BELOW(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)
My apology if a post was missed.
«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»
From: alan heisey <hize@earthlink.net>«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»
Subject: Re: Daily Digest November 26, 2008
j, ron is technically quite correct the three fastest growing provinces have to live with the continuing over-representation of the other 7 provinces and 3 territories. however, bringing the big provinces up to some norm of equity asuages the resentment at the over repping of the others. right answer longterm is the "david simpson amendment" which is that all our m.p.s votes are tabulated by the populations they represent. thus p.e.i. could keep its four m.p.s, their offices, pensions and the rest but their votes together would add up to one average ontario electoral district! we should live so long! cz
===================================
From: Ray Strachan
Subject: Steve is full of em
Joe
Our Steve is just full of Neo-con Judeo-Christian Love. Ask Him, he admits
it. Dont be too hard on him tho He may be tending the gate and making up
the rules when some of us have to face old St Pete.
Ray
===================================
From: "Suan H.Booiman"
Subject: financial statement
Joe,
Always glad to read your comments. Of course the lefties will not like this
financial statement. They are missing hand-outs, living the cradle to grave
life style. To me there was something serious missing, the Trudeau declared
bilingualism to serve a culture that is not able to manage their own.
Today they have to resort to a Nazi like "sign this that you will support culture
and language" closing freedom of choice and speech.
The cost of this show has been in the billions, am sure you know, and not serving
anyone but an whining insecure distinct society. Harper should have scrapped the
present program and return with a program negotiated with all the education
ministers of the provinces, with the idea to make the learning of English and
French mandatory for all elementary and high school classes starting
September 1, 2009. Ottawa paying for the teachers. The cost would be
maybe 1/70th of the present. money for the children living in poverty.
Serving all rather than a minority.It also would give all equal opportunity rather
than a selected few (immersion schools). My Johnny is learning French.
Suan
===================================
Subject: Re: BELOW (30) SPECIAL: CHALLENGING THOUGHTS
From: "Michael Watkins"
The 30 million dollar savings is many things. First and foremost it is a
ploy to exploit in the event of an early election not of the Conservative
government's choosing. Equally importantly the $30 million serves as a
useful distraction to throw in front of the public, a diversionary tactic
to draw attention away from the fact that Harper and Flaherty continue to
mislead Canadians on the economy and on Canada's finances.
In the recently concluded election, the one Stephen Harper promised we
would not have, Canadians in their infinite wisdom chose not to give
Stevie and Jimmy Flaherty all the keys to the playroom, yet like petulant
children these two are bound and determined to stomp their feet and keep
begging for more from their parents - the voters - until they get what
they want.
In our household the children do not rule. Perhaps its time to remind
Stephen Harper that the people are the parents in this relationship and
hand Harper the "time-out" he so richly deserves.
===================================
From: "Mark Whittle"
Subject: CHALLENGING THOUGHTS
Hi Joe
We all have to tighten our belts, so political welfare should be the first to go, along with all those perks.
If that failure Dion wants another election he will be wiped out as us voters are too busy battening down the hatches to want wholesale government change.
I do find the oppositions hysterics, at having their taxpayer funded meal ticket stopped, cold comfort in light of the facts.
I'm more worried about what our local councils will be doing to tighten their belts as well?
Mark-Alan Whittle
===================================
From: "Garry R. Holland"
Subject: Re: BELOW (30) SPECIAL: CHALLENGING THOUGHTS
Thanks, Joe;
Certainly lots to think about these days!!
Trust you and Aase are in good health
Kind personal regards
"Garry"
=====
Thanks. No more than aches and pains that come with lower upperage.
===================================
From: "Real. Gagne"
Subject: Re: BELOW (30) SPECIAL: CHALLENGING THOUGHTS
Joe:
Great topic.
If it weren't so serious, the spectacle of the Libs, the Dippers and the odious BLOC getting their knickers in a knot over losing a part of their electoral perks would be hilarious.
Does their outrage have anything to do with good public policy? Don't be silly! It's all about them having to actually get out and convince ordinary people in this country to actually support them financially instead of being able to count on corporate donations in the case of the Lieberals and the support of union bosses (through mandatory union dues) in the case of the Dippers. As for the BLOC, why should it exist at all when, according to the snippet you posted, it gets 80% of its funding from the taxpayer?
What is really ironic here is that it is these very people who have vociferously supported an Obama presidency, apparently unaware that the way he won was by persuading millions of ordinary Americans to support him financially, or more likely, conveniently ignoring that fact while indulging in their spurious outrage.
I've never supported the notion that political parties deserve any public money whatsoever. In my view, if a party cannot convince voters to support it financially as well as with their votes it does not deserve to exist as a political institution, and to force Canadians to do so through the coercive power of the state, as Marjaleena Repo advocates, can never fly under the banner of a democratic initiative.
To those, like Repo, who advocate this kind of undemocratic policy my question is: "Why should my tax dollars go to any party that I would not voluntarily support financially?
If this kind of issue is uppermost on the minds of most of our politicians these days, it bodes ill for the future of this country.
Real
===================================
COPY
----- Original Message -----
From: Suan H.Booiman
To: Layton Jack Leader ; Dion S. ; Duceppe Gillis
Cc: Harper.s@parl.gc.ca
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 9:49 AM
Subject: $ 1.75
The political leaders.
As greed prevails ....................
There is no way that the Canadian tax-payers should have to pay
for political parties in any form. If they can not raise their own
money, too bad, especially for a provincial separatist party.
If that would force an election so be it, who cares if the media
does not like it. It is time to remove political corruption in any form.
Why pay Quebec to leave?
Suan H.Booiman
White Rock
===================================
From: "Rebecca Gingrich"
Subject: RE:BELOW (30) SPECIAL: CHALLENGING THOUGHTS
Joe--I am in favour of cutting off all funding to political parties--as
soon as possible. Why should my hard earned taxes be going to fund those
we pay? We supply all their money--pensions, entertainment, meals, travel
and accomodation. Why do we have to fund the Party? Is there nothing they
can do on their own and pay for themselves or do they all think they are
entitled to their entitlements? Maybe we should demand that the Liberals
pay back the millions they stole from us in Adscam?
Just heard on the radio that the PC is backing off from this plan. Just
when I thought that maybe I could vote for them again, even if I would have
to hold my nose so tightly that it would probably fall off. Go figure!
becky
=====
The CPC has backed off--no guts--power is more important than scamming the
taxpayer???
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/28/tories-fiscal.html
===================================
From: Robert
Subject: Re: BELOW SPECIAL: CHALLENGING THOUGHTS
Dear Mr. Hugelin:
This message is just another example of why I asked several months ago to have my email address deleted from your list. For some reason, I still receive occasional messages from you. Mostly, that's not a problem, but this message really bothers me.
Please take me off your list. I do not want to be involved in any way with your hate campaign against Stephen Harper.
Robert
===================================
Subject: Re: BELOW (30) SPECIAL: CHALLENGING THOUGHTS
From: John Anderson
Hello Joe:
I just finished responding to the CBC Poll suggested by Marjaleena Repo.
And then the current results popped up: 4150 to 1917 IN FAVOUR of
scrapping subsidies to political parties. Ye Gods!!
This is just another indication, along with low voter turn-out for
elections, of the low esteem with which politicians and the political
process are held by the general public.
It also suggests an alarmingly low level of political awareness in
general. Voters have to recognize that Harper's proposal -- as it
stands -- would effectively reduce our Canadian democracy to a one-party
system.
If Harper is really serious about saving $30 million, then all he has to
do is restore the funding regime that existed before January 2004. This
would allow corporate donations and individual donations up to $5,000.
Perhaps not ideal, but it would eliminate the need for government
subsidies. The fact that this was not part of his proposal serves to
confirm, in my view, the anti-democratic tendencies of the Conservative
Party, and thus why they must NEVER be trusted with a parliamentary
majority.
Best Regards, JOHN ANDERSON
P.S. I have just read (1400 hrs) on www.cbc.ca that Harper has
withdrawn his proposal to eliminate subsidies to political parties. But
his spokesman has not apologized for making the proposal in the first
place. So this ain't over yet!
===================================
From: Andy Jones
Subject: Re: BELOW (30) SPECIAL: CHALLENGING THOUGHTS
Joe
I voted Yes scrap the subsidy. the Bloc gets paid to be negative. It
is one of the reasons I don't vote. I might not like the Reform party
but in Alberta they are going to win. A vote for one of the other
parties to show my displeasure just gives them money they do not
deserve
===================================
From: "Don Keir"
Subject: Re: Daily Digest November 27, 2008
I guess this is a comment to reply to Stratos.
You seem to imply that banks and oil companies are making only 4% on their investment. But there is something here that doesn't add up. Some time ago the oil companies seemed to be operating quite happily on $40 to $50 per barrel for oil, but for the past year that price has probably averaged closer ro $90 to $100 per barrel. I find tears a little difficult. Perhaps the banks could open up their {pause] inner organs and supply a little onion vapour to help out.
Don Keir
===================================
From: "Brad Thomson"
Subject: our old philosophy
hey Joe,
When we were fighting MacKay our plan at the time was to utterly discredit him, so that he could not seek the leadership of the Cons. We succeeded. Now it appears that the second part of our plan, Harper would *uck up, has also taken place. He seems to have overplayed his hand, now we must hope that Layton and Dion have the guts to go along with what they appear to have planned, throw the bum out and take his place...
Brad
===================================
From: Ray Strachan
Subject: Re: BELOW (30) SPECIAL: CHALLENGING THOUGHTS
Joe.....If Harper is going to save the Canadian Economy by trashing the
oposition,my question is "How much is the new WAR machinery cost that he is
buying up?........Ray Strachan
===================================
From: Ron Thornton
Subject: Re: BELOW (30) SPECIAL: CHALLENGING THOUGHTS
Hi Joe:
In regards to the government plan to cut off public funding to all parties, I believe it was just a ploy to get the opposition parties all worked up but with no intention to actually implement. They knew what the reaction would be and once they got it, they dropped it quickly. While there is much to be said about parties raising funds from the individuals from whom they seek their votes, nothing ticks me off more than a party that doesn't give two shits about me unless I am waving cash their way. In that regard, these pot lickers are all part of the same dung heap.
That said, the only thing Chretien ever did that I give him credit for was to eliminate businesses from directly contributing to political campaigns, putting the onus on the public purse and private contributors (up to a point). It should be government for the people, not for non-voting corporations, unions, or any other artificial organized entity. Regular folks, not just the fat cats, should also matter.
Recently, I read that the CEO of Lehman Brothers picked up a cool $300 million for driving his company into bankruptcy. Hell, I would have done the same for them at a fraction of the cost they paid that bozo. Then again, not being a terribly greedy fellow and maybe able to see warning signs that any idiot with a drop of common sense might have picked up on, maybe I could have done a better job. Lord knows, I couldn't have done worse. If $300 million is the going rate for a guy who will destroy your business, what do they pay for people who actually build and create real wealth?
Ron Thornton
===================================
From: John Murray
Subject: Re: BELOW (30) SPECIAL: CHALLENGING THOUGHTS
Joe:
I am CANADIAN.
I do NOT support the break-up of Canada.
I do not support the Green party.
Nor do I support the Liberal Party that has done so much damage to Canada over the decades, and has so amply demonstrated its basic dishonesty so well in recent years.
WHY, oh WHY should I be forced to pay to support and subsidize all these parties (especially the Bloc) whose views are inimicable to mine? To be forced to do so is inimically anti-democratic!
Let political parties earn their support the old-fashioned way. Let them work for it.
And Let people CHOOSE whom they wish to support - THAT's the democratic way.
(It's NOT a novel idea ...)
Respectfully, J. M.
===================================
From: Ron Thornton
Subject: One more thought...
Hi Joe:
Just a quick thought. If the opposition parties decide to gang up and take over the government because the Conservatives refuse to just toss money in the air in the hopes it provides a miracle fix to the economy, and to do so before the massive American infusion that will take place within the next couple of months, then I want Gilles Duceppe as our next Prime Minister. Dion is a write off, Iggy isn't in the palace just yet, and Layton is too pink for me. So, I figure if these twits are determined to destroy the country, then Duceppe is the man with the best credentials. What do you think?
Ron Thornton
===================================
From: "The Natroses"
Subject: Re: BELOW (30) SPECIAL: CHALLENGING THOUGHTS
To Robert Ede: As to your last statement: "isn't that enough to object to? wouldn't you prefer 308 thinkers bringing their constituents views forward? sort of like the original intention 1867?"
Your in a real dream world, if you think the ordinary constituents views are put forward at the federal level by our so called 308 thinking MPs. Harper would love to go back to 1867, using the same rules and laws, that made perfect sense back in 1867 but in 2008 - it is insane to expect an MP to bring their viewpoints forward in the world we are facing now.
Our viewpoints have been drowned by the voices of big business and lobbyists, who Harper would rather meet their needs instead of the common person. Harper and the Cons ideology, is to let the common person eat cake, while he has free rein to destroy the fabric of this nation, that my ancestors build. To use the vision of the Confederation of Fathers, twisting and turning to suit his agenda. To turned the House of Commons into a war zone for pure political opportunity to hurt the opposition. In the end, if he is not hurting the opposition, he is hurting the average Canadian. Again, since you are such a Harper fan, what benefits has he provided to me that has made my Canada a better place to live in? From the latest economic update and his appearance on television, Harper has provided me and a lot of normal Canadians more evidence that he has no intention of helping us, and he does not care one iota how many people suffer, since he has discounted us a long time ago.
From the Natroses
To Robert Ede: Just came upon further proof, that citizens concerns are not address at the federal level, but as well at the provincial level. From what I have read, you should really check out if citizens concerns are heard at the local area. Trying getting something address at a school board level, first you have to contact the trustee - that is if they return a phone call. and than the red tape.
Here is the link:
http://tinyurl.com/68e9gz
From the Natroses
===================================
From: "Robert Ede"
Subject: House Shenanigans demonstrate why the Executive was designed to be superior to the Legislative - let's follow the as-written text, shall we
I spotted Harper moves to avoid political showdown on www.bourque.com - Heck Chretien & Broadbent are even in on it!!
Now everyone can see why the BNA/Constitution1867 specified 1) an Upper House to represent the propertied class (why else does membership to this office alone have net-worth and property-ownership qualifications/disqualifications and special -"I have not collusively or colourably obtained" oath of office?) as a balance, within the Legislative Order , to the shenanigans of the fooled-more-of-the-people-than-anyone-else rabble in the Lower House and 2) an independent superior Executive Order (independent Governor General with & without the Advice & Consent of His/Her own, independently-appointed Privy Council ) wielding an absolute veto (+ the Reserve Power) AND further still 3) the power of Disallowance (2 yr retro-active veto) of any Canadian action by the Queen-with-Privy-Council.
I thank the too-smart-by-half backroomer in the (self-identified-as omniscient, omnipresent) PMO/PCO who suggested dumping the Quarterly Pay-Offs to Political Parties and thus set off the chain of events.
I thank the papers, pundits and video talking talking heads who have partially-educated the public on the options available to the Governor General when a Minority Cabinet-Government is defeated in the Lower House.
Now I pray that Canadians will seek out their country's foundational documents and read the "Rule Book" for themselves.
The price of Freedom IS informed vigilance by a non-sedentary electorate. God Bless the availability of information via the Internet!
Official Justice Dept Version
Plain Language Version
Intro. to Plain Language Version
--
Robert (Rob) Ede,
Thornhill
===================================
From: "Rebecca Gingrich"
Subject: DD
Another question to you: Would a coalition government supported by a
majority be legitimate or not?
Joe--In the countries being attacked to bring them 'democracy' it is
constantly put forth that the 'people have a vote'. We had a vote, and
aside from having no one to vote for, the CPC won a majority. So the
question to be asked also is 'would the majority of Canadians who voted in
the last election be willing to be governed by two parties that could not
get a majority on their own? The saying that 'you can not make a silk purse
out of a sow's ear' comes to mind.
Was Paul Martin a prophet--he stated that the majority will not dictate to
the minority! In our great 'democracy' no one is asking if we the voter
would be satisfied with this coalition of the power hungry or not. It is
all a numbers game. Democracy obviously has nothing to do with it. Again,
we see Layton/Dion fiddling while Canada burns. So much for democracy.
They cannot accept that perhaps they, like the peasants (us) should have to
give up something to help Canada over the economic crisis we are in. First
we have to give them $1.75 times four years to keep their Party viable,
then, when they see their entitlement threatened they throw a temper
tantrum. This speaks volumes about their mind-set. Money means more than
democracy or a viable country. 'Don't take my soother away from me or I
will hold my breath'? Hey--that would bring down the CO2 level!
This flap has nothing to do with governing Canada, it has to do with power
and greed. Would the majority of people be satisfied with this? Sadly, no
one in our great 'democracy' will ask us. We have well and truly been shown
how important we are. We will be selling our democracy and our country for
$1.75--sounds about right--we won't even have that much left in our wallets
after this 'coalition' is finished raping and pillaging their way to the
trough.
Becky
===================================
From: "The Natroses"
Hi Joe. Why would it not be legitimate? There has been a few examples of governing as a coalition in Canada's past. All the experts such as political professors, have all stated it has always been an option, when the sitting government loses confidence in the house. What is really sad is the fact that Harper is still treating the Canadian public as children who have no need for a detail explanations of the actions of his government. Instead, we get simple pleads, that the opposition has the right to do this but not the Liberal leader who must earn his right through an election.
Harper rolled the dice, counting on the opposition to act like they usually do, but this time they did not do what Harper expected them to do.
As far as I am concern, it is legal under our current system.
From the Natroses
===================================
From: "Rebecca Gingrich"
Subject: cartoon says it all!
http://calsun.canoe.ca/Comment/TAB/2008/11/29/7573871-sun.html
===================================
From: "Phyllis Wagg"
Subject: RE: Daily Digest November 28, 2008
It now being 1:30 a.m. the thoughts of those who posted to-day must wait until tomorrow.
Another question to you: Would a coalition government supported by a majority be legitimate or not?
Under our system a coalition government, supported by the majority in Parliament, would be legitimate. While I have doubts that the Liberals and NDP with the support of the Bloc will be able to pull it off, our system is based on the government retaining the confidence of the House. It was only the arrogance of the Conservative Administration that led to the current situation. This arrogance is underlined by the contents of Jim Flaherty's presentation before Parliament where he introduced an ideologically driven document not supported by the mandate the government received in the last election, unless you buy the argument that the election was a referendum on Stephen Harper and gave him absolute power to impose whatever agenda he wanted on the public.
During the election the government's economic policy was to "stay the course." While they never clearly defined what they meant by that phrase the "economic update" did anything but "stay the course." Apart from the failure to present any policies to deal with the economic crisis, and although the document was vague on many points, its general orientation was to move backwards on several fronts.
First of all, it provided contradictory messages. It implied that at the general public "must adjust their priorities" and "tighten their belts" and "make sacrifices today" while pouring money into financial institutions to "continue lending to consumers, homebuyers and businesses." This kind of contradictory message does not inspire confidence.
During the election the promise was that they would not cut programs. The first program they cut was a program designed to finance political parties. In Canada election law has been formulated through a consultative process intended to be fair to the Parliamentary parties. The unilateral action of new Conservatives reveals a movement away from democratic consultation to a despotic method of operation even as they promised and needed to work with the opposition in a time of economic crisis.
They moved on to enforcing their ideological principles on a range of policies promising cuts to government, sale of public assets, and an overall reduction in spending during an economic downturn. This strategy, most economists recognize, deepens a recession and could move it towards depression.
They indicated they would introduce legislation to "put annual public service wage restraints of 2.3 % for 2007-2008 and 1.5 % for each of the following three years." The wording here could mean that they will be cutting public service wages by these amounts retro-active to the beginning of the fiscal year. If the opposition accepted this economic update they could be trapped into accepting public service wage roll backs.
They then suspended the right to strike for public servants, in effect destroying the collective bargaining process.
Once the collective bargaining process was suspended for three years they then promised to eliminate the right to fight for pay equity under human rights legislation. Instead the issue would be placed under the "collective bargaining process" which was suspended for three years. Tricky!
After promising they have solved the fiscal imbalance during their last mandate, they are now introducing a new formula for calculating payments. Like the "technical recession" they are talking about using a "three-year moving average" and introduced the term "nominal GDP growth." This means that the real value of equalization will decline as prices increase and provinces will have less money to spend on programs such as education and infrastructure.
The way the statement deals with infrastructure can be interpreted as meaning there could actually be a decrease in spending as well. In regard to the multi-year $33 billion Building Canada plan the statement talks about starting "a limited number of key infrastructure projects." These are likely projects that are already in the works and not new projects.
The statement also provides new powers to the Minister of Finance "to support financial institutions and the financial system" in what the government deems as "extraordinary circumstances." It appears that the ability of the Minister of Finance to spend money without the approval of Parliament is already quite extraordinary. The ability to purchase billions of dollars of shaky mortgage debt from the banks without the permission of Parliament seems to be an enormous amount of power already in the hands of a minister. We still do not know where that money is coming from. The fact, it appears that the government is looking to cut spending in other areas in order to finance this transaction. The issue illustrates the dangers of this kind of power in the hand of the Minister of Finance with a hard right ideological focus.
This "investment" in shaky mortgages is considered a strictly essential investment making it necessary for other departments to cut spending. Ideologically, the Conservatives are using the emergency to cut the power of government to deal with economic crisis in the future, to begin the process of cutting equalization, human rights, and to increase the power of capital over society in general.
There is far more in this statement than is being publicly discussed. The media have been "suckered" by the eliminating of the per vote party financing to concentrate on that issue and not the underlying "secret agenda" carefully disguised in vague language.
===================================
From: "John Dowson"
Subject: Re: BELOW (30) SPECIAL: CHALLENGING THOUGHTS
From John Dowson
Steve Harper is so obsessed with destroying the Liberal Party that it almost pathological. He chose a cabinet, not to govern but as a chess gambit for the next election, which he will engineer. It is obvious that he doesn't know how to govern, but he sure knows how to play the political dirty tricks game. He destroyed Preston Manning, he destroyed the Federal PC party and he has set his eyes on destroying the Liberals above all else instead of governing. I didn't vote for a puppeteer, I voted for a party to govern and not play political chess games. Maybe someone in the caucus will have the guts to stand up to Steve and send him back to the backroom where he belongs the better off Canada will be.
===================================
From: Larry Kazdan
Subject: Letter to Editor re: Backroom Deals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Harper recently stated, "The opposition has every right to defeat the government, but Stephane Dion does not have the right to take power without an election. Canada's government should be decided by Canadians, not backroom deals."
I am a voter in the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway. Perhaps Harper can explain why David Emerson became a Conservative Government Minister through a backroom deal, and not by a decision of the voters. That was then, this is now, eh Stephen Harper?
Larry Kazdan,
Harper plays for time, appeals to public to reject alternative to Tories
- Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press Fri Nov 28, 7:18 PM
- http://www.thecanadianpress.com/english/online/OnlineFullStory.aspx?filename=n1128124A&newsitemid=43521026&languageid=1
- Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press Fri Nov 28, 7:18 PM
From: "Rebecca Gingrich"
Subject: RE: Messaging the Media: modern politics in motion
Joe--I think they also need the BLOC to bring down the government--you know, the BLOC whose aim is to destroy Canada?
I just heard Bob Rae on the Roy Green Show. He stated that the only reason the Ontario economy tanked under his administration was that we were already in a recession. Well, duh--we are also in a recession now--is he giving prior warning to what will happen to the whole country under his coalition???
I doubt if he will use that excuse again.
The majority of calls and emails to Roy(the most emails he has ever rec'd) are against the coalition!
becky
===================================
From: John Kruithof
Subject: Harper
Joe,
During the last two elections, Canadian voters, in their wisdom, denied Harper a parliamentary majority. Harper has now shown how he would rule if he had the power: my way, or the highway. Thank goodness there is an opportunity of stopping him. I hope the opposition makes good on its intent of toppling Harper.
John Kruithof
Ottawa South
===================================
From: "Bernard J Finestone"
Subject: Re: Messaging the Media: modern politics in motion
I used to think that you were a self-serving egotist, but harmless. I now think that you are verging on meriting the title of traitor. What in the world are you trying to achieve other than shit -disturbing ? Would you like a separatist government ?
HCol (Ret) Bernard J Finestone, CD, CdeG
=====
. . . I'll respond layer.
Just thought I'd inform you of what you may or may not know.
Do you think this will quieten the opposition parties?
===================================
From: "Brian Graff"
Subject: RE: Messaging the Media: modern politics in motion
Hi Joe:
"We're not even two months removed from the last election, and a group of backroom politicians are going to pick who the Prime Minister is. Canadians didn't vote for this person. "
Funny, but I remember David Emerson joining his caucus within days of the 2006 election... and I also remember Harper not wanting to give Ontario the seats it deserves, in an attempt to deny Ontario voters the right for their vote to count fully.
Butanyway, in our system, unlike the US, we do not vote fo the PM - we vote for our local MP, and if that MP is affiliated with a political party, and that party can command the confidence of parliament, then that party leader becomes PM.
Paul Martin was elected PM for the first few months he was in office - he had won the party leadership, but from the public, only his local constituents had voted for him. Same with Kim Campbell... John Turner, Trudeau, etc. when they won their party leadership while their party was in office.
If Harper is implying that the way we should elect a leader is by a direct vote, then he should be proposing that Canada become a Republic where people vote directly for the President, or that we reform our electoral system.
In the 1985 Ontario Election, the PCs won more seats than the Liberals - 52 to 48, but the Liberals won more of the popular vote. Clearly, the same can be said today of the Liberals and NDP won 44% of the popular vote vs 37% for Haprers party.
Joe Clark was Prime Minister 1979 even though FEWER Canadians voted for his party than for Trudeau's Liberals in 1979 - and he was allowed to govern even without any formal support from the NDP or the Socreds
Going back to 1917 is also instructive - prior to the December 1917 election, Borden formed a Unionist government that included many Liberals who broke with their party... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionist_Party_(Canada)
I am no Constitutional Scholar, but clearly there are ample precidents for the Liberals to take power and for the GG to deny a call for an election... whether Canadians are smart enough to see through the CPC spin is another matter.
Brian
===================================
Benji
I wonder if Stephen Harper and his merry band of MP's assume we were born last night!
I did note vote for him. The fact remains his name was only on the ballots of the riding he wanted to represent. I ass-u-me had he not been elected in the Riding he stuck his name forward for…. We would return to ensure he was elected somewhere?
Talk about games playing. He takes the cake! If Harper was not elected I assume someone else who was elected would take over as their leader, right?
Canadian politics is yet Americanized thank God. What is better to have Harper assume he is the President and therefore what he says goes or given the immense cost to (a) call another election, or (b) as our system allows a coalition of what remains giving a stab at the immense problem that not only affects Canada but the World?
Who said Harper is the next best thing to sliced bread? It is obvious as he tries to deflect the matter to others shoulders he assumes he is the sole answer to our problems.
I dare suggest we should let him sink or swim in the quagmire created. That stated the situation is too large to allow him to run amok of each Canadian.
Get with it Stephen… read how the British Parliamentary system differs from the American one you relish. I dare suggest given your penchant for the American way how about doing us a favour and taking up being an American?
Benji
===================================
From: "Efstratios Psarianos"
Another question to you: Would a coalition government supported by a majority be legitimate or not?
"The opposition has been working on a backroom deal to overturn the results of the last election without seeking the consent of voters," Harper said late Friday in a statement in the foyer of the House of Commons.
Ah, shaddap, you **cker. Mr. Typical Quebecer here (and I suspect, typical Canadian) says that you've just outworn his patience and forbearance. Sure, I'm a Tory (blissfully unideological, I might add), but these serial stupidities of yours have got to stop. A failed budget-takedown in 2005; a successful one that led to an election in 2006; brinkmanship throughout 2007; and pull the plug in 2008. Follow that with the most witless campaign that I've ever seen, and now the threat of another one a couple of months after the last?
Give it UP, already. More Tories have been elected than members from any other party, but they're in a minority because Canadians aren't open to giving you a free hand (let alone a blank cheque) in doing what you want. (Let alone that, in all honesty, the electorate has no idea what you intend to do). Scream, spit, scratch, and tell no one what you intend to do if you're granted freedom to act ... Is it any WONDER that people are beginning to feel that you really DO have a nasty agenda up your sleeve?
Grow UP, already!
Stratos
P.S. Out with the rascal. Harper, RAUS! (A feeling many Tory MPs feel, no doubt).
===================================
From: "Mark Whittle"
To: "'Joe Hueglin'" <joe.hueglin@bellnet.ca>
Cc: "Stephen Harper" <pm@pm.gc.ca>
Subject: RE: Messaging the Media: modern politics in motion
My thoughts exactly Joe. I thought I would share my thoughts with Stephen too. Seems the thought of the opposition parties losing their corporate style political welfare cash is too much for them to bear, but usurping the government without my say as an elector is an assault to democracy that will not go unpunished at the ballot box. The GG has a mandate to do no harm, so handing Canada over to a back-of-a-napkin coalition is idiotic, no way she will do it. She will reject the advance if a economic plan is not forthcoming from this so-called "coalition" government. When tightening the belt, every penny counts, just ask any senior on a fixed income. Political welfare and perks should be the first excess baggage over the side. No stone should be left unturned in the quest for savings that can be used to stimulate the economy on the ground where real people can feel it. sacrifices have to be made. Resonates with me. I have no problem voting again, all you need is your photo ID or a new health card. Only this time Harper will be assured a huge majority and the opposition will be blown away even worse than six weeks ago. Political theatre run amok, is not this coalition?
Mark-Alan Whittle
===================================
From: "The Natroses"
Subject: Re: Messaging the Media: modern politics in motion
Hi Joe: Now, the Cons are dropping the part of the money given to parties for each vote. They had to tote the transport minister, Baird out to spread the message, very like the ones you have stated. The CBC reporter, did not ask any tough questions, compare to the CTV reporter. She had given him a rough time, but still did not answered any of her questions. I don't think it is going to work this time, because people have other worries and it is just before Christmas. From the talk, people are wondering why Harper is reigning in costs of government. They feel, the next update he will eliminate the costs of our social programs such as EI. I just hope the opposition will stick to their guns, because Harper has to go before the deficit hole gets too deep, and will take years to climb out of. I think Harper and Flaherty is cooking the books, just like he did in Ontario.
From the Natroses
===================================
From: "Efstratios Psarianos"
Government reverses itself on political funding decision
Doesn't mean that they're not dumb **cks ... (NOTE: Could be 'hacks')
Stratos
===================================
From: Ray Strachan
Subject: Old Time Music Dance
Hi Joe
One thing about this Northern Part of Alberta we still have some of the good
ole community halls and went out to one tonite, about a 40 minute drive out
into the country. Am stuffed with,Baked Ham,Perogies,Cabbage rolls, Mashed
Potatoes,Gravey, Turnips,Carrots, salads,coffee, many desserts. That was
served at 1130pm. The Old Time Dance started at 830. Real good live band
Old Time Music, Two steps,Waltzs,Polkas etc. $15 bucks a person for the whole
thing. Now all I have to do is go to bed and try to sleep with a slightly
extended stomach.
Never thought I would ,but I have become a fan of Dwight D Eisenhower .I had
heard his farewell speech when he made it but it didnt mean anything at the
time.As you know I sent you my thoughts on it quite a while back and you kindly
printed it and gave a website.
Today I ran into another Gem of Wisdom from him,
"We will bankrupt ourselves in the Vain Search for absolute security."
What foresight eh?
Ray
=====
There is none short of the grave - and no one knows what will put you there, eh?
===================================
From: "Robert Ede"
To: "Pierre Bourque" <pierre@bourque.com>, "Rt Hon Stephen Harper" <pm@pm.gc.ca>,
"Governor General" <Info@gg.ca>
Subject: Reform-a-Tory 37.6% vs Fiberal+UnioNdp 44.4% -Why Not? PLUS the GovGen made a boo-boo in Sept'08 (King-Byng revisited)
Executive Summary -
a) Precedent suggests (and now practice proves) the GG was wrong to grant a dissolution to Harper this past September.
b) We need to concentrate on re-establishing the Office of Governor General & the selection system for that Office Holder.
Dear Canada,
The recent minority vs coalition / "Heavin' Stephen" (it'll take 3 of ya, ta toss him) Media Uproar is very enjoyable for someone with my biases:
1) I'm no fan of Mr Steven Harper. Although he'd just prompted me to admire his "balls-i-ness" with gutsy plan to cut the Quarterly Bailout of Political Parties, he then surprises me when he caved at the first whiff of serious opposition - if it was a good idea on Monday, why is it so bad on Saturday .... fire all your advisors ... you're looking worse than Mr Dithers on this one.
2) I think 50%+1 is insufficient for a legislative decision (we should have a system were 66.67% is standard practise to pass a bill) and Electorally, less than 50%+1 can NEVER be considered a mandate .. it's a provisional, caretaker-stewardship at best.
A Minority ACTING LIKE a Majority is foolhardy hubris plus being an affront to the opposition and thinking Canadians. (witness Joe Clark 1979, Harper now)
Consider - Can the opinion of 50%minus1 be SO wrong that they totally lose? Why do we have 7/50 & 100 requirements constitutionally?
3) I think our current PMO/PCO 'kingship' is an abomination to the spirit and as-written letter of the BNA/Consitution 1867.
Consider - In BNA, Queen, GovGen & Privy Council are in the Executive, The Senate and Commons are the Legislative - there is no mention of the Prime Minister.
4) If the "unified" Reform+ProgressiveConservatives under Mr S Harpoon can govern with 37.6% why cannot another unequally-yoked pairing with 44.4% not have a chance to govern when the smartest-guy-in-the-aforementioned 37.6% blunders so obviously to create that very opportunity?
5) The King-Byng thing was much different - in this much-cited-recently situation the opposition Conservatives HAD MORE SEATS than the Fiberal PM who had, legally-retained/stubbornly-refused-to-relinquish, power after "a defeat" in the popular election.
excerpt from Claude Bélanger,Department of History,Marianopolis College:
"Mackenzie King's Liberals had come to office in December of 1921 (party standings: Liberals 117, Progressives 65, Conservatives 50, Labor 2, and Independent 1) but had been unable to achieve a majority because the Western provinces had supported a third party which promised reforms demanded in the West.
Despite its minority position, the King government stayed in power until 1925 particularly because the Progressives continuously supported them. An election was called by King for October 29, 1925, under the pretext that the government lacked "a clear majority" and could not dispatch certain important business. The voters responded poorly to the appeal of the government. The results were: Conservatives 116, Liberals 101, Progressives 24, Labor 2, Independents 2."
A carefully reading of the whole backgrounder by M Belanger, will lead the observer to conclude that based on this historic example (verified by our recent 2008 results), the Governor General should NOT have granted Mr Harper a dissolution in Sept 2008 and should have considered THEN what is being bounced around NOW regarding an All-the-Talents-(except Harper) Coalition-of-the-Willing-to-try-anything-to get rid of this overbearing Mr Dithers Redux.
rce
UNSOLICITED POLITICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Every cloud has a silver lining
Perhaps attention can be re-focussed on the method of selecting the next person to be recommended to the Queen as holder of Canada's greatest office, our TRUE Executive Head & National Leader - the Governor General.
If the GovGen was atop the Canadian power totem, all this wrangling in the lowest order of gov't would be minor details in the running of the country - barely needing the attention of the press and/or our Constitutionally empowered Executive.
The partisan 'leadership' of the biggest bunch of charlatans in the Legislative assembly WAS NEVER intended to run Canada.
My preference is for that person to be found by a popular election held simultaneous with every-other General Election, with the term of Office to start 365 days after the House returns (Since any Citizen could run, a single-transferable ballot system -asking voters for their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc choices all at once - would be the only way to get even a 50% result).
IMHO only by electing the GG can we hope to have an Officeholder with the mandate to return our bastardized-by MacKenzie-King/too-much-PMO/PCO-power government system to the supremely-suitable and wonderfully-crafted, as-written format described in 1867. Perhaps you'd like to read the Plain Language Version of it
--
Robert (Rob) Ede,
Thornhill ON
===================================
From: "Randy Kubik"
Subject: Re: Randy . . .
- At 06:03 PM 29/11/2008, you wrote:
=====
. . . sorry no.
You could always write to him via
the Digest. Betcha it'd get there.
_____________________
Brilliant Strategy?: Harper?
On the Political Party Funding Issue, as part of the Flaherty Economic Statement:
IF right from the beginning and all along the PM planned to include this as a red herring to get the reaction he is in fact getting and from Conservative voters as well,
and if the plan all along was to pull back, to give it back, thus isolating the whole Economic Update to the issue of a perceived lack of new Stimulus Package...
and if the PM was facing two possibilities from this: 1.) counting on winning the vote and moving forward
or 2.) face defeat in a confidence vote on the issue of No Stimulus alone (with the issue of the Political Party Funding absolutely gone) and having another election, then the possibility of getting a majority is almost certain, as any backlash would almost certainly be directed at the Opposition parties...
THEN I say "Brilliant" as a political strategy... but, and it is a big BUT, the question becomes "why, why, why play these kind of games at this time?" Why roll the dice like this? It is not what voters want to see... that is clear to all those without their heads up their BUTs... this kind of behaviour only breeds more contempt from voters.
The one possible result, NOT COUNTED ON, would be the forming of an Opposition Coalition to assume (not seize) power after the PM and the Conservatives lost a confidence vote in parliament... It seems that this may be the most prudent course of action for the GG as a reasonable alternative to another winter and unwanted election being called at a $300 million cost let alone the inconvenience to all voters at this time... (maybe we could dispense with the 35 day campaign and just vote in two weeks... maybe that would be cheaper)
To me, the Opposition Coalition Option is the most scary of all options when one considers who would be sitting in the helm chairs and who would be supporting whom. For sure most Canadians would not want this but as an option, without considering the whose-who aspect, it is the most pragmatic, given the circumstances.
So it seems the brilliant political strategist Mr. Harper is right there knocking on the door again, in spite of all the talk about working together in a co-operative spirit and tone in these unprecedented and unpredictable tough economic times... even with Canada being in the best position and in the least "crisis-mode" (for now) of all G20 countries... mainly due to the recent fiscal actions of the government measuring close to 2% of GDP.
Most may agree there is something to be said for waiting until January to co-ordinate the real Canadian response with that of the new Obama Administration's....that too is prudent and proper due diligence given the interconnectedness of the two economies.
Let's pray this all works out for the best.
===================================
From: "Rebecca Gingrich"
Subject: Harper/Duceppe
Lorrie Goldstein on the Roy Green Show just stated that Harper was willing
to make a deal with Duceppe and the BLOC in 2004 to gain power if Martin's
government fell. Harper was willing to create a coalition then with the
Separatists. Now Harper finds it evil??? These fat cats will sell our
soul to grab power. There is no difference between any of them. The only
politician with any ethics is Gille Duceppe--he is not afraid to say that he
wants to break up Canada--the rest of them just want power.
Disgusting--hope they all rot.
Becky
===================================
From: "Suan H.Booiman"
Subject: the message
A Political Crisis?
By Chuck Strahl MP
November 29, 2008
Last week I sent around an update on Canada's economic situation, with the observation that it wasn't a very enjoyable subject to write about. Unfortunately, this week it appears that our economic woes are morphing into a political crisis of sorts, at a time when we can least afford it. What's happening in Ottawa is bordering on the absurd, but its impact would be felt most harshly by Canadians, not political parties. It is potentially a shame of historic proportions.
The Throne Speech I wrote about last week has now been passed. The Opposition Parties apparently had no trouble supporting the direction of the Conservative government, and in fact, they let it pass "on division", which means they didn't even want a stand up vote! When the Finance Minister tabled his economic update, though, things got ugly, mostly because the speech made reference to politicians and political parties receiving less from the government coffers. Suddenly, the Liberals and NDP want to form an alternative government, apparently by joining forces in a coalition, and supported by the separatist Bloc Quebecois.
This unholy alliance is trying to paint a different picture, of course. They say they simply want to spend more money to stimulate the economy, but when asked for details, it's pretty thin gruel. Apparently they're prepared to take the 'ready, shoot, aim" approach to spending, and agree to some blank cheques without even knowing what will actually help specific industries, without knowing what Barak Obama has planned, and without working in concert with the other G-20 countries. It is a recipe for a fiscal disaster.
More importantly, it is a democratic disaster. During the campaign, Liberal leader Stephane Dion said he would not and could not have a coalition with the NDP, because their policies would destroy the economy. Apparently that principled position has now gone out the window. Now we have the prospect of the Liberals (with 77 seats) joining with the NDP (with 37 seats) to unseat the democratically elected Conservatives (with 143 seats) . Of course, the only way to do that would be with the support of the separatist Bloc Quebecois, who bring their votes to the table in exchange for their separatist agenda. It is almost beyond belief, but apparently the back room discussions amongst these parties are happening as I write this note.
As I said last week, our Conservative government has been preparing our economy for over a year to weather this world-wide economic storm as best we can. We have brought in almost $200 billion dollars in economic stimulus over a 5 year period, by lowering taxes across the board and in every category. We have freed up billions more by adopting Bank of Canada policies and mortgage protection that have increased the availability of credit and addressed liquidity issues, without costing the taxpayer too much and without risking our country's core stability. The IMF, the World Economic Forum, the OECD and other international organizations are united in their opinions that Canada is in the best shape of any industrialized nation in the world. Now the left-leaning parties in Parliament are willing to risk it all in order to gain power through the back door, power that was denied to them in a general election.
In order to diffuse this crisis, our government has agreed to separate the political party financing issue from the confidence vote, and we'll be bringing it back to Parliament in a stand-alone Bill for a vote next year. Whether a person believes the taxpayer should be forced to pay for political party finances will be debated and decided at another time. I'll be supporting the Bill when it comes to a vote, and we'll see what happens. For now, Canadians should be appalled that we could be thrown into a democratic and constitutional crisis by an attempt to gain power at any cost, to overthrow the democratically expressed will of the Canadian people, all at a critically important economic time for us all.
I'm uncertain where all of this is going, but it is entirely possible that the Conservatives could lose the confidence of Parliament and be forced into an election within days. You can't run the government without revenue, and we simply must have the authority to pay the bills and stick to the agenda already approved in the Throne Speech. But it is also entirely possible that the Conservatives could be forced from government by the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition, if the Governor General agrees. Canada deserves better than either of these options, and we'll be working hard to keep everyone focused on the economy, jobs, and a sound budgetary plan. We believe Canadians want us to get on with governing. But I just don't know what will happen, and I share Canadian's shock and anger that we're teetering on this abyss at this critical time.
The vote to bring down the government will now take place on December 8th, so Canadians have a week or so to express themselves before that critical moment. I urge everyone to write a letter-to-the editor, call a radio talk show, circulate this article (or others) through their own email list, and contact political parties with their opinion. A strong grassroots reaction may be the only thing that stands between us and a Prime Minister Stephane Dion and Finance Minister Jack Layton.
=====
Stephen Harper has panicked.
Unable or unwilling to take real action to address Canada's economic crisis, he has insisted on continuing to play partisan games. It has now caught up with him.
On Friday, faced with the possibility that the opposition parties (who together represent nearly two thirds of Canadians) could vote non-confidence in his ideological and negligent economic update, Mr. Harper resorted to procedural tricks to delay any vote for a week.
You might have thought he would have used this week to rethink his economic plan – to wake up to the reality that Canadians need more from their government than what he has offered so far. That is the kind of thoughtful leadership one hopes for in hard times.
Instead, Stephen Harper is mobilizing a massive grass-roots campaign to turn this economic crisis into a political one – to attempt to demonize the Liberals and the other opposition parties in the eyes of Canadians.
We must ensure that this campaign does not succeed. Please help. Two thirds of Canadian voters chose one of the opposition parties in the October election. If you were one of them, then now is the time to make your voice heard.
Write a letter to the editor. Phone a radio call-in program. Reach out on-line with Facebook or your favourite blogs. Get in touch with your friends and ask them to do the same. Let your fellow Canadians know that you too have lost confidence in this government. The stakes are too high for anything else.
Now is a time for action. Stephen Harper can no longer be trusted to act in Canada's interests instead of his own. He must make way for someone who will.
Yours sincerely,
Martha Hall Findlay
Liberal Party of Canada
===================================
From: "Jacob Rempel"
To: <Dion.S@parl.gc.ca>,
Subject: Coalition --- and a defeat of the Harper regime
Dear Members of Parliament:
You have often had significant differences an struggled with each other forcefully, even bitterly, but until now your differences have been about what policies would most probably serve the well-being of Canadians. Your differences have been about the means, not the ends. The government you now face in the House of Commons is intent on a different end, and is using all means to reverse the progressive development process which other parties seek to further.
The Harper neo-conservatives have an agenda which methodically undermines the social democratic society which Canada has been developing since the great depression brought all parties to a vision of Canada which makes government responsible for ensuring the greatest good for a maximum number of Canadians. In fact, we have resolved to eliminate poverty.
The present (minority) government and especially its leader Stephen Harper has a very contrary view of Canada. They strive to reverse the advances which the CCF, the Progressive Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democrats have developed in all provinces including especially Quebec.
We now have a good opportunity to stop the neo-cons and to seize the present economic crisis to further advance Canada's democratic development of an economy with a Canadian ethos of care for all its members.
I urge all of you the join in a Canadian campaign to stop the Harper government now, and then to advance in unity to restore the process of ensuring the well-being of all who live within our borders.
…Jacob Rempel, Vancouver
===================================
From: Albert Opstad
To: "Harper Stephen J., Right Honourable, Canada Prime Minister " <pm@pm.gc.ca>
Subject: 1.75 dollars per vote per party
Canada Leader Stephen Harper:
Since you are looking at taxpayer subsidies to parties, I recommend that give this subsidy to all parties! To the fringe parties like the Christrian Heritage Party and the Canadian Action Party.
Albert Opstad
===================================
From: Cassidy McLean
Joe,
I've been an avid reader for some time now but haven't yet taken the opportunity to contribute. I've attached a letter I plan to send to the Governor General's Office later this morning. Please feel free to share it with your readers should you feel the desire.
Thanks,
Cassidy McLean
Edmonton, AB
______________
Cassidy McLean
9623 99A St. NW
Edmonton, AB T6E 3W9
Her Excellency
The Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General of Canada
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A1
December 1, 2008
Your Excellency,On October 14th 2008, Canadians participated in Canada's 40th General Election. Today, a Government that was democratically elected only seven weeks ago is at risk of being defeated by a coalition of opposition members. Ideological differences are at risk of destroying the great tradition of parliamentary democracy held in this country for over one hundred and forty years.
These are troubling times for Canada and the world, especially in regard to the growing instability in world markets. The last thing we need is for Canada to send a signal of instability to our investors abroad and to our friends and allies. We need to demonstrate that democracy is alive and well in this country. We need to reaffirm that political leaders in Canada do not take power, they earn it.
Should the Government fall by way of a non-confidence vote on December 8th, the fate of this present Government rests with you, Your Excellency. Your Prime Minister asked for dissolution of Parliament this autumn so that he could seek a mandate from
Canadians. On October 14th, Canadians gave him that mandate. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition was handed one of the weakest showings in that party's history; suffice to say it does not hold the necessary confidence to form the Government of Canada. To gain that confidence, a party whose policies were soundly rejected by Canadians at the polls, would be forced to build an alliance with a third party that, at the core of its principles, seeks to destroy the very foundation of our unity. Like many Canadians, this notion is a troubling prospect.
I humbly ask you, Your Excellency, that parliament be dissolved should this Government fall so that Canadians have the opportunity to decide on the future of our country. I thank you for the most humble opportunity to share my thoughts with you, and hold great confidence that your decision will be one that respects the great traditions and democratic spirit of Canada.
Sincerely,
Cassidy McLean
===================================
From: "Brad Thomson"
To: mackay.p@parl.gc.ca
Cc: joe.hueglin@bellnet.ca
Peter,
Perhaps you should consider starting a new Party, a good name might be the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
Brad Thomson
===================================
From: Tom Brewer
Dear Stephen Harper assumes he is the next best thing to sliced bread. I'm shaking my head knowing his supporters kiss the ground he walks on. Tell me Harper would not like to be the President of Kanada.
Yes, he loves the American method of electing a President and would love to rule Kanada the same way! Well, it is not possible given our system and to suggest Harper is a saint belies the fact he/his Party were trying to "undermine" the Liberals a few years back using the same idea he now vehemently denies.
Oh… he is no saint! He wants total control Presidential power to stop whatever he wants.
If Harper does not like the way things are, our system of government that is his right. That stated he has to come to terms with what we have to realize others like our system to the way it is.
Brewt
===================================
From: "Suan H.Booiman"
Subject: three in one
Today many are asking the question "what next" with the three lefts
joining forces all with a leader from Quebec?
There is little that can be done as from experience we know that
we only are important during election time, any time in between
we are nobodies, besides that our Members of Parliament are
dead in the water, it was a surprise to read Chuck Strahl's message.
even that it was only a report, no view as to what the WEST
should do.
Suan
===================================
Subject: Opposition deal would oust Harper, pour billions into economy
From: "Efstratios Psarianos"
Sonofagun ... Looks like my MP could become PM after all. Who'd've thunk, just two weeks ago.
Stratos
P.S. Stevie H. - THIS is the price of stupidity. Learn from it!
Opposition deal would oust Harper, pour billions into economy
OTTAWA - Opposition parties have reached a tentative deal that would see Liberal Leader Stephane Dion take over as interim prime minister and pump billions of dollars into the economy.
But some hurdles still stand in the way of the plan to oust Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minority government next week.
===================================
From: "Gail Walsh"
Subject: Have you seen some of these comments especially
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081201.wsimpson01/CommentStory/Front/
Magnuson from Montreal, Canada writes: I'm conservative - not the religous hard core, give twelve year olds the death penalty type, but conservative. I've really been struggling with the party over the past 18 months. Silly partisan decision after silly partisan decision. These guys just don't get it. Now this. Conservative decision makers and I know you read these things: smarten the heck up. You're in a minority parliament, which requires you to not act like a bunch of arrogant jackasses. I'd like to submit that now is time for Mr. Harper to think about moving on. He's done tremendous good for the movement over the past 3 years, but he's brought it as far as he could, and now he's so exhausted for his efforts he's making incredulous and infantile decisions that are hurting us. Mr. PM, take that long walk in the woods, and please do us all a huge favour. Take Mr. Baird and Pollivere with you. They're insufferable.
===================================
From: Ron Thornton
Subject: Re: Yup, them Conservatives a bad men (and ladies)...
Hi Joe:
I'm just listing all the reasons why the Conservatives should get the boot, and why we should be reaching out to Stephane Dion as the savior of Canada, at least until May.
First, the Conservatives wanted to make some changes to art funding. Can you believe it? I am just a little troubled that I don't see how any of these cuts would have had a negative impact on my life. I am ready to put on my Dion cap and button, but could anyone explain to me exactly why I should have been upset over these cuts?
Second, the Conservatives were going to get tough on 15-year old killers. My God, the inhumanity. In fact, if Dion would just move a handful of these misguided blood soaked souls in with him at 24 Sussex, I'd advocate that he should get to stay on past May. That is, unless Iggy wants to adopt them.
Third, the Conservatives planned to cut the socialist parties off the public teat. Can you imagine, people out there earning their support by convincing their supporters to toss them a dime or two? This is undemocratic! Why should union boys and girls actually spend a penny of their own on their favorite party when they got you and I paying for their political welfare? It is madness, I tell you.
Fourthly, the Conservatives are so undemocratic. All they got was 46.4% of the seats, which is the only tally that actually counts under our current system. Instead, the Liberals (24.7%) and the NDP (12%) could soon take their rightly place at the helm. It is about time. They are doing it for the economy and only for the economy. They are doing it for us. On the other hand, those Conservatives refuse to throw billions of our money into thin air, without any plans, without any facts and figures from those crying out for welfare, in order to save us from God knows what. Thanks God the Liberals and the NDP are there to not only bring prosperity back to our land by raining bucks down upon us (or whoever really gets those bucks), but to also go ahead with their environmental fantasies. I am so thankful.
Hope all is well with you, Joe.
Ron
===================================
No comments:
Post a Comment