I only have a few short words of assessment on each of the Political Parties after having the latest budget come down.
Conservative;
Tightening belts in your own house is still necessary. Show Canadians which politicians are there for the people over themselves by introducing a pay cut for ALL MP's and Senators.
Liberals;
That's all you have to offer, "we will insist on frequent updates"? Quite posturing and try being there for Canadians with logical, acceptable non partisan ideas and bills.
NDP;
Thank you for choosing to be unsupportive of a stimulus budget before you even see the document, because that means you have no interest in doing what is in anyone's interest but your own advancement.
Bloc;
If you can't think of Canada first, and Quebec as an equal part thereof, you have no place in Canada's House of Commons.
My advice to the average Canadian; KNOW what's going on in politics, because if you don't these politicians will lead you around by a nose ring because of their "snake oil salesman" smooth talking.
Bob
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
New leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Michael Ignatieff is the newly "crowned" interim leader of the Liberal party. So how was Mr. Ignatieff chosen to lead the Liberal Party? Was it by a democratic vote of all the party members? Not at all, Mr. Ignatieff was hand picked by 800 higher up members (out of approximately 60 000 total). This minority manipulation forced out his only opposition (Mr. Bob Rae) by yet another subversion of democracy, where instead of following common democratic processes of “One member, One vote” which is the BACKBONE of true democracy, the privileged few made the choice for everyone.
These proceedings beg the question; how do Canadians trust a party that holds true democracy in contempt if it gets in the way of them getting into a seat of power?
There is no way anyone can trust the Liberal Party after the clear disregard for the Voice of the Canadian people. This can be easily seen in the fallacy of the “62% majority” for “the coalition”, because “the coalition” didn’t run in the last Canadian election. This “fudging” of the numbers is a pretty obvious attempt to confuse Canadians and justify a non democratic take over of Canadian Parliament. If “the coalition” had run as a valid party on the ballot and won 62%, it would be ONLY THEN which they could be considered as a legitimate Government.
Welcome to Liberal political games.
Bob
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
How I see the arguments thus far.
The coalition;
1. We can't work with the (duly elected) Government because they don't listen to us.
2. The Government didn't get 60(ish)% of the votes which makes us the Government if we want it.
3. The Government is not working fast enough to get a financial stimulus package together.
4. We do not want public funds taken away from our parties to help us in elections.
5. The Government was ok with the Bloc voting with them in the past.
6. All the Prime Minister wants to do is hold on to his job and doesn't care about those losing theirs.
7. This Government has lost the confidence of this house.
8. The Conservatives attacked woman's equal rights.
9. The Canadian people have lost confidence in this Government and want this Coalition.
The Government;
10. Separatists should not hold a controlling position over any Government of Canada.
11. If you don't have a mandate by the majority of the electorate, you have no right to Govern.
My break down;
1. This is simply an excuse to justify a coalition and grab power in an undemocratic manner.
2. If this is truly the case we will really never see a "Minority" Government again. This is also an excuse to "fudge" the numbers in their favour, none of the individual parties got enough of the vote to form a Government therefore the Majority of votes went to what is supposed to be the Government of Canada.
3. Here is a real kicker. How much time is "the coalition" wasting in their attempts to "steal" control of the Country which they could be using to work with the "duly appointed" Government to further this goal? Instead what they are doing with this "coalition" is prolonging the agony of those that are waiting for the help that the "coalition" says they so urgently need.
4. Wow. Now this seemed to be the catalyst that "broke the camel's back", however it appears that this coalition came together long before anything cam about in the House because something like this doesn't come together over night (let alone in 6 weeks, which makes me think this was in planning even before the election.) Reducing or removing public funds from elections is not only a GREAT idea but a revolutionary and necessary policy, this would reduce the debt load of "average Canadians" thereby making that money available for other programs and incentives like a stimulus package.
5. Well Duh. The Bloc can only vote one of two ways, and if they sided with the Conservatives it is something that is inevitable. HOWEVER to form an allegiance with a non-federal party which is completely based on the dissolution of the Country we all Love is UNCONSCIONABLE!
6. Who is really worrying about their own political advancement here? The logic of argument is invisible, because while the coalition tries to take the power unscrupulously which they couldn't get legitimately they are neglecting the very people they are saying they want to protect! They are so focused on the rhetoric that they are fighting for the economy, that they are missing the damage they are causing through an unstable Government in Canada.
7. The problem here is that even though the House says they have lost confidence in the Government, the PEOPLE gave a CLEAR indication of who they thought was most suitable to run our Country at this time. The way I see the "coalition" formation was not simply because they had lost confidence in the Government, but as a backdoor way to steal the power they were too weak to take during a legitimate election. The timing really says it all, they didn't even wait until a budget was tabled before they said that they wanted to take over as a "coalition".
8. I didn't catch all the hubub behind this one, but this seems like an inflammatory accusation to create bad press rather than a legitimate problem for a 21st century Government.
9. The ONLY way that the "coalition" can use this argument with any validity is if they were to take their "coalition" party to the people of Canada in another election. If they use this without winning a majority election they have no right to say this or use this as an argument in any way!
10. This is pretty self explanatory; to have a Non federal, separatist, anti-Canadian group propping up a Government through an agreement, you open yourself up to manipulation and blackmailing by them to further their agenda to break up our Nation. (Personally I think for those in Quebec who want to separate, feel free to buy a ticket to France and separate yourselves from us. Quebec is Canadian property, and you are Canadian citizens.)
11. Even though this coalition is "technically" legal, no self respecting Canadian would stand by for a coalition giving the balance of power to a non federal, separatist party. And if this "coalition" wants to be the legitimate Government of Canada, we need to go back to the polls with a new "coalition" party to replace Liberal, NDP and Bloc.
Disgustedly,
Bob
"Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the government listens.
Alastair Farrugia."
1. We can't work with the (duly elected) Government because they don't listen to us.
2. The Government didn't get 60(ish)% of the votes which makes us the Government if we want it.
3. The Government is not working fast enough to get a financial stimulus package together.
4. We do not want public funds taken away from our parties to help us in elections.
5. The Government was ok with the Bloc voting with them in the past.
6. All the Prime Minister wants to do is hold on to his job and doesn't care about those losing theirs.
7. This Government has lost the confidence of this house.
8. The Conservatives attacked woman's equal rights.
9. The Canadian people have lost confidence in this Government and want this Coalition.
The Government;
10. Separatists should not hold a controlling position over any Government of Canada.
11. If you don't have a mandate by the majority of the electorate, you have no right to Govern.
My break down;
1. This is simply an excuse to justify a coalition and grab power in an undemocratic manner.
2. If this is truly the case we will really never see a "Minority" Government again. This is also an excuse to "fudge" the numbers in their favour, none of the individual parties got enough of the vote to form a Government therefore the Majority of votes went to what is supposed to be the Government of Canada.
3. Here is a real kicker. How much time is "the coalition" wasting in their attempts to "steal" control of the Country which they could be using to work with the "duly appointed" Government to further this goal? Instead what they are doing with this "coalition" is prolonging the agony of those that are waiting for the help that the "coalition" says they so urgently need.
4. Wow. Now this seemed to be the catalyst that "broke the camel's back", however it appears that this coalition came together long before anything cam about in the House because something like this doesn't come together over night (let alone in 6 weeks, which makes me think this was in planning even before the election.) Reducing or removing public funds from elections is not only a GREAT idea but a revolutionary and necessary policy, this would reduce the debt load of "average Canadians" thereby making that money available for other programs and incentives like a stimulus package.
5. Well Duh. The Bloc can only vote one of two ways, and if they sided with the Conservatives it is something that is inevitable. HOWEVER to form an allegiance with a non-federal party which is completely based on the dissolution of the Country we all Love is UNCONSCIONABLE!
6. Who is really worrying about their own political advancement here? The logic of argument is invisible, because while the coalition tries to take the power unscrupulously which they couldn't get legitimately they are neglecting the very people they are saying they want to protect! They are so focused on the rhetoric that they are fighting for the economy, that they are missing the damage they are causing through an unstable Government in Canada.
7. The problem here is that even though the House says they have lost confidence in the Government, the PEOPLE gave a CLEAR indication of who they thought was most suitable to run our Country at this time. The way I see the "coalition" formation was not simply because they had lost confidence in the Government, but as a backdoor way to steal the power they were too weak to take during a legitimate election. The timing really says it all, they didn't even wait until a budget was tabled before they said that they wanted to take over as a "coalition".
8. I didn't catch all the hubub behind this one, but this seems like an inflammatory accusation to create bad press rather than a legitimate problem for a 21st century Government.
9. The ONLY way that the "coalition" can use this argument with any validity is if they were to take their "coalition" party to the people of Canada in another election. If they use this without winning a majority election they have no right to say this or use this as an argument in any way!
10. This is pretty self explanatory; to have a Non federal, separatist, anti-Canadian group propping up a Government through an agreement, you open yourself up to manipulation and blackmailing by them to further their agenda to break up our Nation. (Personally I think for those in Quebec who want to separate, feel free to buy a ticket to France and separate yourselves from us. Quebec is Canadian property, and you are Canadian citizens.)
11. Even though this coalition is "technically" legal, no self respecting Canadian would stand by for a coalition giving the balance of power to a non federal, separatist party. And if this "coalition" wants to be the legitimate Government of Canada, we need to go back to the polls with a new "coalition" party to replace Liberal, NDP and Bloc.
Disgustedly,
Bob
"Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the government listens.
Alastair Farrugia."
Why to NOT support the latest "Coalition of the willing"
A very succinct, well thought out, and rational opposition to support the Lib, NDP and BLOC coalition.
"I think the mudslinging may be a result of the passion and anger generated by the Coalition option.
I for one can think of a number of reason's not to support it.
1) Canada has been, for the past number of years, a G20 leader in the Banking and Economic Policy Issues, which is evidenced by the "Canada last in - first out" results on the Global Downturn. Canada has been seen to be the example of prudent fiscal managment and policy and now, with the recent Coalition attempts, will not longer be the leading example. It will not make sense to the Markets, or our G7 & G20 friends, for us to change course when we are seen as the best at the helm. The number of stimulus packages introduced in the US have not resulted in the desired result and the prudent approach would see that Canada first knows what the new Administration in the USA is preparing to do, for any Governmental approaches to combat a world economic downturn, have to be implimented by the entire world economy or esle you are left with the "leaky bucket" syndrome. IE If there are holes in the bucket you can not pour the water(funds) in to fill the bucket.
2) The people of Canada have not had a chance to endorse the Coalition Spending & Economic Strategy. The details and costs of the Coalition Plan are unknown to the Canadian public and letting a plan go ahead without a clear endorsement from the people is not good for Canada and the democratic process. None of the Opposition Parties have campaigned on any of the Plan that they propose. Only the Convervatives are doing exactly what they said they would do.
3) Canada would be seen by the world as an embarassment and a backwards nation with a Separatist party being named within the governing body. This I fear will lead to further alienation of the West and the bolstering of the western separatist movement as well.
4) The non confidence motion is not substantially different then the Throne Speech that was passed in the house and therefore points to motivation of the Opposition Parties, which is to say, not in the best interests of Canada, but in the best interests of self.
5) All the CFA's and Economists agree that there is no amount of money that would fix and/or bail-out the auto industry and therefore the "Stimulus" package is not good for Canada.
6) The current Conservative Government is following standard operating procedures to first look internal for cost savings and then timed stimulus to gain the best effect. The GDP results released yesterday show that Canada's earlier(over the last 3 years) economic policies have helped Canada calm the storm that is facing the rest of the globe. This storm has affected the rest of the globe up to 14 months earlier, and much deeper than it is affecting our economy and thus it is prudent to not to change the captain at the helm right before his experience is needed most.
IF the coalition does proceed, and I hope and pray it does not, I suspect that the next election will result in the NDP getting wiped out and the bloc gaining even more seats from the Liberals in Quebec. The worst case scenario is that after the Liberals have set a precedent with joining with the Bloc, and again alienating the West, is that the Conservatives join with the Bloc to separate the Western Provinces and Quebec from Canada."
(Unknown author)
Bravo,
Bob
"I think the mudslinging may be a result of the passion and anger generated by the Coalition option.
I for one can think of a number of reason's not to support it.
1) Canada has been, for the past number of years, a G20 leader in the Banking and Economic Policy Issues, which is evidenced by the "Canada last in - first out" results on the Global Downturn. Canada has been seen to be the example of prudent fiscal managment and policy and now, with the recent Coalition attempts, will not longer be the leading example. It will not make sense to the Markets, or our G7 & G20 friends, for us to change course when we are seen as the best at the helm. The number of stimulus packages introduced in the US have not resulted in the desired result and the prudent approach would see that Canada first knows what the new Administration in the USA is preparing to do, for any Governmental approaches to combat a world economic downturn, have to be implimented by the entire world economy or esle you are left with the "leaky bucket" syndrome. IE If there are holes in the bucket you can not pour the water(funds) in to fill the bucket.
2) The people of Canada have not had a chance to endorse the Coalition Spending & Economic Strategy. The details and costs of the Coalition Plan are unknown to the Canadian public and letting a plan go ahead without a clear endorsement from the people is not good for Canada and the democratic process. None of the Opposition Parties have campaigned on any of the Plan that they propose. Only the Convervatives are doing exactly what they said they would do.
3) Canada would be seen by the world as an embarassment and a backwards nation with a Separatist party being named within the governing body. This I fear will lead to further alienation of the West and the bolstering of the western separatist movement as well.
4) The non confidence motion is not substantially different then the Throne Speech that was passed in the house and therefore points to motivation of the Opposition Parties, which is to say, not in the best interests of Canada, but in the best interests of self.
5) All the CFA's and Economists agree that there is no amount of money that would fix and/or bail-out the auto industry and therefore the "Stimulus" package is not good for Canada.
6) The current Conservative Government is following standard operating procedures to first look internal for cost savings and then timed stimulus to gain the best effect. The GDP results released yesterday show that Canada's earlier(over the last 3 years) economic policies have helped Canada calm the storm that is facing the rest of the globe. This storm has affected the rest of the globe up to 14 months earlier, and much deeper than it is affecting our economy and thus it is prudent to not to change the captain at the helm right before his experience is needed most.
IF the coalition does proceed, and I hope and pray it does not, I suspect that the next election will result in the NDP getting wiped out and the bloc gaining even more seats from the Liberals in Quebec. The worst case scenario is that after the Liberals have set a precedent with joining with the Bloc, and again alienating the West, is that the Conservatives join with the Bloc to separate the Western Provinces and Quebec from Canada."
(Unknown author)
Bravo,
Bob
Monday, December 01, 2008
The newest "Coalition of the willing"
This new "coalition of the willing"; None of these parties were voted into a government position, and even though the Conservatives may not have the confidence of the House, it is even more obvious that the the Canadian people don't have confidence in the parties that do not form the Government. The ONLY people that have the right to choose which party will make up the Government are the Canadian voters. I know most people don't want to go to another election, but this should be the only way that the Government changes hands. (An excerpt from a letter I wrote to CBC politics).
Well how about them apples, a coalition government.
I'm curious how do those that voted Bloc and NDP feel about having your votes count as Liberal?
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
I'm confused.
I just Heard Dion speak about cutting taxes on profits to companies, and "Jack O Layton" has in his ads that he will "Reward companies to keep jobs here". Isn't that the same as "putting money on the board room table"?
What got me was the hypocrisy of Layton when he said that very statement in one of his attack ads, and I'm asking myself how stupid does Layton think Canadians are? (Check it out ) At least we know that Elizabeth May thinks Canadians are stupid, but Layton is saying the same thing when he thinks we can't see through ridiculous ads. Hey Jack O Layton, stop trying to "Trick or treat" people!
Another note on May, ask yourself why the Liberals have "chosen" not to run a candidate in her riding to oppose her? Hmmm Do we see a little under the table collusion going on here? Looks pretty obvious to me.
As for Dion, is this guy for real? Watching him talk to his supporters is a joke, all they can do is attack The Conservatives because their platform and their leader are both as "weak as water". He keeps talking about how wrong everything Harper does is, but gives minimal to no information on what he'll do. This after He specifically said he was "going to take the high road" in this campaign... Guess that wasn't working out so well for him so he dropped it like he'll drop his campaign promises.
Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for! (And if at all possible, try to THINK past the rhetoric).
Bob
What got me was the hypocrisy of Layton when he said that very statement in one of his attack ads, and I'm asking myself how stupid does Layton think Canadians are? (Check it out ) At least we know that Elizabeth May thinks Canadians are stupid, but Layton is saying the same thing when he thinks we can't see through ridiculous ads. Hey Jack O Layton, stop trying to "Trick or treat" people!
Another note on May, ask yourself why the Liberals have "chosen" not to run a candidate in her riding to oppose her? Hmmm Do we see a little under the table collusion going on here? Looks pretty obvious to me.
As for Dion, is this guy for real? Watching him talk to his supporters is a joke, all they can do is attack The Conservatives because their platform and their leader are both as "weak as water". He keeps talking about how wrong everything Harper does is, but gives minimal to no information on what he'll do. This after He specifically said he was "going to take the high road" in this campaign... Guess that wasn't working out so well for him so he dropped it like he'll drop his campaign promises.
Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for! (And if at all possible, try to THINK past the rhetoric).
Bob
Monday, October 06, 2008
Halloween elections.
What really put a scare into my 15 year old this Halloween season, he told me, was "Jack O' Layton". This from a 15 year old who has been watching the election hype on TV (and both debates).
Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for! (And if at all possible, try to THINK past the rhetoric).
Bob
Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for! (And if at all possible, try to THINK past the rhetoric).
Bob
Who writes these things for the Party leaders anyway?
I think I need to point out that "Don't worry, be Happy" comes directly from Bob McFarrin's 1980's one hit wonder song title. I wonder if the Liberals are paying royalties on the stealing of that phrase, or if that minimal plagiarism is ok? I mean every time a Liberal says this they look like they are reading from a script because they don't have the intelligence to think for themselves (which is my opinion of most Liberals anyway, but talk about confirmation.)
And then I have to mention Jack Layton's sweater jokes........ Maybe Jack should change his name to "Lameton"? Could you look any more ridiculous? But then that's really all he has to offer for a platform aside from huge spending promises that make no sense at all. And then I look at what the world will think ofCanada
I think what makes me the most disgusted with the minor leaders is that they are so busy attacking each other, rather than taking the high road of outlining their own policies and reasons for them, that we don't really know what Layton and Dion stand for. May is easy because they are primarily just a special interest party much like the "pot" party.
Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for! (And if at all possible, try to THINK past the rhetoric).
And then I have to mention Jack Layton's sweater jokes........ Maybe Jack should change his name to "Lameton"? Could you look any more ridiculous? But then that's really all he has to offer for a platform aside from huge spending promises that make no sense at all. And then I look at what the world will think of
I think what makes me the most disgusted with the minor leaders is that they are so busy attacking each other, rather than taking the high road of outlining their own policies and reasons for them, that we don't really know what Layton and Dion stand for. May is easy because they are primarily just a special interest party much like the "pot" party.
Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for! (And if at all possible, try to THINK past the rhetoric).
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Political rhetoric vs political honesty.
I just finished watching an interview by Suhana Meharchand with the Conservative candidate Lisa Raitt (in Halton) and Liberal candidate Kirsty Duncan (riding unknown), where Suhana asked specifically "where there was a weakness" in each candidates own parties. I was completely dismayed at Kirsty's attack on the Conservatives as her answer to the weakness in her own party, and this from someone who said she taught "ethics". Although Lisa took time toexpress how she has been accepted into the Conservatives caucus, she did actually answer the question, where Kirsty answered by trying to take a shot at Conservatives rather than answer the question about the weakness in her party.
(Maybe that's because the weakness itself is the Leader of the party, or the policy of taking in taxes just to "give" them back(???), or maybe it's the weak kneed approach to crime and criminals, or maybe it's the amount of money they are going to spend on new social programs for artists and students which will be taken from the new taxes he's going to impose.)
I just don't get it though, Kirsty honestly looked like she had her head firmly planted where the sun doesn't shine, when it came to actively criticizing her own parties failings, and in my opinion this is the most prevelent attitude with Liberals and their supporters. I have no misgivings that my party of choice has everything all together; on the contrary I am more than willing to look at the problems and point them out, and if you can't (or won't) do that the simple fact is that you can't get any better.
Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for! (And if at all possible, try to THINK past the rhetoric).
Bob
(Maybe that's because the weakness itself is the Leader of the party, or the policy of taking in taxes just to "give" them back(???), or maybe it's the weak kneed approach to crime and criminals, or maybe it's the amount of money they are going to spend on new social programs for artists and students which will be taken from the new taxes he's going to impose.)
I just don't get it though, Kirsty honestly looked like she had her head firmly planted where the sun doesn't shine, when it came to actively criticizing her own parties failings, and in my opinion this is the most prevelent attitude with Liberals and their supporters. I have no misgivings that my party of choice has everything all together; on the contrary I am more than willing to look at the problems and point them out, and if you can't (or won't) do that the simple fact is that you can't get any better.
Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for! (And if at all possible, try to THINK past the rhetoric).
Bob
Danny "Whiny" Williams.
Here's someone that truly embodies political behaviour at it's most vile, This Premiere didn't get everything he wanted from the Federal Government and is now campaigning against his own Conservative party (although federally and not yet provincially).
I think the thing that bothers me most about "Whiny" Williams is that he has the audacity to TELL people how they should vote because that's what HE wants!!!! I have no problem with people expressing their opinions on who and why they would vote one way or another, and I respect their right to have, express and act accordingly. I do have a problem however when someone tells others they should vote one way or another (and this is especially inappropriate when it comes from someone placed in a position to represent people that may not agree with his position).
I think this campaign has the potential to backfire on him, but it's not only that, it could severely affect the people he is supposed to be representing in Newfoundland and Labrador! Does this guy really think he's going to get anything better from another party climbing to power? Is he being paid by another party for this anti Conservative campaign? Or is it something as simple as "I didn't get what I want, so I'm gonna stamp my feet and yell and scream till I get it"? (And I am presuming the latter, which is what prompted my nickname for him, but who really knows.)
Honestly if he were my Premiere, he would know exactly where I stand and so would everyone I was able to speak to.
This guy makes Newfoundlanders look like selfish little children, and I feel sorry for the people that he is supposed to be representing.
Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for! (And if at all possible, try to THINK past the rhetoric).
Bob
I think the thing that bothers me most about "Whiny" Williams is that he has the audacity to TELL people how they should vote because that's what HE wants!!!! I have no problem with people expressing their opinions on who and why they would vote one way or another, and I respect their right to have, express and act accordingly. I do have a problem however when someone tells others they should vote one way or another (and this is especially inappropriate when it comes from someone placed in a position to represent people that may not agree with his position).
I think this campaign has the potential to backfire on him, but it's not only that, it could severely affect the people he is supposed to be representing in Newfoundland and Labrador! Does this guy really think he's going to get anything better from another party climbing to power? Is he being paid by another party for this anti Conservative campaign? Or is it something as simple as "I didn't get what I want, so I'm gonna stamp my feet and yell and scream till I get it"? (And I am presuming the latter, which is what prompted my nickname for him, but who really knows.)
Honestly if he were my Premiere, he would know exactly where I stand and so would everyone I was able to speak to.
This guy makes Newfoundlanders look like selfish little children, and I feel sorry for the people that he is supposed to be representing.
Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for! (And if at all possible, try to THINK past the rhetoric).
Bob
Friday, September 12, 2008
Elizabeth May, and what she thinks of Canadians. Hey May, aren't you Canadian?
Wow, I don't get around the "blogosphere" much but after Mike Duffy mentioned this on Friday I had to check it out and hear for myself. I don't often visit partisan sites like "Buckdog" because I find them much like some religious extremists out there, but with the shear amount of information available , and the mainstream media doing their level best to lead Canadians by manipulating stories and headlines, I may have to check out more sites just to find important items like this (even though most of it is the same old rhetoric).
Listen to Ms May's view of Canadians for yourself.
Thanks to Buckdog for the heads up.
Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for! (And if at all possible, try to THINK past the rhetoric).
Bob
Listen to Ms May's view of Canadians for yourself.
Thanks to Buckdog for the heads up.
Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for! (And if at all possible, try to THINK past the rhetoric).
Bob
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Leader's debate.
With Elizabeth May now being allowed into the Leader's debate, I have to wonder what criteria is standard for allocation of a position in it?
Not that I have any major problem with her being there, but I'm wondering now if the qualifications to participate are low enough to allow other national parties like the Marijuanna party (which I should point out is a single issue party as well) leader a spot at the debate? I mean if we set the standards to where you don't have to have a sitting MP to be allowed in to the debate, nor do you require a platform that encompasses all aspects of Canadian society, should we not then invite all of the national parties to have their leader at the debate to represent them?
However critically I must say that after May did everything just short of actually saying she would be voting Liberal, this appears to me to be nothing more than a ploy to have a dual Liberal voice on the panel to combat a weak Liberal leader with a bad political policy (Green shift plan).
On a final note I have to correct The Green party leader when she said that it was the "outcry" of the people which changed whether she was allowed in the debate or not, it was her own outcry of "discrimination" because she's a woman that changed the outcome. I guess she is a true politician, she'll say or do anything to get what she wants. (Sounds very much like very young children too doesn't it.)
Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for!
Bob
Not that I have any major problem with her being there, but I'm wondering now if the qualifications to participate are low enough to allow other national parties like the Marijuanna party (which I should point out is a single issue party as well) leader a spot at the debate? I mean if we set the standards to where you don't have to have a sitting MP to be allowed in to the debate, nor do you require a platform that encompasses all aspects of Canadian society, should we not then invite all of the national parties to have their leader at the debate to represent them?
However critically I must say that after May did everything just short of actually saying she would be voting Liberal, this appears to me to be nothing more than a ploy to have a dual Liberal voice on the panel to combat a weak Liberal leader with a bad political policy (Green shift plan).
On a final note I have to correct The Green party leader when she said that it was the "outcry" of the people which changed whether she was allowed in the debate or not, it was her own outcry of "discrimination" because she's a woman that changed the outcome. I guess she is a true politician, she'll say or do anything to get what she wants. (Sounds very much like very young children too doesn't it.)
Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for!
Bob
The Liberal "Green Shift" plan revealed!
It's pretty much just as the name implies;
They are going to LIBERALLY try and SHIFT the GREEN from your wallet into theirs!
Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for!
Bob
They are going to LIBERALLY try and SHIFT the GREEN from your wallet into theirs!
Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for!
Bob
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
McCain / Palin vs Obama / ?
Where do I get my McCain / Palin lawn sign? I love the fact that there is not only a woman running for VP but obviously a woman of character and morals, something which is sadly missing from a majority of politicians today.
I just wish that more people valued character and morals over smooth talk and personal gain, and this includes not only politicians, but every single person on this planet.
Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for!
Bob
I just wish that more people valued character and morals over smooth talk and personal gain, and this includes not only politicians, but every single person on this planet.
Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for!
Bob
For Green Party supporters.
For those of you out there that questioned PM Harper when he said that Elizabeth May (loosely quoted, not verbatim but the meaning is unchanged) shouldn't be in the debate because she would eventually show her support for the Liberals by endorsing them.
Check it out for yourself.
The record clearly states that May is nothing more than a Liberal in disguise, so voting Green means voting Liberal.
Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for!
Bob
Check it out for yourself.
The record clearly states that May is nothing more than a Liberal in disguise, so voting Green means voting Liberal.
Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for!
Bob
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Sask Party takes the lead...
After hearing ridiculous statements telecast like "My Baba taught me to support her party" (not an exact quote, but it is an accurate reflection of what the young man said) from a future voter in Saskatchewan, I am really concerned about the voters which will follow suit and vote "like they've always done" without actually thinking about what is best for our province.
This is the one problem I have with democracy, which is, to put it bluntly, that some people are too stupid to vote.
The simple fact is that most people don't have the knowledge to make an informed decision and, whether this is because of being too busy or just too lazy, I have to tell you that it is YOUR responsibility NOT JUST TO VOTE but TO KNOW HOW TO VOTE. Sure voting is simple; make a little X on the ballot form, but are you voting because you know what that person and/or party stand for, or because it's easy and "that's how you've always voted"? There is no more STUPID way to vote in my opinion (unless of course you vote based on what a party did 50 years ago instead of looking and what they are currently doing).
It's about using common sense, and taking the time to KNOW what's going on and who would do the best job for you and your province (or for that matter even your country)!
Congratulations, Sask Party! We expect great things and some of us will be watching closely.
This is the one problem I have with democracy, which is, to put it bluntly, that some people are too stupid to vote.
The simple fact is that most people don't have the knowledge to make an informed decision and, whether this is because of being too busy or just too lazy, I have to tell you that it is YOUR responsibility NOT JUST TO VOTE but TO KNOW HOW TO VOTE. Sure voting is simple; make a little X on the ballot form, but are you voting because you know what that person and/or party stand for, or because it's easy and "that's how you've always voted"? There is no more STUPID way to vote in my opinion (unless of course you vote based on what a party did 50 years ago instead of looking and what they are currently doing).
It's about using common sense, and taking the time to KNOW what's going on and who would do the best job for you and your province (or for that matter even your country)!
Congratulations, Sask Party! We expect great things and some of us will be watching closely.
Friday, December 08, 2006
How did YOUR MP vote?
Here are the results of the vote to reopen the same sex marriage debate.
The one thing I feel compelled to say is this: Just because we can do something does not necessarily mean that we should. What I mean is just because the government can say that gays are "married", does not mean that it is either right or appropriate to do so. Human beings are capable of horrendous atrocities, but just because we have the ability to do these things, should we do them? The same applies to moral standards, just because we can say that "everything is acceptable" does not mean we should. Right will always be right, and I for one will never recognized the fallacy of "gay marriage".
Bob
*Results taken from Hansard on the official House of Commons website.
_____________________________________________
(Those in favour of reopening the same sex marriage debate)
YEAS
Members
----------
Abbott
Ablonczy
Albrecht
Allen
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Batters
Benoit
Bernier
Bezan
Blackburn
Blaney
Bonin
Boucher
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Byrne
Calkins
Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Carrie
Casson
Clement
Cullen (Etobicoke North)
Cummins
Davidson
Day
Del Mastro
Devolin
Doyle
Dykstra
Epp
Fast
Finley
Fitzpatrick
Flaherty
Fletcher
Gallant
Goldring
Goodyear
Gourde
Grewal
Guergis
Hanger
Harper
Harris
Harvey
Hawn
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Hinton
Jaffer
Jean
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Karygiannis
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Khan
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Lee
Lemieux
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
MacKenzie
Malhi
Mark
Mayes
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McTeague
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Mills
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
O'Connor
Obhrai
Oda
Pallister
Petit
Poilievre
Preston
Rajotte
Reid
Ritz
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schellenberger
Shipley
Skelton
Smith
Solberg
Sorenson
Stanton
Steckle
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Tilson
Toews
Tonks
Trost
Tweed
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Wappel
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Williams
Yelich
Total: -- 123
___________________________________________
(Those opposed to reopening the same sex marriage debate)
NAYS
Members
----------
Alghabra
André
Angus
Asselin
Atamanenko
Bachand
Bagnell
Bains
Baird
Barbot
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bell (Vancouver Island North)
Bell (North Vancouver)
Bellavance
Bennett
Bevilacqua
Bevington
Bigras
Black
Blaikie
Blais
Bonsant
Boshcoff
Bouchard
Bourgeois
Brison
Brown (Oakville)
Brunelle
Cannon (Pontiac)
Carrier
Casey
Chamberlain
Chan
Charlton
Chong
Chow
Christopherson
Coderre
Comartin
Comuzzi
Cotler
Crête
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Demers
Deschamps
Dewar
Dhaliwal
Dhalla
Dion
Dosanjh
Dryden
Duceppe
Easter
Emerson
Eyking
Faille
Freeman
Fry
Gagnon
Gaudet
Gauthier
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Holland
Hubbard
Ignatieff
Jennings
Julian
Kadis
Karetak-Lindell
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Keeper
Kotto
Laforest
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lapierre
Lavallée
Layton
LeBlanc
Lemay
Lessard
Lévesque
Lussier
MacAulay
MacKay (Central Nova)
Malo
Maloney
Manning
Marleau
Marston
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (LaSalle—Émard)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
Mathyssen
Matthews
McCallum
McDonough
McGuinty
McGuire
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Merasty
Minna
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Mourani
Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe)
Murphy (Charlottetown)
Nadeau
Nash
Neville
Ouellet
Owen
Pacetti
Paquette
Paradis
Patry
Pearson
Perron
Peterson
Picard
Plamondon
Prentice
Priddy
Proulx
Ratansi
Redman
Regan
Richardson
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rota
Roy
Russell
Savage
Savoie
Scott
Sgro
Siksay
Silva
Simard
Simms
St-Cyr
St-Hilaire
St. Amand
St. Denis
Stoffer
Stronach
Szabo
Telegdi
Temelkovski
Thibault (West Nova)
Turner
Valley
Verner
Vincent
Volpe
Wasylycia-Leis
Wilfert
Wilson
Wrzesnewskyj
Zed
Total: -- 175
PAIRED
Members
Galipeau
Loubier
Total: -- 2
The one thing I feel compelled to say is this: Just because we can do something does not necessarily mean that we should. What I mean is just because the government can say that gays are "married", does not mean that it is either right or appropriate to do so. Human beings are capable of horrendous atrocities, but just because we have the ability to do these things, should we do them? The same applies to moral standards, just because we can say that "everything is acceptable" does not mean we should. Right will always be right, and I for one will never recognized the fallacy of "gay marriage".
Bob
*Results taken from Hansard on the official House of Commons website.
_____________________________________________
(Those in favour of reopening the same sex marriage debate)
YEAS
Members
----------
Abbott
Ablonczy
Albrecht
Allen
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Batters
Benoit
Bernier
Bezan
Blackburn
Blaney
Bonin
Boucher
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Byrne
Calkins
Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Carrie
Casson
Clement
Cullen (Etobicoke North)
Cummins
Davidson
Day
Del Mastro
Devolin
Doyle
Dykstra
Epp
Fast
Finley
Fitzpatrick
Flaherty
Fletcher
Gallant
Goldring
Goodyear
Gourde
Grewal
Guergis
Hanger
Harper
Harris
Harvey
Hawn
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Hinton
Jaffer
Jean
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Karygiannis
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Khan
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Lee
Lemieux
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
MacKenzie
Malhi
Mark
Mayes
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McTeague
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Mills
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
O'Connor
Obhrai
Oda
Pallister
Petit
Poilievre
Preston
Rajotte
Reid
Ritz
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schellenberger
Shipley
Skelton
Smith
Solberg
Sorenson
Stanton
Steckle
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Tilson
Toews
Tonks
Trost
Tweed
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Wappel
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Williams
Yelich
Total: -- 123
___________________________________________
(Those opposed to reopening the same sex marriage debate)
NAYS
Members
----------
Alghabra
André
Angus
Asselin
Atamanenko
Bachand
Bagnell
Bains
Baird
Barbot
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bell (Vancouver Island North)
Bell (North Vancouver)
Bellavance
Bennett
Bevilacqua
Bevington
Bigras
Black
Blaikie
Blais
Bonsant
Boshcoff
Bouchard
Bourgeois
Brison
Brown (Oakville)
Brunelle
Cannon (Pontiac)
Carrier
Casey
Chamberlain
Chan
Charlton
Chong
Chow
Christopherson
Coderre
Comartin
Comuzzi
Cotler
Crête
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Demers
Deschamps
Dewar
Dhaliwal
Dhalla
Dion
Dosanjh
Dryden
Duceppe
Easter
Emerson
Eyking
Faille
Freeman
Fry
Gagnon
Gaudet
Gauthier
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Holland
Hubbard
Ignatieff
Jennings
Julian
Kadis
Karetak-Lindell
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Keeper
Kotto
Laforest
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lapierre
Lavallée
Layton
LeBlanc
Lemay
Lessard
Lévesque
Lussier
MacAulay
MacKay (Central Nova)
Malo
Maloney
Manning
Marleau
Marston
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (LaSalle—Émard)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
Mathyssen
Matthews
McCallum
McDonough
McGuinty
McGuire
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Merasty
Minna
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Mourani
Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe)
Murphy (Charlottetown)
Nadeau
Nash
Neville
Ouellet
Owen
Pacetti
Paquette
Paradis
Patry
Pearson
Perron
Peterson
Picard
Plamondon
Prentice
Priddy
Proulx
Ratansi
Redman
Regan
Richardson
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rota
Roy
Russell
Savage
Savoie
Scott
Sgro
Siksay
Silva
Simard
Simms
St-Cyr
St-Hilaire
St. Amand
St. Denis
Stoffer
Stronach
Szabo
Telegdi
Temelkovski
Thibault (West Nova)
Turner
Valley
Verner
Vincent
Volpe
Wasylycia-Leis
Wilfert
Wilson
Wrzesnewskyj
Zed
Total: -- 175
PAIRED
Members
Galipeau
Loubier
Total: -- 2
Thursday, December 07, 2006
The future holds 20/20 vision of the past.
I heard it said that History will have 20/20 vision on actions of the past, and this is obviously true. But what will they be saying about the actions we take now? Will they look back and say “Now that person stood for morality and did what was right even in the face of public pressures!”? Or maybe they would even say “Wow that was some pretty bad legislation, just look at the problems it caused for so many of us as we grew up!”?
Now obviously I’m talking about the whole gay marriage agenda here; because I see a future where our children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences of weak and immoral men (and women), and their self serving legislation. Men and women, who would rather be seen more tolerant than moral, people catering to public whim instead of reasonable values. The unfortunate rub to the situation is that the general populous is exactly the same way, and that is why these tolerant and immoral people retain a place in government.
So the real question is this; are we considering the future ramifications of the legislation we put into law, and are we looking at what future generations will think of this “liberal ideology”? Remember, these future generations will have to live (and when they look back will have lived with) the consequences of the actions we perform today. I foresee these future generations looking back and seeing a society more interested in themselves, than in the children they were responsible for.
What will your legacy be, tolerance or morality?
Now obviously I’m talking about the whole gay marriage agenda here; because I see a future where our children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences of weak and immoral men (and women), and their self serving legislation. Men and women, who would rather be seen more tolerant than moral, people catering to public whim instead of reasonable values. The unfortunate rub to the situation is that the general populous is exactly the same way, and that is why these tolerant and immoral people retain a place in government.
So the real question is this; are we considering the future ramifications of the legislation we put into law, and are we looking at what future generations will think of this “liberal ideology”? Remember, these future generations will have to live (and when they look back will have lived with) the consequences of the actions we perform today. I foresee these future generations looking back and seeing a society more interested in themselves, than in the children they were responsible for.
What will your legacy be, tolerance or morality?
Friday, November 10, 2006
The most vulnerable in society.
My latest letter to the members of the House of Commons about the truly most vulnerable people in society:
"Dear Members of Parliament,
I would like to address a fallacy being raised in the House of late by the Liberal party concerning the “most vulnerable in society”.
First I must say that while illiteracy is unfortunate, and requires assistance for it is prevention and correction, it does not make someone the most vulnerable of society. Although illiteracy can be a cause of emotional pain for someone unable to read, their simple embarrassment cannot compare to the plight of those that are truly the most vulnerable in society.
The truth is that the most vulnerable in society are children, especially the unborn child who, since the commonplace acceptance of abortion, are subject to the mother’s whim whether it lives or dies. These are the most vulnerable of society, and although I feel sad for those that cannot read or write, I feel heartbroken for the children that were murdered before they even had a chance to live.
It disturbs me how the Liberal party has devalued human life and overvalued illiteracy by confusing the true meaning of being vulnerable. Those in society that are illiterate are fully capable of finding assistance to correct their deficiency, but who does the unborn child turn to when the government they live under doesn’t consider them important or worthy of protection? This is an area that government has failed the truly most vulnerable in society.
Is the murder of innocents justified simply because it is condoned by the government? What about the slaughter of Jews in Germany and Poland? Was that acceptable because the prevailing government believed it to be so, or was it morally wrong no matter what the government at the time believed? We’ve taken away the death penalty for those that deserve to die, and imposed that penalty on a class of people that are completely vulnerable and innocent. Why? We kill children now because they are inconvenient. How selfish our society has become.
It’s up to you all, whether you are a member of the governing party or not, to stand up for all of society. It’s time to change the “Honourable” title given you into something you deserve through your actions. A strong person stands up for themselves; a stronger person stands up for others."
Bob
"Dear Members of Parliament,
I would like to address a fallacy being raised in the House of late by the Liberal party concerning the “most vulnerable in society”.
First I must say that while illiteracy is unfortunate, and requires assistance for it is prevention and correction, it does not make someone the most vulnerable of society. Although illiteracy can be a cause of emotional pain for someone unable to read, their simple embarrassment cannot compare to the plight of those that are truly the most vulnerable in society.
The truth is that the most vulnerable in society are children, especially the unborn child who, since the commonplace acceptance of abortion, are subject to the mother’s whim whether it lives or dies. These are the most vulnerable of society, and although I feel sad for those that cannot read or write, I feel heartbroken for the children that were murdered before they even had a chance to live.
It disturbs me how the Liberal party has devalued human life and overvalued illiteracy by confusing the true meaning of being vulnerable. Those in society that are illiterate are fully capable of finding assistance to correct their deficiency, but who does the unborn child turn to when the government they live under doesn’t consider them important or worthy of protection? This is an area that government has failed the truly most vulnerable in society.
Is the murder of innocents justified simply because it is condoned by the government? What about the slaughter of Jews in Germany and Poland? Was that acceptable because the prevailing government believed it to be so, or was it morally wrong no matter what the government at the time believed? We’ve taken away the death penalty for those that deserve to die, and imposed that penalty on a class of people that are completely vulnerable and innocent. Why? We kill children now because they are inconvenient. How selfish our society has become.
It’s up to you all, whether you are a member of the governing party or not, to stand up for all of society. It’s time to change the “Honourable” title given you into something you deserve through your actions. A strong person stands up for themselves; a stronger person stands up for others."
Bob
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)