|
TOTA Election (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| cono_sur |
I voted Conservative.
The Liberals don't deserve to win another election. |
|
|
| amb_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by newr
And If I don't vote... no-one can blame me for electing a -headed leader who only increases the deficet, raises taxes, and pisses the entire country off, not to mention gets twisted into some kinda scandal... (and dont act like this is the first scandal... remember brian mulrooney?)
I don't vote... I don't complain... and I won't care until there is a trustworthy government in place |
Worse than that, remember Sir John A. Macdonald? He set the pace for conservative scandals.
Though Mulroney does take the cake, losing on average 1 cabinent minister during each year of being in power due to unlawful and unscrupulous activities.
Scandals, big and small, will continue in the country until the system is reformed. Despite what certain other people out there would have you believe, this change will not come by electing another party into power.
| quote: | min·is·ter Audio pronunciation of "minister" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mn-str)
n. Abbr. Min.
...
[Middle English, from Old French ministre, from Latin minister, servant. See mei-2 in Indo-European Roots.] |
We need to better instruct our servants. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by crazedcanuck
This analogy is terrible. I hope you know your insinuating that Martin should be charged criminally by this logic. |
I don't see how it's terrible and how am I insinuating that? Is our police chief being criminally charged?
Jayx1 is saying that the Liberals have engaged in criminal behaviour and that Martin could step down and dissolve the party to ensure it doesn't happen again.
The fact of the matter is that *members* (i.e. not all) of the Liberal Party did so. So by his flawed logic, my analogy stands up. Members of the police force have engaged in criminal behaviour of recial profiling, so should the head of the police step down with the police force "dissolved"?
of course not.
People seem more interested in punishing the entire Liberal party rather than finding out EXACTLY who was responsible and ensuring that this doesn't happen again. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| What happened to Enron when the top execs got caught for stealing? Why should the same not apply to politics? |
|
|
| Tordan |
| Like most liberals I'm displeased with the politicians but not the liberal ideology itself. I was considering the conservatives but I will not vote for them because of Harper. I do not like how he is going about the gay marriage issue. If he is so hell-bent on denying a minority a fundamental right (in my opinion) then what's stopping him and the conservatives from infringing on the rights of other minorities? As a member of a visible minority I must take that in account and honestly I can't in good conscience vote for a man that thinks this way. Some of you might not agree with my reasoning but this is how see it. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Everyone thinks the Conservatives are against gay marriage. They are not. They want a comprimise. They want to have a civil union that is equal in every way to marriage except they dont want to call it marriage. I dont see what the issue is. And the ironic thing here is that HArper is doing it to protect rights. He wants to ensure the right of churches, synogogues and mosques to refuse to marry gays which runs against their religious beliefs. He feels that calling a gay union a civil union will protect those rights. It's a decent comprimise in my opinion.
Please do not say that the conservatives are against gay marriage. They are not. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| <---- Not ready for an election. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tordan
Like most liberals I'm displeased with the politicians but not the liberal ideology itself. I was considering the conservatives but I will not vote for them because of Harper. I do not like how he is going about the gay marriage issue. If he is so hell-bent on denying a minority a fundamental right (in my opinion) then what's stopping him and the conservatives from infringing on the rights of other minorities? As a member of a visible minority I must take that in account and honestly I can't in good conscience vote for a man that thinks this way. Some of you might not agree with my reasoning but this is how see it. |
He supports full rights and privileges for gays in a civil union, while at the same time preserving the traditional definition for the rest of us. The position of the other parties is extreme; they want to trample on the rights of the majority. Harper's position strikes the right balance. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I don't see how it's terrible and how am I insinuating that? Is our police chief being criminally charged?
Jayx1 is saying that the Liberals have engaged in criminal behaviour and that Martin could step down and dissolve the party to ensure it doesn't happen again.
The fact of the matter is that *members* (i.e. not all) of the Liberal Party did so. So by his flawed logic, my analogy stands up. Members of the police force have engaged in criminal behaviour of recial profiling, so should the head of the police step down with the police force "dissolved"?
of course not.
People seem more interested in punishing the entire Liberal party rather than finding out EXACTLY who was responsible and ensuring that this doesn't happen again. |
First of all, Martin was DIRECTLY involved, as the political minister for Quebec, and as Minister of Finance.
Second, MANY members of the party were involved; it wasn't an isolated incident. There's a systemic problem in the way the party does business.
Third, AdScam is only one of MANY scandals. Remember Shawinigate? Gun registry, Kyoto, secret foundations, etc. They stolen and/or wasted BILLIONS of dollars of taxpayer money.
The Lieberal party needs to lose power and then be purged or refounded. Canada needs a principled liberal alternative, but that alternative isn't the current Lieberal Party. |
|
|
| MarkT |
Tordan, I agree with you...they're so soft in their stance on issus, how do we know WHAT they'll do if they get elected???
They oppose nearly everything the Liberals do, for the sake of opposing it...and when it's clear that public supports what the Liberals are doing, they tweak their position or outright change their party platform.
Notice the "flip flop" reported in today's Toronto Star.
So the Conservatives, who were soooo against ratifying Kyoto, in the face of public support for it, are now on board...the change? They support it with a different "timeline". Oh wait, they just opposed the way the Liberals were implementing it...not Kyoto itself...riiiiiight. NOT QUITE...anyone doesn't think it's a true flip-flop? Here's some evidence from a June'04 CBC article:
"Conservative Leader Stephen Harper reaffirmed a past pledge Wednesday that his government would scrap the Kyoto protocol on climate change and invest the money into other initiatives."
source: http://www.cbc.ca/story/election/na...yoto040609.html
See, the public supports it though...in fact, despite 66% of Albertans polled supporting it, the administration there also opposes it and said they'd fight it's implementation all the way to the Supreme Court (how NOT surprising since the only reason they run a surplus there is due to the oil industry). (I'll find the source of that 66% stat too if anyone wants it).
Now that the Conservative Alliance can smell that taking power is within reach, I can't wait to see on what other issues they appear to change their minds. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| Kind of how the Liberals flipflopped on gay marriage? Oh I forgot, when its a left wing group they call it "changing with the times" |
|
|
| Tordan |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
He supports full rights and privileges for gays in a civil union, while at the same time preserving the traditional definition for the rest of us. The position of the other parties is extreme; they want to trample on the rights of the majority. Harper's position strikes the right balance. |
To me a marriage has always been the coming together of two people who love each other. Why shouldn't the gays be able to call their marriage a marriage? If I was gay and the govt was telling me that I can't call my marriage a marriage and that I should call it a civil union instead I'd be pretty pissed off. I can only imagine how they must feel. |
|
|
|
|
