Liberals are the Most Corrupt Government
- Thread starter bluealberta
- Start date
mattyaloo said:
Yes, I know the Libs pander to big business...but so too would the Cons...only to a greater extent...
mattyaloo said:
You know, that the free vote blather was brought up to address the SSM issue...that way when they come off looking like a bunch of redneck bigots, they can say they were voting on behalf of their constituents...
Same with the private members bills...all devised to allow them to force their regressive social policy wrapped in the death shroud of democracy...
Who needs official party policy when they can make it up as they go along...
RE: Liberals are the Most
So, Blue, you came up with four scandals during the Chretien Martin years. The HRDC thing wasn't really a matter of corruption either...just incompetence, but whatever. Francis Fox doesn't count unless you want us to go back to Diefenbaker.
You listed 12 for the Conservatives.
You are extremely critical when Liberals get off from their charges, but you consider the charges being dropped against Conservatives to be complete exoneration. You try to minimize the Conservative transgressions (oh it was just a strip club) without taking into account the times (it was during the Cold War, he may or may not have had sensitive papers with him, may have had a "liason" with a stripper, and was leaving himself open to blackmail).
Not to mention that you missed quite a few on both sides.
Nice try at spin buddy, but the Mulroney government was more corrupt than the Chretien/Martin governments. Go pick up a book called "On the Take".
Still, nobody here is claiming the Liberals are scandal free and I don't see anybody saying that we should all vote Liberal.
BTW, I hear your buddy Grumant is in trouble with Air Canada now too. Harper still hasn't got the balls to fire him. Do you have any idea how stupid you have to be to get in trouble with Air Canada? Thousands of people fly absolutely wasted every single day, and they don't get in trouble.
So, Blue, you came up with four scandals during the Chretien Martin years. The HRDC thing wasn't really a matter of corruption either...just incompetence, but whatever. Francis Fox doesn't count unless you want us to go back to Diefenbaker.
You listed 12 for the Conservatives.
You are extremely critical when Liberals get off from their charges, but you consider the charges being dropped against Conservatives to be complete exoneration. You try to minimize the Conservative transgressions (oh it was just a strip club) without taking into account the times (it was during the Cold War, he may or may not have had sensitive papers with him, may have had a "liason" with a stripper, and was leaving himself open to blackmail).
Not to mention that you missed quite a few on both sides.
Nice try at spin buddy, but the Mulroney government was more corrupt than the Chretien/Martin governments. Go pick up a book called "On the Take".
Still, nobody here is claiming the Liberals are scandal free and I don't see anybody saying that we should all vote Liberal.
BTW, I hear your buddy Grumant is in trouble with Air Canada now too. Harper still hasn't got the balls to fire him. Do you have any idea how stupid you have to be to get in trouble with Air Canada? Thousands of people fly absolutely wasted every single day, and they don't get in trouble.
Vanni Fucci said:
There is no Abortion legislation in this country. We are the only industrialized nation without a law on abortion. By the way, Paul Martin and Jean Chretien are both privately against abortion.
You lefties are so exclusive: You want the "status quo" on abortion. Well the status quo in this country is : abortion on demand, paid for by the public purse. In the larger spectrum of possible abortion laws in this country: ie. limited term aborions, some form of counselling for women prior to recieving an abortion,limits on the NUMBER of abortions one person can have for free, limits on the AMOUNT the public will pay for etc....in other words, I think everyone in the country is in favor of having LESS ABORTIONS. So along the spectrum of abortion law: ie one extreme is "abortion on demand" (what we have now) and the other extreme is "no abortions ever", there are all sorts of middle ground. So in the bigger picture, if you favor the status quo, you ARE the extremist. By Definition you are on ONE extreme of the spectrum. And you somehow find a way to label anyone else along different degree of the spectrum as "extreme" or "bigotted". THAT my dear is the ultimate of INTOLERANCE, which is a form of bigotry. Think about it, you abortion extremist.
Who needs official party policy when they can make it up as they go along...
OMIGOD?!!! You mean a system not a dictatorship of the PM and his 10 buddies? You mean a system where the other 294 MPs actually MATTER? GOOD GOSH WHAT WOULD WE DO WITH OURSELVES????
Really do you guys out east actually INDEPENDANTLY THINK, or do you simply memorize what Paul Martin tells you.
[/quote]
OMIGOD?!!! You mean a system not a dictatorship of the PM and his 10 buddies? You mean a system where the other 294 MPs actually MATTER? GOOD GOSH WHAT WOULD WE DO WITH OURSELVES????
Really do you guys out east actually INDEPENDANTLY THINK, or do you simply memorize what Paul Martin tells you.
So it appears that even with all of their faults, Martin and Chretien at least understand the importance of the separation between church and state.
How the hell does giving everybody the same rights and and access make us exclusive? Your very argument show us to inclusive. We aren't excluding anybody at all.
mattyaloo said:
Yes I do know that, and I think it's a testament to their statesmanship that they are able to put their personal views aside to do what's right. Somehow I don't see Harper being that sensible...
mattyaloo said:
Easy with the extremist jibes, Matty, or you'll be finding your stay here a short one...
For my part, I'd rather that there weren't any abortions at all, but I know that ideal is far detached from reality, and so I believe it to be important to have abortions safe, clean, accessible, and infrequent...moreso than to deny them the right to have one at all, and force them into the alleys once again...
Vanni Fucci said:
That's your opinion, and mine by the way. However, I am not so presumptive as to force my opinion into the law of the land without allowing my fellow electorate to have their say. And I am certainly not one to put a muzzle on opinions that might differ from my own. That is the point here: the original point was that conservatives speak for the people and allowing MPs to introduce bills does exactly that. See the problem for you lefties is that you have a tough time letting anyone else have an opinion, and an even tougher time letting the people, instead of the all powerful centrally planned governmenet, make decisions for themselves.
I am a "gaurded" pro-choicer who respects the ideals of democracy, as are most conservatives. And I called you an extremist so that you might feel some empathy for people with differing opinions to your own who frequently get tarred and feathered in this country. Not very nice is it?
RE: Liberals are the Most
Um...first of all the cigarette makers pay for those. I think the government may have paid for the original design and photo shoots, etc, but that's small change...more than covered with the taxes from cigarettes. Second of all scientifically accurate medical advice has nothing to do with the abortion debate.
Um...first of all the cigarette makers pay for those. I think the government may have paid for the original design and photo shoots, etc, but that's small change...more than covered with the taxes from cigarettes. Second of all scientifically accurate medical advice has nothing to do with the abortion debate.
mattyaloo said:
here let me draw you a picture you don't seem to get it:
abortion on demand-----------middle ground--------------no abortion
OK YOU are on the left. You are EXCLUDING the rest of the continuum's opinion and going with your own extreme on the line. Got it?
RE: Liberals are the Most
Nope, that's silly. We aren't forcing them to have abortions, there is nothing saying that they have to perform abortions. They are allowed to do as they see fit, but they cannot force their beliefs on anybody else. That's inclusive, not exclusive.
Nope, that's silly. We aren't forcing them to have abortions, there is nothing saying that they have to perform abortions. They are allowed to do as they see fit, but they cannot force their beliefs on anybody else. That's inclusive, not exclusive.
Re: RE: Liberals are the Most
I don't care who pays for them, they qouldn't be there if the government didn't mandate it. Now my question,since you don't seem to be picking up on the subtlety, is this:
The government either cares what happens to unborn fetuses or doesn't. Now which is it? On the one hand they say the unborn fetus carries NO rights at all(abortion on demand), but on the other they mandate that cigarette makers provide information to protect unborn fetuses. It's a double standard. And the other point you missed, but actually brought up yourself by accident, is that the issue of abortion has nothing to do with religion it has to do with science. Hence your argument for "the separation of church and state"is moot.
Reverend Blair said:
I don't care who pays for them, they qouldn't be there if the government didn't mandate it. Now my question,since you don't seem to be picking up on the subtlety, is this:
The government either cares what happens to unborn fetuses or doesn't. Now which is it? On the one hand they say the unborn fetus carries NO rights at all(abortion on demand), but on the other they mandate that cigarette makers provide information to protect unborn fetuses. It's a double standard. And the other point you missed, but actually brought up yourself by accident, is that the issue of abortion has nothing to do with religion it has to do with science. Hence your argument for "the separation of church and state"is moot.
...and what is the sentence that the Crown recommends for women who smoke while pregnant? What is the recommended sentence for tobacco companies for producing the cigarettes that the women are smoking? What is the recommended sentence for the Domo selling the pregnant women her smokes?
mattyaloo said:
At the risk of offending some on this forum, yes, I have looked into, ever since last years election. Alberta runs surpluses every year in the $8billion dollar range, and if you add the transfer payments of appox. $12billion, that's $20billion per year. There would obviously be some additional initial costs, but in my opinion, Alberta has the financial ability to go it alone, or with a combination of BC, Sask, etc. No one has been able to give me a real reason for belonging to this country we call Canada, other than a bunch of fuzzy feel goods, that mean squat.
However, first of all, I would support BC, Alberta, and Sask banding together as provinces to put some pressure on Ottawa in an effort to reconfigure confederation and how Canada works. All three provinces are now have provinces, and the population of the three together rivals that of the east, so we would at least be even that way. So, we would have population, resources, and financial clout to become a force for change. What I see now, though, is a real concentrated effort on the part of the Liberals to villify Alberta at every turn, in order to keep any kind of western alliance apart. What we need are politicians in all three provinces to put aside political and personal egos, and demand that the west be treated as equals, instead of drawers of water and hewers of wood. If that did not work, then a separate Alberta is the next option, with or without any combination of the other two provinces. Our trade is more north south now, we enjoy a good relationship with the US in spite of the Federal idiots. We are more historically aligned with the NW US than with eastern Canada. All in all, if any province could legitimately separate, it is Alberta.
But, like I said, I would like to try one more time to work within the system to get more equal treatment of the west first.
Re: RE: Liberals are the Most
Darn, you missed it again. OK here goes #3 Not everyone in this country agrees with you on the concept of abortion on demand. Some people think there should be some kind of limits. Yet others think the state shouldn't pay...etc etc. OK now stay with me here. The PROVISION of abortions, in your world, should be universal and so is INCLUSIVE. Same sort of way that EVERYONE should be able to sterilize their mentally ill child. That's INCLUSIVE in your world, because EVERYONE would have the equal access to sterilize their mentally handicapped child. But some people out there disagree with the idea. So even though YOU might think it's ok to sterilize handicapped kids, not EVERYONE agrees with you. And by marginalizing the other opinions, that makes you EXCLUSIVE by shutting down the debate.
I should remind you this was originally a discussion about the people of Canada being represented fairly by their MPs. Perhaps that context will help you understand the concept of exclusive as it applies to debate and the expression of opinion.
Reverend Blair said:
Darn, you missed it again. OK here goes #3 Not everyone in this country agrees with you on the concept of abortion on demand. Some people think there should be some kind of limits. Yet others think the state shouldn't pay...etc etc. OK now stay with me here. The PROVISION of abortions, in your world, should be universal and so is INCLUSIVE. Same sort of way that EVERYONE should be able to sterilize their mentally ill child. That's INCLUSIVE in your world, because EVERYONE would have the equal access to sterilize their mentally handicapped child. But some people out there disagree with the idea. So even though YOU might think it's ok to sterilize handicapped kids, not EVERYONE agrees with you. And by marginalizing the other opinions, that makes you EXCLUSIVE by shutting down the debate.
I should remind you this was originally a discussion about the people of Canada being represented fairly by their MPs. Perhaps that context will help you understand the concept of exclusive as it applies to debate and the expression of opinion.
RE: Liberals are the Most
Yeah, I think that the Liberal government has a pretty shoddy record on corruption but I will go as far as to say its also a systemic problem.
Most of the checks and balances in our system have been phased out. It has been up to the very offenders of these types of corrupt policies who have been given the large portion of the responsibility in solving the problems.
Couple this with the fact that Canada is basically a one party state then it is just an even greater recipe for disaster. I wouldn't be too upset though for those who despair; one party dominance especially corrupt by its very nature is going to die eventually. Its just a question of when and how.
Yeah, I think that the Liberal government has a pretty shoddy record on corruption but I will go as far as to say its also a systemic problem.
Most of the checks and balances in our system have been phased out. It has been up to the very offenders of these types of corrupt policies who have been given the large portion of the responsibility in solving the problems.
Couple this with the fact that Canada is basically a one party state then it is just an even greater recipe for disaster. I wouldn't be too upset though for those who despair; one party dominance especially corrupt by its very nature is going to die eventually. Its just a question of when and how.
Re: RE: Liberals are the Most
No, that was your one of the more sickening moments of your provincial government...
You should really write Klein a letter asking why he wanted to use the Notwithstanding Clause to keep that one on the books...
mattyaloo said:
No, that was your one of the more sickening moments of your provincial government...
You should really write Klein a letter asking why he wanted to use the Notwithstanding Clause to keep that one on the books...