[Wally_Sconce]

wasn't it the Liberals that spent 2 billion on a gun registry?

BTW, what is so liberal about plotting to take firearms away from law abiding citizens, anyway?

[fire_i]

Just as a side note... guys and gals, if "wasting" money on art is possible, then ALL money spent on art is wasted - like anyone could decide what is art and what is not. So much I'm pissed off at the artists who make a huge white cube or a meat robe and get those things paid by the govt (I'm alright with them trying out stuff but why not have the decency of paying it from their own pockets if they know they're going to annoy everyone with it, even if the annoyment is often unjustified?), refusing them funding would be perfectly arbitrary and leave the message that real art is whatever the current government deems satisfactory. That's very CCCP thinking thank you!

End rant...

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

You're question assumes that the Liberal money and the Conservative money is being spent on the same things while that cut & paste shows that it's not.
That post shows that the money is going to larger industrial ridings, not for buy-vote projects. There's a big difference.

Except there is no difference, just your bias. 3 years ago when your jihad against the Liberals was in full swing and this type of spending was high on your hit list you didn't buy the argument about helping out areas. Hell, thats the fundemental principle behind equalization but back then it seemed the standard response was "money from conservative areas to buy Liberal votes".

Kenmore has it bang on. All the things Harper railed against are the things he must do to win support. Thats entirely why the Liberals had to do them also.

[ridenrain]

fire_i fire_i:

Just as a side note... guys and gals, if "wasting" money on art is possible, then ALL money spent on art is wasted - like anyone could decide what is art and what is not. So much I'm pissed off at the artists who make a huge white cube or a meat robe and get those things paid by the govt (I'm alright with them trying out stuff but why not have the decency of paying it from their own pockets if they know they're going to annoy everyone with it, even if the annoyment is often unjustified?), refusing them funding would be perfectly arbitrary and leave the message that real art is whatever the current government deems satisfactory. That's very CCCP thinking thank you!

End rant...

While the Liberals may have taken wasting money to an art form, not all art is a waste of money. While I might not appreciate what others define as art, I accept that funding is necessary.
That does not give the CBC a blank check to bid against private industry to secure Olympic broadcast rights.

[ridenrain]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ridenrain ridenrain:

You're question assumes that the Liberal money and the Conservative money is being spent on the same things while that cut & paste shows that it's not.
That post shows that the money is going to larger industrial ridings, not for buy-vote projects. There's a big difference.

Except there is no difference, just your bias. 3 years ago when your jihad against the Liberals was in full swing and this type of spending was high on your hit list you didn't buy the argument about helping out areas. Hell, thats the fundemental principle behind equalization but back then it seemed the standard response was "money from conservative areas to buy Liberal votes".

Kenmore has it bang on. All the things Harper railed against are the things he must do to win support. Thats entirely why the Liberals had to do them also.

These are not examples of grotesque pork barreled politics and the fact that you refuse to see the difference is proof that you're intention is simply to slander the CPC.
The examples I showed were industrial sites and we all know how much manufacturing is hurting in Canada.
When I get home I'll dredge up some examples of previous Liberal funding where the purpose was simply to bribe ridings for votes.
Maybe some others have some good examples of this sort of thing.

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

DerbyX DerbyX:

ridenrain ridenrain:

You're question assumes that the Liberal money and the Conservative money is being spent on the same things while that cut & paste shows that it's not.
That post shows that the money is going to larger industrial ridings, not for buy-vote projects. There's a big difference.

Except there is no difference, just your bias. 3 years ago when your jihad against the Liberals was in full swing and this type of spending was high on your hit list you didn't buy the argument about helping out areas. Hell, thats the fundemental principle behind equalization but back then it seemed the standard response was "money from conservative areas to buy Liberal votes".

Kenmore has it bang on. All the things Harper railed against are the things he must do to win support. Thats entirely why the Liberals had to do them also.

These are not examples of grotesque pork barreled politics and the fact that you refuse to see the difference is proof that you're intention is simply to slander the CPC.
The examples I showed were industrial sites and we all know how much manufacturing is hurting in Canada.
When I get home I'll dredge up some examples of previous Liberal funding where the purpose was simply to bribe ridings for votes.
Maybe some others have some good examples of this sort of thing.

We will find the same examples in the CPC as well you know. 25 billion dollars on a vote buying extravaganza.

You seem to think that I like every possible spending initiative by the Liberals. I don't. I just recognize that alot of it is necessary.

You only ever hold the Liberals accountable. For the CPC you gently scold.

All your goal has ever been is to slander the Liberals. Thats all you ever do.

[DerbyX]

Oh, RR, in case you are going to post a whole bunch of questionable spending initiatives which will do nothing but make me respond and cause another flamewar don't waste your time.

I have already posted I don't agree with everything the gov't spends their money on but just as you earlier admitted its sometimes a fact of the political system.

You didn't like the 25 billion extravaganza did you? Hell, I defended it more then you did. I guess their were some of those grotesque pork barreled politics involved there wasn't there!

[kenmore]

Harper so wants a majority that he is out shopping and the province that could clinch it is Quebec.... question is just how much is he willing to pay?
by the way loved the speech from the throne by john crosby in newfoundland...he sure gave it to harper....

[ridenrain]

Derby: There is no doubt in my mind that any party who enjoys a series of majorities against a weak opposition will show signs of corruption and abuse of powers. That's where the Liberals were and I don't want to see the CPC ever get there, but I want them to be in long enough that the Liberals either learn their lesson or real safeguards are put in place.
The PMO has too much power and if we can't put limits on him, I'd like to see a change of the culture in Ottawa. That's going to take time and I believe that Harper is going in the right direction.

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Derby: There is no doubt in my mind that any party who enjoys a series of majorities against a weak opposition will show signs of corruption and abuse of powers. That's where the Liberals were and I don't want to see the CPC ever get there, but I want them to be in long enough that the Liberals either learn their lesson or real safeguards are put in place.
The PMO has too much power and if we can't put limits on him, I'd like to see a change of the culture in Ottawa. That's going to take time and I believe that Harper is going in the right direction.

If that were true you wouldn't defend any political party and would be a de facto anti-government anarchist. In addition you would be a perrenial champion of all minority gov'ts and would be concerned that the Liberals were providing weak opposition rather then laughing about it.

You have already been given clear and compelling evidence that the CPC is doing all the things you dislike in the gov't. All the things you say "you don't like".

They are just as bad as the Liberals for all the same reasons.

In addition I reject the notion that you feel the gov't should have much less power over you yet hold the opinion they are perfectly justified in invading a foreign country and doing whatever the hell they want over there.

Nothing you have ever posted equates with you being a libertine concerned with limiting gov't power, those are just the excuses you use to hate the Liberals and the very things you are ignoring in the CPC.

You would think you would be a champion of minority gov'ts. To my recollection I have continually posted my support for some sort of working Lib-CPC minority that met with utter contempt by you.

[Wally_Sconce]

I have voted Liberal in the past, and would consider doing so again. But, right now, they have me so damned pissed off at them, I wouldn't give them the time of day if they asked. My stance has always been issues that I have been 100% consistant with. ie the gun registry, I have and always will oppose it. institutionalized daycare, I have and always will oppose it. patronage and lazy bastards in the senate, I have an always will oppose it. I can go on, if you like.

[kenmore]

harper is still a lying fucker.... politicians are all the same...
they all are on the take....... only the torys are the worst of the lot..

[ridenrain]

You really need to stop telling me what I think and believe.
As I said, I believe the influences that the CPC picked up from the Reform movement are moving them in the right direction but they need time and some freedom to swing the pendulum back to the center. If they turn back into the PC party, another populous party , I may seriously look into leaving and I’m sure many others would. The right is pretty ideologically driven and I doubt many would give up strong principals just to stay in power.
This is why long majorities are too dangerous. When there is no effective opposition, the PMO can go way overboard and the only people that could oppose him are the ones he appointed. For example, I ranted about the way Chretien put us in Afghanistan, not that he put us there. I’ve also said that people are weak and it’s the system that holds them accountable. That crumbles when all of them are hand picked patrons or cronies, looking to you for those cushy appointments.
I don’t see the value of a Con/Lib alliance. If the NDP decided to grow up a bit and get serious, I could see working with them however.

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

You really need to stop telling me what I think and believe.
As I said, I believe the influences that the CPC picked up from the Reform movement are moving them in the right direction but they need time and some freedom to swing the pendulum back to the center. If they turn back into the PC party, another populous party , I may seriously look into leaving and I’m sure many others would. The right is pretty ideologically driven and I doubt many would give up strong principals just to stay in power.
This is why long majorities are too dangerous. When there is no effective opposition, the PMO can go way overboard and the only people that could oppose him are the ones he appointed. For example, I ranted about the way Chretien put us in Afghanistan, not that he put us there. I’ve also said that people are weak and it’s the system that holds them accountable. That crumbles when all of them are hand picked patrons or cronies, looking to you for those cushy appointments.
I don’t see the value of a Con/Lib alliance. If the NDP decided to grow up a bit and get serious, I could see working with them however.

You are the person saying you are a reformer and dislike gov't power.

The right isn't any more ideologically driven then the left. Any belief otherwise is wrong.

You ranted about absolutely everything the Liberals did with regard to Afghanistan and even if the people didn't support him I think you would have said he should have done it anyway. That being said, a majority leader being asked for rapid deployment doesn't need the support of the other parties. He certainly didn't have support for Iraq and he certainly debated it yet when he did what the people wanted he was slaughtered by the right wing fanatics in the country that would have had us in a far worse and far more immoral war if they had their way. For Chretien it was a damned no matter what he did.

The Lib/CPC alliance is the only possible gov't that represents the greatest number of voters. If you want ideology parties then lets just let the Green and Marajuana party form the next gov't.

[ridenrain]

The war in Afghanistan wasn't a self defence issue or rapid deployment event, it was a long time commitment that I doubt would even be a serious issue today if the Libs were still in power. A great number of our forces missions were done without consultation by parliament or informing the public. I still don't really know what we're doing in Haiti.
Afghanistan is only an example of the huge powers that an un-opposed PMO has. Again, I refer to the Jeffrey C. Simpson book: "The Friendly Dictatorship".

$1:

Within the parliamentary system, as it has evolved in Canada, the prime minister is like a Sun King. He is all powerful. The Canadian prime minister has more unfettered power within this system than any other leader in a democracy. Put another way, he faces fewer checks or balances to that power than any other leader. We think of our system as parliamentary government, but what we really have is prime ministerial government within the trappings of a parliamentary system.

Think of the prime minister's power. He appoints every person of importance in the entire Government of Canada: all the ministers and parliamentary secretaries, the deputy ministers, senators, the head of state (the Governor General), the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the head of the armed forces, the heads of all crown corporations (including the chair and president of the arms-length Canadian Broadcasting Corporation), the information commissioner, the privacy commissioner, the official languages commissioner, even the ethics counsellor, who is responsible not to Parliament but to the prime minister. The prime minister does not just nominate these people; he appoints them without anyone or any institution able to reject his selection.

The system is not broken, but it needs some tweaking or strong opposition to hold the PMO in check. The amount of people not participating in the political system is understandable but it also allows the worst to proceed without criticism.
The main reason I don't like the Liberals is that they are a populous party that will bend and flex it's position, right or left to stay popular. From a right of center position, I see little value in teaming up with a center party. The CPC would be better off to team up with the left of center and together they can undercut the Libs.