Harper Pledges Patient Wait Times Guarantee

OH NO's

RUEZ RUEZ:

OH NO's

What is what people think when they see another RUEZ post?

Is Harper trying to bribe Canadians with a promise of shorter wait times? A promise that's about as tough to pin down as the weight of the sun? While under-funding health care is a big part of it, wait times in service also has to do with a government that won't assist more students with the costs of medical studies so more doctors, nurses and technicians are available as well as assisting new canadians in bringing their partial 'overseas' credentials up to Canadian standards. And then you've got some medical associations who act like the NHLPA for Doctors...

Promising shorter wait times without addressing all of this is nothing but a cheap 'buy votes' ploy. Harper's a buffoon...conservatives will vote for any strategically-shaved chimp so long as he promises something for nothing.

Yeah, right. Liberals are desperate.

hwacker, you are such an armchair neo-con sympathizer.

Facts are that the Cons cannot seem to break 30%, the Dippers can't break %20, and despite all the bad media and being handed the adscam to deal with by Potatohead - the Libs are still leading in the polls by a good 5-6%.

Remind me again how this translates into desperation?

The only desperation that I can sense, is that which oozes from Harper's camps as he dispatches his goons out across the country to make sure that his homophobic, bible-thumping caucus does not come out with some of their "timely" comments.

Personally, I can't wait to find out what ethnic background or social lifestyle gets wacked first by Cheryl Gallant, Scott Reid, or any of the other ignorant fools the neo-cons are trying to silence.

hwacker hwacker:

longtimelistener longtimelistener:

Red Bull Red Bull:

I am getting a bit tired of neo-conservatives bleating on about the adscam as though they are the harbringers of all that is just and pure.

Granted, what happened in Quebec was terrible and inexcusable and those who stole taxpayers money should be punished and the money returned. However, the neo-cons should be careful of throwing rocks on this issue....Harper refuses to reveal the names of financial supporters for his leadership campaign. I wonder why? I wonder if Conrad Black gave him any money - money that was stolen from taxpayers?

Perhaps Mr. Harper's hidden agenda will become more apparent if and when we see his hidden donors list.

Very well said my friend.

Why does Harper refuse to reveal the names of his financial supporters for his leadership campaign.
Probably because Harper has many unsavory skeletons hiding in his very own closet.

Of course, the neo-cons will continue to ignore that fact in the hopes that it will be overlooked by the voting public who aren't as willing to look that closely at Harper.

If memory serves me correctly though, wasn't this latest rendition of the Conservative party formed on a lie?
I could have sworn that Harper's right hand man, Peter made a promise not to merge the Conservatives with the Alliance, which is indeed what he did do.
I mean if you can't trust one not to lie to his own political brethren, how can you trust them not to lie to the Canadian people whose political ideology they don't share.

longtimelistener or should I call you shorttermmemory? You have a nerve coming here and post BS in the 1000th degree, your so called party is full of liars, miscreants, thieves and cowards please step off the soap box your gig is up.

I'm curious hwacker, which part of longtimelistener's post do you conceive as being bullshit?
Because from my perspective, he's spot on.

This latest rendition of the Conservative party was formed based on a lie, deceit and misrepresentation.

Or did you so conveniently forget about that part and the sole reason as to why there are officially two Conservative parties for people to choose from.
One being the Harper led, Conservative Reform Alliance Party or C.R.A.P. for short and the other being the Progressive Canadian (PC) Party.

You do remember how David Orchard had a written agreement from Peter MacKay at the 2003 Progressive Conservative Leadership convention excluding any such merger between the Conservatives and the Alliance don't you?
And how Peter MacKay outright lied and turned around and merged the two parties?
You do remember how that led to at the time of the merger four sitting Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament -- André Bachand, John Herron, former Tory leadership candidate Scott Brison, and former Prime Minister Joe Clark -- deciding not to join the new Conservative Party caucus as did retiring PC Party President Bruck Easton.
You do remember how it led Brison to cross the floor to the Liberals and how soon afterward, he was made a parliamentary secretary in Paul Martin's government, and he became a full cabinet minister after the 2004 federal election.
You do remember the considerable screaming from within the Harper camp when during the 2004 election, Joe Clark gave an endorsement to Paul Martin over Stephen Harper, saying that Canadians should "trust the devil we know".
You do remember how former PC Party President Bruck Easton also publicly stating that it was his intention to vote Liberal in the election due to his personal concerns with Stephen Harper's leadership.

You do remember how the way in which the merger was handled even caused one former Alliance MP, former CA leadership candidate Keith Martin, to leave the party and run as a Liberal in the last election, one in which he retained his seat, this time for the Liberals.

Additionally, three Senators, William Doody, Norman Atkins, and Lowell Murray, declined to join the new party and continue to sit in the upper house as a rump caucus of Progressive Conservatives.
You do remember that happening right?

You do remember all of these events taking place right?
Or is it you that is suffering from a sudden and convenient case of shorttermmemory?
Or perhaps you'd prefer to try and claim that these examples of what longtimelistener had pointed out are just fictitious examples of what you call 'Liberal bs'?

So which is it?

Ruserious: I'll look into that. I'm not dismissing it, but political partys do carry a lot of baggage and it would be normal for ego's to be brused.

Steven Harper was on CKNW with Petter Warren and he was asked what he would do if his wife needed a hip operation and could not get the operation in Canada. After a bit of waffling he said he'd do whatever he had to do. It was a legit question and I thought his answer defused the problem very well, with humanity and sincerity.
Jack Layton was asked the same question and he said they's stick it out with the public system. It simply didn't sound realistic and if he was sincer, it would be less humane and more idelological that most people could bear.

Considering the time that he'll have to think about it, I'm sure Paul Martin will come up with something wonderful & glib as his "I love Canada" line. I doubt it will matter because if he comes here and if he does go on CKNW, which he almost never has, he'll probably be interviewed by Bill Good who is a big softy.

Nothing big a dirty today, just some observations.

Don't worry about that guy Reuz in his world everything is the same(the same test tube for his whole family). You break a limb in Williams Lake you have to travel to Kamloops to set it. It took them 4 years to finally operate on my wifes back.

I think they are all crooks and that being said I would vote for the one that would make it law, that being a "Federal " Party ment you had to field candidates in every province.

I think they are all crooks and that being said I would vote for the one that would make it law, that being a "Federal " Party ment you had to field candidates in every province.