With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

The Forum is the place to go for more serious non-computer-related discussions. The rules of conduct here are more strict than they are elsewhere on X-bit labs. Adult language should be kept to a bare minimum. All posts must be related to the topic thread.

Moderators: CPUagnostic, MTX, Celt, Hammer_Time, Sauron_Daz, Tacitus, Anna

With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

Postby Hammer_Time » Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:50 am

As quoted by Stephen Harper's latest tv ad... :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :incoming:

Harper is employing usual fear tactics for upcoming election, bashing Ignatieff as usual.

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/forums/post92809.html

I can think of a million reasons to "change course"... before the people take to marching on Parliament like they did in Cairo these past 2 weeks... :incoming:

Harper sounds so much like Shrub right now its downright scary... "Stay the Course".... sound familiar?? Dictator...

PS: Go Jack Layton!! NDP forever !!! :wink: :twisted: :lol: :lol:
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33394
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

Postby Fuzz » Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:03 am

I wonder how many more minority govt's his party is going to put up with before getting rid of him. Chances are, it'll be another Con minority, Ignatief will resign, Bob Rae will get the Liberal leadership, Harper will try again, and we will get another Con minority. So AT LEAST 5 more years of the Harper status quo. Lame.
It's not the penguins I hate, so much as the idea of penguins.
Image
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Fuzz
X-bit Penguin Hater
 
Posts: 7859
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

Postby Hammer_Time » Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:51 pm

I think you are correct... sad but true. Where is our "Sarah Palin" ??? :twisted: :incoming: :lol:
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33394
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

Postby clone » Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:41 pm

I have no faith in Ignatief doing any better a job than Harper and I believe Harper has been a mediocre disappointment.

I'm not sure Jack Leyton has the answers tbh, while I believe Jack is a wonderful if not incredible humanitarian with his heart in the right place I've never been a believer that he was the man prepared to lead Canada.

not one of the 3 potential leaders in question have come up with a coherent plan to guarantee Canada's place let alone improve Canada's place in the world nor for Canadians in general.

I got a call from the conservatives last week asking if I'd be willing to support my local MP and Harper to which I responded "I will not support any leader who does not come up with a clear manufacturing policy to improve Canada's competitiveness."
When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free.
clone
X-bit Film Critic
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 11:13 am

Re: With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

Postby Fuzz » Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:49 pm

Ignatief may or may not be the man to improve Canada, but Harper has had his chance, and with every move he makes, I see his direction is not the direction I envision for Canada. Petty divisive political vote-mongering, filled with lies and inaction aren't my idea of a good leader. Will Ignatief be any better? I don't know, but given the options, I'd be happy enough to give him a a chance.
It's not the penguins I hate, so much as the idea of penguins.
Image
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Fuzz
X-bit Penguin Hater
 
Posts: 7859
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

Postby clone » Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:56 pm

their is an establishment rot at the core or the Liberals, if they had something to offer Ignatief would look so much better but and this is only my opinion all I've seen from him is a politician just as out of touch with "the future of Canada." and more about working at his own job protection even if it's as opposition leader.

I'm always amused not by what politicians say but what they don't say, what subjects they don't touch upon, the Harper government is new because of the portion of Reform party members, that on it's own wouldn't have been so bad except that the only lesson the Conservatives and the Teebaggers (reform) learned was to strive for anger and divisiveness amongst Canadians.

neither the Liberals or Conservatives talk much about Health Care, they don't talk much about Pensions, they talk about free trade at any cost, they talk about accessing markets at any cost to "promote" job growth despite that reverse being true following their ideology.

I'm a little surprised at how fast the Conservatives were corrupted so blatantly, my guess is that it's the Teebaggers (reformers) because they came from smaller more easily influenced (bought) regions and with Ontario divided along with Quebec they are getting somewhat of a free pass to service corporate influence.

in the next election we need 3 things, we need a minority government, the conservatives need to lose seats and the NDP need to gain enough seats to swing the vote as well as the Liberals because Conservative / Liberal has been about job preservation instead of inputting Liberal ideals into conservative policy.... as for the Bloc Quebecois I support their policies in general save the one that involves breaking up Canada at Canada's expense so traitor to Canada, patriots to Quebec is the politest I can be with them.

on a side note every party needs to shut the * up about forcing another election out loud or that they will "bring this government down", I'm still amazed at the PR stupidity of the opposition parties thinking that Canadians want to focus their lives on their problems or that Canadians really want to worry not only about their own jobs and childrens futures but also Canada's government on a daily basis... so notably stupid.

if Bob Rae ran again I'd vote for him despite the reality that he's probably not a winnable leader to vote for, who was that last french guy who led the Liberals to disaster anyway... forget his name, remember Kim Campbells better for heavens sake.
When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free.
clone
X-bit Film Critic
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 11:13 am

Re: With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

Postby Hammer_Time » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:40 pm

Prorogue Parliament!! Oh wait, there are no winter Olympics here this year... :roll: :incoming: :lol:
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33394
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

Postby Stupify » Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:41 pm

Well Liberals screwed themselves in the arse after putting Jean Chretien through the last bit of mess, especially paul martin adding to the mess. Then he gets the seat and totally f**ks up Liberal reputation. It will take a while for Liberals to get their act together and actually have someone without all this bullshit labeled on them. To make matters worse for themselves, they keep bringing up merger with other parties as a solution to topple this minority government. Would you trust in the leadership of such party? NO! Harper probably is getting a free ride out of Canada's progress and the conservative nature that saved them from the World style disaster but don't think he will actually do something worthy of being called a prime minister. I recall watching Robin Williams Live on Broadway and in there he makes a reference to Jean - Jean doesn't need any body guards, if someone comes up to him for a fight he will give it to them. Or something along that line. For Harper it would be if someone comes up for a fight, he will bend over instead - that's the image I get of him. The other bad thing about Liberals during their campaign and interviews was that they spent most time putting the other parties down instead of showing Canada what difference they can make. Well Liberals weren't alone but that to me is just pathetic.

Out of all the ministers I have seen or heard of so far only one seems like a decent person, someone who has actually had a massively positive impact on the society - Narendra Modi - he is the Chief Minister of the state Gujarat in India - I am from there. The guy literally brought the state out of stone age - free school for girls, must pay properly to the illiterate backward class people and they even now have rights, those people can stand for election too (obviously would get some help but at least are not ignored as humans). Frigg, the world was in agony during recession and this state and the public went nuts on spending. The guy is just something and my wife won't stop singing about the guy's effort.

Sure we can do without Modi type leader but at least someone who actually puts forth a plan to make some change to move the country forward.
What goes around comes around with interest!
User avatar
Stupify
Moderator
 
Posts: 9171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

Postby Fuzz » Sat Feb 05, 2011 11:03 pm

Some perspective on how long Harper's reign has lasted.

http://calgarygrit.blogspot.com/2011/02 ... arper.html

Is it cold in here? because I just got a shiver up my spine.
It's not the penguins I hate, so much as the idea of penguins.
Image
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Fuzz
X-bit Penguin Hater
 
Posts: 7859
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

Postby Hammer_Time » Sat Feb 05, 2011 11:42 pm

http://www.getyourvoteon.ca/gyvo-news-story.php?nid=129

Harper's government of waning hope

The Vancouver Observer


Daniel D. Veniez

On Sunday, to mark the fifth anniversary of his reign, Stephen Harper said that his Conservative government has governed on "hope".

Surely, Mr. Harper must be kidding? Or does he just think that we're stupid?

The disconnect between his entirely delusional rhetoric and the reality of what Canadians have actually been subjected to is, well, laughable.

This is the same Stephen Harper who, by specific design, scares the elderly, vulnerable, and new Canadians into believing that crime is out of control on our streets, when in fact, crime rates have been dropping for 15 years. And then, after having instilled fear, promises to rescue us and fix a problem that doesn't exist by spending tens of billions of our tax dollars to build thousands of more jail cells we don't need. And then when his political opponents call him on this lunacy, he calls them "soft on crime".

This is the same Stephen Harper who justifies awarding a sole source contract worth $20 billion for new jet fighters because Canadians should be scared that the Russians are coming with their 50 year old bombers!

This is the same Stephen Harper that spent over a $1billion putting a security fence around downtown Toronto, and then locking up peaceful protesters in their own backyards without due process.


This is the very same Stephen Harper who fired the head of the police complaints commission, the nuclear regulatory watchdog, the veterans ombudsman - all for the offense of speaking truth to power.

Here's a man that leads a Conservative government that has instilled fear in the public service of Canada, once a proud and confident group of people. He bullies anyone that gets in his way, and punishes public servants who simply do their jobs. The head of Statistics Canada and Richard Colvin are two others that come to mind. Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, was told that he "doesn't know what he's talking about" by Jim Flaherty, Harper's finance minister.

This is the very same Stephen Harper who takes government planes to Tim Horton photo-ops, says it's no problem that Canada doesn't get a seat at the UN Security Council, and spends six months of the people's time on a needless and deliberately polarizing debate on the long gun registry. Harper leads a government that raises shrill and urgent alarms when a boat-full of refugees arrive in Victoria, then quietly grants admission to every one of them into the country.


The rationale for Harper's cancellation of the indispensable mandatory long form census was the bogus claim that Canadians were under threat of arrest and jail time. In it's history as a globally respected census no Canadian has ever spent a minute in jail for not filling out a survey. Yet, the Harper Conservatives spent months saying in the House of Commons that citizens could go to jail if they didn't complete it.

"Hope", Mr. Harper? Really?


The Harper Reform Party, Canadian Alliance Party, United Alternative, and now Conservative Party intimidates and threatens. That is there modus operandi. It is a widely acknowledged fact that they have imported Republican and Tea Party attack strategies and honed negative and divisive wedge politics into a high art form.

And Mr. Harper has set the broader tone for a government that has no forward-looking program for the country, and has profoundly undermined our national institutions. That starts with shutting down parliament twice, and disregarding his own fixed election date law.


This is the same Harper that now warns of the dangers of that dreaded "separatist coalition". Yet, a few short years ago he personally wrote to the Governor General with a request to form a coalition with the very same Bloc Quebecois and the NDP that he tells us we should be very afraid of.

This great democrat, Stephen Harper, also sends us regular dire warnings that our economy would be dangerously imperiled and descend into the chaos od instability if - God forbid! - the Canadian people went to the polls to exercise our right to chose a new parliament.

Funny, how democracy has waited in the United Kingdom, Austrailia, or the United States in the last year.

Harper's implicit message is that it is he - and only he - that has the wisdom to guide this country's affairs.

Baloney.

Who the heck is he trying to fool? This from a guy who presided over the largest increase in government spending and deficits in Canadian history.

A government of "hope"? Canada has never had a more secretive, all-controlling, and cynical government than the Harper Conservatives. And they think nothing of assassinating the character of Canadian patriots.

Mr. Harper's roots emanate from the protest movement once known as the Reform Party. His psyche is wired for grievance, not for hope.

A talking-point called "hope" from a scripted speech isn't about to change that fact of life. Nor does it erase his five year reign of fear and intimidation.

Harper's brand of hope breeds hopelessness. We need a leader who will genuinely help---and not just leave us hoping
.
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33394
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

Postby Fuzz » Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:03 am

Well said.
It's not the penguins I hate, so much as the idea of penguins.
Image
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Fuzz
X-bit Penguin Hater
 
Posts: 7859
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

Postby Hammer_Time » Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:08 am

Harper and crew lies and screws us once again:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/commons-speake ... 3-786.html

Democracy double: Harper government takes twin blows for defying Parliament

The Canadian PressBy Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press – Wed, 9 Mar, 2011 9:10 PM EST

OTTAWA - The Harper government suffered a double blow today in its battle with the oppostion.

The Speaker of the House of Commons ruled against the Tories on two major issues.

Peter Milliken found that International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda breached parliamentary privilege by misleading MPs about the alteration of a document.

He also found that the government breached parliamentary privilege by refusing to provide all documents requested by the oppostion on the cost of its crime bills and tax cuts.


The government has refused to disclose the full price tags, arguing they constitute cabinet confidences.

It's now up to a Commons committee to decide what action to take against the Conservatives.


Opposition parties had argued that Oda lied when she told MPs she didn't know who had altered a document than ended funding for a church-based foreign aid group.

Oda later admitted she directed an aide to add the word "not" to an internal memo signed by senior officials, who had actually recommended that funding for KAIROS be continued.


You may say, well who cares about "KAIROS" and their funding, but the point is that Harper's minister LIED to parliament about altering a signed document, and Harper's gov't refuses to disclose the full price tag of its new crime bills and tax cuts. All these little lies add up you know... and that is why Harper is so hated, he is screwing us and taking our country apart systematically and one small step at a time...and nobody can touch him and he knows it. Soon he will be wearing sofa sarongs and declaring "All my people LOVE me all the time, they are all willing to die for me....WINNING - DUH!!" like some other folks who have been in the news lately...
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33394
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:38 am

Mr Harper the dictator. Breaking the rules to avoid badness, definitely heading in that direction at least.
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 15087
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

Postby Fuzz » Thu Mar 10, 2011 9:21 am

Well, we are pretty much guaranteed an election. It will just be a matter of who brings don't the govt. I would be surprised if Harper does it before the budget, just to stop any more scandals from weakening his election position. It seams he's up to a couple a week now.
It's not the penguins I hate, so much as the idea of penguins.
Image
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Fuzz
X-bit Penguin Hater
 
Posts: 7859
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

Postby Sauron_Daz » Thu Mar 10, 2011 9:53 am

But will those elections improve things....?
We never think of us as being one of Them. We are always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
User avatar
Sauron_Daz
Evil OverLord Mod
 
Posts: 34398
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

Postby Fuzz » Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:04 am

If we get rid of Harper it would. Unfortunately he REALLY knows how to pander to the ridings he needs votes in. He is good at politicking, and will probably hold onto another minority parliament.
It's not the penguins I hate, so much as the idea of penguins.
Image
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Fuzz
X-bit Penguin Hater
 
Posts: 7859
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

Postby Sauron_Daz » Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:15 am

Then there must be Canadians really liking him..
We never think of us as being one of Them. We are always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
User avatar
Sauron_Daz
Evil OverLord Mod
 
Posts: 34398
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

Postby Fuzz » Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:25 am

The problem is they are the only part on the right, and the other 3 sit on various degrees of the left. So the vote gets split a lot. The only reason they got in a few years ago was because they took over the other right wing (closer to center) party and consolidated the vote on the right.
It's not the penguins I hate, so much as the idea of penguins.
Image
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Fuzz
X-bit Penguin Hater
 
Posts: 7859
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

Postby Hammer_Time » Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:15 pm

Harper's tv ads are coming hot and heavy so yes, an election is imminent now.

As Fuzz said, we don't have any solid competition for him, the tv ads bash the opposition leaders and praise Harper, so morons out there eat it all up and still vote for him. The people who could make a difference are so disgusted they don't even bother to vote anymore, last federal election had the lowest voter turnout ever ( partly due to Harper calling the election and 32 days later we had to vote, shortest time span in history ever for such an election, also he planned that election the day after Canadian Thanksgiving holiday, the day many had to return to work and thus not motivated to bother going to the voting stations...very strategic and evil, and it worked!! ). As Fuzz said, Harper will secure a minority gov't in the next election once again, the other parties are too fractured and without charismatic leader to win the people over. The liberals are not running any tv ads and have no strong leader ( Ignatieff is the best they can do, and he has been thoroughly discredited by the media for his position on the GST taken out of context, and for leaving our country so long in the past, also blasted for that by the Harper ads...and unfortunately there is a wee bit of truth to that too, so nobody is gonna vote for Ingnatieff ). Unfortunately, in the public eye, Harper is the "best of the worst" and his deep pockets and the media ensure that everyone keeps brainwashed and thinking that way... Maybe after another 4 years of Harper butt-kissing America and destroying our country one step at a time, the people will finally revolt and vote him out... He is another Shrubby, guaranteed 8 years in office unfortunately and nothing we can do about it... Harper preys on everyone's fears - unemployment and panic etc. He bashes the competition mercilessly to try and scare people into keeping the status quo ( him in power ). :

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... nding.html

Tory party, 2 senators face election charges

Elections Act charges include claims party submitted 'false or misleading' expense statements

Elections Canada has laid charges against the Conservative Party and four of its members, including two senators, over alleged violations of election spending rules.

As reported Thursday by CBC News, the charges were laid under the Canada Elections Act on Wednesday and relate to the so-called "in-and-out" campaign financing case from the 2006 federal election. The charges are regulatory, not criminal.

The charges, published on Elections Canada's website Friday, include allegations that Conservative election expense documents submitted to Elections Canada were "false or misleading."

Charged are:

Senator Doug Finley, the party's campaign director in 2006 and 2008, and the husband of Human Resources Development Minister Diane Finley.
Senator Irving Gerstein, a prominent businessman and fundraiser for the party.
Michael Donison, a former national party director.
Susan Kehoe, who has served as an interim party executive director.

Gerstein was appointed to the Senate by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in December 2008. Harper appointed Finley to the Upper Chamber in August 2009.

Harper said Friday the charges were part of a dispute the party has been having with Elections Canada for five years.

"Our position's been very clear. We respected the rules that were in place at the time," Harper told reporters in Val-d'Or, Que.

"We've been repeatedly in court about this. The courts to this point have ruled in our favour," Harper said, referring to a court decision last year that Elections Canada is appealing.

"When Elections Canada changed its interpretation of the rules after that election, we changed our practices to conform with their new rulings. But obviously we can't change things retroactively. So all of these individuals acted according to the rules that were in place at the time."
Elections Act

Read the charges (pdf)
'Very serious'

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Friday the charges against four of the most senior members of Harper's campaign team are "very serious violations of Canada's election laws."

"It's pretty obvious that in Mr. Harper's Conservative Party, nothing happens without the approval of the prime minister. So this goes right up to the prime minister," Ignatieff told reporters in Oakville.

"And when you add to the fact that this is a government that has a minister who mis-led the House and is still in her job, when you add to the fact that this is a prime minister who's shut down Parliament twice, you begin to get a disturbing pattern of disrespect for our democracy."


Ignatieff was referring to International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda's recent explanation of an altered document that denied funding to foreign aid agency Kairos, and to the prime minister's decision to prorogue Parliament twice in recent years.

"This is a prime minister who thinks he makes the rules and now he's been found accused of breaking the rules. And I think the question of fundamental respect for our democracy is going to be a basic issue in an election, whenever it comes," said Ignatieff.
In-and-out

Elections Canada has alleged that the Conservative Party broke the spending rules during the 2006 election campaign by improperly reporting $1.3 million in national advertising as an expense that was shared by 67 Conservative candidates.

Elections Canada said the party violated the rules by moving funds in and out of local ridings to pay for national ads, allowing the party to breach the cap and for the candidates to claim rebates on expenses that weren't actually incurred.

The Conservatives took the issue to the Federal Court and won. Elections Canada appealed that decision. That appeal is still pending, but in the meantime, Elections Canada has laid these charges.


'False or misleading'

Two of the charges allege the party and its fundraising arm under Gerstein "did provide the Chief Electoral Officer with a return on the general election expenses of the Conservative Party of Canada ... that they knew or ought reasonably to have known contained a materially false or misleading statement, namely that all election expenses in respect of the 39th federal general election had been properly recorded."

The maximum penalty under the Act for each of those charges is a $25,000 fine.

The other charges, against the Conservative Fund and the four individuals and against the Conservative Party, relate to exceeding the election spending limits. The maximum penalty for each of those charges is a $2,000 and a year in prison.

The Conservative Party is "not surprised, but disappointed" by the charges, Conservative sources told CBC News Thursday. They say Elections Canada has been pushing for charges for more than two years, and they question the value of laying of them while an appeal is pending.


Its as disgraceful as the Koch brothers in the states spending over $330 million dollars for SIG to influence elections, and unlike Canada, they have NO caps on political donations, whoever has the most money will win the elections there for the most part...

The proceedings from the charges are due to be heard in Ontario provincial court in Ottawa on March 18.


Just look at Harper's website, it reeks of propaganda!!! : http://www.conservative.ca/

"Here for Canada" !! :shock: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: Yeah right, that's why you prorogued ( shut down ) parliament ( TWICE!! ) for months... during the Vancouver Olympics most noticeably, now coincidental you lazy SOB!!! Where where you then!!! You were not "Here for Canada" when you shut down parliament for no good reasons...twice now... making history... :fist:

Check out Harper's fiscal hypocrisy here:

http://www.conservative.ca/policy/plan/

A Conservative government will not be raising taxes. We will not impose a carbon tax. We will not cancel planned tax reductions for business. We will keep our spending within our means. It is that simple.

The alternative is not a plan. It is just the consequence of complete panic, and this government will not panic at a time of uncertainty.



"spending within our means" ??? Then what about this!!! ( actions speak louder than words ) :

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... eport.html

DATE:10/03/11
SOURCE:Flight International

Canada F-35 cost estimate soars 66%: report

By Stephen Trimble

Canada's planned fleet of 65 F-35As will be at least 66% more expensive to buy and operate over a 30-year lifespan than government officials predicted, according to an independent cost analysis.

The report issued by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) on 10 March predicts the Lockheed Martin F-35A will cost Canadian taxpayers US$29.3 billion over 30 years, compared to the $17.3 billion estimate published in October by the Department of National Defence (DND).


Canada's opposition Liberal Party has seized on the F-35 as a key political issue ever since Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister Stephen Harper committed to buy 65 F-35As on 14 July.


Liberal's leaders have complained the DND cost estimates are too low and taxpayers could save money with a competitive bidding process, with the Boeing F/A-18E/F, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen among the interested bidders.

Although substantially higher than the DND estimate, the PBO considers the $29.3 billion overall price tag for the F-35 as probably too conservative.


The report is based on several key assumptions, including Lockheed will build 2,478 F-35As, 330 F-35As will be delivered before Canada receives its first aircraft in 2016 and the F-35A's basic empty weight remains 13,318kg (29,361lb).

With all 65 aircraft delivered from 2016 to 2022, the PBO report estimates that the average cost for Canada's F-35As will be $148.5 million in Fiscal 2009 dollars.

The report also forecasts that the DND will spend $8.4 million every year to operate and sustain each F-35A, as well as about $30.4 million per aircraft for an overhaul and upgrade event scheduled 10 years after delivery.

Those numbers add up to a total ownership cost of $450 million per aircraft, or $29.3 billion overall, according to the PBO report.

Those figures are sharply higher than even the most pessimistic forecasts by the US Department of Defense, which plans to buy 2,443 F-35s. Although originally billed as a $30-$45 million fighter, the DOD now estimates the average cost is $91 million.

The PBO report notes that Lockheed officials believe the cost of the F-35 will decline from the $91 million estimate, not increase.

"Unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary, it is difficult to see prices reducing to their original estimated level," the PBO report says.


We don't NEED all these expensive new jets, yes we need replacements for aging CF-18's, but as the article said, this is a no-bid military contract and Harper chose the most expensive option for Canada, with no chance for competition:

Liberal's leaders have complained the DND cost estimates are too low and taxpayers could save money with a competitive bidding process, with the Boeing F/A-18E/F, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen among the interested bidders.


Harper is kissing America's ass once again, typical... we need more new reliable search and rescue helicopters that actually save people's lives than we do more new stealth jets ... our military force is pathetic, we have always relied on USA's military might to keep invaders away, so why change the formula now??

We had superior jets with the Avro Arrow back in the day, but those got trashed in favour of American desire for their missile defense program instead... and here we go again, letting America dictate what fighters we will get and how much we will pay for it all... disgusting.. Harper is a spineless neocon autocrat , nearly as bad as Shrub was... well on his way now... arrogant beyond belief.

Get your election on!! :

http://impolitical.blogspot.com/2011/02 ... ction.html

Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Monday in Conservative election machinations

So let's check in on what the Harper Conservatives were up to on Monday given that the PM supposedly does not want an "opportunistic election" (as of Friday anyway).

The Prime Minister was out striking a rather contradictory pose in light of the above position:

The federal government will listen to opposition requests for next month's budget but won't "engage in horse trading or negotiations," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Monday.

"We listen to the views of other parties in Parliament whether we agree with them or not," Harper told reporters in Vancouver.

"In the end, after listening to the pitches of the other parties, we will make the decisions we think are in the best interest of Canadians."

He'll listen but then he'll do what he wants, thank you very much. What the point of listening is, then, remains to be seen. They may act upon suggestions from other parties, namely the NDP, the only party they're meeting with, but it sounds like a take it or leave it scenario shaping up. Way to make things work, oh opportunistic-election-naysayer!

An urgent Conservative fundraising appeal to members was reported as well:

In a fundraising letter stamped “URGENT,” the Harper Conservatives are appealing for money to help finance an election they say is imminent.
The letter from top Tory fundraiser Sen. Irving Gerstein, obtained by iPolitics.ca, says the party needs another $243,900 for an election “we will likely face in the next few weeks.”
The sum, Gerstein says, will “pay for two weeks of campaign preparedness action before an election is called.”


They'll be the boys who cried wolf if we don't have one then, that stuff gets old real fast. Or do Conservatives just fall for the "urgent" appeal every time and enjoy the theatre of it all?


Election trap:

http://www.rabble.ca/columnists/2011/01 ... ction-trap

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/07/how- ... l-survive/

The Conservatives do not lead only in feel-good perceptions. Respondents thought the Conservatives, more than Liberals or New Democrats, are “extreme” and “out of touch with ordinary people.” It hardly needs saying that Harper continues to divide the country. But enough of the division benefits the Conservatives to leave Harper in the catbird seat.

Abacus found Canadians have less trouble agreeing about the Liberals. When comparing the three parties, respondents were least likely to agree that Michael Ignatieff’s party “keeps its promises,” “understands the problems facing Canada,” “looks after the interests of people like me,” “defends the interests of people in my province,” “has a good team of leaders,” “stands for clear principles,” “has sensible policies,” or is “professional in its approach.”

But look on the bright side. The Liberals did not finish behind the Conservatives and New Democrats on every measure. Among the three parties, respondents were likeliest to agree it’s the Liberals who are “divided” and “will promise anything to win votes.”

These are the results Ignatieff obtains after a full year with a senior political staff Ottawa reporters like. It follows his long summer bus tour and the uniformly positive reviews that came with it. It comes after Harper prorogued Parliament, gutted the long-form census, turned summit-time Toronto into one big riot and flip-flopped on ending the Afghanistan deployment.

After all that, Canadians give Harper’s party the edge on reliability, pertinence and competence. After the Conservatives, on these same questions, they almost always prefer Jack Layton’s NDP to Ignatieff’s Liberals. Giorno’s farewell note does not mention the census or the G-20 or Afghanistan. Just as well: these issues don’t move votes.
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33394
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: With SO much at risk, why would we risk changing course??

Postby Hammer_Time » Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:02 am

NDP soundly rejects Tory budget as expected, opposition unites against Tories as expected, election imminent:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada ... 87554.html

Rejected

Opposition unites against Tory budget; election likely
By: Mia Rabson

Posted: 03/23/2011 1:00 AM |

OTTAWA -- So much for a budget olive branch.

The Harper government, which tried to barter for NDP budget support, could fall as early as Thursday, with all three opposition leaders thumbing their noses at the Conservatives' latest fiscal blueprint.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said the budget took no steps to dial back billions of dollars in spending on prisons, fighter jets or corporate tax cuts, leaving a "black hole" in the budget for Canadian families.

"Like I promised, I said I would read the budget and I have done so," Ignatieff said. "And we find that the priorities of this government are not the priorities of ordinary Canadians."

Ignatieff's rejection was expected. So was that of Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe.

But NDP Leader Jack Layton had left the door open for his party to support the budget if the government met four key demands.

The budget touched on three of them -- increasing the guaranteed income supplement (GIS), extending a popular home energy retrofit incentive and offering more money to help Canadians access doctors and nurses.

But the olive branch wasn't long enough for Layton, and instead of NDP support, there came the opening salvo in what will be the fourth federal election in seven years.

"Mr. Harper had an opportunity to address the needs of hard-working, middle-class Canadians and families and he missed that opportunity," Layton said. "He just doesn't get it."

Layton wanted a $700-million increase in the GIS to bring all Canadian seniors at least to the poverty line. The government responded with a $312-million increase, which will add a maximum of $70 to the monthly income of seniors who receive less than $370 a month.

He said the budget's promise to forgive up to $40,000 in student loans for doctors and up to $20,000 for nurses who practise in rural or remote regions does not meet his demand to train and hire 1,200 new doctors and 6,000 new nurses nationwide.

"I want to build a Canada where no senior lives in poverty, a Canada where no family has to go without a doctor, a Canada where every Canadian can retire with dignity. Clearly, Mr. Harper doesn't."

Conservatives expressed surprise at the outright rejection of their budget, but say they are absolutely prepared to fight an election on it.


"This is a budget I think Canadians will be satisfied with," said Manitoba MP Shelly Glover, parliamentary secretary for finance.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said he listened to the NDP and feels his budget walked the difficult line of appeasing opposition demands without breaking the bank or putting the plan to eliminate the deficit on ice.

"Its cornerstone is strong fiscal management," Flaherty said of his budget.

The Conservatives seemed to be trying to get a repeat of the NDP budget support of 2005. That spring, Layton propped up the minority Liberal government after then-prime minister Paul Martin agreed to add $4.6 billion in new social spending to the budget. The Liberals were down in the polls in the wake of the sponsorship scandal and wanted to avoid an election.

Flaherty had far less money to play with, and his party -- unlike Martin's Liberals -- is still ahead in the polls. His offerings to the NDP totalled a little more than $700 million a year.

The first budget vote is expected Thursday but the government could delay it. If that happens, it's widely expected the government will fall Friday when the Liberals bring in a motion of non-confidence in the government, alleging Harper is unaccountable, untrustworthy and undemocratic.

Either would likely result in a May 2 election.

Most MPs left Parliament Hill on Tuesday expediting plans to find campaign offices and comfortable walking shoes, knowing they will likely be hitting the election trail by week's end.


"We're ready," Winnipeg South Centre Liberal MP Anita Neville said.


Get ready to vote on May 2nd Canada!!

I think it would be more dramatic if Canadians took to the streets protesting ala Egypt/Libya etc., but look what happened last time we tried to peaceably demonstrate:

Image


Image

Image

Of course things got nasty once the Police marched hard on the protestors, but one cannot peaceably demonstrate in any civilized country anymore ( which is a constitutional right in USA and Canada , at least it used to be!! ) without getting beaten up and/or arrested.
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33394
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Next

Return to The Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests