Harper Subverting Democracy
Johnny_Utah @ Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:04 pm
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
Why are you afraid of democracy, Johnny?
Typical comment coming from a NDP Lap Dog..
No one is afraid of Democracy but NDP Lap Dogs like you who can never accept losing every time there's an election. You also dodged my comment on how bias the thread title is..
ryan29 @ Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:18 pm
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
That's their game, Lily.
It was clear from what Dick Harris said that Smith was the one the government wanted people to contact, instead of Cullen. Harris never made that decision on his own...everything this government does is controlled out of the PMO.
It was clear from what Dick Harris said that Smith was the one the government wanted people to contact, instead of Cullen. Harris never made that decision on his own...everything this government does is controlled out of the PMO.
think the real cause of this incident is the fact all these nominated candidates are geting restless and annoyed they can't get much media attention . many were selected back in early spring and have been doing little since then.
this goes for candidates of all parties , i'm sure many ndp and liberal candidates are geting restless but the reality is the public doesn't want an election.
kevlarman @ Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:56 pm
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
Wow, you guys are really grasping at straws here aren't you?
If a Liberal did this, you'd be screaming bloody murder. By the reasoning of the Harper government, Chretien should have appointed a "go-to person" in every riding not held by a Liberal MP so that they wouldn't have to deal with elected representatives from other parties. Every Reform/Alliance/Conservative MP would have been a non-entity. What would your response have been to that?
Your response to this is predictable though. If the Conservatives do it, it's okay....at least according to you. Harper is above democratic principles, parliamentary ethics, and the law...at least according to you.
If a Liberal did this, you'd be screaming bloody murder. By the reasoning of the Harper government, Chretien should have appointed a "go-to person" in every riding not held by a Liberal MP so that they wouldn't have to deal with elected representatives from other parties. Every Reform/Alliance/Conservative MP would have been a non-entity. What would your response have been to that?
Your response to this is predictable though. If the Conservatives do it, it's okay....at least according to you. Harper is above democratic principles, parliamentary ethics, and the law...at least according to you.
I guess we were desensitized since that was pretty much what Liberals have ALWAYS said to folks. ESPECIALLY those voters out west. Harper ain't perfect, but this bitch and moan doesn't even come close to Trudeu's "one-finger salute".
And if memory serves me correct, didn't many a Liberal higher-up state that same sentiment many times, often on NATIONALLY syndicated news shows? About things like getting an equal voice, jobs, justice, etc, etc...
Scrappy @ Thu Aug 30, 2007 5:09 pm
LOL Kevlarman stop making sense in one of Rev's threads. He's a commieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
passthedutchie @ Thu Aug 30, 2007 5:37 pm
The recent leaders of this country have been a joke, and none have kept their promises. I think the public expected more from Harper considering he is a deeply religious man. Sadly man people believe his lies simply because of their religious connection to him.
The only politicians I've found to be worth believing have been those discussing and working towards democratic reforms. While we have a good economy and a decent standard of living, regular Canadians are losing control of this country to business, some of which do not serve the interests of this country and more importantly serve the interests of Canadians.
N_Fiddledog @ Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:26 pm
With Chretien, we saw him and his boys out west briefly around election time. After that the only thing that came west from Ottawa was the sound of chirping crickets. Personally I'd take mis-representation over no representation.
Tricks @ Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:28 pm
lily lily:
In other words...
If the Liberals do something bad, it gets added to the list of 200+ "scandals".
If the Cons do something bad, there are 2 options:
1. Claim the Libs were worse
2. Spin it so it doesn't look too bad.
Wow. So when I call out someone spinning something, I'm spinning. It's amazing. So now, when we say what it actually is, we spin.
If the Liberals do something bad, it gets added to the list of 200+ "scandals".
If the Cons do something bad, there are 2 options:
1. Claim the Libs were worse
2. Spin it so it doesn't look too bad.
Tricks @ Thu Aug 30, 2007 6:38 pm
lily lily:
Just because you refuse to see something doesn't mean it isn't there. 
Please oh righteous one, tell me what I'm refusing to see.
Tricks @ Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:02 pm
lily lily:
You know Tricks... it's really not my job to explain everything to you. Either you understand what's being written or you don't. I'll give you the advice I was given, which is the same advice I give my kids.
Figure it out on your own. If you still don't get it, feel free to ask.
Dodge. Either answer the question or stop being so pretentious.
Figure it out on your own. If you still don't get it, feel free to ask.
Tricks @ Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:27 pm
lily lily:
Not a dodge, tricks. I'm just really tired of you expecting everyone to answer your questions.... especially when the answers are there in plain sight if you want to see them.
I don't see any answers. I really tired of you being an ass. $1:
But fine... it's just a variation on the theme of the Con belief that no matter how badly they might screw up, it's ok because the Libs were probably worse.
Oh really? Where did I say that? Where did I even mention the Liberals in this thread.$1:
That, my friend, is what we call a dodge.
Oh please.
novachick @ Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:27 pm
lily lily:
Not a dodge, tricks. I'm just really tired of you expecting everyone to answer your questions.... especially when the answers are there in plain sight if you want to see them.
But fine... it's just a variation on the theme of the Con belief that no matter how badly they might screw up, it's ok because the Libs were probably worse.
That, my friend, is what we call a dodge.
But fine... it's just a variation on the theme of the Con belief that no matter how badly they might screw up, it's ok because the Libs were probably worse.
That, my friend, is what we call a dodge.
Who's everyone? Speak for yourself not me thanks
Johnny_Utah @ Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:14 pm
lily lily:
Just because you refuse to see something doesn't mean it isn't there.
That's so hypocritical coming from a Liberal considering the 12 years of Liberal scandals..
Wally_Sconce @ Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:18 pm
Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:
lily lily:
Just because you refuse to see something doesn't mean it isn't there.
That's so hypocritical coming from a Liberal considering the 12 years of Liberal scandals..
a true liberal doesn't believe that there were any scandals, they are about as politically blind as one can be
ShepherdsDog @ Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:22 pm
they're all politicians and crooked as hell. the choices now are who will do the least amount of damage to me.
Tricks @ Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:26 pm
lily lily:
There were scandals all right. But I've read through that list of 200+ and some of them are more filler than scandal.
However... please explain what Liberal scandals have to do with those of the current gov't.
That might be a suitable request...were this a scandal.
However... please explain what Liberal scandals have to do with those of the current gov't.