Sponsorship Program - Will of the People paid for?

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
So your telling me that the Liberals were elected because they were such a great opposition??

They consistently raised real issues and offered alternatives. They had far more scandals to choose, they could have spent the whole time doing nothing but being scandal-mongers, but instead they concentrated on policy.

The combined IQ of the Liberal caucus could have been 200 in 1992, they were getting elected because the Canadian public couldn't stand Mulroney and the conservatives and the Reform party was branded a "Bloc Quebec party from the west" by the Liberals.

Mulroney was gone, remember? Kim Campbell was PM. Reform started because of Mulroney's policies. The grass roots meetings started before he was even in office. The Conservatives were defeated because nobody wanted more of the same. They lost Ontario and Quebec. Harper still hasn't learned that lesson...you need Ontario and the non-BQ seats in Quebec to form a government in Canada.

When it comes to the opposition, their only purpose is to find problems with the government because in our political system the government will never act on opposition motions.(At least very rarely)

Apparently you don't understand politics, tibear. To have a chance at winning the next election the Official Opposition must give the impression of being a government in waiting. That means putting up credible arguments and offering realistic alternatives. The Conservatives do not do that.

Chretien's rallying slogan in 1992 was "Kill the GST". I'm still waiting.

Me too. That was a political battle within the Liberal Party though. Chretien let Martin win that battle in order to win the larger war. It worked too...Martin couldn't become leader until Chretien retired. Nobody in the party gave a rat's ass about the GST one way or the other.

As I've stated earlier, the only reason the Liberals are in power is because at first the Reform/Alliance and Conservatives were fighting with each other and splitting the vote and then when they stopped fighting the Liberals were successful in painting the Conservatives as Anti-Christs.

If the Conservatives hadn't split they might have had a shot at forming a government in the last election. Maybe. Martin was in trouble before the election even started. The truth is that things got a lot better under Chretien than they'd been under Mulroney though. People had jobs, people had money.

The hard fact is that the Conservatives got less of the popular vote in the last election than the PCs and Alliance combined had gotten previously. That's not because the Liberals painted the Conservatives as anti-Christs. The Conservatives did that all by themselves. All the Liberals had to do was nod and point.

I agree with you that Mulroney is one of the most hated PM's. However, the two policies that people hated the most Free Trade and the GST are still here. Why haven't the Liberals taken steps to eliminate these policies??

Why would they? The GST would just have to be replaced with something else...the income is still required...and business likes the GST just fine. Free trade has been an on-again, off-again Liberal policy since Confederation and is a pet project of the corporations that fund both the Liberals and the Conservatives.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
So your telling me that the Liberals were elected because they were such a great opposition??

They consistently raised real issues and offered alternatives. They had far more scandals to choose, they could have spent the whole time doing nothing but being scandal-mongers, but instead they concentrated on policy.

The combined IQ of the Liberal caucus could have been 200 in 1992, they were getting elected because the Canadian public couldn't stand Mulroney and the conservatives and the Reform party was branded a "Bloc Quebec party from the west" by the Liberals.

Mulroney was gone, remember? Kim Campbell was PM. Reform started because of Mulroney's policies. The grass roots meetings started before he was even in office. The Conservatives were defeated because nobody wanted more of the same. They lost Ontario and Quebec. Harper still hasn't learned that lesson...you need Ontario and the non-BQ seats in Quebec to form a government in Canada.

When it comes to the opposition, their only purpose is to find problems with the government because in our political system the government will never act on opposition motions.(At least very rarely)

Apparently you don't understand politics, tibear. To have a chance at winning the next election the Official Opposition must give the impression of being a government in waiting. That means putting up credible arguments and offering realistic alternatives. The Conservatives do not do that.

Chretien's rallying slogan in 1992 was "Kill the GST". I'm still waiting.

Me too. That was a political battle within the Liberal Party though. Chretien let Martin win that battle in order to win the larger war. It worked too...Martin couldn't become leader until Chretien retired. Nobody in the party gave a rat's ass about the GST one way or the other.

As I've stated earlier, the only reason the Liberals are in power is because at first the Reform/Alliance and Conservatives were fighting with each other and splitting the vote and then when they stopped fighting the Liberals were successful in painting the Conservatives as Anti-Christs.

If the Conservatives hadn't split they might have had a shot at forming a government in the last election. Maybe. Martin was in trouble before the election even started. The truth is that things got a lot better under Chretien than they'd been under Mulroney though. People had jobs, people had money.

The hard fact is that the Conservatives got less of the popular vote in the last election than the PCs and Alliance combined had gotten previously. That's not because the Liberals painted the Conservatives as anti-Christs. The Conservatives did that all by themselves. All the Liberals had to do was nod and point.

I agree with you that Mulroney is one of the most hated PM's. However, the two policies that people hated the most Free Trade and the GST are still here. Why haven't the Liberals taken steps to eliminate these policies??

Why would they? The GST would just have to be replaced with something else...the income is still required...and business likes the GST just fine. Free trade has been an on-again, off-again Liberal policy since Confederation and is a pet project of the corporations that fund both the Liberals and the Conservatives.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
So your telling me that the Liberals were elected because they were such a great opposition??

They consistently raised real issues and offered alternatives. They had far more scandals to choose, they could have spent the whole time doing nothing but being scandal-mongers, but instead they concentrated on policy.

The combined IQ of the Liberal caucus could have been 200 in 1992, they were getting elected because the Canadian public couldn't stand Mulroney and the conservatives and the Reform party was branded a "Bloc Quebec party from the west" by the Liberals.

Mulroney was gone, remember? Kim Campbell was PM. Reform started because of Mulroney's policies. The grass roots meetings started before he was even in office. The Conservatives were defeated because nobody wanted more of the same. They lost Ontario and Quebec. Harper still hasn't learned that lesson...you need Ontario and the non-BQ seats in Quebec to form a government in Canada.

When it comes to the opposition, their only purpose is to find problems with the government because in our political system the government will never act on opposition motions.(At least very rarely)

Apparently you don't understand politics, tibear. To have a chance at winning the next election the Official Opposition must give the impression of being a government in waiting. That means putting up credible arguments and offering realistic alternatives. The Conservatives do not do that.

Chretien's rallying slogan in 1992 was "Kill the GST". I'm still waiting.

Me too. That was a political battle within the Liberal Party though. Chretien let Martin win that battle in order to win the larger war. It worked too...Martin couldn't become leader until Chretien retired. Nobody in the party gave a rat's ass about the GST one way or the other.

As I've stated earlier, the only reason the Liberals are in power is because at first the Reform/Alliance and Conservatives were fighting with each other and splitting the vote and then when they stopped fighting the Liberals were successful in painting the Conservatives as Anti-Christs.

If the Conservatives hadn't split they might have had a shot at forming a government in the last election. Maybe. Martin was in trouble before the election even started. The truth is that things got a lot better under Chretien than they'd been under Mulroney though. People had jobs, people had money.

The hard fact is that the Conservatives got less of the popular vote in the last election than the PCs and Alliance combined had gotten previously. That's not because the Liberals painted the Conservatives as anti-Christs. The Conservatives did that all by themselves. All the Liberals had to do was nod and point.

I agree with you that Mulroney is one of the most hated PM's. However, the two policies that people hated the most Free Trade and the GST are still here. Why haven't the Liberals taken steps to eliminate these policies??

Why would they? The GST would just have to be replaced with something else...the income is still required...and business likes the GST just fine. Free trade has been an on-again, off-again Liberal policy since Confederation and is a pet project of the corporations that fund both the Liberals and the Conservatives.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
You should have a look at Harper's proposed policies, Jay. He'd cut some programs, but he would increase government and political interference in our lives. Just like his hero Georgie has done in the US.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't go around spouting off the glories of Harper. I speak from the right. I'm sure we have all voted for a party leader who wasn't our favorite bag of chips, because we voted for an ideology. We have to start somewhere.

George Bush isn't hero material. However, George Bush seems to me to be one of the finest examples of an American ideal; any American can become President.

Oh? Who proved it? Was it a scientific proof or a legal proof? Did it include all politicians or just the ones you don't like?

Recent history proves it. No it doesn't include all of them.
I'm sure the ones you vote for don't make it on the list.

You should check into who funds the think tanks that the Liberals and Conservatives get their policies from. Then check into who supports those parties financially. Then come back and tell me again how corporations don't write laws. While you're at it, have a hard look at how the tax burden has been shifted from corporations and the wealthy onto the middle and working classes.

Well I wonder who you thought was funding that? It takes money to make money, as the old say goes.
I'm not sending any politicians money, are you? I think I give those folks enough money otherwise. So it’s coming from somewhere...

But this doesn't negate the fact the government writes law; the corporations don't. If you believe this is being circumvented, then you must accept the fact most politicians lie, because no one is running around campaigning on circumventing democracy.

In order to keep jobs in Canada we need competitive tax rates for corporations. We don't all work for the government. Also remember the “no taxation without representation”. If corporations don’t pay taxes they need not be represented.

I don't have a real big hate on for wealthy people. I'm not interested in their money, unless they want to give it to me. I expect them to pay their fair share, and if they are paying in the same way I am I feel sorry for them.

We need less government. If the tax burden has been moved to the working classes, then I feel even more justified in my wanting a fiscally responsible conservative government who will run on platforms of leanness, tax reduction, less socialism, more freedom, with a clear understanding of provincial powers.

Are you naive enough to think that we don't pay for that through increased prices, lower wages for the workers, environmental disasters, increased tax burdens, poor service, health risks, etc? You can't be that naive, can you?

I have another old saying...prices rise. (Deflation can be bad)
I haven’t received any lower wages lately, (unless you count that tax increase by the Ontario government), but having an unemployment rate of 7% and insisting we need to bring in immigrants to fill jobs can't be helping wages go up. And I can't imagine your saying corrupt corporations are making environmental disasters? Dumping oil onto the sea and such? Otherwise, governments pretty much control the, who can do what, where and when. Health risks are another government matter. Really these are government responsibilities and have nothing to do with private padded expense accounts and free candy for The CEO.

I don't, which is why I want to change things. The government is supposed to represent the people and work for the greater good of the population at large. I'll continue to push for that.

Interesting. I share some of these beliefs also, but I'm not all about constant revolution; changing things. I simply want the governments to abide by the constitution, understand we are a people first and not a government. Quit believing there soul mission is to write two thousand new laws a day, and that they can generally piss off. For that matter, corporations can piss off too. I hate commercials.

Of course that evolved into Pizzagate where your heroes

They aren’t my heroes


That is all that Harper and his fellow incompetents have done as Official Opposition. They try to create scandals instead of dealing with issues.

This is true....

the only positive thing that can be said of them is that at least they never formed the government.

This is not.




The Sponsorship Program is merely icing on the cake. It just goes to show why they can’t be trusted with more than a few nickels to provide some basic services and fireworks at the end of the year.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
You should have a look at Harper's proposed policies, Jay. He'd cut some programs, but he would increase government and political interference in our lives. Just like his hero Georgie has done in the US.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't go around spouting off the glories of Harper. I speak from the right. I'm sure we have all voted for a party leader who wasn't our favorite bag of chips, because we voted for an ideology. We have to start somewhere.

George Bush isn't hero material. However, George Bush seems to me to be one of the finest examples of an American ideal; any American can become President.

Oh? Who proved it? Was it a scientific proof or a legal proof? Did it include all politicians or just the ones you don't like?

Recent history proves it. No it doesn't include all of them.
I'm sure the ones you vote for don't make it on the list.

You should check into who funds the think tanks that the Liberals and Conservatives get their policies from. Then check into who supports those parties financially. Then come back and tell me again how corporations don't write laws. While you're at it, have a hard look at how the tax burden has been shifted from corporations and the wealthy onto the middle and working classes.

Well I wonder who you thought was funding that? It takes money to make money, as the old say goes.
I'm not sending any politicians money, are you? I think I give those folks enough money otherwise. So it’s coming from somewhere...

But this doesn't negate the fact the government writes law; the corporations don't. If you believe this is being circumvented, then you must accept the fact most politicians lie, because no one is running around campaigning on circumventing democracy.

In order to keep jobs in Canada we need competitive tax rates for corporations. We don't all work for the government. Also remember the “no taxation without representation”. If corporations don’t pay taxes they need not be represented.

I don't have a real big hate on for wealthy people. I'm not interested in their money, unless they want to give it to me. I expect them to pay their fair share, and if they are paying in the same way I am I feel sorry for them.

We need less government. If the tax burden has been moved to the working classes, then I feel even more justified in my wanting a fiscally responsible conservative government who will run on platforms of leanness, tax reduction, less socialism, more freedom, with a clear understanding of provincial powers.

Are you naive enough to think that we don't pay for that through increased prices, lower wages for the workers, environmental disasters, increased tax burdens, poor service, health risks, etc? You can't be that naive, can you?

I have another old saying...prices rise. (Deflation can be bad)
I haven’t received any lower wages lately, (unless you count that tax increase by the Ontario government), but having an unemployment rate of 7% and insisting we need to bring in immigrants to fill jobs can't be helping wages go up. And I can't imagine your saying corrupt corporations are making environmental disasters? Dumping oil onto the sea and such? Otherwise, governments pretty much control the, who can do what, where and when. Health risks are another government matter. Really these are government responsibilities and have nothing to do with private padded expense accounts and free candy for The CEO.

I don't, which is why I want to change things. The government is supposed to represent the people and work for the greater good of the population at large. I'll continue to push for that.

Interesting. I share some of these beliefs also, but I'm not all about constant revolution; changing things. I simply want the governments to abide by the constitution, understand we are a people first and not a government. Quit believing there soul mission is to write two thousand new laws a day, and that they can generally piss off. For that matter, corporations can piss off too. I hate commercials.

Of course that evolved into Pizzagate where your heroes

They aren’t my heroes


That is all that Harper and his fellow incompetents have done as Official Opposition. They try to create scandals instead of dealing with issues.

This is true....

the only positive thing that can be said of them is that at least they never formed the government.

This is not.




The Sponsorship Program is merely icing on the cake. It just goes to show why they can’t be trusted with more than a few nickels to provide some basic services and fireworks at the end of the year.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
You should have a look at Harper's proposed policies, Jay. He'd cut some programs, but he would increase government and political interference in our lives. Just like his hero Georgie has done in the US.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't go around spouting off the glories of Harper. I speak from the right. I'm sure we have all voted for a party leader who wasn't our favorite bag of chips, because we voted for an ideology. We have to start somewhere.

George Bush isn't hero material. However, George Bush seems to me to be one of the finest examples of an American ideal; any American can become President.

Oh? Who proved it? Was it a scientific proof or a legal proof? Did it include all politicians or just the ones you don't like?

Recent history proves it. No it doesn't include all of them.
I'm sure the ones you vote for don't make it on the list.

You should check into who funds the think tanks that the Liberals and Conservatives get their policies from. Then check into who supports those parties financially. Then come back and tell me again how corporations don't write laws. While you're at it, have a hard look at how the tax burden has been shifted from corporations and the wealthy onto the middle and working classes.

Well I wonder who you thought was funding that? It takes money to make money, as the old say goes.
I'm not sending any politicians money, are you? I think I give those folks enough money otherwise. So it’s coming from somewhere...

But this doesn't negate the fact the government writes law; the corporations don't. If you believe this is being circumvented, then you must accept the fact most politicians lie, because no one is running around campaigning on circumventing democracy.

In order to keep jobs in Canada we need competitive tax rates for corporations. We don't all work for the government. Also remember the “no taxation without representation”. If corporations don’t pay taxes they need not be represented.

I don't have a real big hate on for wealthy people. I'm not interested in their money, unless they want to give it to me. I expect them to pay their fair share, and if they are paying in the same way I am I feel sorry for them.

We need less government. If the tax burden has been moved to the working classes, then I feel even more justified in my wanting a fiscally responsible conservative government who will run on platforms of leanness, tax reduction, less socialism, more freedom, with a clear understanding of provincial powers.

Are you naive enough to think that we don't pay for that through increased prices, lower wages for the workers, environmental disasters, increased tax burdens, poor service, health risks, etc? You can't be that naive, can you?

I have another old saying...prices rise. (Deflation can be bad)
I haven’t received any lower wages lately, (unless you count that tax increase by the Ontario government), but having an unemployment rate of 7% and insisting we need to bring in immigrants to fill jobs can't be helping wages go up. And I can't imagine your saying corrupt corporations are making environmental disasters? Dumping oil onto the sea and such? Otherwise, governments pretty much control the, who can do what, where and when. Health risks are another government matter. Really these are government responsibilities and have nothing to do with private padded expense accounts and free candy for The CEO.

I don't, which is why I want to change things. The government is supposed to represent the people and work for the greater good of the population at large. I'll continue to push for that.

Interesting. I share some of these beliefs also, but I'm not all about constant revolution; changing things. I simply want the governments to abide by the constitution, understand we are a people first and not a government. Quit believing there soul mission is to write two thousand new laws a day, and that they can generally piss off. For that matter, corporations can piss off too. I hate commercials.

Of course that evolved into Pizzagate where your heroes

They aren’t my heroes


That is all that Harper and his fellow incompetents have done as Official Opposition. They try to create scandals instead of dealing with issues.

This is true....

the only positive thing that can be said of them is that at least they never formed the government.

This is not.




The Sponsorship Program is merely icing on the cake. It just goes to show why they can’t be trusted with more than a few nickels to provide some basic services and fireworks at the end of the year.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
To have a chance at winning the next election the Official Opposition must give the impression of being a government in waiting. That means putting up credible arguments and offering realistic alternatives. The Conservatives do not do that.

This is so true, but the Chretien Liberals were a bunch of old farts that have been so far around the block it isn't funny. Remember the real old guy? Was it Herb Grey or something (I think he recently passed away) So old he couldn't warm the seat, then Chretien himself, etc. I'm exaggerating but it's is a tough job to unseat this party, they know every nook and cranny, but it can be done. I don’t buy the "this country is turning more to the left in the past 10 years". It has more to do with the fact the split right vote hasn't been able to muster up the unity and power to have a solid voice in the past ten years. With the way Harper addressed issues during the last election, it appeared to me at least he had allot in common with the BQ message of provincial jurisdiction. The western voice appears to understand the concept of the difference between the two levels of government in this nation. The Liberals don't; and as long as separatism is on the decrease and the Liberals pursue silly plans like a national day care system, the right is going to start to become an attractive place to place a vote. I don't think the liberals can count on tons of votes that go to the BQ if the climate becomes different in Quebec. Unless of coarse they buy them.

If the Conservatives hadn't split they might have had a shot at forming a government in the last election. Maybe. Martin was in trouble before the election even started. The truth is that things got a lot better under Chretien than they'd been under Mulroney though. People had jobs, people had money.

The Conservatives had a good shot at forming the government the second last election too. If I'm not mistaken the right would have taken that if it was under one umbrella. I personally sent Joe Clark an email and thanked him for electing the Liberals. I'm sure in the back room Chretien and Clark were up to something. :)

People had money and jobs under Chretien, because of Mulroney's policies. Not from their own. Quebec’s GDP went up some 80% after NAFTA I read somewhere.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
To have a chance at winning the next election the Official Opposition must give the impression of being a government in waiting. That means putting up credible arguments and offering realistic alternatives. The Conservatives do not do that.

This is so true, but the Chretien Liberals were a bunch of old farts that have been so far around the block it isn't funny. Remember the real old guy? Was it Herb Grey or something (I think he recently passed away) So old he couldn't warm the seat, then Chretien himself, etc. I'm exaggerating but it's is a tough job to unseat this party, they know every nook and cranny, but it can be done. I don’t buy the "this country is turning more to the left in the past 10 years". It has more to do with the fact the split right vote hasn't been able to muster up the unity and power to have a solid voice in the past ten years. With the way Harper addressed issues during the last election, it appeared to me at least he had allot in common with the BQ message of provincial jurisdiction. The western voice appears to understand the concept of the difference between the two levels of government in this nation. The Liberals don't; and as long as separatism is on the decrease and the Liberals pursue silly plans like a national day care system, the right is going to start to become an attractive place to place a vote. I don't think the liberals can count on tons of votes that go to the BQ if the climate becomes different in Quebec. Unless of coarse they buy them.

If the Conservatives hadn't split they might have had a shot at forming a government in the last election. Maybe. Martin was in trouble before the election even started. The truth is that things got a lot better under Chretien than they'd been under Mulroney though. People had jobs, people had money.

The Conservatives had a good shot at forming the government the second last election too. If I'm not mistaken the right would have taken that if it was under one umbrella. I personally sent Joe Clark an email and thanked him for electing the Liberals. I'm sure in the back room Chretien and Clark were up to something. :)

People had money and jobs under Chretien, because of Mulroney's policies. Not from their own. Quebec’s GDP went up some 80% after NAFTA I read somewhere.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
To have a chance at winning the next election the Official Opposition must give the impression of being a government in waiting. That means putting up credible arguments and offering realistic alternatives. The Conservatives do not do that.

This is so true, but the Chretien Liberals were a bunch of old farts that have been so far around the block it isn't funny. Remember the real old guy? Was it Herb Grey or something (I think he recently passed away) So old he couldn't warm the seat, then Chretien himself, etc. I'm exaggerating but it's is a tough job to unseat this party, they know every nook and cranny, but it can be done. I don’t buy the "this country is turning more to the left in the past 10 years". It has more to do with the fact the split right vote hasn't been able to muster up the unity and power to have a solid voice in the past ten years. With the way Harper addressed issues during the last election, it appeared to me at least he had allot in common with the BQ message of provincial jurisdiction. The western voice appears to understand the concept of the difference between the two levels of government in this nation. The Liberals don't; and as long as separatism is on the decrease and the Liberals pursue silly plans like a national day care system, the right is going to start to become an attractive place to place a vote. I don't think the liberals can count on tons of votes that go to the BQ if the climate becomes different in Quebec. Unless of coarse they buy them.

If the Conservatives hadn't split they might have had a shot at forming a government in the last election. Maybe. Martin was in trouble before the election even started. The truth is that things got a lot better under Chretien than they'd been under Mulroney though. People had jobs, people had money.

The Conservatives had a good shot at forming the government the second last election too. If I'm not mistaken the right would have taken that if it was under one umbrella. I personally sent Joe Clark an email and thanked him for electing the Liberals. I'm sure in the back room Chretien and Clark were up to something. :)

People had money and jobs under Chretien, because of Mulroney's policies. Not from their own. Quebec’s GDP went up some 80% after NAFTA I read somewhere.
 

SirKevin

Electoral Member
Feb 8, 2005
105
0
16
Toronto
The Liberals were rocked by AdScam, and have been getting more and more boring over the years...and they STILL won the election (albeit a minority) even with only one slate of conservative candidates on the ballot.

I think that should say something about people in this country's fear of conservativsm.
 

SirKevin

Electoral Member
Feb 8, 2005
105
0
16
Toronto
The Liberals were rocked by AdScam, and have been getting more and more boring over the years...and they STILL won the election (albeit a minority) even with only one slate of conservative candidates on the ballot.

I think that should say something about people in this country's fear of conservativsm.
 

SirKevin

Electoral Member
Feb 8, 2005
105
0
16
Toronto
The Liberals were rocked by AdScam, and have been getting more and more boring over the years...and they STILL won the election (albeit a minority) even with only one slate of conservative candidates on the ballot.

I think that should say something about people in this country's fear of conservativsm.
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
I would rather be robbed blind than let someone like steven harper prime minister of canada. Thats goes for all the "neo" conservatives....The best thing that could happen to them is to split. I would rather lose my money than my freedom.
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
I would rather be robbed blind than let someone like steven harper prime minister of canada. Thats goes for all the "neo" conservatives....The best thing that could happen to them is to split. I would rather lose my money than my freedom.
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
I would rather be robbed blind than let someone like steven harper prime minister of canada. Thats goes for all the "neo" conservatives....The best thing that could happen to them is to split. I would rather lose my money than my freedom.
 

SirKevin

Electoral Member
Feb 8, 2005
105
0
16
Toronto
peapod said:
I would rather be robbed blind than let someone like steven harper prime minister of canada. Thats goes for all the "neo" conservatives....The best thing that could happen to them is to split. I would rather lose my money than my freedom.

Heh...that's essentially what I said to a conservative on another forum once who was ranting about how the Liberals should be in jail for their robbery, etc etc...I said, "Pfft, I'd rather have criminals in power than the Harper Conservatives" or something like that.
 

SirKevin

Electoral Member
Feb 8, 2005
105
0
16
Toronto
peapod said:
I would rather be robbed blind than let someone like steven harper prime minister of canada. Thats goes for all the "neo" conservatives....The best thing that could happen to them is to split. I would rather lose my money than my freedom.

Heh...that's essentially what I said to a conservative on another forum once who was ranting about how the Liberals should be in jail for their robbery, etc etc...I said, "Pfft, I'd rather have criminals in power than the Harper Conservatives" or something like that.
 

SirKevin

Electoral Member
Feb 8, 2005
105
0
16
Toronto
peapod said:
I would rather be robbed blind than let someone like steven harper prime minister of canada. Thats goes for all the "neo" conservatives....The best thing that could happen to them is to split. I would rather lose my money than my freedom.

Heh...that's essentially what I said to a conservative on another forum once who was ranting about how the Liberals should be in jail for their robbery, etc etc...I said, "Pfft, I'd rather have criminals in power than the Harper Conservatives" or something like that.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
I would rather lose my money than my freedom.

If you don't mind, what freedom exactly are you scared of loosing?

It almost seems like their going to put you in jail or something...

And I suppose I have to ask, why don't you consider being robbed blind loosing freedom?
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
I would rather lose my money than my freedom.

If you don't mind, what freedom exactly are you scared of loosing?

It almost seems like their going to put you in jail or something...

And I suppose I have to ask, why don't you consider being robbed blind loosing freedom?