[bootlegga]

Gunnair wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

Continue to hunt and peck points if you will. I suppose it is lost on you that the other argument might be that those screaming Harper is a hypocrite (he is if course as are any party in power) were not making near the noise when the party the supported were in power and doing the same thing.

That is also being a hypocrite.

It's not lost on em at all. However, given that most of us weren't on CKA when Chretien was still in office - there's no way for you or I to really be sure of that.

And again, Chretien, to my knowledge anyways, never ran on accountability and being different, or a cut above the other 'politicians' as Harper did. At least Chretien was fairly honest about who he was - a power-hungry leader who did whatever he felt was best whenever he felt it necessary and screw anyone who didn't agree with him.

Harper, OTOH, doesn't have that defence...

Of course, you often coming to the defense of Harper is exactly the same as the blank cheques you criticize some of the lefties here of giving to the Libs/NDP - or is that lost on you?

Please, point out these many defenses. I will gladly stand on my record of taking any side to task and not play the political hack.

Or is this just a whiff of the shit your full of with this bullshit point you're trying to score?

Wow! I'm full of shit?!?

That's rich coming from the guy who says we don't need to debate bills in Parliament simply because something similar was debated last year or the year before.

After all, nobody would ever consider changing a bill, right? I mean, what would be the point of that? Especially not a bill that the majority party supports and calls closure on, right? But, hey it's no big deal...better hope they didn't bury something in there that affects you.

That, of course, is why Parliament is supposed to take its time on passing bills. Will Canadians live really be so much better if they pass these bills in December 2011 or February 2012? Hardly. Besides, that's the advantage of a majority, the party in power has four years to make whatever changes it feels are necessary to make Canada a great place. Why is Harper in a rush to push through close to a dozen bills in one session?

But, no, I'm not going to dig through hundreds/thousands of your posts to point out the times you let crap Harper pulls slide. I have a job and a family and frankly, lots of other better things to do. Of course, now you might say, see, Bootlegga is full of shit because he made a claim and can't back it up.

So, I'll use this thread as my basis for your tone and attitude.

Your post on the first page is fairly typical of your defence of the Conservatives. You discount outright Harper's policy and than throw a "well, what about when the Liberals did it" statement into the mix. Later on, you say there is no point in debating most of these bills because they were debated in minority Parliament. Now you're getting pissy with me. And that is just from one thread...

Finally, I freely admit you're nowhere as rabid as OTI (if he's a 10, then you're like maybe a 3-4), but when a thread like this happens along, your tone is often something like, 'no big deal' or 'boys will be boys' or 'nothing to see here'. And I certainly don't consider you a partisan hack, just a little biased based in your political views, in the same way that say, Eyebrock is. I'll admit I'm slightly biased the other way. It's no big deal, but there is no need for you to get your hackles up because people notice it.

But hey, if believing that you are often openly critical of Harper and Conservatives helps you sleep at night, then keep on keeping on!

[reidjr]

eureka
Yes we should be a country that cares but what worries me more and more want to help people in other countrys before there own if we were a country that really did care we should be spending more money and time on fixing canada before fixing other countrys.

[Gunnair]

bootlegga wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

It's not lost on em at all. However, given that most of us weren't on CKA when Chretien was still in office - there's no way for you or I to really be sure of that.

And again, Chretien, to my knowledge anyways, never ran on accountability and being different, or a cut above the other 'politicians' as Harper did. At least Chretien was fairly honest about who he was - a power-hungry leader who did whatever he felt was best whenever he felt it necessary and screw anyone who didn't agree with him.

Harper, OTOH, doesn't have that defence...

Of course, you often coming to the defense of Harper is exactly the same as the blank cheques you criticize some of the lefties here of giving to the Libs/NDP - or is that lost on you?

Please, point out these many defenses. I will gladly stand on my record of taking any side to task and not play the political hack.

Or is this just a whiff of the shit your full of with this bullshit point you're trying to score?

Wow! I'm full of shit?!?

That's rich coming from the guy who says we don't need to debate bills in Parliament simply because something similar was debated last year or the year before.

After all, nobody would ever consider changing a bill, right? I mean, what would be the point of that? Especially not a bill that the majority party supports and calls closure on, right? But, hey it's no big deal...better hope they didn't bury something in there that affects you.

That, of course, is why Parliament is supposed to take its time on passing bills. Will Canadians live really be so much better if they pass these bills in December 2011 or February 2012? Hardly. Besides, that's the advantage of a majority, the party in power has four years to make whatever changes it feels are necessary to make Canada a great place. Why is Harper in a rush to push through close to a dozen bills in one session?

But, no, I'm not going to dig through hundreds/thousands of your posts to point out the times you let crap Harper pulls slide. I have a job and a family and frankly, lots of other better things to do. Of course, now you might say, see, Bootlegga is full of shit because he made a claim and can't back it up.

So, I'll use this thread as my basis for your tone and attitude.

Your post on the first page is fairly typical of your defence of the Conservatives. You discount outright Harper's policy and than throw a "well, what about when the Liberals did it" statement into the mix. Later on, you say there is no point in debating most of these bills because they were debated in minority Parliament. Now you're getting pissy with me. And that is just from one thread...

Finally, I freely admit you're nowhere as rabid as OTI (if he's a 10, then you're like maybe a 3-4), but when a thread like this happens along, your tone is often something like, 'no big deal' or 'boys will be boys' or 'nothing to see here'. And I certainly don't consider you a partisan hack, just a little biased based in your political views, in the same way that say, Eyebrock is. I'll admit I'm slightly biased the other way. It's no big deal, but there is no need for you to get your hackles up because people notice it.

But hey, if believing that you are often openly critical of Harper and Conservatives helps you sleep at night, then keep on keeping on!

So nothing. Noted.

Surely if you can wring my political posts down to a "nothing to see here and boys will be boys" then it's as easy to wring yours down to "I won't comment on the fact that the liberals did this to, only on the CPC because ithey're in power, I don't like them, and they said they would do better."

That was easy.

[bootlegga]

Gunnair wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

Wow! I'm full of shit?!?

That's rich coming from the guy who says we don't need to debate bills in Parliament simply because something similar was debated last year or the year before.

After all, nobody would ever consider changing a bill, right? I mean, what would be the point of that? Especially not a bill that the majority party supports and calls closure on, right? But, hey it's no big deal...better hope they didn't bury something in there that affects you.

That, of course, is why Parliament is supposed to take its time on passing bills. Will Canadians live really be so much better if they pass these bills in December 2011 or February 2012? Hardly. Besides, that's the advantage of a majority, the party in power has four years to make whatever changes it feels are necessary to make Canada a great place. Why is Harper in a rush to push through close to a dozen bills in one session?

But, no, I'm not going to dig through hundreds/thousands of your posts to point out the times you let crap Harper pulls slide. I have a job and a family and frankly, lots of other better things to do. Of course, now you might say, see, Bootlegga is full of shit because he made a claim and can't back it up.

So, I'll use this thread as my basis for your tone and attitude.

Your post on the first page is fairly typical of your defence of the Conservatives. You discount outright Harper's policy and than throw a "well, what about when the Liberals did it" statement into the mix. Later on, you say there is no point in debating most of these bills because they were debated in minority Parliament. Now you're getting pissy with me. And that is just from one thread...

Finally, I freely admit you're nowhere as rabid as OTI (if he's a 10, then you're like maybe a 3-4), but when a thread like this happens along, your tone is often something like, 'no big deal' or 'boys will be boys' or 'nothing to see here'. And I certainly don't consider you a partisan hack, just a little biased based in your political views, in the same way that say, Eyebrock is. I'll admit I'm slightly biased the other way. It's no big deal, but there is no need for you to get your hackles up because people notice it.

But hey, if believing that you are often openly critical of Harper and Conservatives helps you sleep at night, then keep on keeping on!

So nothing. Noted.

Surely if you can wring my political posts down to a "nothing to see here and boys will be boys" then it's as easy to wring yours down to "I won't comment on the fact that the liberals did this to, only on the CPC because ithey're in power, I don't like them, and they said they would do better."

That was easy.

Wow, did I call it or what! My gut instinct was to use 'probably' instead of 'might' - that's what I get for being nice.

Thanks for being predictable!

[Gunnair]

bootlegga wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

Wow! I'm full of shit?!?

That's rich coming from the guy who says we don't need to debate bills in Parliament simply because something similar was debated last year or the year before.

After all, nobody would ever consider changing a bill, right? I mean, what would be the point of that? Especially not a bill that the majority party supports and calls closure on, right? But, hey it's no big deal...better hope they didn't bury something in there that affects you.

That, of course, is why Parliament is supposed to take its time on passing bills. Will Canadians live really be so much better if they pass these bills in December 2011 or February 2012? Hardly. Besides, that's the advantage of a majority, the party in power has four years to make whatever changes it feels are necessary to make Canada a great place. Why is Harper in a rush to push through close to a dozen bills in one session?

But, no, I'm not going to dig through hundreds/thousands of your posts to point out the times you let crap Harper pulls slide. I have a job and a family and frankly, lots of other better things to do. Of course, now you might say, see, Bootlegga is full of shit because he made a claim and can't back it up.

So, I'll use this thread as my basis for your tone and attitude.

Your post on the first page is fairly typical of your defence of the Conservatives. You discount outright Harper's policy and than throw a "well, what about when the Liberals did it" statement into the mix. Later on, you say there is no point in debating most of these bills because they were debated in minority Parliament. Now you're getting pissy with me. And that is just from one thread...

Finally, I freely admit you're nowhere as rabid as OTI (if he's a 10, then you're like maybe a 3-4), but when a thread like this happens along, your tone is often something like, 'no big deal' or 'boys will be boys' or 'nothing to see here'. And I certainly don't consider you a partisan hack, just a little biased based in your political views, in the same way that say, Eyebrock is. I'll admit I'm slightly biased the other way. It's no big deal, but there is no need for you to get your hackles up because people notice it.

But hey, if believing that you are often openly critical of Harper and Conservatives helps you sleep at night, then keep on keeping on!

So nothing. Noted.

Surely if you can wring my political posts down to a "nothing to see here and boys will be boys" then it's as easy to wring yours down to "I won't comment on the fact that the liberals did this to, only on the CPC because ithey're in power, I don't like them, and they said they would do better."

That was easy.

Wow, did I call it or what! My gut instinct was to use 'probably' instead of 'might' - that's what I get for being nice.

Thanks for being predictable!

Sorry, it doesn't feel your coming off as nice here. If you really are trying, it's got a more passive aggressive tone than you need.

You wish to step back and lower the flamethrowers , I'm all for it. If not, that's fine as well.

I am personably quite tired of the partisan bullshit. Fact is, governing parties are guilty of your complaints - not just Libs and not just CPC. Both sides snip debate, filibuster, and carry on sorts of antics to get there way. That's a fact that complaining on the forums won't change. The LGR gets pushed through - boo on the CPC. For all those complaining that's being pushed through with only 39% support of the population, it only takes an admission that it was brought about by a party with a similar percentage to demonstrate the lack of partisanship that doesn't simply polarize a thread.

That's all. I regularly call bullshit and I regularly point out that those who are anti-CPC and are calling bullshit are conveniently missing the opportunity to prove themselves as hacks by pointing out the bad and dumb things both parties are guilty of - to be more precise, the dumb and bad things governments in general are guilty of.

Don't take that approach if you wish, and we can go around this buoy all day long if you wish.

(forum pissing contests are damned slow on an IPhone.)

[bootlegga]

Gunnair wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

So nothing. Noted.

Surely if you can wring my political posts down to a "nothing to see here and boys will be boys" then it's as easy to wring yours down to "I won't comment on the fact that the liberals did this to, only on the CPC because ithey're in power, I don't like them, and they said they would do better."

That was easy.

Wow, did I call it or what! My gut instinct was to use 'probably' instead of 'might' - that's what I get for being nice.

Thanks for being predictable!

Sorry, it doesn't feel your coming off as nice here. If you really are trying, it's got a more passive aggressive tone than you need.

You wish to step back and lower the flamethrowers , I'm all for it. If not, that's fine as well.

I am personably quite tired of the partisan bullshit. Fact is, governing parties are guilty of your complaints - not just Libs and not just CPC. Both sides snip debate, filibuster, and carry on sorts of antics to get there way. That's a fact that complaining on the forums won't change. The LGR gets pushed through - boo on the CPC. For all those complaining that's being pushed through with only 39% support of the population, it only takes an admission that it was brought about by a party with a similar percentage to demonstrate the lack of partisanship that doesn't simply polarize a thread.

That's all. I regularly call bullshit and I regularly point out that those who are anti-CPC and are calling bullshit are conveniently missing the opportunity to prove themselves as hacks by pointing out the bad and dumb things both parties are guilty of - to be more precise, the dumb and bad things governments in general are guilty of.

Don't take that approach if you wish, and we can go around this buoy all day long if you wish.

(forum pissing contests are damned slow on an IPhone.)

No, I actually wrote 'probably' first and then thought, no I'll give Gunnair the benefit of the doubt, so I changed it to 'might'. My reply was most definitely sarcastic (note the emoticon).

IMHO, it was being nice on my part, but take it as you will. Seeing as you said I was full of shit (which was an uncalled for attack if you ask me), you really have no right to bitch about it anyways, as far as I see it.

It all boils down to perspective I guess.

I seldom see you criticizing the Conservatives, and as is the case in this thread, giving them a pass (usually because other parties did the same thing). I don't really care one way or the other, but don't expect to be considered a moderate when you do that. Like the saying goes, walk the walk and talk the talk.

OTOH, from OTI's perspective, I'm a raging Liberal with a hate-on for the Conservatives - probably because I was one of the few people counter-posting to him, which, in the beginning I did for balance, afterwards it was more to piss him off!

From my own POV, I'm fairly balanced and a centrist. For example, I liked that the Liberals cut the deficit and debt, but hate that they cut military spending so much (although I agreed with cancelling the EH-101, which I felt was too expensive and designed for the Cold War, not the War on Terror). I didn't like that they cut post-secondary funding early on and never restored it once they began running surpluses. I liked how hard the Liberals worked to keep Quebec part of Canada, but was 100% against the sponsorship scandal. Basically, I supported the Liberals because they were the best centrist option. Reform/Alliance was too wrapped up in evangelicals and hard-core right wingers, and the NDP is too far left.

I've said it plenty of times before, I was willing to give the Conservatives a chance in 2006. I liked Harper's idea of three heavy armed icebreakers, as well as plans to increase defence spending even more than Martin was. But right off the bat, Harper showed he wasn't any different from everyone else when he bribed David Emerson to cross the floor (if you remember, six months previous he had criticized all and sundry for Belinda Stronach doing the same thing). Then he changed three heavy icebreakers to one, and offered up the Class 5 AOPVs, which sound to me basically useless for Arctic work (outside of the summer months). OTOH, Harper was right to renege on his promise NOT to tax income trusts IMO - otherwise every corporation in the country would have become one and there would be zero corporate taxes. I would have preferred income tax cuts to GST cuts too. And so on. Harper didn't do a great job while in minority government, but he definitely wasn't as bad as many people feared.

Nowadays, I'm a person without a party. I can't bring myself to vote NDP, the Liberals are too focussed on the environment (I agree it's important, but it shouldn't represent 90% of your platform), and the Conservatives are too far right.

But let's be honest, the biggest single reason the Conservatives are the ones getting criticized is because it is they who have been running things almost the entire time most of us have been on CKA (I signed up in May 2005, six months before Martin's government fell). Same goes for most of the other active posters - many of them found this place in the past few years and weren't around in the Liberal years. Probably the only ones left from that era are a couple mods and of course Trevor.

If and when the Liberals get back into office, I'll be here, taking them to task when they screw up too. If history is any guide, it's just a matter of time before the pendulum swings back the other way and the Conservatives are go back to the Opposition.

Until then, I hope you'll set aside your political beliefs and criticize the governing party when they deserve to be, and stop with the, "well, so-and-so did it too."

And yes, I know full well that my sig says that - and it's nothing more than sarcasm aimed squarely at those that would employ that tactic to defend the Conservatives.

[eureka]

A little bit of doggerel I wrote a few years ago. I stopped then although I could easily have written several more stanzas. In the three years or so since then there is meat for another thirty or so.

HARPER SAYS

Climate Change,” Steve Harper says.
“Is just imagination.
Why listen to the scientists
And wake a sleepy nation?”


“Albertan Oil,,” Steve Harper says,
“Is my political salvation.
What matter careless production
Will be mankind's damnation?”

“Poverty,” Steve Harper says.
“Is just a Left Wing fiction.
Idleness is at its root.
Such is my conviction.”

“Economy's ills,” Steve Harper says,
“Can easily be cured.
Tax cuts for the rich will bring
Prosperity assured.”

“Job losses,” Steven Harper says,
“Cut me to the core.
Losses by my candidates
Will bother me much more.”

“The care of children,” Harper says,
“Is just for you and me.
Daycare will spoil the little brats
And set their parents free.”

“Women's Status,” Harper says.
“Is now I think just fine.
Continued funding for the dears
Is not a wish of mine.”

“Literacy,” Steve Harper says,
“Is a subversive notion.
No funding for such blasphemy
Will I ever set in motion.”

“Accountability,” Harper says.
“Is for the Liberals.
It isn't a necessity
for Tories and their pals.”

“Court Challenges,” Steve Harper says,
Will not be satisfied.
The decrees of my government
Must never be denied.”

“Same sex marriage,” Harper says,
“Is an abomination.
No heresy like this will soil
The great Canadian nation.”

“Softwood lumber,” Harper says,
“Annoys my American friend.
A billion dollars for George Bush
Will make the problem end.”

“Aboriginals,” Steve says,
“Have always been a problem.
I'll cancel Kelowna
And that will surely nobble 'em.”

“Canada,” Steve Harper says,
“ Is just a Federation.
Let's pander to the Separatists
And call Quebec a nation.”

“Youth criminals, “ Steve Harper says,
“Must just be put in Gaol.
Proposals to reform them
Are quite beyond the pale.”

And when Steve goes to bed at night
And ponders on his worth.
He modestly gives thanks to Him
Who made him salt of the Earth.

[Lemmy]

Sorry, dude, but it ain't poetry in Lemmy-land unless it's got the word "Nantucket" in it.

[Caelon]

Lemmy wrote:

Sorry, dude, but it ain't poetry in Lemmy-land unless it's got the word "Nantucket" in it.

It generated a rhyme in my head. Thanks.

[Robair]

Scape wrote:

In a sense, it's perfectly reasonable that the government is severely restricting the amount of time Parliament can spend discussing a long list of complex bills that have appeared at various times in various forms in the past and will now, thanks to the Conservative majority, finally become law

The House of Rubber Stamps

Quote:

Peter Van Loan complains that the opposition parties continue to oppose the Harper government’s agenda and explains his general approach to House debate.


Besides, Mr. Van Loan argues that three or four hours of debate is sufficient for bills. “During an election leaders debate on all the issues … that might go two hours. I hear very few people say it wasn’t long enough – and that’s to decide the whole election.”

[Unsound]

eureka wrote:

“Albertan Oil,,” Steve Harper says,
“Is my political salvation.
What matter careless production
Will be mankind's damnation?”

Careless? Never been anywhere near the oilsands have you?

[andyt]

eureka wrote:

A little bit of doggerel I wrote a few years ago. I stopped then although I could easily have written several more stanzas. In the three years or so since then there is meat for another thirty or so.

HARPER SAYS

Climate Change,” Steve Harper says.
“Is just imagination.
Why listen to the scientists
And wake a sleepy nation?”


“Albertan Oil,,” Steve Harper says,
“Is my political salvation.
What matter careless production
Will be mankind's damnation?”

“Poverty,” Steve Harper says.
“Is just a Left Wing fiction.
Idleness is at its root.
Such is my conviction.”

“Economy's ills,” Steve Harper says,
“Can easily be cured.
Tax cuts for the rich will bring
Prosperity assured.”

“Job losses,” Steven Harper says,
“Cut me to the core.
Losses by my candidates
Will bother me much more.”

“The care of children,” Harper says,
“Is just for you and me.
Daycare will spoil the little brats
And set their parents free.”

“Women's Status,” Harper says.
“Is now I think just fine.
Continued funding for the dears
Is not a wish of mine.”

“Literacy,” Steve Harper says,
“Is a subversive notion.
No funding for such blasphemy
Will I ever set in motion.”

“Accountability,” Harper says.
“Is for the Liberals.
It isn't a necessity
for Tories and their pals.”

“Court Challenges,” Steve Harper says,
Will not be satisfied.
The decrees of my government
Must never be denied.”

“Same sex marriage,” Harper says,
“Is an abomination.
No heresy like this will soil
The great Canadian nation.”

“Softwood lumber,” Harper says,
“Annoys my American friend.
A billion dollars for George Bush
Will make the problem end.”

“Aboriginals,” Steve says,
“Have always been a problem.
I'll cancel Kelowna
And that will surely nobble 'em.”

“Canada,” Steve Harper says,
“ Is just a Federation.
Let's pander to the Separatists
And call Quebec a nation.”

“Youth criminals, “ Steve Harper says,
“Must just be put in Gaol.
Proposals to reform them
Are quite beyond the pale.”

And when Steve goes to bed at night
And ponders on his worth.
He modestly gives thanks to Him
Who made him salt of the Earth.

Pretty good.