What would it take?

[Reverend Blair]

I'm not wrong about Cargill, Blue. This is all a matter of government record. They were a major contributor to the Conservatives. The Conservatives would not allow them to be fined for contempt of Parliament. I don't a rat's ass what you claim your job requirements are, that's all available if you want to check.

The abortion issue is all there too, Blue. You aren't fooling anybody at all.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: What would it take?

I'm not wrong about Cargill, Blue. This is all a matter of government record. They were a major contributor to the Conservatives. The Conservatives would not allow them to be fined for contempt of Parliament. I don't a rat's ass what you claim your job requirements are, that's all available if you want to check.

The abortion issue is all there too, Blue. You aren't fooling anybody at all.

I am going to find a way to respond about Cargill.

The conservatives support the status quo about abortion, despite you rantings to the contrary. Get over it, it is not an issue. Nobody wants to change any abortion policy. Your fixation on this borders on obsession.

 

[Reverend Blair]

What way are you going to find to respond about Cargill? Are you going to change the Elections Canada stat that shows them contributing to the Harperites? Are you going to change the parliamentary record that shows the Conservatives opposing fining them? Goof luck with that.

You can't change the abortion thing either. It all happened on TV. Your party passed a wishy-washy resolution. There was widespread dissent in front of the TV cameras including CPC members saying that the resolution would have failed except a certain discount airline went broke so there were representatives from the west missing. Cheryl Gallant promised to introduce a private members bill banning abortion. Stephen Harper said that he would not stop such a bill. Many Conservative MPs are openly anti-choice and show up at anti-choice rallies. Stephen Harper has been at such rallies.

If the Conservatives were to get a majorioty government, they would ban abortion. That's reality, Blue. All the weasel words in your vocabulary will not alter it.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: What would it take?

What way are you going to find to respond about Cargill? Are you going to change the Elections Canada stat that shows them contributing to the Harperites? Are you going to change the parliamentary record that shows the Conservatives opposing fining them? Goof luck with that.

You can't change the abortion thing either. It all happened on TV. Your party passed a wishy-washy resolution. There was widespread dissent in front of the TV cameras including CPC members saying that the resolution would have failed except a certain discount airline went broke so there were representatives from the west missing. Cheryl Gallant promised to introduce a private members bill banning abortion. Stephen Harper said that he would not stop such a bill. Many Conservative MPs are openly anti-choice and show up at anti-choice rallies. Stephen Harper has been at such rallies.

If the Conservatives were to get a majorioty government, they would ban abortion. That's reality, Blue. All the weasel words in your vocabulary will not alter it.

Here is the readers digest version of Cargill and Lakeside:

The Liberals wanted to have the books fully opened. Both said no, and if they were forced to they would close down, or drastically cut back. Keep in mind this was in the first year or so of the BSE crisis. The conservatives said that would not be beneficial to the system, as shutting down would hurt the industry even more.

Yes, both got federal money, simply because both were the owners of cattle. No laws were broken, both plants stayed open, and cattle were processed. If they had closed, devastation would have resulted.

The conservatives will not introduce anti aborition laws. Any MP may introduce a private members bill, as is their right. The number of private members bills that pass is negligible. To deny any MP this right is to deny democracy.

Pro-Life does not mean anti choice. Any MP is free to attend any rally at any location for any cause. Freedom of association in Canada is a right.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Here is the readers digest version of Cargill and Lakeside:

The Liberals wanted to have the books fully opened. Both said no, and if they were forced to they would close down, or drastically cut back. Keep in mind this was in the first year or so of the BSE crisis. The conservatives said that would not be beneficial to the system, as shutting down would hurt the industry even more.

Here is the real story, once again. Cargill and Lakeside took money from the government. They did not pass that money on to farmers and ranchers, which is what it was for. Instead they paid rock-bottom prices. They made record profits that year, which they shipped south instead of reinvesting them in Canada, while Canadian farmers and ranchers were going broke. A parliamentary committee was set up to look into the matter. That committee, including the Conservatives, found Cargill in contempt of parliament for refusing to open their books and divulge where the money went. That committee then tried to levy a daily fine against Cargill until such time as they opened their books. A unanimous decision was needed by the committee to levy such a fine. The Conservatives, who have taken a lot of money from Cargill in donations, refused to vote for the fines.

The threats that Cargill made are immaterial. It is doubtful they would have carried them out because they would have been giving up a market of 30 million people and the Canadian could have seized their assets in lieu of the fines. Those assets could then be sold off to somebody who wasn't in business to rob the taxpayers and the farmers.

More than that though, it is the Conservatives who are always saying that we shouldn't bargain with criminals. Cargill clearly broke the law, the Conservatives did not contest that. What the Conservatives did was protect their corporate buddies even though they knew those buddies had broken the law. That, my friend, is both corrupt and highly hypocrtical.

Now contact your constituency office and see how they want you to answer that.

Don't bother with the abortion thing anymore...If the Conservatives get a majority government, they will ban it. Whether they do that through a private member's bill or a party-sponsored bill is immaterial.

 

[bluealberta]

Here is the readers digest version of Cargill and Lakeside:

The Liberals wanted to have the books fully opened. Both said no, and if they were forced to they would close down, or drastically cut back. Keep in mind this was in the first year or so of the BSE crisis. The conservatives said that would not be beneficial to the system, as shutting down would hurt the industry even more.

Here is the real story, once again. Cargill and Lakeside took money from the government. They did not pass that money on to farmers and ranchers, which is what it was for. Instead they paid rock-bottom prices. They made record profits that year, which they shipped south instead of reinvesting them in Canada, while Canadian farmers and ranchers were going broke. A parliamentary committee was set up to look into the matter. That committee, including the Conservatives, found Cargill in contempt of parliament for refusing to open their books and divulge where the money went. That committee then tried to levy a daily fine against Cargill until such time as they opened their books. A unanimous decision was needed by the committee to levy such a fine. The Conservatives, who have taken a lot of money from Cargill in donations, refused to vote for the fines.

The threats that Cargill made are immaterial. It is doubtful they would have carried them out because they would have been giving up a market of 30 million people and the Canadian could have seized their assets in lieu of the fines. Those assets could then be sold off to somebody who wasn't in business to rob the taxpayers and the farmers.

More than that though, it is the Conservatives who are always saying that we shouldn't bargain with criminals. Cargill clearly broke the law, the Conservatives did not contest that. What the Conservatives did was protect their corporate buddies even though they knew those buddies had broken the law. That, my friend, is both corrupt and highly hypocrtical.

Now contact your constituency office and see how they want you to answer that.

Don't bother with the abortion thing anymore...If the Conservatives get a majority government, they will ban it. Whether they do that through a private member's bill or a party-sponsored bill is immaterial.

I regret to say that you are wrong. The truth is as I stated it, albeit in a condensed form. What was not needed was closure of any plants that processed beef. You are right, both plants got government money, simply because they were owners of cattle, just like every other cattle owner got. Nothing was illegal or unethical in that.

There is no need for further discussion on this issue, the reason the conservatives voted against it was to ensure the plants stayed open, nothing mor, nothing less.

And you are still wrong about the abortion issue, but you are right, there is no need for ruther discussion. The truth is the truth is the truth.

 

[Jay]

It's fear mongering Rev.

We aren’t going to ban abortion...not to say lots and lots of people would like to see it that way....but as a good friend of mine said recently "once you give a right, it is very hard to take it away"

 

[Reverend Blair]

Let me just put the truth out there again. It isn't wrong and the money the packers were given was supposed to trickle down to the farmers and ranchers in Canada. The idea was flawed, as trickle-down economics always are, but Cargill did not receive money because they owned cattle. They received money so they could buy cattle from Canadian farmers and ranchers. The money that went diectly to those who owned cattle came once that plan failed.

So just let me repeat:

Here is the real story, once again. Cargill and Lakeside took money from the government. They did not pass that money on to farmers and ranchers, which is what it was for. Instead they paid rock-bottom prices. They made record profits that year, which they shipped south instead of reinvesting them in Canada, while Canadian farmers and ranchers were going broke. A parliamentary committee was set up to look into the matter. That committee, including the Conservatives, found Cargill in contempt of parliament for refusing to open their books and divulge where the money went. That committee then tried to levy a daily fine against Cargill until such time as they opened their books. A unanimous decision was needed by the committee to levy such a fine. The Conservatives, who have taken a lot of money from Cargill in donations, refused to vote for the fines.

The threats that Cargill made are immaterial. It is doubtful they would have carried them out because they would have been giving up a market of 30 million people and the Canadian could have seized their assets in lieu of the fines. Those assets could then be sold off to somebody who wasn't in business to rob the taxpayers and the farmers.

More than that though, it is the Conservatives who are always saying that we shouldn't bargain with criminals. Cargill clearly broke the law, the Conservatives did not contest that. What the Conservatives did was protect their corporate buddies even though they knew those buddies had broken the law. That, my friend, is both corrupt and highly hypocrtical.

Now contact your constituency office and see how they want you to answer that.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: What would it take?

It's fear mongering Rev.

We aren’t going to ban abortion...not to say lots and lots of people would like to see it that way....but as a good friend of mine said recently "once you give a right, it is very hard to take it away"

Exactly, Jay. It would be political suicide for any party to ban abortion, and there is absolutely no indication that it will even be an issue. In fact, the only place this seems to be an issue is on this forum when people need to make up something to bash the conservatives about, without any basis in fact, of course.

I guess the more people repeat a lie, the easier it is to believe it. I know I would not vote for a CPC member who wanted to ban abortion, even though I personally do not support abortion. We simply do not have the right to legislate some of these things.

 

[bluealberta]

I will not discuss Cargill with Blair any further. There is no point in attempting to put facts into a discussion when they are ignored. Suffice it to say that I am a lot closer to the situation than Blair is, and have a much better first hand knowledge of the issue. I know the truth. Blair does not. Case closed, end of discussion.

 

[bulldog]

Hey bulldog did you get that info from the lifesite 8O amazing how you guys re-write history....

In 1898 Hawaii was finally annexed by the United States, and in 1900 it became a U.S. territory. On August 21, 1959 it became the 50th American state. In 1993 Congress and President Clinton formally apologized for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

Get off my back. I mean it. No more one-upping.

Efforts by some of the territory’s political leaders to gain statehood for Hawaii began as early as 1903, but Congress did not give serious consideration to the issue until the 1930s. In 1935 and 1937 congressional committees held hearings in Hawaii on the statehood question, but they did not recommend statehood. In 1940 a vote on the issue was held in Hawaii, and more than two-thirds of the electorate voted for statehood.

Bull Dog

 

[Reverend Blair]

What's the matter, Blue? Your constituency office didn't have an answer? Like I said, I put the truth out there. You are claiming inside knowledge and refusing to say why you have that knowledge. Meanwhile, all I have to rely on on media reports, statements by the parties, parliamentary records, and Election Canada's public records of campaign donations.

Where did you say your knowledge came from? Oh, that's right, you didn't. It's secret, apparently. So the facts that anybody can look up are wrong, but your opinion is right. I get it.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: What would it take?

What's the matter, Blue? Your constituency office didn't have an answer? Like I said, I put the truth out there. You are claiming inside knowledge and refusing to say why you have that knowledge. Meanwhile, all I have to rely on on media reports, statements by the parties, parliamentary records, and Election Canada's public records of campaign donations.

Where did you say your knowledge came from? Oh, that's right, you didn't. It's secret, apparently. So the facts that anybody can look up are wrong, but your opinion is right. I get it.

Believe it or not, could care less. I am here, you are not, again, case closed. I know the truth, you don't.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: What would it take?

What's the matter, Blue? Your constituency office didn't have an answer? Like I said, I put the truth out there. You are claiming inside knowledge and refusing to say why you have that knowledge. Meanwhile, all I have to rely on on media reports, statements by the parties, parliamentary records, and Election Canada's public records of campaign donations.

Where did you say your knowledge came from? Oh, that's right, you didn't. It's secret, apparently. So the facts that anybody can look up are wrong, but your opinion is right. I get it.

Believe it or not, could care less. I am here, you are not, again, case closed. I know the truth, you don't.

Good answer blue... :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: What would it take?

What's the matter, Blue? Your constituency office didn't have an answer? Like I said, I put the truth out there. You are claiming inside knowledge and refusing to say why you have that knowledge. Meanwhile, all I have to rely on on media reports, statements by the parties, parliamentary records, and Election Canada's public records of campaign donations.

Where did you say your knowledge came from? Oh, that's right, you didn't. It's secret, apparently. So the facts that anybody can look up are wrong, but your opinion is right. I get it.

Believe it or not, could care less. I am here, you are not, again, case closed. I know the truth, you don't.

Good answer blue... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Thanks...........I think :?

 

[LeftCoast]

Hey Ocean Breeze - what part of the California coast are you from? I lived in Pacifica for about 4 years and SF for 7 years.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Thanks...........I think

You might think that. If I was a bad man, I could go to places where you said that, then sell raffle tickets for where your skull might be found.

Despite Blue's untruthful spin on what really happened, most farmers are willing to report a coyote with a human skull in its mouth, though.

Man, your skull keeps coming up. You should likely sleep with your hands on your shoulders. Or maybe not at all. I'm just superstitious though. Maybe.

 

[Reverend Blair]

ohhh...I forgot to put a winky thing in. :wink: :roll: 8O 8) :lol:

 

[bluealberta]

Thanks...........I think

You might think that. If I was a bad man, I could go to places where you said that, then sell raffle tickets for where your skull might be found.

Despite Blue's untruthful spin on what really happened, most farmers are willing to report a coyote with a human skull in its mouth, though.

Man, your skull keeps coming up. You should likely sleep with your hands on your shoulders. Or maybe not at all. I'm just superstitious though. Maybe.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: and oh yeah, :wink: :roll:

 

[Reverend Blair]

yup.