|
Paul Martin's "save my ass" address to the nation. (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| b4k-oz |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Joe CLark is a red tory (read: small-l liberal) who endorsed Paul Martin in last year's election.
His budget was defeated because it RAISED taxes.
He is also rumoured to be an actualy Lieberal Party member, and may be appointed to the Senate or Governor-Generalship by Martin.
|
The suggestion was to take lessons from Joe Clark failures....
His failure was during his Tory years and that would be the corrupt one that got the vote of non-confidence and forced Trudeau's return
Get your facts right 
Hmmmm...still avoiding Mulroney issue aren't you :rolleyes:
The egg sits quite nicely on your face...thank you. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by b4k-oz
The suggestion was to take lessons from Joe Clark failures....
His failure was during his Tory years and that would be the corrupt one that got the vote of non confidence and forced Trudeau's return
Hmmmm...still avoiding Mulroney aren't you :rolleyes: |
Actually his government fell NOT because of corruption. It was because he failed to win support of the opposition when it came to the budget and it was defeated in a vote of non confidence. He thought he could run the parliament as a majority and he was wrong. Much like the Present day Martin Liberals.
As for Mulroney. He doesnt hold a candle to what the Liberals have done. Not to mention that the PCs were not only punished by the electorate, they were left with 2 seats, but they were eventually disbanded to form a new party. And rightly so. The same form of punishment needs to be doled out to the much more corrupt Liberals. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
The opposition cannot ignore the findings of the commission. If they did they would not be doing their job. Right now, systemic corruption trumps all other issues. Because what we are talking about is the very basis of how government runs. What i would like to see from opposition parties is an outline on government reform to make sure this will never happen again. But keeping the Liberals in office is tantamount to having a trial where the defendant is also the head juror. It doesn't fly with me im sorry to say. |
I agree they cannot ignor the findings. I certainly am not suggesting that they should. I'm mearly stating that my preference would be that they wait for the justice's findings and report prior to bringing down the government. See, you need to understand that there is a difference between findings and testomony, so far we have only testomony... no findings. Testomony is what someone verbally tells the commission... findings would be what the commission has determined to be true. The commission determines something to be true by corroborating it with other evidence. Now, ShadoWolf quite rightly pointed out earlier that anyone can access the testomony and make their own findings, however, not all Canadians will take this effort or have the capacity to evaluate and weigh the totality of the evidence. In order to ensure that all Canadians have access to and ability to understand the results of this commission/inquiry it is prudent to wait until the findings are published before going to the polls.
I will end my discussion in this by stateing that I will not support any party that brings down the government because of it's own perceived electoral advantage. This shows a disdain toward parliament and to the electoral process. A minority government should function as a colaborative effort of all parties to govern in the best interest of Canadians. In my opinion desolving parliament now would not be in the countries best interest as it would force us to make a decision with less then all availible information. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by b4k-oz
The suggestion was to take lessons from Joe Clark failures....
His failure was during his Tory years and that would be the corrupt one that got the vote of non confidence and forced Trudeau's return |
Clark, while misguided, was not corrupt. His budget was defeated by the Trudeau Lieberals for political purposes, although a gas tax hike was the official reason.
| quote: |
Hmmmm...still avoiding Mulroney aren't you :rolleyes: |
as I said to Malek in another thread (which clearly you're selectively ignoring)
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
How many seats did they win in 1993?
They have since been purged, reformed, and refounded. The same process has to happen with the Lieberals.
Oh and by the way, you can't even come close to comparing that to AdScam or JudgeScam, or the other Lieberal boondoggles (HRDC $1 billion lost, $1 billion gun registry, etc.). |
|
|
|
| b4k-oz |
^^^ don't hold your breath guys.... we are not stupid enuf to fall again for the Tory BS :toothless
Oh and you both full of shyte :o the end. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
If Canadians are ignoring the testimony who is to say they will pay attention to the report? They didnt seem to care about Sheila Fraser's series of reports did they? Not calling an election due to perceived public ignorance is a weak arguement. Calling an election sooner than later and allowing the elctorate decide will clear the air and allow the government to govern again. If the public votes the Liberals back in that will be their decision. However bad a decision it would be we could at least then carry on with other tasks.
The Liberals need to be punished for what they did though and that will always be my position unless somehow they are found not guilty. But since Martin himself on national tv already acknowledge the corruption that is not going to happen.
Martin needs to either resign or call an election. He must be held accountable for what his party has done to Canadians without question. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Actually his government fell NOT because of corruption. It was because he failed to win support of the opposition when it came to the budget and it was defeated in a vote of non confidence. He thought he could run the parliament as a majority and he was wrong. Much like the Present day Martin Liberals.
|
Actually, Clarke's PCs designed their budget in order to prevoke the opposition into voteing non-confidence. They did this because they thought they were at a point of electoral advantage, however, did not want to disolve the house themselves for fear of the "early election backlash" which often befalls those who call early elections. The plan backfired. It had nothing to do with how he ran parliament. In fact Clarke's PCs were very good at cooperating with the other parties prior to the budget. I wish I could say the same about the present government. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by b4k-oz
^^^ don't hold your breath guys.... we are not stupid enuf to fall again for the Tory BS :toothless
Oh and you both full of shyte :o the end. |
You are trying to call us ignorant yet we are the ones that are full of ? Where is your rebuttle on the facts we have presented?
Thats drole... |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I wish I could say the same about the present government. |
So do I... which is why we need an election. |
|
|
| b4k-oz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Thats drole... |
Don't need to rebut
Lump it :p |
|
|
| TrueToTheCrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by JRinger
On the contrary, I think he puts forth a much stronger and more coherent argument than you, ShadoWolf and jayx1. You three sound like a broken record in thread after thread - taking every chance you can to take pot shots at the party that the Canadian electorate has chosen in 4 straight elections (much to your chagrin) and glossing over strong counter-arguments with cheap responses.
Moral Hazard isn't advocating support for the Liberal party or defending the Liberals alleged actions, nor is he advocating not holding an election in response to the allegations -- he's advocating allowing the inquiry to finish and letting the public base their decision on all the facts, not just a subset, some testimony or what the media chooses to highlight.
The public needs to have their say, but it doesn't need to be right away. At the moment, whats in the best interest of Canadians is for the opposition parties (especially the Conservative Party) to accept that they'll get an election within a year, and stop adding to the paralysis of the government by taking every opportunity to wrangle more power.
What's most amusing about all this is watching/reading MoralHazard take you to task in thread after thread. |
My point is this Inquiry is all a front and way too many people are waiting for this scripted predetermined report to come out. Now look, Chretien has pretty much appointed all his friends to the supreme court. Ever wonder why Chretiens motions always win in court. Now he's asking the supreme court to remove gomery from the inquiry. Chances are, he will win that motion. I hope mr. dithers will use the not withstanding clause to prevent it (if it can be used).
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/nati...enge050422.html
As per my arguments, i cant be bothered to spend the time explaining them in a socialist/liberal forum like this. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Not calling an election due to perceived public ignorance is a weak arguement. |
Wait a second. Didn't you say earlier in this thread that you were concerned with democracy? Now you suggest that public ignorance is not grounds to delay a general election. I don't understand how you can say such a thing. Anyone that trully cared for democracy would be concerned with making sure that the electorate were as well informed as possible. If the electorate is ignorant the potential that they will make an poor decision is much higher. If the electorate makes a poor decision then we get bad government. If a democracy continually produces bad government due to an ignorant electorate then what good is the democracy? You don't let the inmates run the asylum do you? |
|
|
|
|
