Cons give Libs a month

Andem

dev
Mar 24, 2002
5,645
129
63
Larnaka
Canada Conservatives Give Liberals a Month



OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's main opposition party is unlikely to let the minority Liberal government survive more than a month, senior Conservatives said on Monday.

Suddenly energized by a new poll that shows Liberal support in a freefall because of dramatic allegations of kickbacks from a federal spending program, the Conservatives are now looking at when, not whether, to pull the plug on the government.

"There's a window of three to four weeks," one Conservative strategist, who did not wish to be identified, told Reuters.

(See original article on reuters.ca)
 

Jo Canadian

Council Member
Mar 15, 2005
2,488
1
38
PEI...for now
I guess that's why there was a publication ban in the first place...so no one will get carried away and start building effigy's before the inquiry is even finished. I'd personally would like to see it finished so names can be named, without the mud slinging and finger pointing.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Cons give Libs a mont

We'll see what happens. I still don't think the Liberals are out of it yet. They can announce a Kyoto plan...something the Conservatives want to kill, but most Canadians support. They can play to the SSM legislation, which will solidify many people against the Conservatives.

Then there are the scandals in the provinces. I still fully expect those to start showing up.

There are also the scary people that Harper wants to keep quiet. A couple of them spouting off about abortion or bringing in US style gun laws or (insert radical right issue here) will again push people away from the Conservatives.
 

Andem

dev
Mar 24, 2002
5,645
129
63
Larnaka
Jo Canadian said:
I guess that's why there was a publication ban in the first place...so no one will get carried away and start building effigy's before the inquiry is even finished. I'd personally would like to see it finished so names can be named, without the mud slinging and finger pointing.

Without mud slinging? There will always be that in Canadian politics!
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Cons give Libs a mont

I just wish that we'd get past the scandal mongering and into the issues. We all know there's a scandal, we all know there's an investigation into it. We all want to know happened.

To force a trip to the polls before all of the evidence is heard and all the facts known is nothing but political opportunism. It is avoiding running on the isses of the day, nothing more.

More than that, only 15% of Canadians want an election right away. Most have indicated they prefer to wait until Justice Gomery has released his report in the fall. Harper's ultimatum today could have a negative impact on his poll numbers as a result. It looks too much like he wants to fight the election on anything other than the issues.
 

crit13

Electoral Member
Mar 28, 2005
301
4
18
Whitby, Ontario
I just wish that we'd get past the scandal mongering and into the issues. We all know there's a scandal, we all know there's an investigation into it. We all want to know happened.

To force a trip to the polls before all of the evidence is heard and all the facts known is nothing but political opportunism. It is avoiding running on the isses of the day, nothing more.

More than that, only 15% of Canadians want an election right away. Most have indicated they prefer to wait until Justice Gomery has released his report in the fall. Harper's ultimatum today could have a negative impact on his poll numbers as a result. It looks too much like he wants to fight the election on anything other than the issues.

Let's not forget that the Liberals won an election on fear mongering. They couldn't run on their track record.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Politics is dirty and it seems that the Liberals are the dirtiest of them all.
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
Crit I would like to know how the liberals lost the election on fear mongering. One should take responsibility for their own actions, right or wrong. The liberals did not have to use fear mongering, your party did that all on their own.
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander? Thats your answer? And yet here your party is again, protesting same sex marriage AGAIN. This only re-enforces that your party is not main stream with the rest of canadians.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Cons give Libs a mont

It's not just same-sex marriage. All indications are that Harper would have gone into Iraq, would have signed signed onto BMD, would have backed out of Kyoto, and would have further integrated both our economy and out military with the US. Those are all things that Canadians came out against in poll after poll.

There is also rumoured to be a movement with the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives to make abortion an issue again despite it being voted down at the convention. The argument is that 1/3 of the candidates, mostly from the west, weren't there because they booked on JetsGo.

The Reform/Alliance/Conservatives have also decided not to promote meaningful parliamentary reform to address the real democratic deficit...the first past the post system. That means that whoever wins the next election will have more seats than reflected in the popular vote, and other parties will have fewer seats than reflected by their portion of the popular vote.

So how about addressing some of those issues, Crit? You might want to take them up with the politicians you support.
 

crit13

Electoral Member
Mar 28, 2005
301
4
18
Whitby, Ontario
Crit I would like to know how the liberals lost the election on fear mongering. One should take responsibility for their own actions, right or wrong. The liberals did not have to use fear mongering, your party did that all on their own.

Lets at least be honest. The Conservatives tried to bring up the Liberals track record from the past 8 years and the only time the Liberals were on the offensive is when Martin talked about same sex marriage or when Judy Sgro chased Harpers bus around like a puppy.

All indications are that Harper would have gone into Iraq,

(Fear mongering) News Flash Rev. We did have soldiers in Iraq courtesy of the Liberals. Harper was fighting to have them better equiped. Something as simple as grey fatigues in the desert so that our soldiers don't stick out so much in their green fatigues which are made for vegetation.

Which brings up another hypocrisy. Harper wanted to inject money into the military and the Liberals didn't. The Liberals just signed off on a few Billion dollars for our military.

would have signed signed onto BMD

The fact of the matter is the US doesn't need us. The BMD WILL materialize with or without us. By pissing off the Americans, now we will have no say as to what goes on within that program.

Side note: Why do you think it's taken so long for the borders to open for our cattle? You can't give your biggest trading partner the one fingered salute and then expect them to bend over backwards to help you out.

would have backed out of Kyoto

Kyoto? What is this Kyoto of which you speak? The Liberals have backed out of Kyoto. Where were we supposed to be today? Oh yeah, we are actually worse off today than 6 years ago when these plans were supposed to be in place. We don't even have a plan for the future. How could Harper back out from something that doesn't even exist?

and would have further integrated both our economy and out military with the US.

Integrating our army with the US is a pipedream. Why would the most powerful and sophisticated army in history want to integrate with beat up jalopies, helicopters that can't fly and submarines that can't swim? What a joke!! Our economies are already integrated. 80% of our exports end up in the US. How much more integrated can we get?

The Reform/Alliance/Conservatives have also decided not to promote meaningful parliamentary reform to address the real democratic deficit...the first past the post system. That means that whoever wins the next election will have more seats than reflected in the popular vote, and other parties will have fewer seats than reflected by their portion of the popular vote.

No party other than the NDP and maybe the Green promote this. Not to mention that the only reason they promote it is because they are the only ones that would benefit. Selfish. Typical NDP though. If they don't like the game, there is no need to get better. Just change the rules to work in your favour.

So how about addressing some of those issues, Crit? You might want to take them up with the politicians you support.

I'm comfortable with my politicians even though I disagree with some of their beliefs. They have the guts to stand up for what they believe is best for the country, not what's best for every fringe element from Halifax to Vancouver.
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
Well I will be honest crit, what completely turned me off was the accusation of Paul Martin being in favor of child pornography. That was a real leap, and it came on the heels of a murdered child. That actually made me sick crit. Please do not justify and rationalize it to me. It was, what it was.
Well you call them the fringes of society, but they are still the majority. But I would like to know what you class as the fringes of society.
 

crit13

Electoral Member
Mar 28, 2005
301
4
18
Whitby, Ontario
Well I will be honest crit, what completely turned me off was the accusation of Paul Martin being in favor of child pornography.

That remark was made because of his soft to non stance on child pornography. I'm tired of people thinking that bad things happen for no reason. They happen because of laws that we pass and enforce. You have no problem associating gun deaths in the US because of soft gun laws yet fail to claim equal responsibilty for other crimes that involve soft laws here in Canada.

God forbid we actually punish people for breaking the law.

That actually made me sick crit.

Harper was called far worse. How did that make you feel? Pretty good I bet.
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
I don't know harper personally crit, I couldn't say, but no I don't like or agree with alot of his political idealogy.
I think you missed my point on the child pornography. He came across as an opportunist, taking advantage of a horrible crime, to try and make someone else look bad. Thats the way I saw it, and thats the way I see it today.
That is not real concern to me, I call that a circus. He could have back tracked but he did not. Instead he made it an issue, which only turned people againist him.
 

dukee

Nominee Member
Nov 25, 2004
86
0
6
Saskatoon, SK
Re: RE: Cons give Libs a mont

So, the Liberals are down to 25% in the poles. That's loserland in my books. :)

Reverend Blair said:
We'll see what happens. I still don't think the Liberals are out of it yet. They can announce a Kyoto plan...something the Conservatives want to kill, but most Canadians support.

Their plan so far has been to double the projected budget from $5 billion to $10 billion. The plan thus far amounts to running around, speaking happy thoughts about one tonne challenges, while having no idea how to get even close to meeting emmission requirements.

If they want to campaign on that, then good on them. :roll:


They can play to the SSM legislation, which will solidify many people against the Conservatives.

The latest poll show a majority of Canadians don't want that. Beyond that, three out of the four major parties have sided against the majority on this issue.

The Liberals themselves are even admitting they'll likely lose 10 seats in Ontario based on that issue alone.

There are also the scary people that Harper wants to keep quiet. A couple of them spouting off about abortion or bringing in US style gun laws or (insert radical right issue here) will again push people away from the Conservatives.

Yawn. I think Liberal Spinmaster Warren Kensella put it best when he said that political parties that try to paint Mr. Harper as scary is doomed to backfire when Canadians realize that he isn't scary. He was also one of the first to admit that Harper is destined for the Prime Minister's office.
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
peapod said:
I don't know harper personally crit, I couldn't say, but no I don't like or agree with alot of his political idealogy.
I think you missed my point on the child pornography. He came across as an opportunist, taking advantage of a horrible crime, to try and make someone else look bad. Thats the way I saw it, and thats the way I see it today.
That is not real concern to me, I call that a circus. He could have back tracked but he did not. Instead he made it an issue, which only turned people againist him.

...and when Martin called him on the inappropriateness of it, he refused to apologize or recant...
 

snoproblem

Nominee Member
Mar 18, 2005
59
0
6
Vanni Fucci said:
...and when Martin called him on the inappropriateness of it, he refused to apologize or recant...

Sound like someone you know? :roll:

Not scary, eh? The man who would join us at the hip with anything Yankee wants, precisely when the world at large is aligning themselves as a counter to U.S. policy and actions.

That's scary, in my books. The last thing we need up here is Bush Lite.
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
Vanni's no fan of the Conservatives sno :p Theres no difference between these two anyways :x Libs,Cons same shit a little different retoric same corporate thieves telling them how their going to steal our tax dollars for themselves .I don't beleave our politicians really run the show .Their corporate backers call the shots :wink:
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Lets at least be honest.

Yeah, let's be honest. Guess that takes care of the rest of your post.

We did have soldiers in Iraq courtesy of the Liberals. Harper was fighting to have them better equiped.

That was as part of the regular exchange program between the US and Canadian military. While those soldiers should have been brought home immediately, Harper would have had more Canadian soldiers there, as many as he could find...cannon fodder in George Bush's illegal war for oil.

The fact of the matter is the US doesn't need us.

The fact is that the US very badly wanted us to sign on to political legitimacy to their plans to start a new arms race and put weapons in space. That's why Georgie and (Skank for me) Condi Rice were so pissed off.

By pissing off the Americans, now we will have no say as to what goes on within that program.

We wouldn't have had any say anyway. Anybody over the age of six knows that.

Why do you think it's taken so long for the borders to open for our cattle?

Because Martin is afraid to play hardball and tie trade issues to energy. Harper is even worse on that front. It was his party that scuttled attempts to fine US meat packers for contempt of parliament after they took money meant to help farmers and shipped it south...just another corporate profit.



The Liberals have backed out of Kyoto.

The Liberals have done poorly on Kyoto. It's a good example of why I never vote for them. They did ratify it though, so now we have to meet the targets or pay the price. The Conservatives will simply pay the price and then they'll pay the polluters to pollute some more. The Liberals may be ineffective, but the Conservatives are luddite morons so busy denying the science in the name of greed that they cannot even consider the implications of their stupidity.

Integrating our army with the US is a pipedream.

Go look at the Conservative platform. If it's a pipedream, then Harper is on crack. He wants the equipment and systems to be more compatible with the US so we can help them out instead working in a multi-lateral forum like the UN.

Our economies are already integrated. 80% of our exports end up in the US. How much more integrated can we get?

The easy answer would be 20%. The reality of Harper's platform is that he would do nothing that might anger the Bushites in the least, but would stand with Bush as he alienated the rest of the world.

No party other than the NDP and maybe the Green promote this.

The Alliance used to promote it. Can you say flip-flop? The Conservatives know that they will never have enough of the popular vote to force their insane plans down our throats. They like to yark about democratic deficits, but they are afraid to do anything about them. All they really care about is shifting the power to Alberta.

They have the guts to stand up for what they believe is best for the country,

They have no guts at all. They crawl to their corporate masters and kneel in front of George Bush.

That remark was made because of his soft to non stance on child pornography.

That remark was made because the Conservatives proposed legislation that was defeated in the House. The reason that legislation was defeated was that it was insane. It would have effectively banned classic works of arts and literature. It would have put parents who snapped pictures of their kids in the tub in danger of being persecuted (I used that word advisedly). It would have made open and frank discussions of teen sexuality illegal, making sex education a joke. It would have made open and frank discussion about the acts of pedophilia illegal, making it difficult to honestly address a very real problem. It was bad and stupid legislation, so it was voted into the trash bin where it belonged.

Harper was called far worse.

He earned it. It made me good to call him those things. Still does.