Looks Like the Dreaded Spring Election is on!
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
You are correct that Durry never expressed taking away voters rights, but it was suggested by someone else that they would have to pass a test to qualify. Durry's response to that did in fact express opposition to that idea and expressed a desire that people would have an understanding of the issues and not vote for personality etc.
I agree that an informed and educated vote based on the policies presented is the best vote and expressed in my post you quoted that we can hope that is true for all voters.
The point is though that all the hope and wishes we all have for an informed voter does not take away their right to vote for the letter L if they please.
The crux of the matter of this election, Groober, is exactly that: The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C. (Candidate: Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister, has treated our elected representatives with astonishing contempt. His conduct in office has led me to believe that the Conservative Party of Canada should be relegated to the opposition benches for at least a decade. The problem, though, is that this is something that is going to be impossibly difficult to sell, as a campaign issue, to the electorate. The Liberal Party of Canada would do best to communicate a solid platform, with the concluded contempt of our legislature being a matter that sets the tone, rather than the substance.
For the 3,843rd time, not a Liberal. But thanks for playing.
If you'd actually read my comments, I've said that the contempt issue shouldn't be the theme of this election. But thanks so much for jumping to personal attacks when I didn't address you at all.
Considering the fact that I haven't said a single good thing about the Liberals since Ignatieff became their leader...
Not all Liberals like IGGY - Can you not see that - same with lots of Cons do not like Harper - That you can see????
Take 5P at his word or prove him wrong.
Thank you. Duly noted.
I brought if forward simply because Harper is using it as a political tool for his campaign. Yeah we saw it coming but why wasn't it dealt with a year ago? After years of discussion and negotiation suddenly the feds and Quebec have found common ground? How conv-e-e-e-enient.
What, is Bev Oda in our riding? Or Stephen Harper for that matter? If not, then it really ought to be a non-issue for you?
Hardly, Machjo.
Since ministers deal with matters of national importance and possess a good deal of discretionary decision-making power, we all have a role to play in praising and criticising those office-holders. In the case of The Honourable Bev Oda P.C. (Candidate: Durham), the Minister of International Cooperation, she deceived all of our representatives. She demonstrated a clear intention to mislead Parliament, and she should have been dismissed as a result. She absolutely had the right to reject her department's recommendation; her very purpose, as a minister, is to make political decisions. The issue here is the fact that she lied, repeatedly.
This reflects just as badly, though, on the prime minister; knowing that Ms. Oda misled Parliament, he backed her up and refused to take decisive action on the matter. If this is the way that the Conservative Party wants to carry out the business of government, then Canadians should think twice before marking down a Conservative candidate on the ballot.
Since ministers deal with matters of national importance and possess a good deal of discretionary decision-making power, we all have a role to play in praising and criticising those office-holders. In the case of The Honourable Bev Oda P.C. (Candidate: Durham), the Minister of International Cooperation, she deceived all of our representatives. She demonstrated a clear intention to mislead Parliament, and she should have been dismissed as a result. She absolutely had the right to reject her department's recommendation; her very purpose, as a minister, is to make political decisions. The issue here is the fact that she lied, repeatedly.
This reflects just as badly, though, on the prime minister; knowing that Ms. Oda misled Parliament, he backed her up and refused to take decisive action on the matter. If this is the way that the Conservative Party wants to carry out the business of government, then Canadians should think twice before marking down a Conservative candidate on the ballot.
Thats politics - You should know better -
As have Liberals under the Chretien years. Only difference was - he controlled the committees. So really no difference bewteen the 2 parties.
Up to this point I fully agree with you. As for the tone of your post, I get the impression that you'd read my previous post to oppose what you are now saying above. My intent was in fact to say exactly what you are saying above, but in fewer words.
Now this part I disagree with, as was indicated in my previous post, the same one that agrees with what you'd typed above, but in fewer words. Should a local Conservative candidate in fact be prepared to condemn Oda's actions and the Prime Minister's defense of her, then I do not see why he would not be worth considering to check off on the ballot. Of course it's highly unlikely that a Conservative candidate would in fact speak so strongly against his leadership when we consider the extreme party discipline today even in the midst of elections, and so my comment here might be somewhat theoretical. But should a Conservative candidate hypothetically speak out in opposition to such behaviour, then I would not see any reason not to consider voting for such a candidate, barring a better candidate to choose from of course. In the Ottawa area last election, I was surprised to see how the Green Party had stacked up a few quality candidates in our local ridings. But who knows, there may be the odd Conservative candidate here and there who would in fact fearlessly speak out in favour of cleaning his own party up. Sure he might not ever reach a high position in his party, but he might still have some good ideas worth considering.
And still not a reason to reject a Liberal candidate out of hand any more than a Conservative one. Each candidate should be heard independently of his party platform, as not all candidates are necessarily the most loyal of party hacks. You will find some in all parties I'm sure who are independent thinkers. Again, they're not likely to reach any higher than a backbencher position, but if he's a candidate of integrity, why not give him his vote in Parliament?
I'm not required to do either but I have had numerous discussions with 5P on numerous forums. I stand by what I have said. I do not believe him when he says he is not a Liberal. If that bothers you, go have a good cry.
Ooooooooooooops, shades of S.J.P.- he knew better than anyone else what THEIR political leaning is.
You are in error yet again. I do not purport to know better than 5P as to his political leanings. After hours of discussion on a number of web forums, he has made it quite clear to me. I am questioning his honesty. Since many here only know him from this forum, they are unaware of the history. 5P may be able to bulls hit some but he can't bulls hit me.