Reasons not to vote NDP

Isn't it grand hwacker, how Paul Martin is now against the GST reduction. Considering it was one of the first lies his Party used to get back in power. What a douche bag that guy is. Every time I hear Paul Martin's voice on the radio I want to rip off my own ears. :twisted:

I vote NDP.The only thing i don't like is that my vote for the NDP ends up being a vote for the another party.Usually the liberals

I've had the misfortune of living under three provincial NDP Governments in my life, and all three were simply abysmal. One of their biggest problems is that they have absolutely NO understanding whatsoever of fiscal policy! Their "financial plan" seems to revolve around going out to the mythical 'money forest' and just shaking the magical money trees until all that precious cash rains down upon them. They then scurry back to their ratholes and spend like complete morons.

Then NDP is a great idea IN THEORY. Unfortunately, the party and all of its rhetoric belongs in a political science class, not in the House of Commons. For all its platitudes, they have proven themselves to be one of the most hypocritical entities anywhere...

For example, they have no shame in marching in labour parades, but what was Bob Rae's FIRST act of business when he became Premier? Legislating the transit workers back to work! Apparently the doofus finally figured out that if people don't go to work, the province receives no tax money. ("Oh, so THAT'S were the money comes from!") So much for 'solidarity forever', eh bozo?

Jack Layton is the biggest knob of them all.

Two years ago, this jackass was working out of a broom closet on Parliament Hill, but this really wasn't a problem for him because his party is (usually) statistically irrelevant anyway. Hell, for the last 50 years, the NDP has been little more than a handful of impotent chihuahuas yapping on the front lawn at the big dogs. Audrey McLaughlin, Alexa McDonough...who the hell cares? Well, all of that changed with the recent minority government...

For the first time EVER, the NDP actually had SOME power on Parliament Hill! Jack (Satan) Layton could slide the odd policy to the Liberals and the NDP could get the "real" dogs to pay attention..at least for a minute or two. So why did Layton topple the government? Gee, that's a good question.

It's not like the NDP will EVER (and I mean EVER) be in power in the country. Well, if the Conservatives should happen to win a minority this time around, does this numbnuts think that any of the (primarily Western) Tory caucus are going to want to hear Jack(off) whine about Toronto's poor infrastructure, or gay rights, or peace initiatives, or plowing millions into the inner city? Does he honestly expect to get a better deal from the Tories than he had with the Liberals??? What was he thinking? This situation was the best chance the NDP has had in their ENTIRE history to get ANYTHING done, and Jack Layton just pissed that all away!

In the end, Layton (who tries to shroud himself in the cloak of "accountability" and "integrity") just cost the Canadian taxpayers close to a quarter billion dollars for this election...and for what? Did he get any new housing for that expenditure? Will the next government look any different than this one? Oh sure, if everything works out the way he likes, he might have Olivia "Mao" Chow warming his bed on a regular basis, but I personally don't feel like shelling out a quarter billion so that Jack can get his rocks off on a more regular basis. What a jerk.

(For what it's worth, Chow's no prize either. She was elected as a city councillor, and less than three months after taking the oath of office, she 'suddenly' decided to run federally. She never resigned her seat on council (just in case things didn't pan out) and she continued to receive her paycheque. I repeatedly asked her: "If you win the federal seat, will you undetake to pay ALL of the costs incurred in holding the election for your replacement in council?" After all, she KNEW there was going to be a federal election when she entered into her city council CONTRACT with the people of her ward. In typical, hypocritical NDP fashion, she refused responsibility for those costs. (Jeez Olivia, grow a pair. If you're going to apply for a new job, at least have the spine to decency the one you have first.)

In the end, I really don't care WHO people vote for... as long as it isn't the rotten NDP. This election is completely THEIR FAULT, and they should have to face the consequences for bringing such an incomprehensible (and pointless) expenditure upon the taxpayers of Canada.

(By the way, Jack: those taxpayers - THAT's where the money comes from. Get it?)

Some nicely directed hatred there. :roll:

Bauble-head Svend

By MARK BONOKOSKI

The cesspool of political "entitlement" and "corruption" in which the federal Liberals are trying not to electorally drown is no longer a one-party domain now that a jewel thief has been acclaimed as Jack Layton's NDP candidate in the riding of Vancouver Centre.

No longer can Jack call the kettle black.

No longer can Jack talk ethics.

How can Jack Layton accuse the Liberals of "helping themselves" in the sponsorship scandal, for example, when he has given his blessing to Sunday's endorsement of Svend Robinson, a politician who helped himself to a $50,000 antique ring while still sitting in the House of Commons.

Truth is, he can't.

"What Svend did was take responsibility for his actions,"Layton is quoted as saying. "He co-operated."

Pondered his move

He did what?

Truth is, Svend did no such thing. At least not at first.

What he did was wait a couple of days.

In fact, it could be argued -- and it has been argued -- that Svend Robinson pondered his next post-theft move right up until the moment he became aware that video-surveillance cameras had been trained on the public auction of high-end jewelry that had been held in the boardroom of the Vancouver International Airport by the Brampton-based Federal Auction Service.

Otherwise, if feelings of guilt had truly taken over, why had he not called the police straight away, or have a lawyer do it for him, and set the defence wheels in motion for what he later defined as a "totally inexplicable and unthinkable act."

He is, after all, a bright and educated man.

He knows five-finger discounts are wrong.

Jack Layton also said that the 53-year-old Robinson had "paid his price in full."

Truth is, he didn't.

Truth is, he got a kiss, and the first one came early.

Despite acknowledging that it has a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to theft, Federal Auction Service decided to make an exception of Robinson, expressed "sympathy" at the onset for whatever it was the long-time politician was going through, and said it would not press charges.

That nasty bit of work was left to the police and, in the end, Robinson pleaded guilty and received a conditional discharge. No jail time, no criminal conviction.

"In Canada, we don't kick people when they're down," Justice Ron Fratkin said during sentencing, indicating that Robinson had "fallen far further than most -- all for a bauble, a trinket, a ring."

So what, then, was the "high price in full" that Robinson actually paid that gives him entitlement to seek the trust of public office one more time?

It was Jack Layton's position that the "high price" Robinson paid "in full" was not only having to resign from his seat in the House of Commons, but also the fact that he had to face a little public humiliation.

Of course he had to resign.

He was a thief.

And of course he was humiliated. Thieves who are both well-off and powerful usually are humiliated -- one hopes -- when the flip side of their supposedly honest public persona is caught red-handed committing a criminal act.

Last year, when Svend Robinson called his press conference, when he broke into tears, when he was comforted on camera by his partner, Max Riveron, and when he attempted to explain away his how "something just snapped in this moment of utter irrationality," I compared what happened to him to what happened to an 85-year-old former cleaning lady with advanced Alzheimer's who lifted a $3-packet of chicken from a Toronto Loblaws.

There was no comparison.

The old woman, who had no idea what she had done, was taken into a back room, held until the cops arrived, and was then given the choice of criminal charges or a lifetime banishment from all Loblaws outlets.

Unlike what happened with Federal Auction Service and Svend Robinson, no "sympathy" for the old woman's situation was expressed by Loblaws, at least not until her treatment became a story written here.

Only then did the flowers and the apology arrive.

Robinson told the judge he cracked after a visit with his sister, who has multiple sclerosis.

If he had stolen the ring with the intention of giving it to his sister, the opinion here might be somewhat more tempered.

Fact is, however, he didn't steal it to give to her.

He stole it to give to his partner as an engagement ring.

And it wasn't a $3 packet of chicken, it was a $50,000 antique diamond ring -- not a mere "bauble" or a "trinket," as the judge said, as if he were trying to downplay the importance of its value.

So what's next for this convicted thief if the voters in Vancouver-Centre choose to either forget or forgive?

Sponsorship critic in Jack Layton's next caucus?

Just say no

Bottom line, the federal leader of the NDP should have refused to sign Robinson's nomination paper, not anoint him with an unopposed candidacy.

Jack Layton should have said no.

Instead, he has put himself in the position of talking one line and walking another.

And that makes him no better than those Liberals whose lack of ethics he today condemns.

source

CanadianLynx: Thanks for the vote.

Vote the CAP!!

A vote for the Conservatives is a vote for prostitution. (liberals aren't much bettre) Ass*icking til the end. "We'll see eye to eye" as we take it from behind. Privitize the system and pay more but after the party's over receive less. They'll feed you sh!t and you'll smile. Job cuts and profit!! .....but for whom??!! For the public!!?? Yaaa RIGHT! Corporatism for american democracy, you'll have no say. You choose whom they choose for you, their "democratic" sham. Next thing you know you'll be sending your children to bomb the poor for the freedom to make a profit.

Are you saying if Prostitution were legal your daughter would have grown up to be one?