Canada Kicks Ass
Open Letter to Young Libs on CKA

REPLY

Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  Next



Delwin @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:21 pm

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:
Delwin Delwin:
Oh contraire, to say that something is ingrained is to say that it is a firmly established part of something and quite the opposite of being the sum total of something.


Are you Liberals capable of anything other than vascilation and digression?

Is the economy strong or not?

If it's strong, then that abrogates your point that NAFTA has devastated the Canadian economy.

If not, then it stands to reason the Liberals are to blame as they've been at the helm for 12 years.

Would you like an easier question Dilbert?

Now you are just trying to put words in my mouth.
I am not going to sit here and cut and paste every post I have made in this thread, I will, however say that I have been trying to make the point that Nafta was a poorly thought out plan by the conservatives, which lead to the loss of many Canadian jobs and had a negative impact on our economy.
Does this mean that our economy had no chance of recovering? No.
Does this mean that we are doomed from here on in? No.
I commend the liberals for the job that they have done in salvaging what they could of an economy that could have been devastated by a very shortsighted consevative plan.

   



RedBull @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:41 pm

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:
RedBull RedBull:
To try and embroil Martin in the adscam diverts away from the real issue at hand which is: our system was weak and was exploited - who has the best plan to fix it?


That's easy. Harper. He's the one who introduced the Federal Accountability Act. Martin on the other hand has said nothing on ethics during this campaign.

He also failed to implement things like an ethics commissioner with teeth, despite his 2004 electoral promises to do so. And now, almost two years after Adscam broke, we're in the midst of another likely Liberal scam with the Income Trust/insider trading investigation and David Dingwall's "entitlement to his entitlements."

Let's assume for a moment that Martin was indeed blameless over adscam. He can't duck responsibility for these latest matters.


The Income Trust issue is not substantiated and has been reduced to a "he said she said" situation. If you are going to raise unsubstantiated charges, then lets also include the alleged 50,000 that was paid to Riddell to withdraw his nomincation so that Allan Cutler could run in Ottawa South. Scandal is scandal - and it seems everyone is quilty.

   



Motorcycleboy @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:51 pm

RedBull RedBull:
Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:
RedBull RedBull:
To try and embroil Martin in the adscam diverts away from the real issue at hand which is: our system was weak and was exploited - who has the best plan to fix it?


That's easy. Harper. He's the one who introduced the Federal Accountability Act. Martin on the other hand has said nothing on ethics during this campaign.

He also failed to implement things like an ethics commissioner with teeth, despite his 2004 electoral promises to do so. And now, almost two years after Adscam broke, we're in the midst of another likely Liberal scam with the Income Trust/insider trading investigation and David Dingwall's "entitlement to his entitlements."

Let's assume for a moment that Martin was indeed blameless over adscam. He can't duck responsibility for these latest matters.


The Income Trust issue is not substantiated and has been reduced to a "he said she said" situation. If you are going to raise unsubstantiated charges, then lets also include the alleged 50,000 that was paid to Riddell to withdraw his nomincation so that Allan Cutler could run in Ottawa South. Scandal is scandal - and it seems everyone is quilty.


The income trust scandal has only just begun. It'll be fun though. Watch and shoot on that one.

You've still failed to address my point about Martin's broken promise on the ethics commissioner.

And while we're on Martin, how about the standing ovation he led in caucus for Jean Chretien following Chretien's testimony before the Gomery commission. Yeah, he's a different animal than his predecessor alright!

I don't know anything about the Conservative electoral scandal involving Cutler you've described. What's more, I don't care what a party does when deciding whose going to run for it in what riding. That's up to the party itself.

If I did care, I'd be ranting about Martin's hijacking of various Liberal riding associations, and the Liberal attempt to parachute Ignatieff into Etobicoke south. But I'm not.

   



Motorcycleboy @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:56 pm

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
I'm in agreement with Dayseed's stance in this case (gasp).

I challenge any one of you armchair politicians to give an example of a previous or ongoing debate on a political issue that hasn't digressed into a partisan smear-fest of attacks on stereotypical ideologies. Even one that didn't resort to the, "Pht, those damned liberals are all crooks," argument at least once would impress me. If you think the above is actually a legitimate, rational argument, you've proven my point.


Just because some of us aren't willing to drink the Liberal Kool-Aid doesn't mean we're "smearing" anyone. It's called debate.

As I said to Dayseed, if politics is a bit too complex and passionate for you, then don't partake Blue Nose. There's plenty of threads about "favourite movie quotes" and video games out there!

   



Mika @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:58 pm

Think of the monkeys!!!!

Ah now on topic, the government has become a joke, its sad how its no longer a democracy, just a large mess, I suppose thanks to the liberals, but we can;t forget Harper had his part in making the government a joke.

Anyways Martin is Martin, he screwed up and I'm willing to see Harper screw up even worse if he becomes into power, hahaha. Neither Harper no Martin are great leaders (well I'm ot 100% sure on how good Harper would be).

Either way we are screwed with government because we will simply have the liberal coalition bringing down the concervative minority if Harper gets in a PM(face it he will no have a mojority) and of course everyone will simply be against him and we will be having the same discussion in a few months.

   



Blue_Nose @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:27 pm

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:
Just because some of us aren't willing to drink the Liberal Kool-Aid doesn't mean we're "smearing" anyone.

Wow, you counter my claims of smearing with a smear. Well done.

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:
It's called debate.

No, it's meaningless rhetoric.

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:
As I said to Dayseed, if politics is a bit too complex and passionate for you, then don't partake Blue Nose.

Oh, I see. "Liberal Kool Aid" is a bit over my head.

If it's a legitimate debate, it precludes the passion that apparently daunts me so.

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:
There's plenty of threads about "favourite movie quotes" and video games out there!

If anything is more childish than the fluff threads on this site, it's the propagandistic tripe that passes as political discussion.

   



Blue_Nose @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:30 pm

Mika Mika:
Ah now on topic,


Actually, the topic of this thread was Motorcycleboy's attempts to intimidate the new and supposedly younger members who've expressed their opinion in this debacle, er, debate.

   



Jaime_Souviens @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:18 pm

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
I challenge any one of you armchair politicians to give an example of a previous or ongoing debate on a political issue that hasn't digressed into a partisan smear-fest of attacks on stereotypical ideologies.



Oh, come on, Blue_Nose, don't be as prim as your namesake.

Part of the fun of politics is shouting names at the opposition.

And that IS more productive than a video arcade. If someone is getting their adrenaline pumping over an upcoming election, that's a good thing. It may or may not be the opposite of a rational debate, but it definitely IS the opposite of apathy.

Ring the alarum bell! Blow wind! come wrack!
At least we'll die with harness on our back.

   



Blue_Nose @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:00 pm

You don't have to throw away rationality whenever you feel strongly about something. In fact, with something as important as the election of the government body that will represent us, it seems to me one of the most important times to be rational and civilized.

Getting all hot and bothered by some of the typical things that are thrown about during elections (he said, she said, he's a crook, she's a liar) can do nothing but cloud judgement. I'm no saying it's confined to this website; the whole election process is plagued by it.

You say, "Oh well, whatever gets people voting," but a bunch of thoughtless votes aren't worth much to anyone.

   



Jaime_Souviens @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:43 pm

I think I'd prefer a gut reaction on 'what needs to be done' to a reasoned analysis of policy platforms.

You need people of character in office. Policy positions are usually out of date by the time it comes around to address an issue.


If you're an NDP'er, (and I don't mean you, Blue_Nose), then you want Layton not because he says 3.3 million for X instead of 2.7 million. You want him because you trust him enough that when an entirely new issue arises, you think he'd do the right thing, (in your mind, whatever the hell that might be).

Let's say there's 50 issues facing Canada. You could make five checklists for five parties, and, using weighted scoring, evaluate the checklists and decide who to vote for.

And as far as I'm concerned, that's madness.

   



Blue_Nose @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:53 pm

If I was under the impression that a person would run the country based on his personal agendas, I'd be a hesitant to vote for them. That might be reasonable at a regional level, but it's certainly not at a national level.

The character of the party is what I'd be concerned with, and that can't be summarized by looking at its leader, or any individual member.

   



Jaime_Souviens @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:32 pm

Character of an individual is a personal agenda?

   



Delwin @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:39 pm

It is not as if party members vote outside party lines in the house, Individual style is important in raising issues or defending them while debating but does not do much to change the direction that a party takes.

   



Blue_Nose @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:40 pm

Well, saying that you trust so-n-so to do 'the right thing' is putting faith in his ideals.

   



Jaime_Souviens @ Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:39 pm

Okay, Candidate X believes in telling the truth, facing adversity squarely, and a strong and prosperous Canada.

So you don't trust him because he might act on a personal agenda?

   



REPLY

Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  Next