trade school and goes through several backbreaking years of apprenticeship, saves and invests their money, waits until age 25 to get married and have kids, often sacrificing his/her personal life to get ahead, makes connections and eventually develops a good reputation and becomes well-known in his/her field.

To those "evil" conservatives, Person B has earned a better life, including better health care that they have put money away for. To those "compassionate" liberals, these people are merely victims of circumstance, their past histories are completely unimportant, and if Person B is allowed to have a better lifestyle, it should only be "better" in the context of frivolous material purchases like big-screen TVs and fancy jewellery. Serious, life-altering conditions like superior medical care and better quality housing should not come as a reward to those who have sacrificed themselves.

quote:

I think our military would be insulted to have you say that our "most important" contribution to Afghanistan was a faulty ship...

Our military shouldn't be insulted by the truth. What they should be (and are) insulted by, is Paul Martin and his cronies flashing advertisements showing them as tools of oppression in our streets in a vivid image of some creepy Orwellian martial law.

quote:

I think insulting and flat-out ignorant to suggest that the decisions of our Supreme Court judges are "based on a set of totally arbitrary unwritten standards..."

And yet our chief justice, Beverly McLachlin, has said exactly that. She has said that judges can't expect the written constitution to cover everything that's important, so they have to make it up as they go along. In actuality, the constitution is intentionally brief, specifically because the gaps should be filled in by the legislative branch - not by the courts.

An ignorant suggestion? More like a plain observation, for those who haven't pulled the wool over their eyes.

quote:

whatever...if the Liberals are SO bad, you shouldn't need to stoop to such sensational exaggerations and outright falsehoods to make your points.

Sensational, perhaps - falsehoods, by no means. As I'm sure you know, I'm quite capable of discussing things rationally and at-length as opposed to with banal sound bites. I simply felt that such a post was in order as a response to your non-stop fearmongering about gay rights and Harper's alleged (and thoroughly UNproven) "moral agenda", which even if true does not tell us anything about the other CPC reps and would still have to pass a majority vote in Parliament.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut - They accept that it is "moral" to continue to slash our military budget, when our primary contribution to the post-9/11 effort in Afghanistan was a frigate that sank and had to be recovered by American troops, and when we can barely defend Hans Island from the Danes.

You really gotta research more.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT yes, Martin dumped him...so he did the exact same thing (in stronger terms, actually) than Harper did with his MP.

Yes, so Martin has now dumped David Oliver and Mike Klander. But he has not dumped:
- David Smith (for the Abotech affair)
- Mike Reid and John Duffy (for their gaffes too numerous to mention, including "beer and popcorn")
- Joe Volpe (for his direct involvement in the stripper trade and other human trafficking)
- Anne McLellan (for directly and repeatedly contradicting Martin, implicating him as either lying or incompetent)
- Ralph Goodale (for his alleged involvement in the Income Trust scandal)
- Ujjal Dosanjh (tainted blood and other various health scandals)
- Judy Sgrow (for leaking confidential immigration information)
- Belinda Stronach (I won't even go there)

What's important, though, is not simply the fact that he's let these people off the hook.

No, what's important is that nobody can be sure anymore exactly what Paul Martin's rules are.

How low do you have to go to get kicked out of the Liberal party? Is bribing an NDP candidate any worse than carrying on a personal miniature AdScam or insulting millions of Canadians to their faces on national TV (and I'm not talking about the Parliamentary channel)?

I don't know the answer, and it's starting to look like the party doesn't know either. And if party members don't know the rules, there's no telling what kind of chaos and what kind of divisions and cliques will form within the party.

This is bad news for Liberals, but good news for Conservatives. The more divided the Liberal party becomes, the easier it will be for a minority Conservative government to find "Blue Liberals" to contribute votes on important legislation. One Liberal candidate in Alberta has already defected to the Conservatives - but unlike Belinda, she's not getting offered a cabinet position and won't even be running in this election.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree You really gotta research more.

I've researched plenty. Some of these issues have made national news, even though people don't seem to pay attention.

Here's the CBC on Hans Island

Interestingly, the BBC Report reads a little different.

I'm not saying that this reflects the state of our military everywhere - not by any means. But this country does virtually nothing to protect its northern borders; if we can't even put the Danes in their place, how could we ever protect it from the Russians or even the U.S. if they decided they wanted it?

I believe the CPC had a few things to say about this territory - they wanted to send more forces up there to secure it. The Liberal minister (Pettigrew) doesn't really seem to give a shit.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.