Forget About The Sponsorship Scandal Already!

[Guest Prosis]

As you know, there will be a federal election in 2008. Maybe soon maybe later, but 2008 is pretty obvious.

 

The last election gave a slap in the face of the liberals. They stole our money and therefore were not trustworthy. Fair enough.

 

Now, water has gone under the bridge, the team has been rebuilt. It's time to get over it!

 

I'm not saying to forget completely about it, we must be more careful with politicians (who are, lets be honest, dishonest something like 95% of the time). I'm saying that, if we re elect the conservatives in this year's election, it's not the Liberals we will be punishing, it's us!

 

Because Stephen Harper and his team are in favor of the death penalty, they want to remain in Afghanistan until 2011 as a combat mission, they want to abolish legal abortion, they claim that the Kyoto protocol is useless, they are friends with gas companies and therefore a big danger to the environment.

 

Sure the liberals have a so so leader. But it's better than a George W. Bush JR. The NPD will never get elected because they don't do anything to get their ideas across and the Bloc Quebecois, well, who outside of Quebec would vote for a federal separatist party?

 

We have to weight things here between the Conservatives and the Liberals. We have to decide which is better for US not who can we punish.

[Computer]

Where have the conservatives said they're pro death penalty?

Where have they said they want abolish abortion?

Friends with gas companies?

Every major political party gets funding from big companies.

 

Right now the conservatives are trying to pass a new Criminal Justice bill through the liberal senate that would increase the age of consent from 14-16 as well as have stricter punishment for violent crimes. If the liberals don't pass this bill, expect an election soon.

[Guest Prosis]

Where have the conservatives said they're pro death penalty?

 

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/080206/n020683A.html

 

If you're not gonna try to save Canadian people from getting the death penalty in other countries, then aren't you a little in favor of it? If you're against it and you know you can intervene, then you do don't you?

 

Where have they said they want abolish abortion?

 

I can't find the quote but read it in a magazine called l'Actualit

Edited February 8, 2008 by Prosis

[Computer]

We can't govern other countries based on our laws. If the albertan was convicted of murdering two people in the U.S. and had a fair trial within the U.S. I don't see a problem with having to abide by U.S. jurisdiction on the matter as clemency is a case by case basis.

 

If you're going to commit crimes in other countries, especially murder, why should our government try to intervene with the way other countries run their legal system? We may not always agree with how punishment is applied, but who are we to say?

 

The kyoto protocol is useless. Canada had increased emissions substantially under liberal government and to try to reach the goal of lowering emissions by the 15% or whatever was absurd in 2004, because it had increased by something like 25%. That doesn't make the conservatives anti-environment. It's just logical that Canada couldn't meet it's target, they're implementing Canadian specific goals.

[Guest Prosis]

Well I'm not gonna argue with you because your ideas are pretty much set.

 

But my post wasn't meant as an anti-Conservative post (even though it's biased because I am anti-Conservative). It was meant to make people realize that we have to stop "punishing" parties because we're the ones getting governed by the people we vote for...

 

Since I still hear the "the Liberals are all criminals so we vote for the conservatives", I wanted to make a post to stop hearing that. Because I believe that voting against a party to punish it is pretty dumb.

[Ravenous megin-sane]

man, i just wrote out this nice long piece and then i lost the internet connection.

anyways...

 

i think canada would take a terrible, terrible turn if the conservatives were re-elected in a majority government.

 

they're already taking everything canadians are known for away, and our politicians are slowly turning into the fuckheads south to us. i've never talked to a canadian who agreed with the state of things down there, and yet we've elected a mini bush.

 

it'll be an interesting election, to say the least.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Ravenous megin-sane

[Guest Prosis]

Exactly!

 

We need a new party, one that doesn't have only one frame of mind, only one lead to follow

 

And just because I forgot to talk about it, I'm against talking about environment as long as it doesn't mean financial loss...because when we all die because the air is unbreathable no one's gonna really give a flying fuck about money...my wife's pregnant and I don't want my children to breathe unbreathable air or whatever can come out of ignoring the signs that the environment is sending us...

[Computer]

man, i just wrote out this nice long piece and then i lost the internet connection.

anyways...

 

i think canada would take a terrible, terrible turn if the conservatives were re-elected in a majority government.

 

they're already taking everything canadians are known for away, and our politicians are slowly turning into the fuckheads south to us. i've never talked to a canadian who agreed with the state of things down there, and yet we've elected a mini bush.

 

it'll be an interesting election, to say the least.

Any particular examples or facts about "taking away" what is Canadian?

 

I'm tired of this whole "Mini Bush" myth propaganda.

 

Our Conservatives are more liberal than the U.S's democrats...

[Guest Prosis]

Yes they are, because the opposite wouldn't get the elected here.

[Ravenous megin-sane]

I'm tired of this whole "Mini Bush" myth propaganda.

how is it propaganda? he constantly chooses sides with the americans rather than canadians.

 

example: the war.

[Guest Prosis]

mmm Dion is saying he's against the motion to keep the soldiers in Afghanistan until 2011...I wish that vote would come before the budget to see if he's got the balls to defend his position.

 

But like I said, I'm pretty sure the government will fall on the budget.

[garsk]

how is it propaganda? he constantly chooses sides with the americans rather than canadians.

 

example: the war.

remember, the liberals (under Jean Chretien) put the troops into Afghanistan. the conservatives just went along with it. The only thing most people hear about the war is when a soldier has been killed, and some parties use that for political gain. I am sure if this was WWII, and we just started up the beaches of Juno, we would have heard a lot of parties call for the withdrawal of troops from Europe. Personally, i am Conservative, not a Neo-Con but an old school Conservative.

 

 

edit: i am just waiting for erik to start in on me.

Edited February 9, 2008 by garsk

[Guest Prosis]

Yes that's right he did, but he did not intend it to be a combat mission and it was supposed to end in 2009. Not the Conservatives want it extended to 2011 as a combat mission.

[garsk]

so?

 

 

 

432425

[Sparq]

I have it on good authority that Erik is too busy for this shit right now.

 

"Not a combat mission" my ass. It's the goddamned Army. An armed force trained for battle in territory which is overrun with a cohesive, armed group who wants to kill them. What the hell do you people want? Construction workers in camoflage? Any time you get shot at, it's a combat mission. And don't give me the whole 'deterrent' line. You can't drop a division of soldiers and a tank battalion or three into hostile territory and assume their mere presence will eliminate any need to actually fight.

 

If it was never meant to be a combat mission, they would have sent the damned Red Cross instead.

Edited February 9, 2008 by Sparq

[Guest Prosis]

I said that originally we weren't supposed to be in a combat mission. Now we are and have been since Rick Hillier asked Paul Martin's government to be in order to eliminate Canada's "superficial" role. But that's not what we were originally sent to do.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Water isn't just under the bridge. The sponsorrship scandal is still fresh in my mind. True, some of the high members of the Liberal gov't at the time are gone now, but many Liberals in that gov't remain. The scandal came to be because that's what happens when a single party and/or leader is left in power for a long time - they get complacent & crooked.

 

I'm glad the Liberals were punished politically for what they did. Hopefully it has been enough to give them the reality check they desperately needed - that Canadians won't stand for that shit.

 

But now with an election likely looming this year, i've got a choice to make on who i'm going to vote, and the choices SUCK. The Cons are too right-wing for my tastes to continue in power, the Liberals are still suspicious & have weak leadership, and the NDP and Green's would be too far left on a variety of issues.

 

I will be doing more research on Afghanistan to reach my own conclusions on that (which more Canadians should do).

 

Computer:

 

"Our Conservatives are more liberal than the U.S's democrats..."

 

I'm not convinced of that. Harper/Canadian Alliance wanted to invade Iraq with the U.S. What do you think the Cons stance on abortion would be if they had majority power, compared to what Hillary and Obama's stances are? If we didn't have universal healthcare, do you think the Cons would be all that eager to implement it in favour of a "free-market solution"? Et cetera Et cetera. I just can't see Stephen Harper running as a candidate for the Democratic Party rather than the Republicans.

[Guest Prosis]

Water isn't just under the bridge.  The sponsorrship scandal is still fresh in my mind.  True, some of the high members of the Liberal gov't at the time are gone now, but many Liberals in that gov't remain.  The scandal came to be because that's what happens when a single party and/or leader is left in power for a long time - they get complacent & crooked.

 

Well I partly agree except that I think putting the blame on the fact that the party was there for such a long time is not only too easy but it also takes away some responsability.

 

But still, the major players are gone now and even though some people who were in the party at the time still are, that doesn't mean they were involved. When a soldier rapes a woman in another country, that doesn't mean the whole army should be punished should it?

 

I'm glad the Liberals were punished politically for what they did.  Hopefully it has been enough to give them the reality check they desperately needed - that Canadians won't stand for that shit.

 

See that's where I draw the line. THEY weren't punished, we were. Because the thing is, when you vote against someone, you don't vote FOR what YOU want to have for a government. You're just trying to spite the other one. I voted Liberal at the last election even though the events had just happened. Why? Because a lot of the platform suited my needs better than any other party. Sure some people in the party had been and were crooks. But not all of them. So I casted my vote with a purely political frame of mind.

 

But now with an election likely looming this year, i've got a choice to make on who i'm going to vote, and the choices SUCK.  The Cons are too right-wing for my tastes to continue in power, the Liberals are still suspicious & have weak leadership, and the NDP and Green's would be too far left on a variety of issues.

 

I completely agree. Except for the Liberals being suspicious as I've said previously.

 

I will be doing more research on Afghanistan to reach my own conclusions on that (which more Canadians should do).

 

Again I completely agree

 

I'm not convinced of that.  Harper/Canadian Alliance wanted to invade Iraq with the U.S.  What do you think the Cons stance on abortion would be if they had majority power, compared to what Hillary and Obama's stances are?  If we didn't have universal healthcare, do you think the Cons would be all that eager to implement it in favour of a "free-market solution"?  Et cetera Et cetera.  I just can't see Stephen Harper running as a candidate for the Democratic Party rather than the Republicans.

 

Exactly! That's my point. Stephen Harper is a fucking genius when it comes to public opinion. He's had two years to show he was a moderate when we know very well that he's not. Because for the moment, he's stuck with moderates sharing his power. But give him all the power and it won't take long before we look like Texas.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Well I partly agree except that I think putting the blame on the fact that the party was there for such a long time is not only too easy but it also takes away some responsability.

 

I don't put all the blame of that, i simply I think it was one of the factors that led to the scandal.

 

See that's where I draw the line. THEY weren't punished, we were. Because the thing is, when you vote against someone, you don't vote FOR what YOU want to have for a government. You're just trying to spite the other one. I voted Liberal at the last election even though the events had just happened. Why? Because a lot of the platform suited my needs better than any other party. Sure some people in the party had been and were crooks. But not all of them. So I casted my vote with a purely political frame of mind.

 

If i voted for the Liberals it would be me giving them the message that this kind of corruption is tolerable, as long as your stances on certain issues agreed with my own. The Liberals were fundamentally broken. A change was needed. I believe the PMO was aware of the sponsorship shenanigans, and if it wasn't they should have been. The system failed. The scandal was just the icing on the cake for me, i had distrusted their way of politics for a long time. Sure there are some good, honest Liberals, but as a party they are the biggest bunch of liars it made me sick. They always promise the world in elections to get elected & then break those promises (see: Jean Chretien, Dalton McGuinty). I don't agree with a lot of the Conservatives' policies, but i give them credit for keeping most (not all) of their election promises.

 

You say you voted for the Liberals because of their platform and political policies. Well a part of their policies include continuous lying, & stealing hundreds of millions from the public purse.

 

But still, the major players are gone now and even though some people who were in the party at the time still are, that doesn't mean they were involved. When a soldier rapes a woman in another country, that doesn't mean the whole army should be punished should it?

 

Here's another analogy: your bank may have great rates and helpful service, but if some of the head staff steal some valuables from your personal deposit box (and you suspect some of that staff are still working for the bank) are you going to keep using that bank, or will you switch to another bank even though they might worse rates & slower service?