Dion hints at allowing back Liberals ousted in sponsorship scandal


CBC News
#1
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion comes under fire after suggesting the party might let back at least one person who was banned for life over the sponsorship scandal.

More...
 
jjaycee98
#2
And will the stupid electorite think the Liberals have "learned their lesson" and re-elect them?

Dion is a weasle IMO and this just cements that opinion.
 
Gonzo
#3
The electorate where stupid enough to re-elect the Conservatives after Mulroney.
 
Colpy
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Gonzo View Post

The electorate where stupid enough to re-elect the Conservatives after Mulroney.

True, true.....

And after 12 years of Conservative majority rule, it will probably be time to re-elect the Liberals.
 
BitWhys
#5
After 12 years of Harper majority rule it'll be time to vote in the Democrats.
 
#juan
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

True, true.....

And after 12 years of Conservative majority rule, it will probably be time to re-elect the Liberals.

Nah....After Mulroney's debt is paid off we can have another Conservative majority government. That would be in about the year, 2040..
 
Colpy
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

Nah....After Mulroney's debt is paid off we can have another Conservative majority government. That would be in about the year, 2040..

That's what I like about you Juan, you're such an optimist..........

Personally, I think Mulroney was a deep mole planted in the PC Party by the Liberals, and activated on the political demise of Pierre Trudeau...........
 
ottawabill
#8
first of all the conservative elected this time have far less association with Mulroney years then the liberals have with the Cretien years...many of the same players are there within the liberal party right now. Whereas msot members of the old Mulroney years are long gone from the party....

The Liberals believe they are God's gift to Canada whereas really they are God's gift to Ontario..moreso to Toronto...it has become there only true power base....A base made of people how don't even know there is more to the country than southern Ontario...
 
Colpy
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by ottawabill View Post

first of all the conservative elected this time have far less association with Mulroney years then the liberals have with the Cretien years...many of the same players are there within the liberal party right now. Whereas msot members of the old Mulroney years are long gone from the party....

The Liberals believe they are God's gift to Canada whereas really they are God's gift to Ontario..moreso to Toronto...it has become there only true power base....A base made of people how don't even know there is more to the country than southern Ontario...


AND these folks forget (conveniently) that the current Conservative Party of Canada is made up of old PC folks AND Reform/Alliance. They forget Reform split from the old PC Party because they couldn't STAND Brian Mulroney. A move of principle (get out a dictionary, Liberals) that kept the Liberals in power for 12 years.

This is NOT the PC Party of 1988 or 1992.

NOBODY has split from the Liberal Party on a move for principle, despite their corruption. (Ask me if I'm surprized)

In fact, it looks more and more like the Liberal Party is much the same as it was from 1993 to 2005.
 
BitWhys
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

AND these folks forget (conveniently) that the current Conservative Party of Canada is made up of old PC folks AND Reform/Alliance. They forget Reform split from the old PC Party because they couldn't STAND Brian Mulroney...

how could anyone possibly forget that? Mulroney's party was a lot of things but it took the Reformatories to take it over before the CONs turned into FASCISTS.
 
Colpy
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys View Post

how could anyone possibly forget that? Mulroney's party was a lot of things but it took the Reformatories to take it over before the CONs turned into FASCISTS.

Now there is an intelligent contribution to the debate............NOT!

Geez, at least the idiots from the Liberal Party used to call us Racists and Fascists.......too much for you to keep straight, I guess.

BTW, do you work for CBC Radio?

AND the NDP is a hell of a lot closer to Stalin than the CPC is to Mussolini.

Those who live in glass houses.........
Last edited by Colpy; Jan 25th, 2007 at 03:39 PM..
 
BitWhys
#12
Its more intelligent than you realize, otherwise you wouldn't have said that.

I'm disappointed you haven't read my threads about it or been able to figure it out yourself but what the Harpercrats are proposing for the Wheat Board is the very definition of corporatism, which is the economic dimension of FASCISM.

Him being a Calgary School economist I'm sure Harper is well aware of what he's doing. The FASCIST.
 
Gonzo
#13
Mulroney is a BIG supporter of Harper. Dont forget that!
And it doesn't matter who splits from who. People leave parties anyway. There are Mulroney people in the Harper government, as are Mike Harris people. John Baird was big in the Harris government, who started the horrible workfare program. That government was a disaster!
 
Nuggler
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by CBC News View Post

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion comes under fire after suggesting the party might let back at least one person who was banned for life over the sponsorship scandal.

More...

Short life.

.......They really are a bunch of greasy bastards.

Gonzo: When I saw Baird getting a position of power in Harper's govt., I got just a cold, empty feeling in my stomach. Harris deja vu....frightening.

.......They really are a bunch of greasy bastards

 
Gonzo
#15
Political leaders are greasy bastards. We sound like Bubbles from Trailer Park Boys.
 
ottawabill
#16
I for one live in Ontario and liked the Harris government... put extra money in my pocket, made people realize that teachers and government workers had it made and stopped the little kingdoms setup within school boards...

It's amazing to me that talking heads in Toronto will still blame Harris for problems of today...boy they give him a lot more power then he had..don't they?

I love how loose people on these forums are with their terms...facsists?? what the hell..this is a democracy..alway has been,, you think that Harper would cancel elections and rule the world??? what a bunch of simplistic morons....
 
BitWhys
#17
calling me names and putting words in my mouth isn't going to change anything. its not my fault the term has picked up a plethora of negative connotations. History does that sort of thing. you might want to think about that.

corporatism is the economic dimension of fascism. Harper has no problem with being a part of that, proving his image of being a classical liberal is nothing more than a matter of convenience. cheer on.
Last edited by BitWhys; Jan 26th, 2007 at 10:51 AM..
 
Colpy
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys View Post

calling me names and putting words in my mouth isn't going to change anything. its not my fault the term has picked up a plethora of negative connotations. History does that sort of thing. you might want to think about that.

corporatism is the economic dimension of fascism. Harper has no problem with that. cheer on.

First of all, yes, corporatism is the economic dimension of fascism.

Universal free medical care is a dimension of communism.

This is not a communist country because we have medicare.

The Conservatives are not a Fascist party simply because their policies contain elemments of corporatism.

To continually cry FASCIST is simply a distraction, silly, and infantile. It adds nothing to the debate, in fact it reflects poorly on your own arguments, as it is so patently and so obviously untrue.

On a personal level, I do resent being called a fascist, I am so far from a fascist the label is ludicrous.
 
BitWhys
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

...
The Conservatives are not a Fascist party simply because their policies contain elemments of corporatism...

Yes. Yes they are. To even remotely consider government competing openly with its own industry is ludicrous and speaks volumes about their mindset. Strahl doesn't expect the Board to simply coordinate on the governments behalf (neo-corporatism not uncommon in some social democracies), he expects it compete. I can't simply call it corporatism because that leaves out the active role of government from the equation.

If you have no problems with the Conservatives having fascist policies about one of the West's most essential industries then it shouldn't bother you when I keep mentioning it. You're more than welcome to call the NDP socialist in return. Wouldn't bother me in the least.
 
BitWhys
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by ottawabill View Post

... what the hell..this is a democracy..alway has been,, you think that Harper would cancel elections and rule the world??? what a bunch of simplistic morons....

Let's keep in mind that democracy is more than just elections, shall we?...

Quote: Originally Posted by Hon. Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance, CPC)

Quite Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is not the role of the government to just simply legislate a ban on ATM fees.

It is if we want it to be. Somebody's forgetting that political power is arbitrary.
 
#juan
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

That's what I like about you Juan, you're such an optimist..........

Personally, I think Mulroney was a deep mole planted in the PC Party by the Liberals, and activated on the political demise of Pierre Trudeau...........

You know, you are probably right. The whole political game is a giant, evil, conspiracy. How come every riding I've ever lived in elected somebody, other than who I might have voted for?
 
Cannuck
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys View Post

corporatism is the economic dimension of fascism.

I may be but I think your definition of Corporatism needs work. Read this.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=3054
 
BitWhys
#23
Quote:

What is corporatism? In a (somewhat inaccurate) phrase, socialism for the bourgeois. It has the outward form of capitalism in that it preserves private ownership and private management, but with a crucial difference: as under socialism, government guarantees the flow of material goods, which under true capitalism it does not.

uh huh

so what's your point?

btw, any article that uses the terms "left" and "right" to make its point isn't worth the pixels its written with.
 
BitWhys
#24
and if you really find this sort of thing you might find this one interesting...

Quote:

...Liberals of the Mises school urge that the interference with the price system practised by representative Democracy inevitably diminishes the sum total of goods produced; Fascism is condoned as the safeguard of Liberal economics...

 
Cannuck
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys View Post

so what's your point?

That you don't seem to "get" what corporatism is. I thought that was pretty clear.
 
Cannuck
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys View Post

and if you really find this sort of thing you might find this one interesting...

I generally don't find anything interesting of it's being openly promoted as "left-wing" or right-wing". As I've said on other threads and other forums, I don't generally think in terms of left and right.
 
BitWhys
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

That you don't seem to "get" what corporatism is. I thought that was pretty clear.

it IS clear. and even though you're relying on a uniquely American Conservative source for its definition, the CWB scheme fits the bill.

private ownership and a government entity guaranteeing continuity of service. the fact it competes directly (so far with government writs of insurance, no less) with other entities in the market might make it seem otherwise to you, but that could be since there aren't many examples of anything that hairbrained in existence.
 
Cannuck
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys View Post

and even though you're relying on a uniquely American Conservative source for its definition...

I'm not relying on anything. I merely used it as a source. Do you require more or do you reject it simply because it is from an American Conservative source?

Private ownership as it pertains to the CWB is somewhat suspect. Since western farmers are not allowed to do as they choose with their own products, many would take issue with the notion that they "own" it....not that this had anything to do with my initial point which was that you seem to be in error in you view of what constitutes corporatism.
 
BitWhys
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

I'm not relying on anything. I merely used it as a source. Do you require more or do you reject it simply because it is from an American Conservative source?

Private ownership as it pertains to the CWB is somewhat suspect. Since western farmers are not allowed to do as they choose with their own products, many would take issue with the notion that they "own" it....not that this had anything to do with my initial point which was that you seem to be in error in you view of what constitutes corporatism.

I didn't reject it. My point was and still is that the Strahl's scheme fits the definition.

So far the CWB is a cooperative (ie Socialist) venture. Personally, I've got no problem with that.

The private ownership I'm talking about is the business entities that will be allowed to enter the market. If farmers want the CWB in the barley business competing against other vendors, great. Privatize that part of it and find a new underwriter. Anything less is FASCISM, a FASCISM by offering it as an option our current government demonstrates it has no problem with. Matter of fact Strahl made it pretty clear its the option he prefers. go figure.
 
Cannuck
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys View Post

Anything less is FASCISM, a FASCISM by offering it as an option our current government demonstrates it has no problem with. Matter of fact Strahl made it pretty clear its the option he prefers. go figure.

I'm sorry. I just don't get your logic.
 

Similar Threads

84
Who do you blame for the Sponsorship Scandal?
by Socrates the Greek | Sep 17th, 2008
0
10
Liberals in the lead with Dion
by gc | Dec 4th, 2006