Political Crossfire Forums

[Sparkalinda]

The curious thing is why she jumped ship? There was obviously inklings that the Liberals were courting Stronach at least a two months ago as Charles Adler (a conservative columnist) makes light of Stronach being on the Liberals pay role but he unequivocally discounts it

Don’t need to read beyond the first two paragraphs.
http://www.charlesadler.com/index.php?p=freepress&action=view_story&id=291

What is also interesting in this article, as well as others that can be found, is that there are genuine romantic links between MacKay (second in command) of the Conservative Party and Stronach. Now either Mackay has been colluding with Stronach or the pillow talk must not get beyond, lets-get-busy. The picture is not pretty if you know what McKay looks like.

Now I never saw Stronach as someone who would buy into the Neo Con movement which destroyed the old Conservative Party of Canada. She is far too Liberal in her views and some of the new Conservative Party’s social and foreign policies and views must have been a hard pill to take. I genuinely think the Liberal Party of Canada is a better fit.

Was it a power grab? Who really knows but why would a billionaire go into politics in the first place. Her reasons for jumping ship have undoubtedly been coached and probably not her own as she is a political neophyte who can easily be influenced and manipulated but hey, such is politics.

One thing I am thankful for is that chances are, I won’t have to go vote this summer

[Sparkalinda]

anticlimates wrote:
It's hardly "rumour had it" then. If it was "rumour had it" then it wouldn't be too hard to find it online. How many rumours of such a nature aren't well worn online?

Don't be sayin' my Belinda was sleepin' around beatch!

Hmmmm me thinks Anti has a wee bit more than a crush on said harlot.

:lol:

[Anson]

I don't know if it was so much of a 'stun' for her to join the liberals today. She quite often voted in favour of liberal plans and opposed Mr. Harper's extremist agendas. But then again, it is not really that big of a jump to go from the conservatives to the liberal party in Canada as the two parties are not really that different.

[timmtc]

What she did was wrong, completely wrong. I have no problem with people switching parties if they truely do not believe in what the party is doing. However, the fact of the matter is she had previously voted against the liberal government several times, and had even RUN for the conservative leadership! Now, it is quite obvious she has some type of a grudge against Harper, I mean who wouldn't - especially if he beat her in the leadership campaign.

The main beef I have with her is that she purposely did this to save Paul Martin, and it is quite obvious that she was offered something appealing by Paul Martin to get her to jump ship. I wouldn't be disgruntled at all had she had abstained from the non confidence vote on thursday, or even jumped ship after the vote. The point is, with Paul Martins 25 billion dollar spending spree, and him allegedly bribing conservative MP's to join the liberal party (its not an allegation anymore, more of a reality) it is quite obvious he did this to save his own party. Not only is that quite sad, this is just a slap in the face to democracy, in which her constituents elected her as a conservative, and she had not even consulted with the people she is supposed to represent.


Kind of ironic, going from a regular conservative MP to the minister of human resources for the Liberal party in one day, thats kind of fishy.

[timmtc]

Anson wrote: I don't know if it was so much of a 'stun' for her to join the liberals today. She quite often voted in favour of liberal plans and opposed Mr. Harper's extremist agendas. But then again, it is not really that big of a jump to go from the conservatives to the liberal party in Canada as the two parties are not really that different.

Extreme agenda? Want to give me some proof of that allegation or is it one of your typical anti-conservative scare tactics? Speaking of extremist, lets go steal money from Quebec and syphon it into my party.

[Anson]

timmtc wrote: Anson wrote: I don't know if it was so much of a 'stun' for her to join the liberals today. She quite often voted in favour of liberal plans and opposed Mr. Harper's extremist agendas. But then again, it is not really that big of a jump to go from the conservatives to the liberal party in Canada as the two parties are not really that different.

Extreme agenda? Want to give me some proof of that allegation or is it one of your typical anti-conservative scare tactics? Speaking of extremist, lets go steal money from Quebec and syphon it into my party.

Harper sounds a lot like the Gordon Campbell provincial liberals out in British Columbia. Yesterday Campbell said "We're going to improve health care. We're going to improve education." Anyone who follows BC politics was laughing his/her ass off when they heard this liar lie again.

Back to Harper, he says he is going to improve health care for every Canadian, and is going to help out the country's poor; sounds like Campbell, but if Harper were to come into power and made the PUBLIC health care better for the majority of Canadians I would be happy with that. If he helped out the country's poor (the majority) I would be happy. But I'm skeptical that a political party based on conservative social ideologies would be truly concerned about the welfare of the country's poor. If he did help out the poor despite running an otherwise staunch conservative social basis, he may be the first in history. For those reasons, I don't buy it when he says he is so concerned about the poor and the health care of every Canadian.

And when any politican goes off about lowering taxes as much as he has, I would be concerned. That freeing of income tax money has to lift public services somewhere. And as the people in BC know, that usually means the basic social rights of health care and education are attacked first. For me, those are two services that should be a given right for every citizen, not just ones with money.

I didn't notice very much about women's rights or race relations on the conservative home page, I'm sure they are mentioned somewhere on that site but those issues were not addressed as something he would fight against. If I am wrong, disregard what you are about to read...If those two issues are not properly addressed by a political party in the twenty-first century, there is a lack of progress there. The race relations in Canada are getting worse, especially in bigger cities like Vancouver Montreal and Toronto. The inequality in living standards of minorities in Canada is better than a lot of nations, but Canada stills need to take that next step forward in trying to eliminate race inequalities in Canada, and this does not appear to be one of Harper's major concerns.

The man also wants to attack the rights of people who happen to be born gay or bisexual. These people already deal with a large amount of srutiny and discrimination in their every day lives, and Harper wants to take that one step further by denying them their right to marry their life partner. Come on Canada, move forward, not backward.

He also mentioned that he would fight terrorism. I hope he applies that standard to every terrorist agent, meaning he will immidiately withdraw troops from Haiti where Martin's terrorist war against Aristide and the Haitian people. Of course I would be gullible to think he would be against Martin's terrorist war. He also mentioned he would stand shoulder to shoulder with the USA. Sure that's great, I would want to do that too, but look at what the United States just voted into power again! Be friendly with the US government, but shoulder to shoulder with the Bush administration??? I don't think so.

[timmtc]

Quote: Back to Harper, he says he is going to improve health care for every Canadian, and is going to help out the country's poor; sounds like Campbell, but if Harper were to come into power and made the PUBLIC health care better for the majority of Canadians I would be happy with that. If he helped out the country's poor (the majority) I would be happy. But I'm skeptical that a political party based on conservative social ideologies would be truly concerned about the welfare of the country's poor. If he did help out the poor despite running an otherwise staunch conservative social basis, he may be the first in history. For those reasons, I don't buy it when he says he is so concerned about the poor and the health care of every Canadian.

By no means does any conservative want to abandon poor people. The main difference between the NDP and the conservatives, is the NDP takes peoples money and spends it on how they feel it is fit. The conservatives give tax breaks, and let YOU pick how you want to spend it. Now, especially with the corruption in federal politics I sleep much better at night knowing I can spend my tax dollars how I feel is best for me and my family, not some random MP that thinks he knows what is best for me. Also, just a reminder - is it appropriate soley running a platform based on the poor? The poor make up a small percentage of the entire Canadian population, thats what the NDP forgets - there are single moms who are not "poor" who work two jobs to support their family, and there are the average "middle class" families who still need some type of tax relief.

Quote: The man also wants to attack the rights of people who happen to be born gay or bisexual. These people already deal with a large amount of srutiny and discrimination in their every day lives, and Harper wants to take that one step further by denying them their right to marry their life partner. Come on Canada, move forward, not backward.

We could go on and on about this, however there have been SEVERAL polls on gay marriage in Canada, and according to many cbc and other polls support against gay marriage is actually around 55%. Thats alot of people who are against gay marriage, perhaps more then in the USA. Let us not forget Harper and conservatives believe in civil unions with all the included benifits to that. Oh, Paul martin is *against* gay marriage, however he is supporting it for, well obviously political reasons.


Lets be realistic here, if you're going to be calling the conservatives extreme, do not belong to the NDP. The conservatives have, and will have more support then the NDP will ever, ever see. Go ahead and believe in some socialist platform that has ruined your own province, and would never even have a chance to prove itself in Canada.


Nice sig, you're really mainstream!

[Sparkalinda]

timmtc wrote: Quote: Back to Harper, he says he is going to improve health care for every Canadian, and is going to help out the country's poor; sounds like Campbell, but if Harper were to come into power and made the PUBLIC health care better for the majority of Canadians I would be happy with that. If he helped out the country's poor (the majority) I would be happy. But I'm skeptical that a political party based on conservative social ideologies would be truly concerned about the welfare of the country's poor. If he did help out the poor despite running an otherwise staunch conservative social basis, he may be the first in history. For those reasons, I don't buy it when he says he is so concerned about the poor and the health care of every Canadian.

By no means does any conservative want to abandon poor people. The main difference between the NDP and the conservatives, is the NDP takes peoples money and spends it on how they feel it is fit. The conservatives give tax breaks, and let YOU pick how you want to spend it. Now, especially with the corruption in federal politics I sleep much better at night knowing I can spend my tax dollars how I feel is best for me and my family, not some random MP that thinks he knows what is best for me. Also, just a reminder - is it appropriate soley running a platform based on the poor? The poor make up a small percentage of the entire Canadian population, thats what the NDP forgets - there are single moms who are not "poor" who work two jobs to support their family, and there are the average "middle class" families who still need some type of tax relief.

Quote: The man also wants to attack the rights of people who happen to be born gay or bisexual. These people already deal with a large amount of srutiny and discrimination in their every day lives, and Harper wants to take that one step further by denying them their right to marry their life partner. Come on Canada, move forward, not backward.

We could go on and on about this, however there have been SEVERAL polls on gay marriage in Canada, and according to many cbc and other polls support against gay marriage is actually around 55%. Thats alot of people who are against gay marriage, perhaps more then in the USA. Let us not forget Harper and conservatives believe in civil unions with all the included benifits to that. Oh, Paul martin is *against* gay marriage, however he is supporting it for, well obviously political reasons.


Lets be realistic here, if you're going to be calling the conservatives extreme, do not belong to the NDP. The conservatives have, and will have more support then the NDP will ever, ever see. Go ahead and believe in some socialist platform that has ruined your own province, and would never even have a chance to prove itself in Canada.


Nice sig, you're really mainstream!

The Canadian Conservatives are Neo cons. They are not the Blues of days gone by. I would gladly see the Liberals fall at the hands of Joe Clark but with Harpur at the helm I prefer the Liberals thank you very much.

There is much more than meets the medias eye simmering beneath the neo con collar of Steven Harpur. I don't trust him and fully believe that he would gladly stomp all over the civil liberties of gays and other marginalized citizens of Canada as long as it meets with scripture.

The other thing I do not like about Harpur is that he would sell us lock stalk and barrel to the states and commit us to military campaigns that we neither have any business being involved in or can afford to be a part of.

JMHO

[timmtc]

Sparkalinda wrote:
The Canadian Conservatives are Neo cons. They are not the Blues of days gone by. I would gladly see the Liberals fall at the hands of Joe Clark but with Harpur at the helm I prefer the Liberals thank you very much.

There is much more than meets the medias eye simmering beneath the neo con collar of Steven Harpur. I don't trust him and fully believe that he would gladly stomp all over the civil liberties of gays and other marginalized citizens of Canada as long as it meets with scripture.

The other thing I do not like about Harpur is that he would sell us lock stalk and barrel to the states and commit us to military campaigns that we neither have any business being involved in or can afford to be a part of.

JMHO

The current conservatives are NOT neocons. It is funny, all these idiots throw the word "neocon" around so much, and have NO idea what it means. I guess you could define many of the American republicans "neocons", however Stephen Harper (not Harpur) is a conservative.

Quote: Conservative – Specifically a "fusionist" conservative of the National Review - Heritage Foundation mold. Someone who believes in traditional morality and capitalism, and the need for a limited government to allow both to flourish.

The current conservatives, have stated MANY MANY times that they believe in limiting government, and protecting basic morals. Conservatives have a large libertarian aspect, just like Stephen Harper.

Quote: Neoconservative – A "neocon" is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well.

This definition would best describe some of the Republicans in the party. Stephen Harper has not, anywhere at ALL indicated to have a strong and vigorous foreign policy, and Stephen Harper is a fiscal conservative just like Paul Martin is.

Please, I hate stupid people and people who use typical name calling and scare tactics just like you did. It is an OLD trick in the book that actually had alot to do with John Kerry getting smoked in the recent US election.

Quote: There is much more than meets the medias eye simmering beneath the neo con collar of Steven Harpur. I don't trust him and fully believe that he would gladly stomp all over the civil liberties of gays and other marginalized citizens of Canada as long as it meets with scripture.


I guess you failed to read my previous post, the one where I stated that over 50% of Canadians do not agree with homosexual marriage, also you missed the part where on national TV Paul Martin said he "preferred the traditional definition of marriage". At least the Conservative party is transparent, just like the NDP. By being an ideological party you know what you get when you vote for the conservatives and the NDP. If you want to be surprised, go vote for the liberals again, they sure as hell don't have a platform.


Oh, definitions found at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy14.html

[Sparkalinda]

timmtc wrote:

The current conservatives are NOT neocons. It is funny, all these idiots throw the word "neocon" around so much, and have NO idea what it means. I guess you could define many of the American republicans "neocons", however Stephen Harper (not Harpur) is a conservative.

Deepest apologies on the HARPUR thing, I am currently reading the "Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur and got a little muddled. As for the Neo Con reference, it is undoubtedly an American term; however, Mr. HARPER is cut from the same bible thumping cloth that the American NeoCons are. perhaps I should refer to him as a Wannabe NeoCon.

timmtc wrote:
Quote: Conservative – Specifically a "fusionist" conservative of the National Review - Heritage Foundation mold. Someone who believes in traditional morality and capitalism, and the need for a limited government to allow both to flourish.

Fusionist only because he heads a group of honourable old school Conservatives and a wacko bunch of god fearing gun lovin Westerners who call themselves conservatives. I understand why old Joe retired. He just couldn't be a part of the destruction of the party he once knew and loved.

timmtc wrote:
The current conservatives, have stated MANY MANY times that they believe in limiting government, and protecting basic morals.

As defined by who? Oh ya the good book.

Sorry but I don't follow that code that lies within the good book and no one has the right to govern me by it.


Quote: Neoconservative – A "neocon" is more inclined than other conservatives toward vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well.

And Harper conservatives are different from this definition how?

timmtc wrote:
Stephen Harper has not, anywhere at ALL indicated to have a strong and vigorous foreign policy

That is because he has the American foreign policy to sell out to.

timmtc wrote:
Please, I hate stupid people and people who use typical name calling.

Then rise above it all and refrain from name calling yourself. What is that saying something about a black kettle??

timmtc wrote:
I guess you failed to read my previous post. the one where I stated that over 50% of Canadians do not agree with homosexual marriage.

No I read it, I just chose to disregard it.

Cheers, have a good night.

[timmtc]

Well, thanks for proving to everyone you're ingorant and narrow minded.

[anticlimates]

timmtc wrote: Extreme agenda? Want to give me some proof of that allegation or is it one of your typical anti-conservative scare tactics?

They have a typical rightwing agenda. The political agenda includes privatization of cherished Canadian institutions like Medicare. That's extreme.

They want to try and deny homosexuals the right to marry, which has been upheld as per the constitution by every court that's considered it. So...as was spoken by a conservative MP in the last campaign...they would adjust the constitution. That's extreme.

They would support "traditional allies" like the USA in thier mixed up/f#$ked up efforts such as the Iraq war and weaponsization of space. Extreme.

The conservatives in Canada are a bunch of fringe ideologues. The PC's should NEVER have joined with the Alliance at this point in time. The Alliance was on it's way down. Now they're dragging sane conservatism down with them.

[Sparkalinda]

timmtc wrote: Well, thanks for proving to everyone you're ingorant and narrow minded. :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

Thanks man I needed that laugh

[Sparkalinda]

timmtc wrote: Well, thanks for proving to everyone you're ingorant and narrow minded.

Everyone :!?: Is this true? :think:

[Nico]

Topic's going good, just leave the personal stuff, everybody.

[timmtc]

anticlimates wrote: timmtc wrote: Extreme agenda? Want to give me some proof of that allegation or is it one of your typical anti-conservative scare tactics?

They have a typical rightwing agenda. The political agenda includes privatization of cherished Canadian institutions like Medicare. That's extreme.

They want to try and deny homosexuals the right to marry, which has been upheld as per the constitution by every court that's considered it. So...as was spoken by a conservative MP in the last campaign...they would adjust the constitution. That's extreme.

They would support "traditional allies" like the USA in thier mixed up/f#$ked up efforts such as the Iraq war and weaponsization of space. Extreme.

The conservatives in Canada are a bunch of fringe ideologues. The PC's should NEVER have joined with the Alliance at this point in time. The Alliance was on it's way down. Now they're dragging sane conservatism down with them.

I would like to see some proof of their alleged privatization of medicare. I personally do not support privatizing medicare, and my party certainly doesn't.

Breaking the TRADITIONAL definition of marriage, is extreme.

Paul Martin supported the weaponization of space, and he also at one point was going to commit troops to Iraq to help train police and such, however since we have no manpower we were unable to.

You know, I think its hilarious that all the liberals think the right wingers are extreme, and that its such a sin to believe in what the conservatives do. All it is is typical socialist scare tactics. Sorry to say buddy, but parties like the NDP and the Green party are EXTREME. There is a reason that they do not recieve any votes in federal elections. However, if you're a liberal then you may as well consider yourself a quasi conservative, because our own prime minister supports so much of the conservative agenda. The difference is, he doesn't implement them because hes afraid of actually making a decision.

[Canada_Rocks]

I have to agree with tim, what she did was pethetic, I dont support the conservatives but that was completely P@@@Y on her behalf.

Those damn Cons are evil. Conspiring with the seperatists and plotting to destroy Canada, think I exagerate? Hardly. I like my social programs and healthcare thank you very much.

but...Are rightwingers are about as exteme as american Democrats :)


I think Harper is getting what he deserves. I stand with a very large group of Canadians that just dont care about the Gomery crap..DONT CARE. The Cons are just crap disturbing. All of it is backfiring in Harpers face and unfortunately, even if they call an election, the Libs would still get back in, and with a majority Gov..hahaha

so I think Harper should just let sleeping dogs lie.

[Sparkalinda]

timmtc wrote: You know, I think its hilarious that all the liberals think the right wingers are extreme, and that its such a sin to believe in what the conservatives do.

Old conservatives or new conservatives?

[timmtc]

Any conservatives, look at the budget Paul Martin tried to pass before he signed the deal with the NDP - Just take a look at it and tell me he isn't right of center.


Anyways, I still take pride in the fact that the polls...currently have the Conservatives leading the liberals. Keep up the fear mongering, its worked wonders so far!

[timmtc]

Oh, just to add the latest poll in the Province (BC paper) conducted a poll after the stronach defection, looks like it was a horrible move for the Liberals. The conservatives are sitting at 38% while the Liberals are at 29%.