Vote Passes recommending Libs resign

[Lightning Flik 0]

I also find it not surprising that none of you want an election. OMG it's too expensive! Pesky democracy, how dare the plebians go to the polls and vote.

Then again, maybe we shouldn't have elections at all, you know because a dictatorship is so much preferable to a democracy. Saddam was such a nice guy after all.

Where the fuck do you think this money is going to be coming from? Somethings going to be cut for it, and frankly, if its my health care I ain't having another election. It isn't worth having cuts be made to make up for the money we'll be spending on this election.

 

Wow! Simply marvelous. Let's go with the most inane comparison we can make!

 

 

You want me to vote Tory? Tell the party to get a fucking platform that explains why I should choose it over the party I know. Its the same reason I vote Klein back in. No other party actually gets off its fucking ass and gives me a reason to vote for it. If you don't present why I should vote for you besides the sole fact of "WAH!!! The current government syphoned off millions!!!", I've got no reason whatsoever to vote any other party. Its a matter of no one actually explaining the reasoning I should change a vote.

 

That's all I heard last election, and if that's all I hear this coming one (since everyone's going to push for it apparently), I know which Devil I'll choose.

[Highland 0]

Actually I don't care who you vote for, I just don't know why you insist on voting Liberal. And in case you forgot, that money that was laundered is taxpayer's money.

And the money can come from the huge surplus we have: There always seems to be extra money whenever the government wants to buy off the voters with new social programs or spending increases.

 

Oh and I'm sorry, but I consider an election a necessary expenditure and right that should never be thwarted because of "cost".

Edited May 13, 2005 by Highland

[Dogbert 0]

Highland, I'm gonna guess you're from Alberta.

 

Why is this even an issue when the Alberta PCs managed to lose $4 billion in taxpayer money that was supposed to go to impoverished farmers? Oh, that's right. They aren't Liberals, so they're golden.

 

Thanks, unbiased Albertan media.

[Highland 0]

Highland, I'm gonna guess you're from Alberta.

 

Why is this even an issue when the Alberta PCs managed to lose $4 billion in taxpayer money that was supposed to go to impoverished farmers? Oh, that's right. They aren't Liberals, so they're golden.

 

Thanks, unbiased Albertan media.

No, I'm not an Albertan. Do I have to be one to be upset over corruption?

[Lightning Flik 0]

Actually I don't care who you vote for, I just don't know why you insist on voting Liberal. And in case you forgot, that money that was laundered is taxpayer's money.

And the money can come  from the huge surplus we have: There always seems to be extra money whenever the government wants to buy off the voters with new social programs or spending increases.

 

Oh and I'm sorry, but I consider an election a necessary expenditure and right that should never be thwarted because of "cost".

Highland it wasn't for the sake of who I was voting for, but you were wondering why people were voting Liberial, so I spoke up.

 

I know the money was laundered. Geezus, I'm not saying they should get away with it. But dammit, I'm not about to pay even more money in when the Opposition can't get off of its fucking stance of "WAH~! THEY LAUNDERED MONEY! VOTE FOR US!" We know the Liberals laundered money, but until the other parties give us something more tangible than that stance and something like a platform of what they stand for, why they should run the government (and no, saying they won't do it won't cut it), they aren't going to win or even if they do it'll be a minority government and then we go through this again in a year.

 

And we should have a vote in a year after the last one!? Fuck no. That's the most stupid thing we can do because you don't accomplish anything other than a dickslapping contest that just ends up miring the country around with nothing happening.

 

Highland, I'm gonna guess you're from Alberta.

 

Why is this even an issue when the Alberta PCs managed to lose $4 billion in taxpayer money that was supposed to go to impoverished farmers? Oh, that's right. They aren't Liberals, so they're golden.

 

Thanks, unbiased Albertan media.

Accuse the right person of being an Albertan, baka.

 

And I've stated before the reason why I vote Liberial fed and PC pro is because no one actually gets off of its ass to show me why I should do differently. Its basically "wah... They did something wrong! So I deserve their votes!" That's not a platform or stance but a damn child trying to get its way.

[CanadianChris 0]

Highland, I'm gonna guess you're from Alberta.

 

Why is this even an issue when the Alberta PCs managed to lose $4 billion in taxpayer money that was supposed to go to impoverished farmers? Oh, that's right. They aren't Liberals, so they're golden.

 

Thanks, unbiased Albertan media.

No, I'm not an Albertan. Do I have to be one to be upset over corruption?

Corruption exists on some level in every government, but it's not a reason to turf a government unless there's a credible alternative. The Mulroney PCs were one of the most corrupt governments in recent memory, yet they got reelected in droves because PEOPLE AGREED WITH THEIR POLICIES. Once the Liberals brought a coherent platform to the electorate, the PCs got booted out.

 

Truth be told, I really don't give a shit about the sponsorship scandal as it pertains to the actual government. I look at it as the price of doing business with modern government. I ask more important questions, like whether the economy is in trouble due to the government (no), whether spending is out of control (no), whether taxes are too high (not really), whether I disagree with the government's stance on social issues (no), and whether anyone else could do a better job (definitely no).

 

If I answer no to all these questions, why would I want a different government?

[Justice 0]

You:

The article states that the Iraqi Security forces aren't yet up to par.

 

That's not the gist of the article.

 

"Data on the status of Iraqi security forces is unreliable and provides limited information on their capabilities," Joseph Christoff, of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), told a House of Representatives Government Reform subcommittee.

 

You:

Total of 155,000 men.

 

The Pentagon told Congress on Monday that there are 142,472 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, but a Capitol Hill watchdog agency said data on the forces was unreliable and it was difficult to gauge whether billions of U.S. dollars were being used effectively.

So effectively the article says nothing but "We can't be sure." Fair enough, that's about it. It doesn't really go into disproving the number, it just says it might not be fact. Also note the article I cite is almost a month fresher.

 

At any rate, you have failed to disprove the fact that Iraqi Armed Forces are taking over more and more operations from the Coalition. You sort of ignored that in your fervor there.

Edited May 13, 2005 by Justice

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You:

The article states that the Iraqi Security forces aren't yet up to par.

 

That's not the gist of the article.

 

"Data on the status of Iraqi security forces is unreliable and provides limited information on their capabilities," Joseph Christoff, of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), told a House of Representatives Government Reform subcommittee.

 

You:

Total of 155,000 men.

 

The Pentagon told Congress on Monday that there are 142,472 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, but a Capitol Hill watchdog agency said data on the forces was unreliable and it was difficult to gauge whether billions of U.S. dollars were being used effectively.

So effectively the article says nothing but "We can't be sure." Fair enough, that's about it. It doesn't really go into disproving the number, it just says it might not be fact. Also note the article I cite is almost a month fresher.

 

At any rate, you have failed to disprove the fact that Iraqi Armed Forces are taking over more and more operations from the Coalition. You sort of ignored that in your fervor there.

What fervor?

 

A.) You are citing numbers and such while the GAO says, "there's no way to know." And the State Dept. numbers are even higher than the DoD numbers! But let's not get caught up in a numbers game...

 

B.) "Iraqi Armed Forces are taking over more and more operations from the Coalition"

 

Yep, and they're dying like crazy. And the insurgency is increasing in intensity.

 

Just because they're taking over doesn't mean things are improving.

 

The US casualty rate *is* down, as you said. That's because Iraqi security forces are dropping like flies.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

I'd just like to say that it warms my heart to see a thread in CE about Canada reach over 2 pages. Keep it up kids, you're doing great.

 

Nice to see Broadbent being a nice guy and offering to sit out the vote because of the Conservative w/ cancer. Dude's class.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Highland, I'm gonna guess you're from Alberta.

 

Why is this even an issue when the Alberta PCs managed to lose $4 billion in taxpayer money that was supposed to go to impoverished farmers? Oh, that's right. They aren't Liberals, so they're golden.

 

Thanks, unbiased Albertan media.

No, I'm not an Albertan. Do I have to be one to be upset over corruption?

Corruption exists on some level in every government, but it's not a reason to turf a government unless there's a credible alternative. The Mulroney PCs were one of the most corrupt governments in recent memory, yet they got reelected in droves because PEOPLE AGREED WITH THEIR POLICIES. Once the Liberals brought a coherent platform to the electorate, the PCs got booted out.

 

Truth be told, I really don't give a shit about the sponsorship scandal as it pertains to the actual government. I look at it as the price of doing business with modern government. I ask more important questions, like whether the economy is in trouble due to the government (no), whether spending is out of control (no), whether taxes are too high (not really), whether I disagree with the government's stance on social issues (no), and whether anyone else could do a better job (definitely no).

 

If I answer no to all these questions, why would I want a different government?

Brav-freakin-o.

 

[cbacon 0]

All I have to say in regards to what Justice said (and some of what Highland mentioned) is that the Canadian people were very much opposed to Iraq, and any Prime Minister who had agreed to our participation would have found himself turfed out at the earliest opportunity. Sorry, you can go it alone. If I had my way we'd axe NAFTA and NATO, but I guess I can settle for not legitimizing US invasions.

 

Also, as for not wanting an election, we just had one a year ago. It's not that we never want elections (I personally like elections and think they should be more frequent), it's that most of us agree with Paul Martin's suggestion to wait until a report has been delivered on the corruption issue, and then have an election. And there are some things we want the government to get done. Same-sex marriage legislation. That budget deal so many of us approve of, with the NDP, the kind Liberals only ever agree to under duress; we'd like to see that pass. Some of the more idealistic of us are still hoping a Liberal government would get back to work dismantling the criminalization of marijuana, which over 70% of us agree should be done. There's the government's Kyoto plan. There's these deals to give more money to the provinces. These are the kinds of things that Harper won't give us, that he admits he wont give us and campaigns on not giving us! If he's Prime Minister (and I doubt it) it will only be either because the Bloc decided their interests are better served by formalizing their new alliance or because Canadians have much shorter memories than anyone could suspect, and given recent polls showing that the majority of Canadians believe Harper has a hidden agenda, I'm inclined to breathe a sigh of relief that they don't.

 

I was watching some CBC Newsworld this evening, and the panelists pretty much all agreed that over the past couple weeks the NDP have had by far the best press and have gone up the most in public opinion. They're the only party who is acting as though they actually want to get some governing done, they're the only party who looks willing to compromise, they're the only party not getting involved in childish name-calling, etc. The Conservative numbers have been stagnating or declining for a while now, proving that the reason for their big poll jump was probably knee-jerk reaction to some of the sponsorship inquiry info that came out about bribes and such.

 

Odds are pretty good that - outside of Quebec - from this point on the majority of former Liberal voters who jump ship will be voting NDP. Which makes sense, given that the core Liberal voters are typically middle-class economically, and centrist politically, two groups that aren't especially fond of the Conservative brand of politics

[Red Baron 0]

Highland, I'm gonna guess you're from Alberta.

 

Why is this even an issue when the Alberta PCs managed to lose $4 billion in taxpayer money that was supposed to go to impoverished farmers? Oh, that's right. They aren't Liberals, so they're golden.

 

Thanks, unbiased Albertan media.

No, I'm not an Albertan. Do I have to be one to be upset over corruption?

Corruption exists on some level in every government, but it's not a reason to turf a government unless there's a credible alternative. The Mulroney PCs were one of the most corrupt governments in recent memory, yet they got reelected in droves because PEOPLE AGREED WITH THEIR POLICIES. Once the Liberals brought a coherent platform to the electorate, the PCs got booted out.

 

Truth be told, I really don't give a shit about the sponsorship scandal as it pertains to the actual government. I look at it as the price of doing business with modern government. I ask more important questions, like whether the economy is in trouble due to the government (no), whether spending is out of control (no), whether taxes are too high (not really), whether I disagree with the government's stance on social issues (no), and whether anyone else could do a better job (definitely no).

 

If I answer no to all these questions, why would I want a different government?

Brav-freakin-o.

 

Thats why I am still voting Liberal (unless somehow I can vote for the Bloc being from Ontario)

 

Now to get my region a Liberal seat in Ontario would be nice (fuckin Grit doesn't do anything for my town)

[Lightning Flik 0]

Actually as C-Bacon pointed out, the NDP is the only one coming out like gold out of this, but sadly won't get enough people backing them (stupid popularity voting system) that will probably get them a shitload of votes out west (BC, Alta, Sask), and probably out way east (Hali, Newfie, Novy, PEI), but where you need the most votes from Ontario and Quebec they won't get.

 

But hey, you never know, it might be enough. The Tories might pull the election, we go to the polls and voila, we end up with a NDP government. Which would be I think the first time the NDP wins a federal government if my political history isn't half forgotten. Actually, I could see them working with people to get shit done. So hm... Ok, maybe I do have an alternative to voting Liberial.

[The Czech Republic 0]

You want me to vote Tory? Tell the party to get a fucking platform that explains why I should choose it over the party I know.

So your conservatives are our Democrats...

[Lightning Flik 0]

How you'd fair up each party:

 

Canadian - US

 

Conservatives (Tories) = Democrats

Liberials (Libs) = Republicans

National Democrat Party (NDP) = Democrat-Light

Bloc De Quebequois (Bloc) = Confederate Party (if there is still one)

 

...yeah, that last one's gonna earn me some heat. But basically since the US has only two parties, its kinda hard to compare parties without over stepping a boundry or three.

[ZGangsta 0]

Liberials (Libs) = Republicans

What the Fuck?! How do you come up with that analogy? Their social/environmental/foreign policies are as different as night and day. I mean, the Liberals are legalizing gay marriage for God's sake! Do you see the Republican Party ever doing that? Their economic policies are pretty damn different as well.

What's your basis for that comparisson?

 

I do see the Conservatives (Tories) = Democrats comparisson though.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

How you'd fair up each party:

 

Canadian - US

 

Conservatives (Tories) = Democrats

Liberials (Libs) = Republicans

National Democrat Party (NDP) = Democrat-Light

Bloc De Quebequois (Bloc) = Confederate Party (if there is still one)

 

...yeah, that last one's gonna earn me some heat. But basically since the US has only two parties, its kinda hard to compare parties without over stepping a boundry or three.

By process of elimination it's:

 

Liberals-Democrat

CPC-Republican

[Dogbert 0]

Highland, I'm gonna guess you're from Alberta.

 

Why is this even an issue when the Alberta PCs managed to lose $4 billion in taxpayer money that was supposed to go to impoverished farmers? Oh, that's right. They aren't Liberals, so they're golden.

 

Thanks, unbiased Albertan media.

 

Accuse the right person of being an Albertan, baka.

 

And I've stated before the reason why I vote Liberial fed and PC pro is because no one actually gets off of its ass to show me why I should do differently. Its basically "wah... They did something wrong! So I deserve their votes!" That's not a platform or stance but a damn child trying to get its way.

I completely agree with that... I just don't see why the Alberta Tories' fumbles and bumbles with forty times as much money as the Liberals wasted isn't more of an issue.

 

Besides, being Albertan isn't so bad. There's always the Flames to keep us satisfied.

[Lightning Flik 0]

What's your basis for that comparisson?

The basis of how they currently are in terms of what people think of them. Its not their values or anything, but rather how the people go along with them. I'm sorry, I should've made mention of that before I posted.

 

By process of elimination it's:

 

Liberals-Democrat

CPC-Republican

That is the proper analogy of them, yes, but I was trying to put it into perspective for

the Americans on why we still vote in the Liberials at this current time. Again, I probably should've put it that way to begin with.

 

I completely agree with that... I just don't see why the Alberta Tories' fumbles and bumbles with forty times as much money as the Liberals wasted isn't more of an issue.

The Albertan Tories get away with it, just like the federals cause more often than not, the times they've succeeded we've prospered a lot more so. So we take a few more blunders for the rich payoffs.

 

I mean we had like a huge ass surplus here recently. So meh, when people hear that its like "oh things aren't bad".

[Dogbert 0]

I guess it's a testament to how well our province is doing, when four billion dollars is no big deal.

 

I'll hate to be here when the oil runs out, though.

[starvenger 0]

Odds are pretty good that - outside of Quebec - from this point on the majority of former Liberal voters who jump ship will be voting NDP. Which makes sense, given that the core Liberal voters are typically middle-class economically, and centrist politically, two groups that aren't especially fond of the Conservative brand of politics

Not entirely. The 905 region of the GTA is probably not going to vote NDP, and for the most part, people are the middle class you talk about, plus I think there's a greater concentration of "red" Tories in the ridings, so people switching their votes to Conservative is the likely result there. If they switch, that is.

 

The 416 area (that is, Toronto proper) however, is Layton and Chow's stomping grounds, so I could see them trying to expand their base from there. An endorsement from the Mayor would probably go quite a ways there.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Released today, in, of all places, the Toronto Sun, which could easily be called the Anarchy Times.

 

In Toronto:

 

41-Liberal

31-Conservative

19-NDP

10-Fourth party/undecided

 

Hammer/905

 

40-Liberal

35-Consevrtaive

20-NDP

5-Fourth/undecided

 

Niagara

 

38-CPC

36- Liberal

20-NDP

6-Fourth/UD

 

 

Hope it helped. I'm drunk.

[Highland 0]

It gets better and better.

 

Is Canada hurtling toward full banana-republicdom? The Liberal corruption scandals every day take on horrifying new amplitude.

 

Now we are learning that the Liberal Party in Quebec was effectively run by organized crime bosses - and that when one Liberal leader objected, he was threatened with death.

 

The Liberals have lost a series of confidence votes in the House of Commons. On Wednesday and Thursday, the Conservatives won two votes to force adjournment. By long constitutional usage, a Westminster-system government that is forced to adjourn must either resign or call an election. But the Liberals, apparently taking their advice from the lawyers of Charles I, seem to believe that they can continue governing without the support of Parliament.

 

In hopes of buying votes, they continue to announce lavish spending proposals - even as 400 years of British constitutional law denies a government that rules without a majority in Parliament the right to spend so much as a single penny.

 

The Liberals say the only non-confidence vote they will accept is one that occurs after next Thursday. What's so special about next Thursday? This: Paul Martin's government has been losing confidence votes by a margin of three. As it happens, two of the anti-Liberal MPs (and also a third Independent MP) are extremely ill with cancer. These MPs have managed to drag themselves to the House this week, but the Liberals seem to be hoping that they will have to leave the House for medical reasons next week.

 

Does that sound too callous to be true? Listen to the testimony of Warren Kinsella, a passionately partisan Liberal who dissents from the current crowd:

 

"In the view of [Conservative leader Stephen] Harper and not a few others, [Prime Minister Paul] Martin's decision to further delay a confidence vote may have been at least partially based on the hope that the declining health of the two [Conservative] MPs would prevent them from making a later vote.

 

"The next morning, there was much tut-tutting amongst the chattering classes about Mr. Harper's statement. North of the Queensway -- that is to say, in the rarefied climes of Ottawa's Parliamentary precincts -- faux outrage was everywhere to be heard. Such impertinence! Such tastelessness! Senior Cabinet ministers -- among them Public Works Minister Scott Brison and Government House leader Tony Valeri -- immediately sought out microphones to express their disappointment.

 

"Using suspiciously similar sound bites -- which usually means someone, somewhere, had sensed an opportunity, and prepared talking points to ensure that governmental talking heads get the right message out -- the two ministers intoned, with straight faces, that Mr. Harper had reached a new 'low' with his statement. Shortly thereafter, at a photo-op, the Prime Minister likewise evinced disdain for the Conservative leader's remarks. It was, everyone in Ottawa seemed to agree, a new 'low.' But was it, really?

 

"For me, this week's controversy stirred memories of one dark evening, approximately three years ago, when I very nearly quit the Liberal Party of Canada. It was the night that Mr. Martin's British Columbia apparatchiks took over the riding association of former Cabinet minister Herb Dhaliwal, knowing (a) Mr. Dhaliwal was out of the country; and (b) his wife was dying of cancer.

 

"Having written a book with the title Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics, and having seen more than a few political donnybrooks in my day, I cannot claim to believe that politics is ever played with the Marquess of Queensbury rulebook. It is not, it has never been, and it never will be. But to humiliate a Cabinet colleague whose wife was dying of cancer? I've witnessed a lot of political thuggery, but I had never before seen anything as disgusting as that. It was only a friend in Ottawa who talked me out of quitting the Liberal party, on that night.

 

"I am no fan of Mr. Martin or his circle of advisors, so you should not simply take my word for it. Ask John Gray, the PM's official biographer. In an analysis he recently authored for another newspaper, Mr. Gray wrote:

 

"'It was always said of Mr. Martin that he loved public policy but hated politics. That may be the happiest explanation of the crudeness of his leadership campaign, where the only art was shooting the enemy wounded. He shrugged Sheila Copps out of politics and allowed his lieutenants to hijack the riding of a cabinet colleague whose wife was dying of cancer. The people who won him the leadership were skilled in the craft of regicide, but governance was not in their curriculum vitae. Yet those are the people who are now his aides and advisers in government.'

 

"Jonathan Ross, a former Liberal aide to Mr. Dhaliwal and the driving force behind a popular web log (tdhstrategies.com), has a similar view. Says Mr. Ross on his site: 'Having worked for Minister Herb Dhaliwal, and been privy to much of the dirty and underhanded techniques used against him by the Martinite crowd, [i agree] that cancer, or any other illness for that matter, has never mattered to those surrounding the Prime Minister. If you're going to stand on your record, then you must be ready for it to bite you right in the ass. This is one of those occasions.'

 

"Was it appropriate, then, for Stephen Harper to say what he said? To suggest that political calculations were quietly being made about the illnesses of two partisan opponents in the House of Commons?

 

"This being an Ottawa-based morality tale, none of us will ever know for sure.

 

"But ask yourself a question: If, as Mr. Gray wrote, the federal Liberal leader's lieutenants were permitted 'to hijack the riding of a cabinet colleague whose wife was dying of cancer,' would they then hesitate, even a moment, to take advantage of the illnesses of two MPs who aren't cabinet colleagues?

 

"You don't have to be pious to know the answer to that one."

 

One further footnote to the question of whom to believe: a recent poll found that 61% of Canadians believe that Prime Minister Martin would tell a lie for political advantage.

 

But it's all good, because Harper is a robot and Martin would never stoop so low as to take advantage of a crippling disease for political gain. Oh wait, he did. Several times.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

It gets better and better.

 

Is Canada hurtling toward full banana-republicdom? The Liberal corruption scandals every day take on horrifying new amplitude.

 

Now we are learning that the Liberal Party in Quebec was effectively run by organized crime bosses - and that when one Liberal leader objected, he was threatened with death.

 

The Liberals have lost a series of confidence votes in the House of Commons. On Wednesday and Thursday, the Conservatives won two votes to force adjournment. By long constitutional usage, a Westminster-system government that is forced to adjourn must either resign or call an election. But the Liberals, apparently taking their advice from the lawyers of Charles I, seem to believe that they can continue governing without the support of Parliament.

 

In hopes of buying votes, they continue to announce lavish spending proposals - even as 400 years of British constitutional law denies a government that rules without a majority in Parliament the right to spend so much as a single penny.

 

The Liberals say the only non-confidence vote they will accept is one that occurs after next Thursday. What's so special about next Thursday? This: Paul Martin's government has been losing confidence votes by a margin of three. As it happens, two of the anti-Liberal MPs (and also a third Independent MP) are extremely ill with cancer. These MPs have managed to drag themselves to the House this week, but the Liberals seem to be hoping that they will have to leave the House for medical reasons next week.

 

Does that sound too callous to be true? Listen to the testimony of Warren Kinsella, a passionately partisan Liberal who dissents from the current crowd:

 

"In the view of [Conservative leader Stephen] Harper and not a few others, [Prime Minister Paul] Martin's decision to further delay a confidence vote may have been at least partially based on the hope that the declining health of the two [Conservative] MPs would prevent them from making a later vote.

 

"The next morning, there was much tut-tutting amongst the chattering classes about Mr. Harper's statement. North of the Queensway -- that is to say, in the rarefied climes of Ottawa's Parliamentary precincts -- faux outrage was everywhere to be heard. Such impertinence! Such tastelessness! Senior Cabinet ministers -- among them Public Works Minister Scott Brison and Government House leader Tony Valeri -- immediately sought out microphones to express their disappointment.

 

"Using suspiciously similar sound bites -- which usually means someone, somewhere, had sensed an opportunity, and prepared talking points to ensure that governmental talking heads get the right message out -- the two ministers intoned, with straight faces, that Mr. Harper had reached a new 'low' with his statement. Shortly thereafter, at a photo-op, the Prime Minister likewise evinced disdain for the Conservative leader's remarks. It was, everyone in Ottawa seemed to agree, a new 'low.' But was it, really?

 

"For me, this week's controversy stirred memories of one dark evening, approximately three years ago, when I very nearly quit the Liberal Party of Canada. It was the night that Mr. Martin's British Columbia apparatchiks took over the riding association of former Cabinet minister Herb Dhaliwal, knowing (a) Mr. Dhaliwal was out of the country; and (b) his wife was dying of cancer.

 

"Having written a book with the title Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics, and having seen more than a few political donnybrooks in my day, I cannot claim to believe that politics is ever played with the Marquess of Queensbury rulebook. It is not, it has never been, and it never will be. But to humiliate a Cabinet colleague whose wife was dying of cancer? I've witnessed a lot of political thuggery, but I had never before seen anything as disgusting as that. It was only a friend in Ottawa who talked me out of quitting the Liberal party, on that night.

 

"I am no fan of Mr. Martin or his circle of advisors, so you should not simply take my word for it. Ask John Gray, the PM's official biographer. In an analysis he recently authored for another newspaper, Mr. Gray wrote:

 

"'It was always said of Mr. Martin that he loved public policy but hated politics. That may be the happiest explanation of the crudeness of his leadership campaign, where the only art was shooting the enemy wounded. He shrugged Sheila Copps out of politics and allowed his lieutenants to hijack the riding of a cabinet colleague whose wife was dying of cancer. The people who won him the leadership were skilled in the craft of regicide, but governance was not in their curriculum vitae. Yet those are the people who are now his aides and advisers in government.'

 

"Jonathan Ross, a former Liberal aide to Mr. Dhaliwal and the driving force behind a popular web log (tdhstrategies.com), has a similar view. Says Mr. Ross on his site: 'Having worked for Minister Herb Dhaliwal, and been privy to much of the dirty and underhanded techniques used against him by the Martinite crowd, [i agree] that cancer, or any other illness for that matter, has never mattered to those surrounding the Prime Minister. If you're going to stand on your record, then you must be ready for it to bite you right in the ass. This is one of those occasions.'

 

"Was it appropriate, then, for Stephen Harper to say what he said? To suggest that political calculations were quietly being made about the illnesses of two partisan opponents in the House of Commons?

 

"This being an Ottawa-based morality tale, none of us will ever know for sure.

 

"But ask yourself a question: If, as Mr. Gray wrote, the federal Liberal leader's lieutenants were permitted 'to hijack the riding of a cabinet colleague whose wife was dying of cancer,' would they then hesitate, even a moment, to take advantage of the illnesses of two MPs who aren't cabinet colleagues?

 

"You don't have to be pious to know the answer to that one."

 

One further footnote to the question of whom to believe: a recent poll found that 61% of Canadians believe that Prime Minister Martin would tell a lie for political advantage.

 

But it's all good, because Harper is a robot and Martin would never stoop so low as to take advantage of a crippling disease for political gain. Oh wait, he did. Several times.

His soucres must be Global....which as we all know, is fair and unbiased....as fair and unbiased as Fox News.

 

Just because Crehtien was a cunt, don't hate the Liberals. Nope, can't see any good coming from no gay marriage, free health care or gun control. Idiot.

 

The CPC have still given me no reason to vote for them, except for ideals with which I disagree and a shotty platform of "Liberals are crooks."

 

 

A dishonest politician? Well, I never.

 

How much did a Conservative gointo debt on Iraq in the good ol' U S of A? 450 billion? Yep, Canada should elect them.

 

Wait, we know better.

[Highland 0]

Wait, you don't know better.

 

Aren't you the one that won't even play right wing on the hockey team?

Why aren't you defending Martin? That's right, you can't so you accuse me of using a biased (read: not polishing Martin's cock) source.

 

And what the fuck does the war in Iraq have to do with it?

Wait, if you can't answer that without pulling a C-bacon and attacking our allies then don't answer it.

[Highland 0]

Oh by the way, Global is owned by the Aspers whom are ardent supporters of the Liberals, so much so that they fire any who disagree with their views.

 

Next.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

You are using David Frum as a source now?

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Oh by the way, Global is owned by the Aspers whom are ardent supporters of the Liberals, so much so that they fire any who disagree with their views.

 

Next.

You've gotta be fucking kidding me. I'm not dignifying that with a response. Have you watched Global News or read The Post, both owned by the Aspers?

 

The point I'm stressing about the Iraq thing is that the platform the Conservative use is that they'll be responsible with money. Well, there's a conservative running the show in the States. 450 billion dollars in deficit over a 18 month period is hardly responsible. See the point I'm making? You should have earlier. Try reading our posts as opposed to just wearing your blue goggles.

[CanadianChris 0]

Oh by the way, Global is owned by the Aspers whom are ardent supporters of the Liberals, so much so that they fire any who disagree with their views.

 

Next.

That hasn't been true for years.

 

Next.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Oh by the way, Global is owned by the Aspers whom are ardent supporters of the Liberals, so much so that they fire any who disagree with their views.

 

Next.

That hasn't been true for years.

 

Next.

Oh.

 

You've gotta be fucking kidding me. I'm not dignifying that with a response. Have you watched Global News or read The Post, both owned by the Aspers?

 

I renege.

 

But anyone who thinks Global isn't ridiculously slanted might as well be deaf, since clearly they can't hear.