# The Conservative Scandal Sheet: Split from: Stéphane Dion Wins Lib. Leadership



## hotelquebec9er (20 Dec 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Two words for Mr Harper to use in the next election: *Ethics* and *Accountability*.



regardless of his ability to deliver either.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Dec 2006)

Based on the current record, Mr Harper has already demonstrated a very good record of ethics and accountability. If you are looking to creat moral equivalency, you need to demonstrate showing direct comparisons in scale, scope and numbers. 

Here is a list of known Liberal scandals for your comparitive purposes: http://www.rightpoint.org/liberal.html

Oh, BTW, it is a very long document.


----------



## hotelquebec9er (20 Dec 2006)

Yes, very much similar to the long list of Conservative scandals.

Politicians are all pretty much the same.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Dec 2006)

hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> Yes, very much similar to the long list of Conservative scandals.
> 
> Politicians are all pretty much the same.



Thats all you got??    Mr. Majoor showed you his, now lets see your's.............otherwise you are just spouting off.


----------



## hotelquebec9er (20 Dec 2006)

Well gee, the Conservatives brought out the first big scandal in our nations history: the railroad business!

But to focus on the recent:

- Illegal tax tactics by the CPC regarding campaign financing during the last leadership campaign
- Harper's inability to hold regular news conferences 
- Vic Teows flagrant flouting of the Constitution with his law and order agenda
- Dismantling the Wheat board, against the will of the the farmers within it
- The GST cut, which does not give me as much money in my wallet as the 15.5% to 15.0% Liberal income tax cut that was nixed by Harper 

Look all parties are going to be scandalous.  At least the Liberals rode the growing economy and kept us in the money, and maintains a social plaform that isn't rooted in the 19th century.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Dec 2006)

Your last 4 points aren't scandals.  They're policy disagreements.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Dec 2006)

hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> Well gee, the Conservatives brought out the first big scandal in our nations history: the railroad business!
> 
> But to focus on the recent:
> 
> - Illegal tax tactics by the CPC regarding campaign financing during the last leadership campaign



Or was it more equal legislation that has Liberals paying instead of receiving?



			
				hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> - Harper's inability to hold regular news conferences



So what?  Doesn't really sound like billions of dollars have mysteriously disappeared.  So some of the Press Gallery are pissed off.  That is no Scandal.



			
				hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> - Vic Teows flagrant flouting of the Constitution with his law and order agenda



And this is a bad thing?



			
				hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> - Dismantling the Wheat board, against the will of the the farmers within it



It was because of the many farmers who felt that the Wheat Board was not doing enough for them, and the CPC listened to the farmers, not the bureaucrats.




			
				hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> - The GST cut, which does not give me as much money in my wallet as the 15.5% to 15.0% Liberal income tax cut that was nixed by Harper
> 
> Look all parties are going to be scandalous.  At least the Liberals rode the growing economy and kept us in the money, and maintains a social plaform that isn't rooted in the 19th century.



Are you trying to say that the Conservatives have bankrupted you?  At least they kept that promise.  Do you seriously think the Lieberals would have kept their promises?


----------



## hotelquebec9er (20 Dec 2006)

And $200 million to allow Quebec separation to disappear off the radar for almost 10 years is a great policy if we are discussing policy as scandal.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Dec 2006)

hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> And $200 million to allow Quebec separation to disappear off the radar for almost 10 years is a great policy if we are discussing policy as scandal.



So, you want Quebec separation to remain a hot and divisive topic?  I am at a loss as to what $200 million you are going on about, but that pales in comparison to just one of the Lieberal scandals........Do you have a Canadian Flag?........Sheila Copps sent out how many millions?


----------



## hotelquebec9er (20 Dec 2006)

I am referring to the $200 million spent on the sponsorship affair.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Dec 2006)

The only Sponsorship Affair I remember are all the ones under the Liberals.  Do you mean to say that there is another in the nine months that the Conservatives have had the reins, or one that they have tried to clean up from the previous regime?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2006)

hotelquebec9er 

Better pass that shovel over. You're digging to hard! ;D Pretty soon the ladder won't reach the lip of the hole.


----------



## hotelquebec9er (20 Dec 2006)

lol.  Sorry.  *picks up that shovel*

I was referring to the liberal sponsorship affair.  I liked the almost 10 year period after the 1995 referendum when I didn't hear about separatism   If it cost a mere $200 million to do so, money well spent.

Anyways, the 1982 Constitution removed the ability of Parliament to be supreme.  Vic Toews ability to bring in the kind of modifications to the criminal code and the ministry of justice is not likely, due to this superiority of the courts.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Dec 2006)

Which of course drove us to the semi-dictatorship thingy we have now with those nice APPOINTED judges making [slice it how you want, that IS how it happens] the lands rules......


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Dec 2006)

I'm still waiting to see one scandal listed.  Belindagate?  You know, "woof woof"?  Maybe?


----------



## hotelquebec9er (20 Dec 2006)

Regardless, I would rather scandals than the policies of the CPCs.  I don't feel like doing research today.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Dec 2006)

hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> *I don't feel like doing research today.*


Sorry, not good enough.  You started this, now be kind and finish it, won't you?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Dec 2006)

Wait, I just figured out how the Liberals can really GET the Tories.......let them keep power for the next twenty years and then challenge them to a "scandal-off".


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Dec 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Wait, I just figured out how the Liberals can really GET the Tories.......let them keep power for the next twenty years and then challenge them to a "scandal-off".


Only twenty years?  Man, you really think the CPC can catch up in just twenty years?


----------



## George Wallace (20 Dec 2006)

hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> .......  I don't feel like doing research today.



 :

Yet another pseudo intellectual Leftie with a silver spoon in their mouth that feels like life owes them everything.  We have to research to conduct our discusions on this site.  Why shouldn't you?  Are you one of Jerry's Kids......Special......or something?  Do we Conservatives have to do everything for you?  If you can't handle the heat here, you had better get out of this blaze.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Dec 2006)

Please explain one thing though........how did you make the leap from scandals to policies??

That one has me stumped,...lots of Govt. policies, at all levels, from all political parties, can make me see red but, I would NEVER list them as a scandal.

Are you also that cheap and petty in the school research you do?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Please explain one thing though........how did you make the leap from scandals to policies??



Bruce, Bruce, Bruce. What do think has made the lieberals so adept at propagating their dictatorship for so long?


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Dec 2006)

Here's something that took me five minutes (if that):
I went to http://www.google.ca, searched +conservative +scandal and selected "pages from Canada".  The FIFTH link talks of a CPC "Scandal", the possible mis-use of funds during the 2005 leadership convention.  The first four actually refer to liberal party scandals!
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%2Bconservative+%2Bscandal&meta=cr%3DcountryCA

Now, go to same site, and search for +liberal +scandal and see the difference 
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%2Bliberal+%2Bscandal&meta=cr%3DcountryCA


Carry on.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 Dec 2006)

Here is something that also took me five minutes.  







Pretty simple, and I'm not even in third year university.   ;D
Now that picture, that is scandalous.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Dec 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Here is something that also took me five minutes.


Pepsi and Diet Coke on the same table?????  SCANDALOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   BLASPHEMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 Dec 2006)

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> Pepsi and Diet Coke on the same table?????  SCANDALOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   BLASPHEMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1



_No it isn't.  It's a difference in policy and who are you to judge? _


----------



## ArmyRick (20 Dec 2006)

Haven't seen a scandal yet agaisnt the CPC


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Here is something that also took me five minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not a bad imitation of Papa Doc Cretin though.


----------



## hotelquebec9er (20 Dec 2006)

Thanks.  I have had three exams in the past two days, including one at 7pm tonight.  I am sorry that I have prior commitments that preclude writing on this site.

The personal attacks are not necessary.  But thank you for proving that it really isn't necessary to discuss this issue within this forum.  In fact, thank you for providing a great face for the CF.  Had you been able to wait one, I could have found the information you requested.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Dec 2006)

Aww!  Don't worry.  We did it for you.  See reply # 22.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Here is something that also took me five minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK. Let's talk about providing a great face. Maybe like the one above? ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Dec 2006)

>The personal attacks are not necessary.  But thank you for proving that it really isn't necessary to discuss this issue within this forum.  In fact, thank you for providing a great face for the CF.  Had you been able to wait one, I could have found the information you requested.

Next time, be brief.  Just write: "I surrender".


----------



## scoutfinch (20 Dec 2006)

hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> Thanks.  I have had three exams in the past two days, including one at 7pm tonight.  I am sorry that I have prior commitments that preclude writing on this site.
> 
> The personal attacks are not necessary.  But thank you for proving that it really isn't necessary to discuss this issue within this forum.  In fact, thank you for providing a great face for the CF.  Had you been able to wait one, I could have found the information you requested.



Grow up... :


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Dec 2006)

hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> Thanks.  I have had three exams in the past two days, including one at 7pm tonight.  I am sorry that I have prior commitments that preclude writing on this site.
> 
> The personal attacks are not necessary.  But thank you for proving that it really isn't necessary to discuss this issue within this forum.  In fact, thank you for providing a great face for the CF.  Had you been able to wait one, I could have found the information you requested.


No, thank *you* for using such a narrow brush with which to paint us all.  First you claim the CPC is scandal ridden.  Then you list five "scandals", four of which clearly are not (the fifth occured prior to them taking over the government).  Then, you decide you have no time to research.  THEN you claim it's not really scandal, but that you don't agree with their policies.  Now *that* stand would have been one of opinion; however, you didn't offer up anything as such until well after you've failed to provide even anecdotal evidence to suggest that the CPC is scandal ridden.  Your opinions are yours and you are free to voice them here or anywhere for that matter.  Stating stuff as fact and then failing to back that up, however, is not very noble at all.


Thank you, and have a great day.


----------



## hotelquebec9er (20 Dec 2006)

And posting photos and insulting my education is very noble, indeed.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Dec 2006)

hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> And posting photos and insulting my education is very noble, indeed.


Well, I think you posted your photo first somewhere on the net, so.....


As for insulting your education, I agree, nobody's education should be insulted.  


BTW: who insulted it?  Or are you too tired to research that?


----------



## George Wallace (20 Dec 2006)

hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> And posting photos and insulting my education is very noble, indeed.



Whose Photo?  Whose Education?

Someone said that they were not a 3rd year Student......is that you?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2006)

Maybe he's talking about my Papa Doc Cretin comment.

I apologize. When I spell check Cretien, that's what it gives me.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 Dec 2006)

hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> And posting photos and insulting my education is very noble, indeed.



And it is also insulting to engage knowledgeable people (I don't particularly include myself) in a debate, then indicate that you have so little regard for their opinion that you "can't be bothered to research".  At that time you transitioned from debater to opinionated satire subject.  Sorry.  You made your bed, enjoy the shiatsu massage option.
However, if you can manage to collect your pouty lower lip from the floor, intellectual discourse always carries the day and you can still redeem yourself.  Not your claim of scandal, but at least as a person who stays in a discussion and can acknowledge when they may have learned something.  If you want to suspend this conversation until you are finished your exams and can give it more time and attention, just say so.  We'll be here.....


----------



## hotelquebec9er (20 Dec 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Here is something that also took me five minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



^That would be the insulting comments.  I would appreciate we disregard arguments of this nature.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scandalous

scan·dal·ous     /ˈskændləs/ –adjective
*1.	disgraceful; shameful or shocking; improper: scandalous behavior in public.*
2.	defamatory or libelous, as a speech or writing.
3.	attracted to or preoccupied with scandal, as a person: a scandalous, vicious gossip.

- I find the Conservative re-opening of the same-sex marriage debate to be scandalous.  Shamefully giving the constitution and the charter of rights the finger.  
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/06/dion-samesex.html

- Falling back to the reverse-onus clause, which has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. (re: handguns and bail conditions). Again shamefully giving the constitution and the charter of rights the finger.  
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2006/11/23/harper-gun.html  

- Moving to remove the wheat board ability to be a one desk seller, when the recent election of Wheat Board governers favour maintaining the status quo five to one (8/10 board members).  Those board members were elected by the farmers with vested interest.  For a party that so vehemently supports grassroots democracy and democratic action, this makes no sense.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2006/07/27/wheat-board.html

- The Quebec Nation debate:  His intergovernmental affairs minister was not kept abreast of the situation, and resigned over this issue.  He whipped a vote that could have long term impact on the sustainability of the confederation.  This is in direct contravention of the "values" that Stephen Harper was so vehement in espousing during the election campaign about free votes to be held in parliament.
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/061127/n112775A.html

- Without any substantive proof, removing Garth Turner from caucus.  Then moving to prevent him from running in Halton, even though his local riding association re-affirmed his candidacy even after his removal.  Real grassroots there.
http://www.garth.ca/news/suspension-letters-garth.pdf

These actions, and the actions of the PMO office, lead me to feel we have truly elected a one man show.  I do not like this. According to the dictionary, this is scandalous.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 Dec 2006)

According to you, you have an exam in an hour and a half.  Is this stuff on the exam?


----------



## hotelquebec9er (20 Dec 2006)

No, I am taking an Arabic exam.  Decided to learn a language to increase my job opps.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Dec 2006)

I find it amusing that you are so sanctimonious in your posts.  Canada finally has a PM who is a Leader, and you denegrate him for keeping his word.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 Dec 2006)

*3.   attracted to or preoccupied with scandal, as a person: a scandalous, vicious gossip.*

Funny thing, that third definition  ^-^


----------



## scoutfinch (20 Dec 2006)

George:  While I have a great respect for your views, I must confess that I have problems with the current PM.  I don't see him as a leader.  I see him as a bully.  I guess it is all about perspective.


----------



## hotelquebec9er (20 Dec 2006)

I don't want a leader, I want someone who respects the constitution.

+1 on the bullyage.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 Dec 2006)

hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> I don't want a leader, I want someone who respects the constitution.



Oh, the glistening irony.  :clown:

Who was it that once said "everyone demands decisive leadership from their government until they get it" ?


----------



## hotelquebec9er (20 Dec 2006)

I'm happy with waffles...

If it is any consolation, I dislike Martin just as much as Harper. :rage:


----------



## Roy Harding (20 Dec 2006)

hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> These actions, and the actions of the PMO office, lead me to feel we have truly elected a one man show.  I do not like this. According to the dictionary, this is scandalous.



Steady, Son.

You have engaged in debate with some VERY knowledgeable people - these folks are NOT your usual University Professors (although some are, indeed, professors - a few have PhD's).

You have been called on your statements, and THIS is the best you can come up with?

Regarding your Dictionary definition - you (or more properly, the dictionary you quoted) are correct in that definition.  HOWEVER, what you started this thread with was allegations that the CPC had been involved in "scandals" as popularized in the popular press, which USUALLY, but not always, imply a legal impropriety of some sort.

You then "didn't feel like" backing up your allegations, although you do "feel" that the PMO is a "one man show", and you "don't like this".  Hell, you might even be right about the PMO, I certainly don't know - and YOU have failed to give me any FACTS which support your "feeling".

Cry me a river.


----------



## Danjanou (20 Dec 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I apologize. When I spell check Cretien, that's what it gives me.



Funny mine does that too 8)



			
				hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> No, I am taking an Arabic exam.  Decided to learn a language to increase my job opps.



Anything we can do to help?
  
Maybe get you another 





or a


----------



## Franko (20 Dec 2006)

hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> I don't want a leader, I want someone who respects the constitution.



So the Prime Minister(the position) isn't a leader then? 

Is he/she supposed to cower in the corner evertime there is a decision to be made?

So what do you want to do....have a Wheel of Fortune in the center of the House of Commons to decide such matters?

Give 'er a spin when there is a decision to be made?

** Big money....big money....no whammies...no whammies.... STOP! **

Suggest you do a stop drop until after the new year....and grow a thicker skin, before it's a bit too late.


Regards


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Dec 2006)

hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> - I find the Conservative re-opening of the same-sex marriage debate to be scandalous.  Shamefully giving the constitution and the charter of rights the finger.
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/06/dion-samesex.html


If you think having a debate on something is scandalous, then you ought to be ashamed of yourself.  Harper made a promise during the campaign, he kept it. Hell, even the CPC candidates weren't whipped on this (unlike certain "democratic" parties)



			
				hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> - Falling back to the reverse-onus clause, which has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. (re: handguns and bail conditions). Again shamefully giving the constitution and the charter of rights the finger.
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2006/11/23/harper-gun.html


From your very quote: "...adding that current law already allows for reverse onus for some crimes including drug trafficking and organized crime."  This may or may not prove to be unconstitutional.



			
				hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> - Moving to remove the wheat board ability to be a one desk seller, when the recent election of Wheat Board governers favour maintaining the status quo five to one (8/10 board members).  Those board members were elected by the farmers with vested interest.  For a party that so vehemently supports grassroots democracy and democratic action, this makes no sense.
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2006/07/27/wheat-board.html



Again, from your source:  "On the agenda is a discussion of ways to end the wheat board's monopoly over the export sale of wheat and barley — *something the Conservatives said they favoured during the election campaign.*"  If you think that living up to a campaign promise is scandalous, well, it almost is...in this country.


			
				hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> - The Quebec Nation debate:  His intergovernmental affairs minister was not kept abreast of the situation, and resigned over this issue.  He whipped a vote that could have long term impact on the sustainability of the confederation.  This is in direct contravention of the "values" that Stephen Harper was so vehement in espousing during the election campaign about free votes to be held in parliament.
> http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/061127/n112775A.html


Well, as a minister, this statement, from your source, speaks volumes about this guy's effectiveness: "A review of Hansard indicates he took only *one question* on intergovernmental affairs during the first six months the Conservatives were in office."


			
				hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> - Without any substantive proof, removing Garth Turner from caucus.  Then moving to prevent him from running in Halton, even though his local riding association re-affirmed his candidacy even after his removal.  Real grassroots there.
> http://www.garth.ca/news/suspension-letters-garth.pdf


I don't know about you, but having a member of your caucus removed for not toeing the line is nothing new.  See the NDP and the initial vote on the so-called Same-sex marriage and the NDP member who was forced out by Herr Layton. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/09/05/ndpsamesex030905.html
"The leader of the federal New Democrats says his MPs won't be allowed a free vote on same-sex marriage."  Now *THAT'S* leadership in a democracy!



			
				hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> *These actions, and the actions of the PMO office, lead me to feel we have truly elected a one man show.  I do not like this.* According to the dictionary, this is scandalous.


The part you say above that I put in bold is your opinion.  I don't agree with it, but both your opinion and my hold the same water, so fair enough.  I don't agree, however, that what you've outlined is scandalous.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Dec 2006)

hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> I don't want a leader, I want someone who respects the constitution.
> 
> +1 on the bullyage.



"I don't want a leader"??....ding ding ding.....now there is the stupidest statement of 2006.

 "I want someone who respects the constitution."..........it's a human document, with human frailities, not some omnipotent writings from a higher being. Why do you think its perfect?

"+1 on the bullyage.".......you say bully, some say desisive.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 Dec 2006)

hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> I don't want a leader, I want someone who respects the constitution.
> 
> +1 on the bullyage.



This constitution that allows Quebec to openly discriminate against anglophones?  That permits the Charter to give criminals freedoms that far surpass any other element of society?  That cements in the judges that shred the fabric of our society for the sake of self aggrandizing arrogance and socialist agenda?  
Yeah, she's a flawless document.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Dec 2006)

Wow, what a pile on. Logic, consistency and facts win the day, as they always do in the end.

If you want to use policies as "scandal" there is plenty to choose from as well; just read any edition of the Liberal "Red Book", for example and notice which promises were made and which ones were implemented. Universal day care was so good it was promised by the Liberals in EVERY election campaign since 1993. The Auditor General has noted over $6 billion was spent by the Liberals on the Kyoto accord without any noticeable reduction in CO2 emissions (indeed there was something like a 25-30% increase). Instead there was no attempt to quantify if this spending was effective, and given some projects include turning forests into charcoal for iron production in Brazil and reactivating old oil fields in Saudi Arabia, no real thought given to what was going on (what was that environment minister's name again....Dion?). I'm sure everyone can point out the vast reduction in gun crimes the long gun registry is responsible for.....

While many of you might question how logic and facts win the day in the "real world", given the fact the Liberals were in power for so long, look at the effects on the Canadian economy (low productivity, wild swings in the value of the $Cdn, unemployment that is always double that of the United States, declining relative incomes compared to our American counterparts, calls for Canada to be replaced on the G8 by Spain, etc.) If the voters don't speak up, Adam Smith will!


----------



## a_majoor (20 Dec 2006)

Holy C***, I look at the "Blogging Tories" and this comes up first thing!

http://canadaconservative.blogspot.com/2006/12/arrests-in-hrdc-fraud.html



> *Arrests in HRDC Fraud*
> 
> I always hated the use of the word "boondoggle"... makes us sound really old.
> 
> ...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Dec 2006)

See, now *THAT* strikes me as being scandalous.... :


----------



## GAP (21 Dec 2006)

.


----------



## sober_ruski (21 Dec 2006)

hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> I don't want a leader, I want someone who respects the constitution.
> 
> +1 on the bullyage.



Constitution was already changed once, in 1982, by... oh my, Trudeau's lieberals.

Doesnt sound like they "respected" the one made in 1867.


----------



## STONEY (21 Dec 2006)

It would seem that a great many people have short memories.

Let me see , the last Conservative government under Mr.Mulroney won a election with the biggest landslide in Canadian history and despite all this a few years later "Lying Brian's" scandal ridden gov. was tossed out in an election that the Conservatives won only 2 seats, the worst defeat in history.  Nobody remember the Airbus scandal. One of the reasons the Liberals have been in power most of the time is the poor performance of Conseravative Gov's. That being said , and hope springing erternal I am optomistic that Mr. Harper will prove a refreshing change.

Cheers


----------



## sober_ruski (21 Dec 2006)

Technically CPC is a different party, a mix of PC and CA.


----------



## mjohnston39 (21 Dec 2006)

> And $200 million to allow Quebec separation to disappear off the radar for almost 10 years is a great policy if we are discussing policy as scandal.



And as a result of their corruption/misdeeds/incompetence, separatism in Quebec and the Bloc has come roaring back...


----------



## scoutfinch (21 Dec 2006)

What shocks me most about this thread is that so many people are intent on slagging the other party rather than speaking of the benefits of their own party affiliation.  And I should remind the die-hard Conservatives here as well as the Conservative Party that Canadians are getting tired of the flogging of that poor old horse. Whether politicos or not like it, the 'Liberal scandal' scandal has run its course and currently holds little sway with most of the electorate as it is considered old news.  The CPC should be concerned that if they continue to harp on the issue, it will come back to bite them.

Personally, I think anyone who gets caught up in the dogmatic pursuit of politics is a fool. It isn't about any one person or party.  It should be about a platform.  

Conservative or Liberal -- neither platform or party is perfect so let's stop pretending that Stephen Harper/Stephane Dion is either the antichrist or the saviour of Canada.  Both have their flaws and sadly neither have been around long enough to show us their true colours.  Similarly, -- for very different reasons -- we have no real way of gauging the performance of the 'new' Liberals or the 'new'  Conservatives.  The Liberals because of new leadership.  The Conservatives because of Harper's control mechanisms.

Oh well... that is enough from me until I have had my first coffee.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Dec 2006)

Good point, Sam I Am (and I *DO* like Green eggs and ham!)



As for coffee, I'm WAY ahead of you!


----------



## scoutfinch (21 Dec 2006)

... and we are even in the same time zone! 

I'm getting slow.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Dec 2006)

Well, nice to have you aboard.  Now, stay away from the Oromocto Mall, unless you want a spandex overload!  :dontpanic:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Dec 2006)

SamIAm said:
			
		

> Personally, I think anyone who gets caught up in the dogmatic pursuit of politics is a fool. It isn't about any one person or party.  It should be about a platform.
> 
> The Liberals because of new leadership.  The Conservatives because of Harper's control mechanisms.



Good morning, fool.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Dec 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Good morning, fool.


Hey, she hadn't had her coffee yet, so some dogmatism is to be expected


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2006)

I find it amusing, and probably 'typically Canadian', that so many are so often quick to condemn the recently elected public official/politician.  Harper's government hasn't even finished one year of their mandate and they are being slandered by all sorts of hacks.  I see it on the Municipal scale also, where a Mayor is slandered within days of starting his mandate, by people expecting miracles.  This can also be parleyed to our operations in Afghanistan and the expectations of the current generations that magically the problems there (as well as in Iraq) will be fixed in a couple of years.  Look how long it took to rebuild Germany and Japan after WW II.  Reality bites.  

If there is any scandal here, it is the numpties who are crying "Scandal!" into the four winds.  Panic mongering fools.


----------



## Scott (21 Dec 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If there is any scandal here, it is the numpties who are crying "Scandal!" into the four winds.  Panic mongering fools.



Pissed off Liberals and New Democrats.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Dec 2006)

SamIAm said:
			
		

> What shocks me most about this thread is that so many people are intent on slagging the other party rather than speaking of the benefits of their own party affiliation.



I think that speaks to the name of the thread.  There is a specific indictment of the CPC and accuses it of scandal.  As many of us are pretty sick of Liberal hypocrisy, therein lays the thrust of commentary.  If there was a "CPC Rocks, and this is Why" thread, maybe you would see more conservative endorsement.



			
				SamIAm said:
			
		

> And I should remind the die-hard Conservatives here as well as the Conservative Party that Canadians are getting tired of the flogging of that poor old horse. Whether politicos or not like it, the 'Liberal scandal' scandal has run its course and currently holds little sway with most of the electorate as it is considered old news.



Yes, the media has grown tired of following up a critical issue.  What a shock.  But just because the left supporting media hasn't kept on the subject doesn't mean that it isn't still important.  I consider myself at least half way well read, and I was not aware of the ongoing investigation into the 2 billion that "evaporated" (although could be more of a MP than a TP) 



			
				SamIAm said:
			
		

> The CPC should be concerned that if they continue to harp on the issue, it will come back to bite them.



And at such time as they steal 2 billion plus dollars and pay it out through back channels to their toadies and then waste billions more on a nonviable program (read Gun Reg) then I will be the first to applaud them being bitten.  If you are inferring that there may be some skeleton in the closet that the Libs will play if provoked too much, I would think that it would have been played by now.  



			
				SamIAm said:
			
		

> Personally, I think anyone who gets caught up in the dogmatic pursuit of politics is a fool. It isn't about any one person or party.  It should be about a platform.



To a certain extent, but look at how much damage Jean Cretin did as one person.  John Gotti has nothing on him. 



			
				SamIAm said:
			
		

> Conservative or Liberal -- neither platform or party is perfect so let's stop pretending that Stephen Harper/Stephane Dion is either the antichrist or the saviour of Canada.  Both have their flaws and sadly neither have been around long enough to show us their true colours.  Similarly, -- for very different reasons -- we have no real way of gauging the performance of the 'new' Liberals or the 'new'  Conservatives.  The Liberals because of new leadership.  The Conservatives because of Harper's control mechanisms.



Agreed, this will be a watch and shoot.  However, Conservative true colours are not all that hard to predict.  No doubt there will be some sort of favoritism that emerges somewhere, but at least it will likely be for the benefit of a company, which employs Canadians and pays taxes here, as opposed to someone who simply is willing to tow the shaky Red line (I acknowledge the completely opinion based conjecture of the preceding)


----------



## Journeyman (21 Dec 2006)

STONEY said:
			
		

> *Nobody remember the Airbus scandal*[?]


Now, are you referring to the Airbus scandal where Mulroney/Moores were accused of accepting kickbacks (settled out of court with Chrétien's gov't apologizing)?

Or do you mean the ongoing & future Airbus scandal where the opposition parties are trying to buy airplanes that don't exist and can't even begin full production until sometime after 2010?


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Now, are you referring to the Airbus scandal where Mulroney/Moores were accused of accepting kickbacks (settled out of court with Chrétien's gov't apologizing)?
> 
> Or do you mean the ongoing & future Airbus scandal where the opposition parties are trying to buy airplanes that don't exist and can't even begin full production until sometime after 2010?



Or the Chretien scandal of mothballing "Prime Minister 1" and putting it up for sale (still no buyers ?) and converting the fleet over to cargo carriers/tankers?


----------



## Journeyman (21 Dec 2006)

SamIAm said:
			
		

> Whether politicos or not like it, the 'Liberal scandal' scandal has run its course and currently holds little sway with most of the electorate as it is considered old news.


 I get the feeling (probably as "accurate" as some polling services, but that's a separate thread   )...anyway, I think most people are getting tired of _politics_.

Fewer people seem able to, or interested in, distinguishing one party from another. Our elected representatives' churlish and petty behaviour, coupled with an apparently widespread absence of even the remotest sense of ethics - - getting re-elected trumps any responsibility to the electorate - - has turned many against caring about the government's actions.

While the disreputable actions of Chrétien's and Martin's Liberal governments may still be fresh in peoples' minds, the "toeing the party line or else" caucus policy of Harper has effectively eliminated electorate representation. For those Canadians who _are_ remotely interested, it's difficult to get past the mindless, self-centred bleating that passes as "debate" in the House.

Personally, I favour the platform espoused by the Conservatives over the actions committed by a decade of Liberal government. But time will tell if the uncaring electorate is right - - merely a horse of a different shade.

Oh well, just my view.....fuelled by having _two_ coffees while reading the overnight traffic  :


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Dec 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> While the disreputable actions of Chrétien's and Martin's Liberal governments may still be fresh in peoples' minds, *the "toeing the party line or else" caucus policy of Harper has effectively eliminated electorate representation.*



As I pointed out earlier, the CPC and Harper aren't alone in such policy.  Except for Budgets, I would like to see a House of Commons were NO votes were whipped.  But, then again, I'd also like a sneak-peek at Friday's Super 7 numbers


----------



## ArmyRick (21 Dec 2006)

I found an earlier remakr by buds regarding the reverse onus and fingering the consitution.

Personally I have zero time for trudeau and the crap he brought in. The consitution needs amendments (note our brothers in the south are ahead of us on this one)...

ANYBODY who thinks the reverse onus on serious crimes is a big threat to personal liberties better try living in Jane and finch for a year and then lets see what they say.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Dec 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Fewer people seem able to, or interested in, distinguishing one party from another. Our elected representatives' churlish and petty behaviour, coupled with an apparently widespread absence of even the remotest sense of ethics - - getting re-elected trumps any responsibility to the electorate - - has turned many against caring about the government's actions.



Agreed.  I only have to watch about five minutes of question period to want to go in there and bitch slap every bloody one of them.  Especially the toadies in the background that think that a childish comeback is worthy of a standing ovation.


----------



## scoutfinch (21 Dec 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Good morning, fool.



Read the whole statement in context and I think I am pretty clear about party politics and the cult of personality associated within.  

I am neither Liberal nor Conservative.  I am however socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  There is a world of difference.

Like I said, it is about platforms.  Not parties nor personalities.  

Do I like the Liberal platforms?  I don't know yet.

Do I like the Conservative platforms?  Some yes. Some no.  I am not going to pretend the Conservatives are perfect nor are they entirely flawed.

It is the unthinking, unbending, rigid pursuit of party politics that has bifurcated the electorate in the US that has ultimately hamstrung the will of the American people.  I only hope it doesn't happen here.


----------



## scoutfinch (21 Dec 2006)

To follow up on Zipperhead's last:

I don't think there are skeletons in the CPC closet.... yet.  They haven't been there long enough.  But because we are dealing with politicians, I feel safe in saying that it is just a matter of time.

In the debate over who is the most corrupt/honest, I don't think the political party matters so much.  I think most of them will do/say anything to gain or preserve access to power. (Hell, I dont' think it even has anything to do with $$$, just power).


----------



## scoutfinch (21 Dec 2006)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I found an earlier remakr by buds regarding the reverse onus and fingering the consitution.
> 
> Personally I have zero time for trudeau and the crap he brought in. The consitution needs amendments (note our brothers in the south are ahead of us on this one)...
> 
> ANYBODY who thinks the reverse onus on serious crimes is a big threat to personal liberties better try living in Jane and finch for a year and then lets see what they say.



Most of the amendments to the American constitution were to further  liberties and to guarantee rights.... kinda like our Charter did.

The reverse onus is an abomination in a legal system with the presumption of innocence.  Presumably, if the offender is on his/her third strike, it won't be so hard for the government to prove them a dangerous offender anyway.  It happens every day in this country.  Make the prosecutors do their jobs.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Dec 2006)

SamIAm said:
			
		

> Do I like the Liberal platforms?  I don't know yet.



But the Liberals don't stand for *ANYTHING* beyond the next election. They just try to ride the fence, watch polls and keep things status quo, except for Quebec which gets artificially propped up year after year to buy votes. Despite the NDP being half baked and completely out of touch with reality, they at least stick to their guns (which is great since they will eventually be bumped out by the Green party).
I would love to see a comparison of Liberal initiatives highlighted against the six months prior to an election. Then also indicate how many of the vote buying ideas aren't scheduled until after the election. It is pathetic and obvious.  



			
				SamIAm said:
			
		

> The reverse onus is an abomination in a legal system with the presumption of innocence.  Presumably, if the offender is on his/her third strike, it won't be so hard for the government to prove them a dangerous offender anyway.  It happens every day in this country.  Make the prosecutors do their jobs.



Yeah, you let the children of the murdered women know that after their dad gets out of jail for the fourth time in a row after breaching his non-association conditions with her after he beat her up in the first place.  Don't put it on the Crowns, it is the Liberal appointed Judges.  However, I will be happy to invite you over to the "Judges are everything that is wrong in Canada" thread so as to not get too hijacky with this thread.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Dec 2006)

How about the gun registry that was supposed to cost 2 million a year to run, has cost around 2 billion and needs 100 million a year to barely function (plus it took them 2 years to register my .22. They sent me a letter saying they didn’t have enough information to complete the file, the missing information was my mailing address!)

Have we mentioned the purchase of the Challenger jets yet? 

Or the lack of replacements for the Sea Kings?

How about a PM that was to cheap to hire Canadian Seaman for his ships and had them registered offshore to avoid paying Canadian taxes and meet Canadian safety standards?

Golf courses anyone?

Adscam?

APEC and sucking up to dictators by forcing Canadians to remove protest signs from their own property. Not to mention interference from the PMO with the RCMP.

Etc,etc.

The real scandal is I wasted 20 minutes reading this thread, think I will do something useful like debate the 9mm vs .45acp issue.


----------



## GAP (21 Dec 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> How about the gun registry that was supposed to cost 2 million a year to run, has cost around 2 billion and needs 100 million a year to barely function (plus it took them 2 years to register my .22. *They sent me a letter saying they didn’t have enough information to complete the file, the missing information was my mailing address!)*



Did you send back the carrier pigeon that brought the letter?


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2006)

It looks like we have to split off a portion from this split off thread:

The accusation of CPC scandals is unproven (and for now there has been no evidence presented to suggest any scandals to date)

Disagreements with specific CPC policy proposals or legislation is a totally different matter, and involves a combination of values (i.e. do these proposals and laws match your world view?) and judgment (will these laws and proposals do what they say, or are there intended or unintended consequences to passing such laws?). Like someone said earlier, this isn't the "Why the CPC ROCKS" thread.

As a BTW, although my world view is libertarian, I generally support the CPC since they represent many of my values and are able to implement them into law (unlike a presumptive Libertarian Party in the Federal arena). Prime Minister Harper has drawn my anger in the "Quebecois are a Nation within Canada" thing, and I am no fan of corporate or agricultural welfare, which is what the biofuels proposal really is, despite the "Green" dress clothes, so he better watch out or I will be coming for him.......


----------



## Boxkicker (22 Dec 2006)

Quebec9er I must say that the countries I have visited where Arabic is the predominate language, you'd be dead for what you are saying so be carefull I dont think we want to have to come and save your A**.

  But you cannot blame him for the thinking he has this is what they are teaching in our universities. Unfortunatley it does not teach common sense, my sister has all the same kind of things that go through her head. At least she worked through MED school and did not want a government hand out.

  Do I agree with all of Stephen Harper's policies not a chance, but at least we have a democrcy that allows us to have those thoughts. Our current PM has done what he has said what he is going to do and that is all we can ask of anyone. 

  As for the reverse onus stuff the next time someone fires a weapon in your direction Q9 and then blame the government why he is not in jail, you had better ask yourself why and is it right, that this person is on the streets and why should he not have to prove that they are not a danger to those of us that respect the law.

  Q9 just remeber it is because of us and those like us in the past that YOU have the freedom's you have today!!!


----------



## sober_ruski (22 Dec 2006)

SamIAm said:
			
		

> In the debate over who is the most corrupt/honest, I don't think the political party matters so much.  I think most of them will do/say anything to gain or preserve access to power.



Harper *said* he would rather lose an election over something he believes is right, than be a fence sitting flip flopper.  Not often that is heard from a politician. For some reason I have more trust in his actions that rich lawyer types from Quebec.


----------



## FastEddy (23 Dec 2006)

hotelquebec9er said:
			
		

> And $200 million to allow Quebec separation to disappear off the radar for almost 10 years is a great policy if we are discussing policy as scandal.




Why do I get the feeling your more "The Block" than "Liberal".

If you wanted to compare scandals or performance in a quasi legal terminology, what the PC have done are "Misdemeanors" and the Liberals "Felony's".

I would also suggest you fill out your Profile, to at least, add some credibility to your comments.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Dec 2006)

Fast Eddy
His profile used to be filled out quite well, but took it down for some reason.


----------



## Franko (23 Dec 2006)

Another drive by trolling.

locking this one up.....got something to add to the coversation, contact a mod.

Regards


----------

