Continued - Reply
Submitted: 10:19pm, PDT, 31 may'10
RU Outa Ur Mind wrote:
Posted 2010/05/31
at 1:38 PM ET
"Lloyd Mac:
Cost benefit analysis??....
Hmm... did Jean Chretien do a cost benefit analysis of what the projected cost increases in taxation & energy costs would be for the average Canadian citizen when he signed the Kyoto Accord??... "
Of all the decisions that demand a Cost-Benefit analysis it is Global Warming.
If there is more than a mere possibility that our action now will cause serious environmental harm to our children and our children's children in the future, whether 20 years - 30 years or 50 years. Then, we must act, and act decisively and to the extent required, now.
When all those countries that have not contributed to Global Warming or benefited from it but suffer the greatest devastating impact of it turn to Canada and see that we not only contributed to it, did nothing to stop it, but in actuality have benefited, we will be lucky if all they do is sue us for trillions in law suits similar to the tobacco suits. It will be our children and our children's children that will be required to pay the price.
We must consider the impact of all the Harper actions on our Nation and the Legacy we leave to our children and our children's children to prevent Harper from tearing asunder what has been built thru the blood sweat and tears of our forefathers, maintain what those that came before us have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
The irony is that Stephen Harper is an economist by trade, where cost-benefit analysis is the name of the game - the only claim to a background that might be appropriate in running a modern complex, diverse Democracy with a first world economy and Harper totally ignores it.
***
RU Outa Ur Mind also wrote:
" Or is it just too gut-wrenchingly difficult for you face up to butchering those doe-eyed, Liberal /Socially-Democratic Sacred-Cows??..."
"RU Outa Ur Mind" - nice monicker,
Try Liberal-Democrat. Has a nice ring and apparently they understand Parliamentary Democracy and how it works.
Lloyd MacILquham
31 May, 2010
- What Would Happen If There Were a Non-Confidence Vote Before the G8+20 Weekend in TO
Submitted: 8:05am, PDT, 31 May '10 CBC News
Okay, is it Stop Sucking At This Opposition Thing Day at OLO?
May 28, 2010 1:43 PM, By Kady O'Malley, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/05/okay-is-it-stop-sucking-at-this-opposition-thing-day-at-olo.html
Wow, that's just about exactly what I've been saying about this G8+20 meeting. Well, ok, I'm much more articulate, more insightful and more detailed in my analysis and more encompassing.
Me and Kenny. Who would have though that he and I would agree on anything. I guess great minds think alike.
Now Stephen Harper, apparently, is pleading 1 billion for his family planning, provided other governments do similar.
One thing that is not totally clear.
Is that 1 billion of his own money he is pleading to donate. If so, let me remind him that he may not be able to claim all of it on his tax's (I assume!).
Or, is that 1 billion of the Con Party's money. If so, I didn't realize they were raising that much money and I would think it might somehow be in violation of the Elections Act, just a hunch.
Or, is it 1 billion of Canadians hard earned tax money?
No, can't be.
When did Harper ask us if we wanted to spend 1 billion to promote his extreme right wing, theo-Con International Family Planning policy that most Canadians don't want, is diametrically opposite to Canadian policy for the last 25 years and is contrary to the policies of most G8 countries.
A Con once said, "People can't live on credit cards, and economies can't live on wild, partizan spending" . . . ok, ok, 'a Con once should have said'
How about, cancel the 'G8+20' for now.
Then, lets take a real look at what real benefit Canada could possibly receive (as a nation - as opposed to promoting the partizan self-interest of Harper and his Con's); what the real costs would be; and here something that might be important, whether we can afford it right now.
Oh my God, don't tell me, it's a "Cost-Benefit analysis with some fiscal prudence thrown in" - I've created a monster.
"[Stephen Harper] insisted Canada "will lead the way" in the coming G8 and G20 summits to push for countries to get their fiscal houses in order.
Yah, and Harper and the Con's are spending over two billion, and counting, of Canadian taxpayers hard earned money to tell them that.
Stephen, here's a suggestion. Save Canada a billion and 'Issue a Press Release'.
How about, cancel the 'G8+20' for now.
Then, lets take a real look at what real benefit Canada could possibly receive (as a nation - as opposed to promoting the partizan self-interest of Harper and his Con's); what the real costs would be; and here something that might be important, whether we can afford it right now.
Oh my God, don't tell me, it's a "Cost-Benefit analysis with some fiscal prudence thrown in" - I've created a monster.
What would happen if there is a Non-Confidence Vote before the planned G8+20 weekend.
Lloyd MacILquham
Okay, is it Stop Sucking At This Opposition Thing Day at OLO?
May 28, 2010 1:43 PM, By Kady O'Malley, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/05/okay-is-it-stop-sucking-at-this-opposition-thing-day-at-olo.html
Wow, that's just about exactly what I've been saying about this G8+20 meeting. Well, ok, I'm much more articulate, more insightful and more detailed in my analysis and more encompassing.
Me and Kenny. Who would have though that he and I would agree on anything. I guess great minds think alike.
Now Stephen Harper, apparently, is pleading 1 billion for his family planning, provided other governments do similar.
One thing that is not totally clear.
Is that 1 billion of his own money he is pleading to donate. If so, let me remind him that he may not be able to claim all of it on his tax's (I assume!).
Or, is that 1 billion of the Con Party's money. If so, I didn't realize they were raising that much money and I would think it might somehow be in violation of the Elections Act, just a hunch.
Or, is it 1 billion of Canadians hard earned tax money?
No, can't be.
When did Harper ask us if we wanted to spend 1 billion to promote his extreme right wing, theo-Con International Family Planning policy that most Canadians don't want, is diametrically opposite to Canadian policy for the last 25 years and is contrary to the policies of most G8 countries.
A Con once said, "People can't live on credit cards, and economies can't live on wild, partizan spending" . . . ok, ok, 'a Con once should have said'
How about, cancel the 'G8+20' for now.
Then, lets take a real look at what real benefit Canada could possibly receive (as a nation - as opposed to promoting the partizan self-interest of Harper and his Con's); what the real costs would be; and here something that might be important, whether we can afford it right now.
Oh my God, don't tell me, it's a "Cost-Benefit analysis with some fiscal prudence thrown in" - I've created a monster.
"[Stephen Harper] insisted Canada "will lead the way" in the coming G8 and G20 summits to push for countries to get their fiscal houses in order.
Yah, and Harper and the Con's are spending over two billion, and counting, of Canadian taxpayers hard earned money to tell them that.
Stephen, here's a suggestion. Save Canada a billion and 'Issue a Press Release'.
How about, cancel the 'G8+20' for now.
Then, lets take a real look at what real benefit Canada could possibly receive (as a nation - as opposed to promoting the partizan self-interest of Harper and his Con's); what the real costs would be; and here something that might be important, whether we can afford it right now.
Oh my God, don't tell me, it's a "Cost-Benefit analysis with some fiscal prudence thrown in" - I've created a monster.
What would happen if there is a Non-Confidence Vote before the planned G8+20 weekend.
Lloyd MacILquham
30 May, 2010
- Harper, Do The Cost-Benefit Analysis Before You Spend a Billion of Our Money
Submitted: 8:30am, PDT, 30 May '10 CBC News
Fraser to audit summit expenses, Previous hosts not as 'transparent' about costs: summit security chief, CBC News, 28 May '10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/28/g8-g20-summit-expenses-sheila-fraser.html
"Auditor General Sheila Fraser says her office will examine the federal government's hefty security bill at the upcoming G8 and G20 international summits in Ontario after the events are completed."
That's like saying I will look at my credit card statement after I go on my weekend binge.
A Con once said, "People can't live on credit cards, and economies can't live on wild, partizan spending" . . . ok, ok, 'a Con once should have said'
How about, cancel the 'G8+20' for now.
Then, lets take a real look at what real benefit Canada could possibly receive (as a nation - as opposed to promoting the partizan self-interest of Harper and his Con's); what the real costs would be; and here something that might be important, whether we can afford it right now.
Oh my God, don't tell me, it's a "Cost-Benefit analysis with some fiscal prudence thrown in" - I've created a monster.
"Previous hosts not as 'transparent' about costs: summit security chief".
I heard him on TV. It sounded to me like he was insinuating that all the other countries were deliberately holding back the truth.
That's nice, insult the Countries that you are inviting over at the cost of a billion dollars to entertain for a weekend. While they are here let's ask them why they hid the true costs.
If Harper wasn't so in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway in his International diplomacy, we wouldn't have to spring for a billion dollar party to be accepted as "a player on the International scene". Lester B Pearson didn't have to do that. Trudeau didn't have to do that. Neither did Chrétien nor Martin.
True leaders don't have to try and buy their way into being accepted on the International scene. They merely have to be themselves.
Now there's a though, Harper being himself. I wonder how long the good people of Canada would allow him to remain Prime Minister.
Lloyd MacILquham
Fraser to audit summit expenses, Previous hosts not as 'transparent' about costs: summit security chief, CBC News, 28 May '10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/28/g8-g20-summit-expenses-sheila-fraser.html
"Auditor General Sheila Fraser says her office will examine the federal government's hefty security bill at the upcoming G8 and G20 international summits in Ontario after the events are completed."
That's like saying I will look at my credit card statement after I go on my weekend binge.
A Con once said, "People can't live on credit cards, and economies can't live on wild, partizan spending" . . . ok, ok, 'a Con once should have said'
How about, cancel the 'G8+20' for now.
Then, lets take a real look at what real benefit Canada could possibly receive (as a nation - as opposed to promoting the partizan self-interest of Harper and his Con's); what the real costs would be; and here something that might be important, whether we can afford it right now.
Oh my God, don't tell me, it's a "Cost-Benefit analysis with some fiscal prudence thrown in" - I've created a monster.
"Previous hosts not as 'transparent' about costs: summit security chief".
I heard him on TV. It sounded to me like he was insinuating that all the other countries were deliberately holding back the truth.
That's nice, insult the Countries that you are inviting over at the cost of a billion dollars to entertain for a weekend. While they are here let's ask them why they hid the true costs.
If Harper wasn't so in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway in his International diplomacy, we wouldn't have to spring for a billion dollar party to be accepted as "a player on the International scene". Lester B Pearson didn't have to do that. Trudeau didn't have to do that. Neither did Chrétien nor Martin.
True leaders don't have to try and buy their way into being accepted on the International scene. They merely have to be themselves.
Now there's a though, Harper being himself. I wonder how long the good people of Canada would allow him to remain Prime Minister.
Lloyd MacILquham
- Harper Economics: If You Have It Get Rid of It and If You Don't Have It, Spend It.
Submitted: 7:39am, 30 May'10 CBC News
Federal deficit estimate falls
Shortfall now expected to be $47B, 28 May'10 CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/05/28/deficit-projection-smaller.html?ref=rss&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r2:c0.122833:b34474854
"the deficit for the fiscal year which ended in March is now projected to come in at $47.0 billion, or 12.6 per cent less than the government's prediction of $53.8 billion in its March budget."
Wow, now it is become transparent why Stephen Harper and Jim Fleherty decided to spend a billion on the 'G8+20', they saved us 6 billion so they obviously deserve a reward.
And what better why to reward our top politicians than letting them invite the top leaders of 20 other countries here for the weekend for a bit of personal aggrandizement, partizan self-interest in order to buy the next election and be "players on the International scene for a days" (kinda reminds you of the old show "Queen for a Day")
Just think, if Harper and Flaherty hadn't reduced the GST by 2 points, the deficit would only be $35 billion. Hey, that's Mulroney territory.
"Ottawa said higher-than-expected corporate income tax payments as profits improved boosted revenue by $4.8 billion"
Hummm, a tax that contributes to the Federal Coffers and helps Canada's finances, I'm surprised Harper isn't getting rid of it. Oh, wait he is . . . Shrewd.
"spending by government departments was $1.7 billion less than planned"
What about this fiscal year. Or, is the G8+20 included in that 1.7 billion less spending.
Harper, here's a way to help put Canada's fiscal house in order and reduce the deficit another 2% (1 billion): Cancel the G8 & G20.
Better yet, resign. Let a Party run this country who know, understand fiscal prudence and have experience putting our financial house in order after Con's have run wild.
Lloyd MacILquham
Federal deficit estimate falls
Shortfall now expected to be $47B, 28 May'10 CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/05/28/deficit-projection-smaller.html?ref=rss&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r2:c0.122833:b34474854
"the deficit for the fiscal year which ended in March is now projected to come in at $47.0 billion, or 12.6 per cent less than the government's prediction of $53.8 billion in its March budget."
Wow, now it is become transparent why Stephen Harper and Jim Fleherty decided to spend a billion on the 'G8+20', they saved us 6 billion so they obviously deserve a reward.
And what better why to reward our top politicians than letting them invite the top leaders of 20 other countries here for the weekend for a bit of personal aggrandizement, partizan self-interest in order to buy the next election and be "players on the International scene for a days" (kinda reminds you of the old show "Queen for a Day")
Just think, if Harper and Flaherty hadn't reduced the GST by 2 points, the deficit would only be $35 billion. Hey, that's Mulroney territory.
"Ottawa said higher-than-expected corporate income tax payments as profits improved boosted revenue by $4.8 billion"
Hummm, a tax that contributes to the Federal Coffers and helps Canada's finances, I'm surprised Harper isn't getting rid of it. Oh, wait he is . . . Shrewd.
"spending by government departments was $1.7 billion less than planned"
What about this fiscal year. Or, is the G8+20 included in that 1.7 billion less spending.
Harper, here's a way to help put Canada's fiscal house in order and reduce the deficit another 2% (1 billion): Cancel the G8 & G20.
Better yet, resign. Let a Party run this country who know, understand fiscal prudence and have experience putting our financial house in order after Con's have run wild.
Lloyd MacILquham
29 May, 2010
- Fellow Canadians stand tall, be counted and, as one, tell Harper to "Cancel the G8 & G20"
Submitted: Submitted 8:51am, PDT, 28 May '10
Harper to cities: stimulus must end, May 28, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/28/harper-municipalities.html
"[Stephen Harper] insisted Canada "will lead the way" in the coming G8 and G20 summits to push for countries to get their fiscal houses in order.
Yah, and Harper and the Con's are spending over a billion of Canadian taxpayers hard earned money to tell them that.
Stephen, here's a suggestion. Save Canada a billion and 'Issue a Press Release'.
If Harper is leading the way in putting fiscal houses in order then there must be some good reason that is not fathomable to mere average Canadians, to justify the billion dollars Con party.
Perhaps they are holding one big bash before Harper resigns and the Con's return whence the came. Now that might be worth it, but then all Canadians should be invited - it would save on having two such parties.
Other than feeding the ego's of Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty, promoting the Con self-interests, giving them and other Cabinet Ministers an excuse to Globe trot, providing a platform for Harper to promote his not so hidden anti-abortion agenda and for Flaherty to give the impression they are tough on taxes and promote this very dubious alternative to the International Bank transaction charges, "embedded contingent capital", which is obviously intended simply to be able to say he proposed an alternative, why are we holding the G6 and G20.
As stated in the National Post on 27 May:
"Sure, being host to their counterparts gives nations’ heads of government plenty of photo opportunities to look influential and to bulk up their parties’ campaign brochures"
I see Tony Clament is getting a photo opp's (see: CBC News, 26 May '10). What does he have to do with the G20 anyway,oh sorry, I forgot, he's a Con.
I wonder if any Liberals will be placed front and centre.
Just keep in mind that the only reason Harper and his Con's can do these things is because we let them.
There is a certain logic to Harper saying this is what Canadians want, since, presumably if we didn't, he get the boot and forthwith.
We, the Canadian people, are ultimately responsible and we, the Canadian people, and our children and our children's children, and their children, down thru the ages, will ultimately have to pay.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Harper to cities: stimulus must end, May 28, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/28/harper-municipalities.html
"[Stephen Harper] insisted Canada "will lead the way" in the coming G8 and G20 summits to push for countries to get their fiscal houses in order.
Yah, and Harper and the Con's are spending over a billion of Canadian taxpayers hard earned money to tell them that.
Stephen, here's a suggestion. Save Canada a billion and 'Issue a Press Release'.
If Harper is leading the way in putting fiscal houses in order then there must be some good reason that is not fathomable to mere average Canadians, to justify the billion dollars Con party.
Perhaps they are holding one big bash before Harper resigns and the Con's return whence the came. Now that might be worth it, but then all Canadians should be invited - it would save on having two such parties.
Other than feeding the ego's of Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty, promoting the Con self-interests, giving them and other Cabinet Ministers an excuse to Globe trot, providing a platform for Harper to promote his not so hidden anti-abortion agenda and for Flaherty to give the impression they are tough on taxes and promote this very dubious alternative to the International Bank transaction charges, "embedded contingent capital", which is obviously intended simply to be able to say he proposed an alternative, why are we holding the G6 and G20.
As stated in the National Post on 27 May:
"Sure, being host to their counterparts gives nations’ heads of government plenty of photo opportunities to look influential and to bulk up their parties’ campaign brochures"
I see Tony Clament is getting a photo opp's (see: CBC News, 26 May '10). What does he have to do with the G20 anyway,oh sorry, I forgot, he's a Con.
I wonder if any Liberals will be placed front and centre.
Just keep in mind that the only reason Harper and his Con's can do these things is because we let them.
There is a certain logic to Harper saying this is what Canadians want, since, presumably if we didn't, he get the boot and forthwith.
We, the Canadian people, are ultimately responsible and we, the Canadian people, and our children and our children's children, and their children, down thru the ages, will ultimately have to pay.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
- We have no one to blame but ourselves for Harper and his Con's ruining this country.
Posted: 5/29/2010 10:36:02 AM The Globe and Mail
Opposition balks at Tory loophole in detainee record deal, Steven Chase, Globe and Mail, 28 May '10
Tabs 40 & 45
Subtitle: Harper and the Con's doth protest too much, methinks.
One would think that the legal opinion would be the first thing that a person acting in good faith, with honesty and integrity, and prudently would want to release since it could explain why they took the position they did.
Acting on a legal opinion may very well be no legal excuse as far as the law is concerned, of course. But, as far as the Court of Public Opinion, i.e. politics, it very well can be. And, presumably a Court could take such into consideration in sentencing, unless it is being 'tough-on-crime', of course. Now that would be ironic.
One must ask why Stephen Harper and the Con's would want to exclude not simply the legal opinions but all records “subject to solicitor-client privilege”
Well the logical inference is perhaps Harper and the Con's are not and/or, were not, either: acting in good faith or honesty or integrity or prudently.
My hunch is don't rule out any of these possibilities. But then I am just basing this on my observations of 'Hide-Everything' Harper, Peter 'if-it-it-isn't-in-Hansard-it-did-happen' MacKay.
Harper and the Con's m.o. of viscous personal attacks of anyone that dares to stand up to them,or say anything that they think might go against them, obstruction-obscuration-obfuscation, and building and using liberally the greatest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in recent history to effect these things are, in my opinion, the hall-marks of someone, or someones, that has something to hide.
Here's a scenario. The legal opinions that Harper received advised that what Harper and the Con's was doing contravened International Criminal Laws as well as domestic criminal laws.
Now that might explain wanting these legal opinions excluded.
But, Stephen, it is exactly due to this type of scenario that Parliament is requiring the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing cover-up documents.
***
posted: 5/29/2010 10:56:27 AM The Globe and Mail
. . . Continued
'We have no one to blame but ourselves for Harper and his Con's ruining this country . . .'
On the other hand, what better way of taking attention away from Harper and Jim Flaherty's wasting over a billion dollars of our taxes, which is a significant portion of our deficit, for personal aggrandizement, partizan self-interest in order to buy the next election. Or, Jaffergate, for that matter, or, . . .
Just keep in mind that the only reason Harper and his Con's can do these things is because we let them.
There is a certain logic to Harper saying this is what Canadians want, since, presumably if we didn't, he get the boot and forthwith.
We, the Canadian people, are ultimately responsible and we, the Canadian people, and our children and our children's children, and their children, down thru the ages, will ultimately have to pay.
Here's an interesting quote (well actually it is an adaption from the US to the Canadian context - for illustration purposes only, of course):
“The danger to Canada is not Stephen Harper but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the running our government. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Harper Prime Ministership than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Harper, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. Canada as a Nation can survive a Stephen Harper, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their leader.”
see: 'christian views america' at, http://ccviewsandnews.net/2010/01/too-many-jokers/
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Opposition balks at Tory loophole in detainee record deal, Steven Chase, Globe and Mail, 28 May '10
Tabs 40 & 45
Subtitle: Harper and the Con's doth protest too much, methinks.
One would think that the legal opinion would be the first thing that a person acting in good faith, with honesty and integrity, and prudently would want to release since it could explain why they took the position they did.
Acting on a legal opinion may very well be no legal excuse as far as the law is concerned, of course. But, as far as the Court of Public Opinion, i.e. politics, it very well can be. And, presumably a Court could take such into consideration in sentencing, unless it is being 'tough-on-crime', of course. Now that would be ironic.
One must ask why Stephen Harper and the Con's would want to exclude not simply the legal opinions but all records “subject to solicitor-client privilege”
Well the logical inference is perhaps Harper and the Con's are not and/or, were not, either: acting in good faith or honesty or integrity or prudently.
My hunch is don't rule out any of these possibilities. But then I am just basing this on my observations of 'Hide-Everything' Harper, Peter 'if-it-it-isn't-in-Hansard-it-did-happen' MacKay.
Harper and the Con's m.o. of viscous personal attacks of anyone that dares to stand up to them,or say anything that they think might go against them, obstruction-obscuration-obfuscation, and building and using liberally the greatest propaganda machine seen in Western democracies in recent history to effect these things are, in my opinion, the hall-marks of someone, or someones, that has something to hide.
Here's a scenario. The legal opinions that Harper received advised that what Harper and the Con's was doing contravened International Criminal Laws as well as domestic criminal laws.
Now that might explain wanting these legal opinions excluded.
But, Stephen, it is exactly due to this type of scenario that Parliament is requiring the Afghan Detainee Transfer and ensuing cover-up documents.
***
posted: 5/29/2010 10:56:27 AM The Globe and Mail
. . . Continued
'We have no one to blame but ourselves for Harper and his Con's ruining this country . . .'
On the other hand, what better way of taking attention away from Harper and Jim Flaherty's wasting over a billion dollars of our taxes, which is a significant portion of our deficit, for personal aggrandizement, partizan self-interest in order to buy the next election. Or, Jaffergate, for that matter, or, . . .
Just keep in mind that the only reason Harper and his Con's can do these things is because we let them.
There is a certain logic to Harper saying this is what Canadians want, since, presumably if we didn't, he get the boot and forthwith.
We, the Canadian people, are ultimately responsible and we, the Canadian people, and our children and our children's children, and their children, down thru the ages, will ultimately have to pay.
Here's an interesting quote (well actually it is an adaption from the US to the Canadian context - for illustration purposes only, of course):
“The danger to Canada is not Stephen Harper but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the running our government. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Harper Prime Ministership than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Harper, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. Canada as a Nation can survive a Stephen Harper, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their leader.”
see: 'christian views america' at, http://ccviewsandnews.net/2010/01/too-many-jokers/
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
27 May, 2010
- Re: The Harper Line-Of-Credit
Submitted: 8:15pm. PDT, 27 May '10
Continued from my last Post, below "the buck stops with us, it certainly isn't stopping with Harper":
Rose21 wrote:Posted 2010/05/27
at 1:52 PM ET
"wlloydm: 'I don't recall Harper, or Flaherty, or any Con, asking me, or anyone else in Canada, if they wanted to be "a player on the International scene".'
While the notion of "being a player" sounds a bit frivolous, in the end it means having influence on global decision making. That's important. I agree that the price tag seems excessive, but without details on the expenditures it is hard to judge which costs can be eliminated. There are always "what if" scenarios that need to be covered. I do hope they are getting good advice. Fortunately, the money is being spent in Canada, so it is not a dead loss. There will be a little economic upward blip in Toronto over this. "
Hi Rose located in Ottawa.
This is a well articulated response. Thanks.
So, Rose, what do you actually do in Ottawa.
And, if you are posting such even tempered responses, why not use your real name.
You wrote:
"While the notion of "being a player" sounds a bit frivolous, in the end it means having influence on global decision making. That's important. "
The issue is important to whom. It is clearly important to Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty.
And, unless you can explain why it is that Harper, Flaherty or any other of the Con's will have "influence on global decision making"; and, if they do, why it is a benefit to the World and more important, why it would be a benefit to Canada.
As stated in the National Post today:
"Sure, being host to their counterparts gives nations’ heads of government plenty of photo opportunities to look influential and to bulk up their parties’ campaign brochures"
I see Tony Clament is getting a photo opp's. What does he have to do with the G20 anyway,oh sorry, I forgot, he's a Con.
I wonder if any Liberals will be placed front and centre. Rose21 perhaps you could hazard a guess.
Continued . . .
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
********
. . . continued
Hi Rose21,
Selling Canada's resources and future in order to get various countries to go onside with an absolute exclusion on abortion in family planning, abandonment our obligations towards meaningful action towards Global Warming, etc., is not what I nor, in my observation, a majority of Canadians would call a benefit either to the International Community nor Canadians.
Promoting extreme right-wing ideology that is steeped in personal religious beliefs is not what I would consider a benefit.
Spending over a billion dollars of our taxes, which is a significant portion of our deficit, for personal aggrandizement, partizan self-interest in order to buy the next election may be important to Harper but not me and not, I suggest to you, a majority of Canadians.
and let me re-iterate regarding The Harper Line-Of-Credit :
"We are ultimately responsible, the buck stops with us, it certainly isn't stopping with Harper, and we and our children and our children's children, and their children, down thru the ages, will ultimately have to pay. "
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Continued from my last Post, below "the buck stops with us, it certainly isn't stopping with Harper":
Rose21 wrote:Posted 2010/05/27
at 1:52 PM ET
"wlloydm: 'I don't recall Harper, or Flaherty, or any Con, asking me, or anyone else in Canada, if they wanted to be "a player on the International scene".'
While the notion of "being a player" sounds a bit frivolous, in the end it means having influence on global decision making. That's important. I agree that the price tag seems excessive, but without details on the expenditures it is hard to judge which costs can be eliminated. There are always "what if" scenarios that need to be covered. I do hope they are getting good advice. Fortunately, the money is being spent in Canada, so it is not a dead loss. There will be a little economic upward blip in Toronto over this. "
Hi Rose located in Ottawa.
This is a well articulated response. Thanks.
So, Rose, what do you actually do in Ottawa.
And, if you are posting such even tempered responses, why not use your real name.
You wrote:
"While the notion of "being a player" sounds a bit frivolous, in the end it means having influence on global decision making. That's important. "
The issue is important to whom. It is clearly important to Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty.
And, unless you can explain why it is that Harper, Flaherty or any other of the Con's will have "influence on global decision making"; and, if they do, why it is a benefit to the World and more important, why it would be a benefit to Canada.
As stated in the National Post today:
"Sure, being host to their counterparts gives nations’ heads of government plenty of photo opportunities to look influential and to bulk up their parties’ campaign brochures"
I see Tony Clament is getting a photo opp's. What does he have to do with the G20 anyway,oh sorry, I forgot, he's a Con.
I wonder if any Liberals will be placed front and centre. Rose21 perhaps you could hazard a guess.
Continued . . .
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
********
. . . continued
Hi Rose21,
Selling Canada's resources and future in order to get various countries to go onside with an absolute exclusion on abortion in family planning, abandonment our obligations towards meaningful action towards Global Warming, etc., is not what I nor, in my observation, a majority of Canadians would call a benefit either to the International Community nor Canadians.
Promoting extreme right-wing ideology that is steeped in personal religious beliefs is not what I would consider a benefit.
Spending over a billion dollars of our taxes, which is a significant portion of our deficit, for personal aggrandizement, partizan self-interest in order to buy the next election may be important to Harper but not me and not, I suggest to you, a majority of Canadians.
and let me re-iterate regarding The Harper Line-Of-Credit :
"We are ultimately responsible, the buck stops with us, it certainly isn't stopping with Harper, and we and our children and our children's children, and their children, down thru the ages, will ultimately have to pay. "
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
- the buck stops with us, it certainly isn't stopping with Harper
Submitted: 6:55am, PDT, 27 May '10
Summit costs hit $1.1B, CBC News, 26 May '10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/26/g8-g20-security-summit-toews.html
Wouldn't it be cheaper to retire Stephen Harper and his cronies and pay them a nice fat pension.
And, besides, if the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal catches up with him, we may not even have to pay Harper his pension.
Jim Flaherty's explanation is that "if we want to be a player on the International scene" we have to spend the money.
I don't recall Harper, or Flaherty asking me, or anyone else in Canada, if they want to be "a player on the International scene".
Besides all Harper seems to be able to do with his extreme right wing policies and in-your-face diplomacy is embarrass Canada in front of the world and sully our reputation.
Yah, that makes us players! Hugo Chavez is a player too and has put Venezuela front and centre as well. But, then, that's what Oil Super-Powers do, isn't it.
Harper may have some influence in all the other Western democracies reversing their positions of family planning for third world countries. Now, that worth every penny of a billion dollars. Wait a minute it seems most Canadians don't accept Harper's position, it's a draw back to the Dark Ages and based on personal religious beliefs as opposed to addressing a real problem on a rational basis. Also, would just make sense to give these impoverished nations the money instead.
Just keep in mind that the only reason Harper can do this is because we let him.
There is a certain logic to Harper saying this is what Canadians want, since, presumably if we didn't, he get the boot and forthwith.
We are ultimately responsible, the buck stops with us, it certainly isn't stopping with Harper, and we and our children and our children's children, and their children, down thru the ages, will ultimately have to pay.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Summit costs hit $1.1B, CBC News, 26 May '10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/26/g8-g20-security-summit-toews.html
Wouldn't it be cheaper to retire Stephen Harper and his cronies and pay them a nice fat pension.
And, besides, if the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal catches up with him, we may not even have to pay Harper his pension.
Jim Flaherty's explanation is that "if we want to be a player on the International scene" we have to spend the money.
I don't recall Harper, or Flaherty asking me, or anyone else in Canada, if they want to be "a player on the International scene".
Besides all Harper seems to be able to do with his extreme right wing policies and in-your-face diplomacy is embarrass Canada in front of the world and sully our reputation.
Yah, that makes us players! Hugo Chavez is a player too and has put Venezuela front and centre as well. But, then, that's what Oil Super-Powers do, isn't it.
Harper may have some influence in all the other Western democracies reversing their positions of family planning for third world countries. Now, that worth every penny of a billion dollars. Wait a minute it seems most Canadians don't accept Harper's position, it's a draw back to the Dark Ages and based on personal religious beliefs as opposed to addressing a real problem on a rational basis. Also, would just make sense to give these impoverished nations the money instead.
Just keep in mind that the only reason Harper can do this is because we let him.
There is a certain logic to Harper saying this is what Canadians want, since, presumably if we didn't, he get the boot and forthwith.
We are ultimately responsible, the buck stops with us, it certainly isn't stopping with Harper, and we and our children and our children's children, and their children, down thru the ages, will ultimately have to pay.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
- Harper - Let Them Eat Donuts
Posted: 8:03 AM on May 27, 2010 The National Post
The G20: A billion dollars worth of what?, National Post editorial board May 27, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/27/the-g20-a-billion-dollars-worth-of-what/
Good article.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you say:
"Sure, being host to their counterparts gives nations’ heads of government plenty of photo opportunities to look influential and to bulk up their parties’ campaign brochures"
This is only the bill for security, what about F&E and everything else. I'm sure that these heads of state aren't going to eat at McDonalds and rent a video for the evening. Which is all the ordinary, Tim Horton's Canadians will be able to afford after Harper.
Harper is spending a billion dollars of our taxes, keep in mind that this represents a significant portion of our deficit, for partizan self-interest. But, we should not be surprised since he tried to Con us into believing that the stimulus spending was Harper and the Cons largess.
Lloyd MacILquham
[not posted]
Wouldn't it be cheaper to retire Stephen Harper and his cronies and pay them a nice fat pension.
And, besides, if the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal catches up with him, we may not even have to pay Harper his pension.
Jim Flaherty's explanation is that "if we want to be a player on the International scene" we have to spend the money. I don't recall that issue ever coming up before.
I don't recall Harper, Flaherty or any of the other Con's asking me, or anyone else in Canada, if they want to be "a player on the International scene". It's Harper, Flaherty and the other Con's that want to act like their big-shots.
Besides all Harper seems to be able to do with his extreme right wing policies and in-your-face diplomacy is embarrass Canada in front of the world and sully our reputation.
Yah, that makes us players! Hugo Chavez is a player too and has put Venezuela front and centre as well. But, then, that's what Oil Super-Powers do, now isn't it.
Oh, of course, Harper may have some influence in all the other Western democracies reversing their positions of family planning for third world countries. Now, that worth every penny of a billion dollars - no wait a minute it seems most Canadians don't accept Harper's position, it's a draw back to the Dark Ages and based on personal religious beliefs as opposed to addressing a real problem on a rational basis. Hummm. Also, would just make sense to give these impoverished nations the money instead.
Just keep in mind that the only reason Harper and his Con's can do this is because we let them.
There is a certain logic to Harper saying this is what Canadians want, since, presumably if we didn't, he get the boot and forthwith.
We, the Canadian people, are ultimately responsible and we, the Canadian people, and our children and our children's children, and their children, down thru the ages, will ultimately have to pay.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
The G20: A billion dollars worth of what?, National Post editorial board May 27, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/27/the-g20-a-billion-dollars-worth-of-what/
Good article.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you say:
"Sure, being host to their counterparts gives nations’ heads of government plenty of photo opportunities to look influential and to bulk up their parties’ campaign brochures"
This is only the bill for security, what about F&E and everything else. I'm sure that these heads of state aren't going to eat at McDonalds and rent a video for the evening. Which is all the ordinary, Tim Horton's Canadians will be able to afford after Harper.
Harper is spending a billion dollars of our taxes, keep in mind that this represents a significant portion of our deficit, for partizan self-interest. But, we should not be surprised since he tried to Con us into believing that the stimulus spending was Harper and the Cons largess.
Lloyd MacILquham
[not posted]
Wouldn't it be cheaper to retire Stephen Harper and his cronies and pay them a nice fat pension.
And, besides, if the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal catches up with him, we may not even have to pay Harper his pension.
Jim Flaherty's explanation is that "if we want to be a player on the International scene" we have to spend the money. I don't recall that issue ever coming up before.
I don't recall Harper, Flaherty or any of the other Con's asking me, or anyone else in Canada, if they want to be "a player on the International scene". It's Harper, Flaherty and the other Con's that want to act like their big-shots.
Besides all Harper seems to be able to do with his extreme right wing policies and in-your-face diplomacy is embarrass Canada in front of the world and sully our reputation.
Yah, that makes us players! Hugo Chavez is a player too and has put Venezuela front and centre as well. But, then, that's what Oil Super-Powers do, now isn't it.
Oh, of course, Harper may have some influence in all the other Western democracies reversing their positions of family planning for third world countries. Now, that worth every penny of a billion dollars - no wait a minute it seems most Canadians don't accept Harper's position, it's a draw back to the Dark Ages and based on personal religious beliefs as opposed to addressing a real problem on a rational basis. Hummm. Also, would just make sense to give these impoverished nations the money instead.
Just keep in mind that the only reason Harper and his Con's can do this is because we let them.
There is a certain logic to Harper saying this is what Canadians want, since, presumably if we didn't, he get the boot and forthwith.
We, the Canadian people, are ultimately responsible and we, the Canadian people, and our children and our children's children, and their children, down thru the ages, will ultimately have to pay.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
26 May, 2010
- We simply Can't Afford Stephen Harper and his Con's
Submitted: 8:06am, PDT, 26 May '10 CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/25/summits-security-cost.html
G8, G20 security bill at least $833M
Other than feeding the ego's of Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty, promoting the Con self-interests, giving them and other Cabinet Ministers an excuse to Globe trot, providing a platform for Harper to promote his not so hidden anti-abortion agenda and for Flaherty to give the impression they are tough on taxes and promote this very dubious alternative to the International Bank transaction charges, "embedded contingent capital", which is obviously intended simply to be able to say he proposed an alternative, why are we holding the G6 and G20.
Canada is paying a billion dollars for Harper, Flaherty and the Con to embarrass us on the International Stage and do some serious International damage.
I know, Harper is flexing Canada's Oil Super Power status. Well, we've see to what extent the other nations of the world cow-tow to Harper.
Toews is saying that this cost is not a budget overrun. So, presumably they knew from before they proposed it that it would cost so much.
This is outrageous.
It's much worse than the Gun Registry over-runs - at Canadians get some benefit from it
We simply can't afford it.
We simply can't afford to have Harper and his Con's running our country.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/25/summits-security-cost.html
G8, G20 security bill at least $833M
Other than feeding the ego's of Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty, promoting the Con self-interests, giving them and other Cabinet Ministers an excuse to Globe trot, providing a platform for Harper to promote his not so hidden anti-abortion agenda and for Flaherty to give the impression they are tough on taxes and promote this very dubious alternative to the International Bank transaction charges, "embedded contingent capital", which is obviously intended simply to be able to say he proposed an alternative, why are we holding the G6 and G20.
Canada is paying a billion dollars for Harper, Flaherty and the Con to embarrass us on the International Stage and do some serious International damage.
I know, Harper is flexing Canada's Oil Super Power status. Well, we've see to what extent the other nations of the world cow-tow to Harper.
Toews is saying that this cost is not a budget overrun. So, presumably they knew from before they proposed it that it would cost so much.
This is outrageous.
It's much worse than the Gun Registry over-runs - at Canadians get some benefit from it
We simply can't afford it.
We simply can't afford to have Harper and his Con's running our country.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
- Harper and the Con strategy of 'Zero Tolerance to Transparency' - working???
Submitted: 7:15am, PDT, 26 May '10 CBC News
Tories near 10-point lead over Liberals: poll, CBC News, 20 May '10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/19/ekos-voter-intention-poll.html#socialcomments
??? "Support for Stephen Harper's Conservatives has increased"
Stephen Harper and the Con's have gone from 33.6 to 34.4 hardly represents an increase. First, this is within the margin of error. So, as far as the poll is concerned it might as well be the other way around.
Also, this just the same old same-old.
It simply represents the 33% core of die-hard Con supporters, epi-centred in Alberta, that would support the Con's no matter what happens. The Poll means no more than they are still there.
Interesting though is the result:
"51.1 per cent of those surveyed said the country is moving in the right direction, while 38.2 per cent said it's moving in the wrong direction. Conservative supporters, respondents in Alberta and in the Atlantic region are most likely to agree that the country is moving in the right direction, the survey suggests.
Liberal supporters surveyed were more likely to report that the country is moving in the right direction (50.8 per cent) than the wrong direction (37.1 per cent). But they continue to be critical of the direction of the government, with 32.9 per cent saying the government is moving in the right direction and 52.2 per cent saying it's moving in the wrong direction."
This indicates:
Canadians think that Canada is doing ok not because of Harper and the Con's but despite Harper and the Con's.
I guess Harper's strategy of 'Zero Tolerance to Transparency' is working. If Canadians were to wake up to what Harper is doing to our country and its long lasting impact on us, our children and our children's children, I have confidence he and his Con's would get the boot forthwith.
It also indicates that:
This Poll is not being biased by a core of die-hard Liberal supporters.
Liberal supporters appear to be answering the Poll questions according to surrounding circumstances as they view them as opposed to simply die-hard clinging to a particular ideology as with the die hard Con supporters. Liberals open minded, pragmatic, flexible, facts oriented - as opposed to the Con stubborn extremist ideological stance - surprise - surprise.
Also, Liberal support seem to be tied to the Green support - now that is interesting.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Tories near 10-point lead over Liberals: poll, CBC News, 20 May '10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/19/ekos-voter-intention-poll.html#socialcomments
??? "Support for Stephen Harper's Conservatives has increased"
Stephen Harper and the Con's have gone from 33.6 to 34.4 hardly represents an increase. First, this is within the margin of error. So, as far as the poll is concerned it might as well be the other way around.
Also, this just the same old same-old.
It simply represents the 33% core of die-hard Con supporters, epi-centred in Alberta, that would support the Con's no matter what happens. The Poll means no more than they are still there.
Interesting though is the result:
"51.1 per cent of those surveyed said the country is moving in the right direction, while 38.2 per cent said it's moving in the wrong direction. Conservative supporters, respondents in Alberta and in the Atlantic region are most likely to agree that the country is moving in the right direction, the survey suggests.
Liberal supporters surveyed were more likely to report that the country is moving in the right direction (50.8 per cent) than the wrong direction (37.1 per cent). But they continue to be critical of the direction of the government, with 32.9 per cent saying the government is moving in the right direction and 52.2 per cent saying it's moving in the wrong direction."
This indicates:
Canadians think that Canada is doing ok not because of Harper and the Con's but despite Harper and the Con's.
I guess Harper's strategy of 'Zero Tolerance to Transparency' is working. If Canadians were to wake up to what Harper is doing to our country and its long lasting impact on us, our children and our children's children, I have confidence he and his Con's would get the boot forthwith.
It also indicates that:
This Poll is not being biased by a core of die-hard Liberal supporters.
Liberal supporters appear to be answering the Poll questions according to surrounding circumstances as they view them as opposed to simply die-hard clinging to a particular ideology as with the die hard Con supporters. Liberals open minded, pragmatic, flexible, facts oriented - as opposed to the Con stubborn extremist ideological stance - surprise - surprise.
Also, Liberal support seem to be tied to the Green support - now that is interesting.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Stephen Harper and his Con's are Our Problem, Blaming Ignatieff for Our Problem Solves Nothing
Submitted: 6:18am, PDT, 26 May '10 The Toronto Star
Walkom: Bill C-9 and the failure of Michael Ignatieff’s LiberalsComment on this story, Thomas Walkom, 26 may '10
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/814184--walkom-bill-c-9-and-the-failure-of-ignatieff-s-liberals#article
We have no one to blame for Harper and his Con's than ourselves. To suggest that it is somehow the Liberals shows a complete lack of understanding of the current political dynamic in Canada.
___
You can blame Ignatieff all you want. But, . . .
We will have to explain this to our children and our children's children why we allowed Harper to tear Canada asunder, leave them with withering debt and stood by while their Earth was poisoned to death.
Ignatieff did stand up last August and state the Liberals were not prepared to support the Con's and if that resulted in a non-confidence vote then so be it.
Unfortunately he learned in very quick order that Canadians did not want an election.
The problem is that by forcing an election will the Canadian electorate backlash to such an extent that Harper gets a majority. This, of course, would be a disaster for Canada of national proportions.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog
Submitted: 6:29am, PDT, 26 May '10
. . . Continued
___
We must consider the impact of all the Harper actions on our Nation and the Legacy we leave to our children and our children's children to prevent Harper from tearing asunder what has been built thru the blood sweat and tears of our forefathers, maintain what those that came before us have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
We can not blame Ignatieff and the Liberals for our problem.
If the people of Canada want Harper out they will have to make it be known.
If the people of Canada want an election they will have to make it that be known as well.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog
Walkom: Bill C-9 and the failure of Michael Ignatieff’s LiberalsComment on this story, Thomas Walkom, 26 may '10
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/814184--walkom-bill-c-9-and-the-failure-of-ignatieff-s-liberals#article
We have no one to blame for Harper and his Con's than ourselves. To suggest that it is somehow the Liberals shows a complete lack of understanding of the current political dynamic in Canada.
___
You can blame Ignatieff all you want. But, . . .
We will have to explain this to our children and our children's children why we allowed Harper to tear Canada asunder, leave them with withering debt and stood by while their Earth was poisoned to death.
Ignatieff did stand up last August and state the Liberals were not prepared to support the Con's and if that resulted in a non-confidence vote then so be it.
Unfortunately he learned in very quick order that Canadians did not want an election.
The problem is that by forcing an election will the Canadian electorate backlash to such an extent that Harper gets a majority. This, of course, would be a disaster for Canada of national proportions.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog
Submitted: 6:29am, PDT, 26 May '10
. . . Continued
___
We must consider the impact of all the Harper actions on our Nation and the Legacy we leave to our children and our children's children to prevent Harper from tearing asunder what has been built thru the blood sweat and tears of our forefathers, maintain what those that came before us have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
We can not blame Ignatieff and the Liberals for our problem.
If the people of Canada want Harper out they will have to make it be known.
If the people of Canada want an election they will have to make it that be known as well.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog
25 May, 2010
- Tom Flanagan: Stephen Harper, a Closet Con
Posted: 5/25/2010 10:48:51 AM The Globe and Mail
Tom Flanagan, Down with big government, 25 May '10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/down-with-big-government/article1576419/ Tab 11
Ton Flanagan, "Calgary cowboys . . . Toronto gays".
Just exactly what are you insinuating, Sir!
If I lived in Toronto I would take exception to this. You're not trying to feed into cultural-regional conflict are you.
Tom Flanagan, once again your analysis is founded on faulty logic. This is no more than patting yourself on the back and trying to explain that you were 'Right' (pun untended).
Did Mike Harris and Preston Manning get this 'minimist government' idea from you and your cronies from the US (Oh, yah, I forgot,you were born in Ottawa, weren't you, oh, no I was right - morally that is - that's Ottawa, Illinois).
It's hard to imagine that Harris dreamed it up himself (reality check: Mike Harris, single handedly in the 90's - early 2000's laid waste the Ontario infrastructure with a, typical, extreme right-wing heavy hand, resulting in tragedies like Walkerton, Ipperwash. Sorry, it wasn't exactly single handedly, he did have help from Jim Flaherty, John Baird, Tony Clement, Peter Van Loan, Guy Giorno).
The problem is that Stephen Harper is a extreme right wing ideologue who draws his core die-hard support from right-wing extremists whose epicentre is in Calgary.
But, Harper with a minority dares not bring in, in a open, direct, transparent fashion his right wing agenda for fear that he will wake up the vast majority of Canadians that are not extreme right wing and get the boot forthwith.
The extreme right wing are getting very 'testy' about Harper standing up and declaring his true agenda in an open and transparent fashion, very understandable. This, of course is causing fissures in Alberta and other regions. The Harper policies on banning funding to Toronto's Gay Rights Parade, against family planning internationally and withdrawing funding to NGO's that provide, where legal, info on abortion, there are lots of other examples, but I only get 2000 char's) are the manifestations of this.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
Tom Flanagan, Down with big government, 25 May '10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/down-with-big-government/article1576419/ Tab 11
Ton Flanagan, "Calgary cowboys . . . Toronto gays".
Just exactly what are you insinuating, Sir!
If I lived in Toronto I would take exception to this. You're not trying to feed into cultural-regional conflict are you.
Tom Flanagan, once again your analysis is founded on faulty logic. This is no more than patting yourself on the back and trying to explain that you were 'Right' (pun untended).
Did Mike Harris and Preston Manning get this 'minimist government' idea from you and your cronies from the US (Oh, yah, I forgot,you were born in Ottawa, weren't you, oh, no I was right - morally that is - that's Ottawa, Illinois).
It's hard to imagine that Harris dreamed it up himself (reality check: Mike Harris, single handedly in the 90's - early 2000's laid waste the Ontario infrastructure with a, typical, extreme right-wing heavy hand, resulting in tragedies like Walkerton, Ipperwash. Sorry, it wasn't exactly single handedly, he did have help from Jim Flaherty, John Baird, Tony Clement, Peter Van Loan, Guy Giorno).
The problem is that Stephen Harper is a extreme right wing ideologue who draws his core die-hard support from right-wing extremists whose epicentre is in Calgary.
But, Harper with a minority dares not bring in, in a open, direct, transparent fashion his right wing agenda for fear that he will wake up the vast majority of Canadians that are not extreme right wing and get the boot forthwith.
The extreme right wing are getting very 'testy' about Harper standing up and declaring his true agenda in an open and transparent fashion, very understandable. This, of course is causing fissures in Alberta and other regions. The Harper policies on banning funding to Toronto's Gay Rights Parade, against family planning internationally and withdrawing funding to NGO's that provide, where legal, info on abortion, there are lots of other examples, but I only get 2000 char's) are the manifestations of this.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.htm
23 May, 2010
- Harper and the Con's . . . 'PU' (Party of Unaccountability) (Re-Post)
Submitted: 5:38pm, PDT, 23 May'10 to CBC News
- Harper and the Con's . . . 'PU' (Party of Unaccountability)
MP expense probe not government's call: PM, CBC News, 21 May '10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/21/harper-mps-expenses.html
Stephen Harper replying that not “under the government’s jurisdiction,” is in a word, obscuration, obstruction and obfuscation. Oh, and did I mention, hypocrisy, hyperbola and unadulterated horse-[redacted].
How is it that just about everybody in Canada knows the solution but Mr. SS Harper (SS = `Super-Strategist`, of course) apparently hasn't got a clue.
As so many people have pointed out, if Harper had the political will he would simply 'whip' his Caucus into agreeing on so doing. Or, he could instruct the Con MP's on the Board of Internal Economy to support it. My understanding is that it would take only one other MP on the Board to pass it.
It is just another example of Stephen Harper refusing to giving a straight answer to a serious question.
People answer questions in this way often when they have something to hide. Some people, of course, can't think on their feet and make stupid statements when put on the spot and asked a question off-the-cuff. And sometimes, they are just unsophisticated, uneducated and unable to properly express themselves. You decide.
My take is that perhaps there is some dirty little secrets that Harper would rather the Auditor General not shine a light upon.
If Harper were not afraid of what Fraser might uncover, he might have said something like:"
“I understand what Canadians are saying. They want accountability and transparency. We are going to find a way … we have to work out a way to move forward on this.” [Ignatieff, see Taber, G&M, 19 May '10]
It is becoming more and more apparent that there is something rotten in the State of Harperdom, that Harper and the Con's are the Party of Unaccountability . . . PU (Ugly, Noxious, Shocking, Smelly, or Odious - Freedictionary)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
- Harper and the Con's . . . 'PU' (Party of Unaccountability)
MP expense probe not government's call: PM, CBC News, 21 May '10
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/21/harper-mps-expenses.html
Stephen Harper replying that not “under the government’s jurisdiction,” is in a word, obscuration, obstruction and obfuscation. Oh, and did I mention, hypocrisy, hyperbola and unadulterated horse-[redacted].
How is it that just about everybody in Canada knows the solution but Mr. SS Harper (SS = `Super-Strategist`, of course) apparently hasn't got a clue.
As so many people have pointed out, if Harper had the political will he would simply 'whip' his Caucus into agreeing on so doing. Or, he could instruct the Con MP's on the Board of Internal Economy to support it. My understanding is that it would take only one other MP on the Board to pass it.
It is just another example of Stephen Harper refusing to giving a straight answer to a serious question.
People answer questions in this way often when they have something to hide. Some people, of course, can't think on their feet and make stupid statements when put on the spot and asked a question off-the-cuff. And sometimes, they are just unsophisticated, uneducated and unable to properly express themselves. You decide.
My take is that perhaps there is some dirty little secrets that Harper would rather the Auditor General not shine a light upon.
If Harper were not afraid of what Fraser might uncover, he might have said something like:"
“I understand what Canadians are saying. They want accountability and transparency. We are going to find a way … we have to work out a way to move forward on this.” [Ignatieff, see Taber, G&M, 19 May '10]
It is becoming more and more apparent that there is something rotten in the State of Harperdom, that Harper and the Con's are the Party of Unaccountability . . . PU (Ugly, Noxious, Shocking, Smelly, or Odious - Freedictionary)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
- Is There No End To Harper and his Con's
Posted: 2:30pm, PDT, 23 May `10
Feds eyeing online forums to correct 'misinformation', CTV News, May, 23 2010
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100523/government-online-forums-100523/20100523?hub=TopStoriesV2
"The firm alerts the government to questionable online comments and then employees in Foreign Affairs or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, who have recently been trained in online posting, point the authors to information the government considers more accurate. "
Now, do these government employees who do this posting do it under their real names and/or, the Federal Government department they are working for.
Or, is this some kind of Con to promote Harper and the Con's party at the tax payers' expense. Yah, like Harper would ever dream of doing that kind of thing. Oh, I forgot the two CTV articles today:
"PM used government jets over 50 times to sell stimulus" & "Flaherty's late-night flight raises questions"
And like a die-hard Con would be so duplicitous as to not give their real name when they post a comment somewhere misrepresenting Canada
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
Feds eyeing online forums to correct 'misinformation', CTV News, May, 23 2010
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100523/government-online-forums-100523/20100523?hub=TopStoriesV2
"The firm alerts the government to questionable online comments and then employees in Foreign Affairs or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, who have recently been trained in online posting, point the authors to information the government considers more accurate. "
Now, do these government employees who do this posting do it under their real names and/or, the Federal Government department they are working for.
Or, is this some kind of Con to promote Harper and the Con's party at the tax payers' expense. Yah, like Harper would ever dream of doing that kind of thing. Oh, I forgot the two CTV articles today:
"PM used government jets over 50 times to sell stimulus" & "Flaherty's late-night flight raises questions"
And like a die-hard Con would be so duplicitous as to not give their real name when they post a comment somewhere misrepresenting Canada
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
- Harper - Poof, you`re a pile of s[redacted] - senators (just for clarity)
Comment on:
We want an audit, do you understand what I am saying?http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/21/we-want-an-audit-do-you-understand-what-i-am-saying/
Correct me if I'm not Right (ha, ha, ha, a little pun and on Sunday Morning too). But, . . .
Wasn't Bourque the guy that the Con Party sponsored for his car racing two or three years ago and didn't I see a pic of him and Stephen Harper at his car. Or, I am thinking of another Universe.
Wait, thru the magic of modern technology, I merely have to do a Google search on 'bourque' +'harper' +'mosport' and get:
http://insidetracknews.blogspot.com/2007/06/canadian-nascar-driver-pierre-bourque.html
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Canadian NASCAR driver Pierre Bourque sponsored by the Conservative Party of Canada
(wow, just think, our children and our children's children will have all Harper and the Con's actions and policies that lead to the destruction of Canada preserved for all to view. In Poli Sci they'll probably teach Harperiavellianism 101).
So, lets see, the Con's sponsor Bourque, Bourque starts a campaign to smear Ignatieff and the National Post blasts this all over their paper.
Mumm, so that's how the greatest propaganda machine seen in any Western Democracy in recent history works. Nice.
You know that's why Harper is able to rule with tyranny and ignore Parliament and the Opposition. He simply has to crank up this incredible magical Propaganda Machine and poof! the Opposition's a pile of s[redacted]t.
I wonder if Bourque is the vindictive type and will use his "among the most influential news agglomerators in Canada" start smearing me. Now how could you twist "Lloyd"or "MacIlquham" into a catch phrase of derision.
Wow, flash backs, I haven't had to worry about other kids taunting me by abusing my name since about grade 3. Then we all grew out of it - I stopped caring and their brains developed. And besides, we didn't have the bullying problems they have today. We always considered bullying as a degenerated and morally divest manner of trying to influence people.
Uh-Oh, I'm getting a premonition, it's, it's, I see, an "S' an . . . "E", . . . darn, where's my Wigi Board when I need it. Oh, my God, Harper's going to appoint me to the Senate . . . No, no, that can't be Right (another pun) got that mixed up a bit, he's going to appoint Bourque to the Senate. Bummer! I wish I had decided to become a die hard Con supporter.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com
We want an audit, do you understand what I am saying?http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/21/we-want-an-audit-do-you-understand-what-i-am-saying/
Correct me if I'm not Right (ha, ha, ha, a little pun and on Sunday Morning too). But, . . .
Wasn't Bourque the guy that the Con Party sponsored for his car racing two or three years ago and didn't I see a pic of him and Stephen Harper at his car. Or, I am thinking of another Universe.
Wait, thru the magic of modern technology, I merely have to do a Google search on 'bourque' +'harper' +'mosport' and get:
http://insidetracknews.blogspot.com/2007/06/canadian-nascar-driver-pierre-bourque.html
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Canadian NASCAR driver Pierre Bourque sponsored by the Conservative Party of Canada
(wow, just think, our children and our children's children will have all Harper and the Con's actions and policies that lead to the destruction of Canada preserved for all to view. In Poli Sci they'll probably teach Harperiavellianism 101).
So, lets see, the Con's sponsor Bourque, Bourque starts a campaign to smear Ignatieff and the National Post blasts this all over their paper.
Mumm, so that's how the greatest propaganda machine seen in any Western Democracy in recent history works. Nice.
You know that's why Harper is able to rule with tyranny and ignore Parliament and the Opposition. He simply has to crank up this incredible magical Propaganda Machine and poof! the Opposition's a pile of s[redacted]t.
I wonder if Bourque is the vindictive type and will use his "among the most influential news agglomerators in Canada" start smearing me. Now how could you twist "Lloyd"or "MacIlquham" into a catch phrase of derision.
Wow, flash backs, I haven't had to worry about other kids taunting me by abusing my name since about grade 3. Then we all grew out of it - I stopped caring and their brains developed. And besides, we didn't have the bullying problems they have today. We always considered bullying as a degenerated and morally divest manner of trying to influence people.
Uh-Oh, I'm getting a premonition, it's, it's, I see, an "S' an . . . "E", . . . darn, where's my Wigi Board when I need it. Oh, my God, Harper's going to appoint me to the Senate . . . No, no, that can't be Right (another pun) got that mixed up a bit, he's going to appoint Bourque to the Senate. Bummer! I wish I had decided to become a die hard Con supporter.
Lloyd MacIlquham cicblog.com
22 May, 2010
- Continued with PU Con
5/22/2010 11:44:20 AM
canadian from cole harbour
Wrote: 5/22/2010 11:24:27 AM
"http://cicblog-comments.blogspot.com/
Lloyd Macilquham
Well I guess it is now official. We have been invaded by a paid liberal blogger. "
'canadian from cole harbour', if I may call you that,
I can be quite categorically state that I do not get paid. Nor am I a Liberal insider.
In my Blogs I have set out my connections to the Liberal Party, including running as a candidate in the '04 Fed election, this is a holiday weekend and so I will refrain from compiling it here and now.
You are correct to suggest if the Liberal Party were smart they would retain my services.
And, you would be correct to assume that if they wanted to pay me for my advice I would give it to them, provided they paid my enough of course.
Alas and alack such is not the case.
What that says about the Liberal Party I'll let you decide.
The reason I make these posts is that I feel strongly that Harper and the Con's are systematically and deliberately tearing Canada asunder.
I am 'standing up to be counted', which is the important thing.
On 19 May '10 (under: "What is a 6 Letter Word, that Starts with 'H' and Ends with 'r' and Represent Tyrannical Rule")
"We must consider the impact of all the Harper actions on our Nation and the Legacy we leave to our children and our children's children to prevent Harper from tearing asunder what has been built thru the blood sweat and tears of our forefathers, maintain what those that came before us have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm."
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
canadian from cole harbour
Wrote: 5/22/2010 11:24:27 AM
"http://cicblog-comments.blogspot.com/
Lloyd Macilquham
Well I guess it is now official. We have been invaded by a paid liberal blogger. "
'canadian from cole harbour', if I may call you that,
I can be quite categorically state that I do not get paid. Nor am I a Liberal insider.
In my Blogs I have set out my connections to the Liberal Party, including running as a candidate in the '04 Fed election, this is a holiday weekend and so I will refrain from compiling it here and now.
You are correct to suggest if the Liberal Party were smart they would retain my services.
And, you would be correct to assume that if they wanted to pay me for my advice I would give it to them, provided they paid my enough of course.
Alas and alack such is not the case.
What that says about the Liberal Party I'll let you decide.
The reason I make these posts is that I feel strongly that Harper and the Con's are systematically and deliberately tearing Canada asunder.
I am 'standing up to be counted', which is the important thing.
On 19 May '10 (under: "What is a 6 Letter Word, that Starts with 'H' and Ends with 'r' and Represent Tyrannical Rule")
"We must consider the impact of all the Harper actions on our Nation and the Legacy we leave to our children and our children's children to prevent Harper from tearing asunder what has been built thru the blood sweat and tears of our forefathers, maintain what those that came before us have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm."
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper and the Con's . . . 'PU' (Party of Unaccountability)
Posted: 5/22/2010 10:34:41 AM The Globe and Mail
MP expense audit not my call, Harper says, Jane Taber, May 21, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/mp-expense-audit-not-my-call-harper-says/article1577228/?cid=art-rail-politics Tab 36
Stephen Harper replying that not “under the government’s jurisdiction,” is in a word, obscuration, obstruction and obfuscation. Oh, and did I mention, hypocrisy, hyperbola and unadulterated horse-[redacted].
How is it that just about everybody in Canada knows the solution but Mr. Super-Strategist Harper apparently hasn't got a clue.
As so many people have pointed out, if Harper had the political will he would simply 'whip' his Caucus into agreeing on so doing. Or, he could instruct the Con MP's on the Board of Internal Economy to support it. My understanding is that it would take only one other MP on the Board to pass it.
It is just another example of Stephen Harper refusing to giving a straight answer to a serious question, as we have seen so many times.
People answer questions in this way often when they have something to hide. Some people, of course, can't think on their feet and make stupid statements when put on the spot and asked a question off-the-cuff. And sometimes, they are just unsophisticated, uneducated and unable to properly express themselves. You decide.
My take is that perhaps there is some dirty little secrets that Harper would rather the Auditor General not shine a light upon.
If Harper were not afraid of what Fraser might uncover, he might have said something like:"
“I understand what Canadians are saying. They want accountability and transparency. We are going to find a way … we have to work out a way to move forward on this.” [Ignatieff, see Taber, G&M, 19 May '10]
It is becoming more and more apparent that there is something rotten in the State of Harperdom, that Harper and the Con's are the Party of Unaccountability . . . PU (Ugly, Noxious, Shocking, Smelly, or Odious - Freedictionary)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
5/22/2010 10:57:47 AM
. . . continued
“I generally don't comment on private member's legislation,” the Prime Minister said. “But I have been clear: I will oppose any attempt to create a new abortion law.”
This is just double-talk.
What does this mean.
Does this mean that Harper will 'whip' the Con Caucus into voting against this Bill or any other such.
Or, does this mean simply that Harper is undertaking to, personally, as a MP vote against it, but the Con Caucus may vote as they wish in a free vote.
And if Harper is so against any attempt to create new abortion law, why not simply take the opportunity to send out the message that the Con MP's are not to bring in such private members Bills. Yah, like he has ever done such messaging before.
How can you hold someone to his word when his word is so obfuscated, . . . how do you say it . . . un-clear, . . .ahhh, I've got it 'un-transparent'.
For someone that rules with such an iron fist, Harper is apparently being very shy about his power over his Party as this and his statement about an Audit if Parliamentary expenses.
Anyone out there get the impression we being Con'd
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
MP expense audit not my call, Harper says, Jane Taber, May 21, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/mp-expense-audit-not-my-call-harper-says/article1577228/?cid=art-rail-politics Tab 36
Stephen Harper replying that not “under the government’s jurisdiction,” is in a word, obscuration, obstruction and obfuscation. Oh, and did I mention, hypocrisy, hyperbola and unadulterated horse-[redacted].
How is it that just about everybody in Canada knows the solution but Mr. Super-Strategist Harper apparently hasn't got a clue.
As so many people have pointed out, if Harper had the political will he would simply 'whip' his Caucus into agreeing on so doing. Or, he could instruct the Con MP's on the Board of Internal Economy to support it. My understanding is that it would take only one other MP on the Board to pass it.
It is just another example of Stephen Harper refusing to giving a straight answer to a serious question, as we have seen so many times.
People answer questions in this way often when they have something to hide. Some people, of course, can't think on their feet and make stupid statements when put on the spot and asked a question off-the-cuff. And sometimes, they are just unsophisticated, uneducated and unable to properly express themselves. You decide.
My take is that perhaps there is some dirty little secrets that Harper would rather the Auditor General not shine a light upon.
If Harper were not afraid of what Fraser might uncover, he might have said something like:"
“I understand what Canadians are saying. They want accountability and transparency. We are going to find a way … we have to work out a way to move forward on this.” [Ignatieff, see Taber, G&M, 19 May '10]
It is becoming more and more apparent that there is something rotten in the State of Harperdom, that Harper and the Con's are the Party of Unaccountability . . . PU (Ugly, Noxious, Shocking, Smelly, or Odious - Freedictionary)
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
5/22/2010 10:57:47 AM
. . . continued
“I generally don't comment on private member's legislation,” the Prime Minister said. “But I have been clear: I will oppose any attempt to create a new abortion law.”
This is just double-talk.
What does this mean.
Does this mean that Harper will 'whip' the Con Caucus into voting against this Bill or any other such.
Or, does this mean simply that Harper is undertaking to, personally, as a MP vote against it, but the Con Caucus may vote as they wish in a free vote.
And if Harper is so against any attempt to create new abortion law, why not simply take the opportunity to send out the message that the Con MP's are not to bring in such private members Bills. Yah, like he has ever done such messaging before.
How can you hold someone to his word when his word is so obfuscated, . . . how do you say it . . . un-clear, . . .ahhh, I've got it 'un-transparent'.
For someone that rules with such an iron fist, Harper is apparently being very shy about his power over his Party as this and his statement about an Audit if Parliamentary expenses.
Anyone out there get the impression we being Con'd
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
21 May, 2010
- Praise the Lord, I Can See !
Posted 5/21/2010 8:32:32 AM , The Globe and Mail
David Braley acknowledges gifts to Harper campaign, Ian Bailey and Matthew Sekeres, 21 May '10,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/david-braley-acknowledges-gifts-to-harper-campaign/article1575852/ Tab 26
"In an interview, the owner of the Canadian Football League’s B.C. Lions and Toronto Argonauts confirmed donations of $30,000 each to Mr. Harper and Belinda Stronach, plus an unspecified donation to Tony Clement.
. . .
'Through his involvement in sport and philanthropy, [David Braley] has shown a commitment to both his community and his country,' said the Prime Minister."
Seems Harper has found a use for the Senate after all.
2004 Con Leadership - If I recall, wasn't that the one that Stephen Harper refused to reveal names and amounts of his campaign contributions?
Perhaps the media could shine a light I this corner for me.
"Mr. Braley rejected those numbers. “You better check your facts because they are not correct,” he said from his Florida residence. "
Cute, if Harper were a bit more transparent perhaps we would have all the facts correct. What else is he not revealing???
Lloyd MacILquham cicblogcom/comments.html
David Braley acknowledges gifts to Harper campaign, Ian Bailey and Matthew Sekeres, 21 May '10,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/david-braley-acknowledges-gifts-to-harper-campaign/article1575852/ Tab 26
"In an interview, the owner of the Canadian Football League’s B.C. Lions and Toronto Argonauts confirmed donations of $30,000 each to Mr. Harper and Belinda Stronach, plus an unspecified donation to Tony Clement.
. . .
'Through his involvement in sport and philanthropy, [David Braley] has shown a commitment to both his community and his country,' said the Prime Minister."
Seems Harper has found a use for the Senate after all.
2004 Con Leadership - If I recall, wasn't that the one that Stephen Harper refused to reveal names and amounts of his campaign contributions?
Perhaps the media could shine a light I this corner for me.
"Mr. Braley rejected those numbers. “You better check your facts because they are not correct,” he said from his Florida residence. "
Cute, if Harper were a bit more transparent perhaps we would have all the facts correct. What else is he not revealing???
Lloyd MacILquham cicblogcom/comments.html
20 May, 2010
- Harper and the Cons - Ignorance is bliss
Not Allowed to Post: The National Post
Matt Gurney: Michael Ignatieff thinks he's more Canadian than you are, May 18, 2010, http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/05/18/matt-gurney-untitled-ignatieff.aspx#comments
"‘They say it makes me less of a Canadian. It makes me more of a Canadian.’”
Wait, wait … stop the speech, sir. You are more Canadian than whom, pray tell? The crowd you were speaking to? The Prime Minister? Exactly how much of the Canadian population gets pushed to second-class citizenship in your new elitist concept of super-Canadiandom?"
Grammatically and contextually (I know, I know, parsing a statement with logic, how novel) he is referring to himself and what he might have been had he not have had those out-of-Canada experiences. And, as they say, 'absence makes the heart grow fonder'..
For those that never went outside Canada before ...ah ah aaaa Harp chooo ...er, sorry, sneezed, I can see how they may not be able to relate to such things.
Being outside Canada and experiencing first hand other cultures, ways-of-life, political systems makes Ignatieff that much more aware and appreciative of what Canad has and what our fore-fathers have built up over generations with their blood-sweat-and-tears. It also makes more acute exactly what it is that the Harper and Con's policies and actions are destroying.
Not having this enlightened and broadened eye-opening experience before attaining power Harper and the Con's are taking what Canada is for granted as if they, single handed and with the support of a small minority can change radically to the extreme right at the wave of a hand Canadian culture, society and what it means to Canadians - Ignorance is bliss.
The fact of the matter is, Harper has spent more of his public life dedicated to tearing Canada asunder than Ignatieff has spent outside Canada. That is a significant difference all Canadian ought to sit up and take note.
Being outside Canada has given Ignatieff a rich experience that can make for an enlightened leader.
I have an idea, how about listing Ignatieff's Resume and compare it to Harper's Resume and see who is more qualified to lead Canada to a better future.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Matt Gurney: Michael Ignatieff thinks he's more Canadian than you are, May 18, 2010, http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/05/18/matt-gurney-untitled-ignatieff.aspx#comments
"‘They say it makes me less of a Canadian. It makes me more of a Canadian.’”
Wait, wait … stop the speech, sir. You are more Canadian than whom, pray tell? The crowd you were speaking to? The Prime Minister? Exactly how much of the Canadian population gets pushed to second-class citizenship in your new elitist concept of super-Canadiandom?"
Grammatically and contextually (I know, I know, parsing a statement with logic, how novel) he is referring to himself and what he might have been had he not have had those out-of-Canada experiences. And, as they say, 'absence makes the heart grow fonder'..
For those that never went outside Canada before ...ah ah aaaa Harp chooo ...er, sorry, sneezed, I can see how they may not be able to relate to such things.
Being outside Canada and experiencing first hand other cultures, ways-of-life, political systems makes Ignatieff that much more aware and appreciative of what Canad has and what our fore-fathers have built up over generations with their blood-sweat-and-tears. It also makes more acute exactly what it is that the Harper and Con's policies and actions are destroying.
Not having this enlightened and broadened eye-opening experience before attaining power Harper and the Con's are taking what Canada is for granted as if they, single handed and with the support of a small minority can change radically to the extreme right at the wave of a hand Canadian culture, society and what it means to Canadians - Ignorance is bliss.
The fact of the matter is, Harper has spent more of his public life dedicated to tearing Canada asunder than Ignatieff has spent outside Canada. That is a significant difference all Canadian ought to sit up and take note.
Being outside Canada has given Ignatieff a rich experience that can make for an enlightened leader.
I have an idea, how about listing Ignatieff's Resume and compare it to Harper's Resume and see who is more qualified to lead Canada to a better future.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
19 May, 2010
- what is a 6 letter word, that starts with 'H' and ends with 'r' and represent tyrannical rule
. . . Continued
Older'n Dirt wrote,10:56:09 AM:
"Lloyd Macilquham cicblog said:" If there were an election Harper could win a majority, especially if the electorate perceived the Liberals as causing it. This would be a disaster to freedoms and Democracy in Canada. Our society would degenerate to a new dark ages."...............................
Is this an exercise in faulty reasoning? 1st you say that Harper could get his majority through a democratic election process. Then you go on to suggest that such would be a disaster to freedoms and Democracy in Canada. "
One need only remember that H[redacted]r was duly elected by democracy process to illustrate my point and highlight in sensational fashion the flaw in your reasoning. (Be it far from me to suggest a comparison between Harper and H[redacted]r. But riddle me this, what is a 6 letter word, that starts with 'H' and ends with 'r' and represent tyrannical rule.)
My post is clear that I am talking not about the process underlying of attaining power. Harper right now is in power as a result of Canadians exercising their democracy rights. And we need only see the assault on our freedoms and Democratic Institutions he is inflicting with a minority to imagine the disaster to disaster to freedoms and Democracy in Canada if he had a majority. The abortion issue is merely one example.
Like the spin strategy of so many Con's you seem to be deliberately missing the point and throwing up a straw issue to attack in an attempt to obfuscate and obscure the real issue.
I am quite willing to let the the general public read my post and yours and make their own minds up as to what I am saying, its logic and the reality of it.
And I am quite willing to stand up and be counted.
You, apparently, don't even have to conviction of your opinion to give your name, Mr./Ms.'Older'n Dirt'.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Older'n Dirt wrote,10:56:09 AM:
"Lloyd Macilquham cicblog said:" If there were an election Harper could win a majority, especially if the electorate perceived the Liberals as causing it. This would be a disaster to freedoms and Democracy in Canada. Our society would degenerate to a new dark ages."...............................
Is this an exercise in faulty reasoning? 1st you say that Harper could get his majority through a democratic election process. Then you go on to suggest that such would be a disaster to freedoms and Democracy in Canada. "
One need only remember that H[redacted]r was duly elected by democracy process to illustrate my point and highlight in sensational fashion the flaw in your reasoning. (Be it far from me to suggest a comparison between Harper and H[redacted]r. But riddle me this, what is a 6 letter word, that starts with 'H' and ends with 'r' and represent tyrannical rule.)
My post is clear that I am talking not about the process underlying of attaining power. Harper right now is in power as a result of Canadians exercising their democracy rights. And we need only see the assault on our freedoms and Democratic Institutions he is inflicting with a minority to imagine the disaster to disaster to freedoms and Democracy in Canada if he had a majority. The abortion issue is merely one example.
Like the spin strategy of so many Con's you seem to be deliberately missing the point and throwing up a straw issue to attack in an attempt to obfuscate and obscure the real issue.
I am quite willing to let the the general public read my post and yours and make their own minds up as to what I am saying, its logic and the reality of it.
And I am quite willing to stand up and be counted.
You, apparently, don't even have to conviction of your opinion to give your name, Mr./Ms.'Older'n Dirt'.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- continued
It was suggested that Parliamentary tradition prescribes against such Bills (such wide ranging, non-financial and non-related provisions).
The problem is that Harper simply runs roughshod over our traditions and hides behind strict, sharp, and often creative, interpretation of legislation.
Legislation makes up only a part of Canada's Democratic System.
Parliamentary tradition is important since it has been built up over centuries and put in place through bitter struggle to ensure comity of opposing political forces, root the present in the past and ensure the continuity of our social order.
Our Parliamentary Tradition is not 'law', if by 'law' you mean 'legislation'.
It is our foundation for the rule of law. There is nothing after that. Throw this away and we are left with only the dark precipice.
Parliamentary tradition is important since it has been built up over centuries and put in place through bitter struggle to ensure comity of opposing political forces, root the present in the past and ensure the continuity of our social order.
Tradition is the crucible that contains sacred flame of which we are temporary custodians, entrusted to protect, to contribute, to pass on to our children and them their children. Let us not go down in history as the ones that caused this flame to be diminished.
We must consider the impact of all the Harper actions on our Nation and the Legacy we leave to our children and our children's children to prevent Harper from tearing asunder what has been built thru the blood sweat and tears of our forefathers, maintain what those that came before us have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
The problem is that Harper simply runs roughshod over our traditions and hides behind strict, sharp, and often creative, interpretation of legislation.
Legislation makes up only a part of Canada's Democratic System.
Parliamentary tradition is important since it has been built up over centuries and put in place through bitter struggle to ensure comity of opposing political forces, root the present in the past and ensure the continuity of our social order.
Our Parliamentary Tradition is not 'law', if by 'law' you mean 'legislation'.
It is our foundation for the rule of law. There is nothing after that. Throw this away and we are left with only the dark precipice.
Parliamentary tradition is important since it has been built up over centuries and put in place through bitter struggle to ensure comity of opposing political forces, root the present in the past and ensure the continuity of our social order.
Tradition is the crucible that contains sacred flame of which we are temporary custodians, entrusted to protect, to contribute, to pass on to our children and them their children. Let us not go down in history as the ones that caused this flame to be diminished.
We must consider the impact of all the Harper actions on our Nation and the Legacy we leave to our children and our children's children to prevent Harper from tearing asunder what has been built thru the blood sweat and tears of our forefathers, maintain what those that came before us have achieved in the past, and perhaps improve on it, if possible, and leave our children with the appreciation of us having lived here and not a bitter resentment that we were ever given a turn at the helm.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper, The devil you say? - now you're starting to understand
Posted: 7:25am, PDT, The Globe and Mail
Senators join campaign to break up Conservative budget bill, Bill Curry, May 18, 2010,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/senators-join-campaign-to-break-up-conservative-budget-bill/article1573655/ Tab 17
Stephen Harper and the Con's introducing the Budget Bill with such wide ranging, non-financial and non-related provisions is an abuse of Canada's Democratic system - but then what else is new.
Only 33% of Canadians support Harper and the Con's yet we, all Canadians, are being subjected to their tyrannical rule and we only have ourselves to blame. You can't blame Ignatieff or the Liberals. If Canadians gave a clear and unequivocal message that they would not longer put up with Harper and the Con's abuse and were willing to suffer another election to rectify the problem, I strongly suspect that the Liberals would do their part. Keep in mind that the Liberals simply forcing an election as things stand right now could result in a Con majority.
Ignatieff and the Liberals are very clear about the position they're in. Canadians are making it clear they do not want an election. If there were an election there is a possibility that Harper could win a majority, especially if the electorate perceived the Liberals as causing it. Harper having a majority would be a disaster to freedoms and Democracy in Canada. Our society would degenerate to a new dark ages. For example, how long to you think it would take to pass and bring into force an absolute ban on abortion and abolition of gay marriages, excessive sentencing for those convicted of criminal offences to the point of even bringing in the death penalty again. After all G.W. Bush and the right wing extremists in the US are strongly in favour of it and if its good enough for Georgie its good enough for Stevie. (The devil you say? - now you're starting to understand) . There are many many examples of course.
One big difference between Harper and past governments in Canada is that they had the best interests of all Canadians and Canada as a whole At heart. In a word Harper doesn't. Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of Harper - I couldn't resist.
Currently, the House of Commons is Rubber Stamping and the Senate the Sober First Thought, real and effective review. The irony is that Harper is forcing the Senate to exercise its inherent power, throw off its façade of non-relevance and perform the function that John A. MacDonald and our Fathers of Confederation envisioned.
A sure fired way of determining when the Con's themselves feel guilty about their abuse is when they say the Liberals did the same thing. Come on Jim, lets take a rational approach.
Perhaps the Finance Minister, rather than simply noting that the last Liberal government budget bill in 2005 was similar in its scope could go through the budget bill and explain to all Canadians why each provision should be in it.
It was suggested that Parliamentary tradition prescribes against such Bills. The problem is that Harper simply run roughshod over our traditions. Parliamentary tradition is important since it has been built up over centuries and put in place to ensure comity of opposing political forces, root the present in the past and ensure the continuation of our social order. It is not law, it is the foundation for the rule of law. Throw this away and we fall into the dark precipice.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Senators join campaign to break up Conservative budget bill, Bill Curry, May 18, 2010,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/senators-join-campaign-to-break-up-conservative-budget-bill/article1573655/ Tab 17
Stephen Harper and the Con's introducing the Budget Bill with such wide ranging, non-financial and non-related provisions is an abuse of Canada's Democratic system - but then what else is new.
Only 33% of Canadians support Harper and the Con's yet we, all Canadians, are being subjected to their tyrannical rule and we only have ourselves to blame. You can't blame Ignatieff or the Liberals. If Canadians gave a clear and unequivocal message that they would not longer put up with Harper and the Con's abuse and were willing to suffer another election to rectify the problem, I strongly suspect that the Liberals would do their part. Keep in mind that the Liberals simply forcing an election as things stand right now could result in a Con majority.
Ignatieff and the Liberals are very clear about the position they're in. Canadians are making it clear they do not want an election. If there were an election there is a possibility that Harper could win a majority, especially if the electorate perceived the Liberals as causing it. Harper having a majority would be a disaster to freedoms and Democracy in Canada. Our society would degenerate to a new dark ages. For example, how long to you think it would take to pass and bring into force an absolute ban on abortion and abolition of gay marriages, excessive sentencing for those convicted of criminal offences to the point of even bringing in the death penalty again. After all G.W. Bush and the right wing extremists in the US are strongly in favour of it and if its good enough for Georgie its good enough for Stevie. (The devil you say? - now you're starting to understand) . There are many many examples of course.
One big difference between Harper and past governments in Canada is that they had the best interests of all Canadians and Canada as a whole At heart. In a word Harper doesn't. Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of Harper - I couldn't resist.
Currently, the House of Commons is Rubber Stamping and the Senate the Sober First Thought, real and effective review. The irony is that Harper is forcing the Senate to exercise its inherent power, throw off its façade of non-relevance and perform the function that John A. MacDonald and our Fathers of Confederation envisioned.
A sure fired way of determining when the Con's themselves feel guilty about their abuse is when they say the Liberals did the same thing. Come on Jim, lets take a rational approach.
Perhaps the Finance Minister, rather than simply noting that the last Liberal government budget bill in 2005 was similar in its scope could go through the budget bill and explain to all Canadians why each provision should be in it.
It was suggested that Parliamentary tradition prescribes against such Bills. The problem is that Harper simply run roughshod over our traditions. Parliamentary tradition is important since it has been built up over centuries and put in place to ensure comity of opposing political forces, root the present in the past and ensure the continuation of our social order. It is not law, it is the foundation for the rule of law. Throw this away and we fall into the dark precipice.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
18 May, 2010
It is time for Michael the Archangel to drive Satin from Heaven - Rock On Iggy!
No Postings allowed - The Toronto Star
Michael Ignatieff accuses Conservatives of “divide in order to rule” politics, Linda Diebel, 18 May, 2010, The Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/810818--michael-ignatieff-accuses-conservatives-of-divide-in-order-to-rule-politics
Finally, Iggy has decided to go after Harper and the Con's weakness -vis.: Harper and the Con's
Iggy is absolutely right (morally that is) and all you need do is read my Blog posting for the last 2 and a half years to get more details.
He is still feeling his way around the counter to the Harper and the Con 'Just Visiting' attack.
However, he is in the right (morally) direction and will eventually hit on it.
Or, Iggy and his inner circle could read my Blog - I normally don't like to blow my own horn, but this is special.
The fact is that Harper has spent more of his public life with the purpose of tearing Canada asunder than Iggy has spent outside Canada. I will let Iggy's people do the research for themselves (it's good for the soul) that confirms this.
Harper and the Con' are 'Gravely' mistaken on 'cultural war' and it was incorrectly labeled by Graves.
It is much more fundamental and archival: good v. evil, right (morally) v. wrong, rationally based v. ideologically based policies, reason v. emotion, the good of Canada as a whole v. the good of a small group, secularism v. self-righteous based government by a few, tolerance v. intolerance, Democracy v. tyrannical rule by an Executive, modern human rights based society v. medi-evil dark-ages, freedom v. tyranny, openness v. secrecy, moderation v. extremism, etc., etc., etc.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Michael Ignatieff accuses Conservatives of “divide in order to rule” politics, Linda Diebel, 18 May, 2010, The Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/810818--michael-ignatieff-accuses-conservatives-of-divide-in-order-to-rule-politics
Finally, Iggy has decided to go after Harper and the Con's weakness -vis.: Harper and the Con's
Iggy is absolutely right (morally that is) and all you need do is read my Blog posting for the last 2 and a half years to get more details.
He is still feeling his way around the counter to the Harper and the Con 'Just Visiting' attack.
However, he is in the right (morally) direction and will eventually hit on it.
Or, Iggy and his inner circle could read my Blog - I normally don't like to blow my own horn, but this is special.
The fact is that Harper has spent more of his public life with the purpose of tearing Canada asunder than Iggy has spent outside Canada. I will let Iggy's people do the research for themselves (it's good for the soul) that confirms this.
Harper and the Con' are 'Gravely' mistaken on 'cultural war' and it was incorrectly labeled by Graves.
It is much more fundamental and archival: good v. evil, right (morally) v. wrong, rationally based v. ideologically based policies, reason v. emotion, the good of Canada as a whole v. the good of a small group, secularism v. self-righteous based government by a few, tolerance v. intolerance, Democracy v. tyrannical rule by an Executive, modern human rights based society v. medi-evil dark-ages, freedom v. tyranny, openness v. secrecy, moderation v. extremism, etc., etc., etc.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
17 May, 2010
- Harper It's Coming Out Time
Submitted: 7:30am, PDT, 17 May '10 The Toronto Star
DiManno: Dropping the A-word, Rosie DiManno, 2010/05/17
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/810313--dimanno-dropping-the-a-word#comments
Rosie Demanno makes a very interesting distinction that allows for a non-arbitrary manor of drawing the line.
There is no doubt considerable evidence regarding at what point a fetus could be 'delivered', as opposed to aborted, and survive even if it required all the most up-to-date methodology and equipment to so do.
It is not likely that a particular time in the pregnancy can be set that would apply to all situations. However, it may be the there are biological indicators that can be discerned in a practicable fashion that allow the woman and her doctors to determine that it could survive, with more than a mere doubt going in favour of 'delivery'.
She may makes another interesting inference that perhaps for most people who are 'pro-choice', not just women, "a queasy moral anxiety sets in over late-pregnancy abortion. One needn’t look to religion or science for leadership here. Most of us, I dare say, instinctively differentiate between a three-month fetus and a seven month fetus that can, if delivered at that stage, survive outside the womb".
My feeling is that abortion is a matter of personal conscience (and medical health, although I feel this is part of 'personal conscience') . And, I have a big problem with criminalization because of this.
So I am not sure and would have to think about it further, but she certainly raising some issues that might be useful to consider and investigate further.
Hébert: So much for Stephen Harper’s aim of keeping abortion off national agenda, The Toronto Star, 2010/05/16
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/810319--hebert-so-much-for-stephen-harper-s-aim-of-keeping-abortion-off-national-agenda
Stephen Harper's and the Con's position represents the extreme extreme-right 'Theo-Con's'. Since coming to power, Harper, Peter Van Loans, Stockwell Day, etc al, have suppressed their extreme right wing ideology to give the appearance of gravitating towards the middle of the road. The reason I , of course, Harper and his Con's would be given the boot and he knows it. This has caused serious strains with the religious right that make up such a large faction of the Con core of die-hard supporters. These stresses can be seen in Alberta, the epi-centre of Con'ism and other regions as well (e.g. Quebec). Harper has to give some symbol that he is still really a Theo-Con but does not want to loose power doing it. Hence, he releases policies like that regarding family planning Internationally and withdrawing funding from NGO's that include policies regarding abortion as well as such social events as the Gay Rights Day Parade in Toronto. The 'tough-on-crime' is another.
The irony is that Harper is being very dishonest and hypocritical in order to keep the religious right on side. One might wonder why there is not more demanding more honesty in Harper's policies.
Some suggest that they don't want their tax dollars going to support abortion even if it is in another country. However, they miss the point of providing aid to other countries. It is not to compel, bribe, buy, coerce them to adopt our ideologies, but to help them. If the country in point allows abortion, that is their choice.
As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated this last week in Ottawa to Harper and the Con's, "Where abortion is legal, it should be safe."
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
DiManno: Dropping the A-word, Rosie DiManno, 2010/05/17
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/810313--dimanno-dropping-the-a-word#comments
Rosie Demanno makes a very interesting distinction that allows for a non-arbitrary manor of drawing the line.
There is no doubt considerable evidence regarding at what point a fetus could be 'delivered', as opposed to aborted, and survive even if it required all the most up-to-date methodology and equipment to so do.
It is not likely that a particular time in the pregnancy can be set that would apply to all situations. However, it may be the there are biological indicators that can be discerned in a practicable fashion that allow the woman and her doctors to determine that it could survive, with more than a mere doubt going in favour of 'delivery'.
She may makes another interesting inference that perhaps for most people who are 'pro-choice', not just women, "a queasy moral anxiety sets in over late-pregnancy abortion. One needn’t look to religion or science for leadership here. Most of us, I dare say, instinctively differentiate between a three-month fetus and a seven month fetus that can, if delivered at that stage, survive outside the womb".
My feeling is that abortion is a matter of personal conscience (and medical health, although I feel this is part of 'personal conscience') . And, I have a big problem with criminalization because of this.
So I am not sure and would have to think about it further, but she certainly raising some issues that might be useful to consider and investigate further.
Hébert: So much for Stephen Harper’s aim of keeping abortion off national agenda, The Toronto Star, 2010/05/16
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/810319--hebert-so-much-for-stephen-harper-s-aim-of-keeping-abortion-off-national-agenda
Stephen Harper's and the Con's position represents the extreme extreme-right 'Theo-Con's'. Since coming to power, Harper, Peter Van Loans, Stockwell Day, etc al, have suppressed their extreme right wing ideology to give the appearance of gravitating towards the middle of the road. The reason I , of course, Harper and his Con's would be given the boot and he knows it. This has caused serious strains with the religious right that make up such a large faction of the Con core of die-hard supporters. These stresses can be seen in Alberta, the epi-centre of Con'ism and other regions as well (e.g. Quebec). Harper has to give some symbol that he is still really a Theo-Con but does not want to loose power doing it. Hence, he releases policies like that regarding family planning Internationally and withdrawing funding from NGO's that include policies regarding abortion as well as such social events as the Gay Rights Day Parade in Toronto. The 'tough-on-crime' is another.
The irony is that Harper is being very dishonest and hypocritical in order to keep the religious right on side. One might wonder why there is not more demanding more honesty in Harper's policies.
Some suggest that they don't want their tax dollars going to support abortion even if it is in another country. However, they miss the point of providing aid to other countries. It is not to compel, bribe, buy, coerce them to adopt our ideologies, but to help them. If the country in point allows abortion, that is their choice.
As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated this last week in Ottawa to Harper and the Con's, "Where abortion is legal, it should be safe."
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
16 May, 2010
- separate Harper and the State
Posted: 3:33pm, 16 May '10
Stephen Harper and religion, Susan Delacourt on Politics
http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2010/05/stephen-harper-and-religion.html
It is coming to light that Harper is basing his policies on his personal religious beliefs, thus blurring the separation of Church and State, transforming Canada into a non-secular, religious state despite that at least 2/3rds of all Canadians are being marginalized. The separation of state and Church is vital to our way of life. We are not Iran. Canada's political system is not a facade of Democratic process with the Executive being made up of religious extremists who wield the real power and make policy.
Government policy based on religious beliefs caters to a minority and marginalizes a majority in a diverse society, by the very meaning of 'diverse society' it must. It results in policies that are emotionally based, divest of rationality with no consideration for what it best for all Canadians, except what a small minority of the self-righteous thinks is best for everyone else. It also inflicts beliefs that are extreme, harsh and even cruel, intolerant and not representative of a vast number of Canadians. In actuality it can represent an infringement of religious freedom that is not justifiable in a free and democratic society.
The Harper tough on Crime is a prime example. As it turns out they have nothing to support their position to say that it is in the best interest of all Canadians. In fact, all the evidence points to the exact opposite. This is illustrated by the Report just released (Sep.'09) by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al.
The response by the Con’s, “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” then Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (to CBC). You got that Right Van Loan.
Then of course there is the 'Theo-Con' position of Canada on International family planning and the withdrawal of financial support for those NGOP's that include abortion in their family planning programs. Who Internationally will understand that Canada is not a religious state comparable to Iran. That Canada's policies ought to be based on rational considerations based on the facts and for the good of all, not emotionalism and the religious beliefs of a few. Likely very few, I have a lot of trouble understanding this, so how can we expect the rest of the world to understand it.
As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated this last week in Ottawa to Harper and the Con's, "Where abortion is legal, it should be safe." Now that's something that people can understand.
We can't forget the withdrawing of funding for the Gay Rights Parade in Toronto either.
It took hundreds of years to separate the Church from government and we must vigilant not to allow it to insinuate itself again. I haven't had a chance to read Marci McDonald's book (how much does it cost, anyway) nor her article at walrusmagazine.com,
The rising clout of Canada’s religious right, Marci McDonald, Oct.'06
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2006.10-politics-religion-stephen-harper-and-the-theocons/
but I salute any who stand up to defend our freedoms and cherished way of life.
The Canada our forefathers built with their blood, sweat and tears is a tolerant, moderate, multi-faceted nation (of course, that's what separation of State and Church is all about). We should all demand the Canada of our forefathers back.
During the Second World War Many many tens of thousands of Canadians died and endured severe hardship for many years of their lives fighting tyranny and for a free society where everyone could express their feeling and opinions and seek a full and satisfying life. These men and women were the ones that brought in and established The Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a pinnacle of their efforts and provide the means for future generations to ensure these freedoms and defend ourselves against tyranny.
I want my Canada back - separate Stephen Harper and the State.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Stephen Harper and religion, Susan Delacourt on Politics
http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2010/05/stephen-harper-and-religion.html
It is coming to light that Harper is basing his policies on his personal religious beliefs, thus blurring the separation of Church and State, transforming Canada into a non-secular, religious state despite that at least 2/3rds of all Canadians are being marginalized. The separation of state and Church is vital to our way of life. We are not Iran. Canada's political system is not a facade of Democratic process with the Executive being made up of religious extremists who wield the real power and make policy.
Government policy based on religious beliefs caters to a minority and marginalizes a majority in a diverse society, by the very meaning of 'diverse society' it must. It results in policies that are emotionally based, divest of rationality with no consideration for what it best for all Canadians, except what a small minority of the self-righteous thinks is best for everyone else. It also inflicts beliefs that are extreme, harsh and even cruel, intolerant and not representative of a vast number of Canadians. In actuality it can represent an infringement of religious freedom that is not justifiable in a free and democratic society.
The Harper tough on Crime is a prime example. As it turns out they have nothing to support their position to say that it is in the best interest of all Canadians. In fact, all the evidence points to the exact opposite. This is illustrated by the Report just released (Sep.'09) by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al.
The response by the Con’s, “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” then Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (to CBC). You got that Right Van Loan.
Then of course there is the 'Theo-Con' position of Canada on International family planning and the withdrawal of financial support for those NGOP's that include abortion in their family planning programs. Who Internationally will understand that Canada is not a religious state comparable to Iran. That Canada's policies ought to be based on rational considerations based on the facts and for the good of all, not emotionalism and the religious beliefs of a few. Likely very few, I have a lot of trouble understanding this, so how can we expect the rest of the world to understand it.
As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated this last week in Ottawa to Harper and the Con's, "Where abortion is legal, it should be safe." Now that's something that people can understand.
We can't forget the withdrawing of funding for the Gay Rights Parade in Toronto either.
It took hundreds of years to separate the Church from government and we must vigilant not to allow it to insinuate itself again. I haven't had a chance to read Marci McDonald's book (how much does it cost, anyway) nor her article at walrusmagazine.com,
The rising clout of Canada’s religious right, Marci McDonald, Oct.'06
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2006.10-politics-religion-stephen-harper-and-the-theocons/
but I salute any who stand up to defend our freedoms and cherished way of life.
The Canada our forefathers built with their blood, sweat and tears is a tolerant, moderate, multi-faceted nation (of course, that's what separation of State and Church is all about). We should all demand the Canada of our forefathers back.
During the Second World War Many many tens of thousands of Canadians died and endured severe hardship for many years of their lives fighting tyranny and for a free society where everyone could express their feeling and opinions and seek a full and satisfying life. These men and women were the ones that brought in and established The Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a pinnacle of their efforts and provide the means for future generations to ensure these freedoms and defend ourselves against tyranny.
I want my Canada back - separate Stephen Harper and the State.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- and whether Con's have wings.
Submitted: 10:29am, PDT, 16 May '10
Persichilli: Michael Ignatieff’s 25 per cent problem, May 16 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/809825--persichilli-michael-ignatieff-s-25-per-cent-problem#article
“The time has come,” the Walrus said,“To talk of many things: Of shoes—and ships — and sealing wax — Of cabbages — and kings — And why the sea is boiling hot — And whether pigs have wings.” (Alice-In-Wonderland, Lewis Carroll)
Perhaps a new Party.
The 'Liberal Democrats' is a catchy name. It works in England.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Persichilli: Michael Ignatieff’s 25 per cent problem, May 16 2010
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/809825--persichilli-michael-ignatieff-s-25-per-cent-problem#article
“The time has come,” the Walrus said,“To talk of many things: Of shoes—and ships — and sealing wax — Of cabbages — and kings — And why the sea is boiling hot — And whether pigs have wings.” (Alice-In-Wonderland, Lewis Carroll)
Perhaps a new Party.
The 'Liberal Democrats' is a catchy name. It works in England.
Lloyd MacIlquham
15 May, 2010
- Just Keep in Mind that We are the Ones that Keep Stephen Harper and his Bunch of Redacts in Power
Submitted: 9:45am, PDT, 15 May '10, The Toronto Star
Abortion vote 'inevitable,' MP says, The long, slow march to re-open the abortion issue in Parliament, Linda Diebel, 15 May '10, The Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/809829--abortion-vote-inevitable-mp-says?bn=1#article
All those that find this disturbing and a manifestation of a 'Theo-Con' blurring the separation of State and Church, just keep in mind that we put Stephen Harper and his Theo-Cons in power; and, what are the chances of this issue coming to a vote, or if it did (say by private member's Bill) the chances of it passing, with a Liberal government.
To all those that keep Harper in power - Thanks, but no thanks, I want my Canada back.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Abortion vote 'inevitable,' MP says, The long, slow march to re-open the abortion issue in Parliament, Linda Diebel, 15 May '10, The Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/809829--abortion-vote-inevitable-mp-says?bn=1#article
All those that find this disturbing and a manifestation of a 'Theo-Con' blurring the separation of State and Church, just keep in mind that we put Stephen Harper and his Theo-Cons in power; and, what are the chances of this issue coming to a vote, or if it did (say by private member's Bill) the chances of it passing, with a Liberal government.
To all those that keep Harper in power - Thanks, but no thanks, I want my Canada back.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper and the Con's - What a Bunch Of Redacts
Comments on: CTV News
Harper rejects plea to put climate change on G20 agenda, May 12, 2010. (Adrian Wyld / The Canadian Press)
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100512/UN-chief-environment-G20-100512/20100512?hub=QPeriod
Harper and the Con's "will not make climate change a priority agenda item when it hosts the G20 summit next month."
Does this mean that Harper is acknowledging that his position on Global Warming is a serious embarrassment for Canad on the International scene and so has decided to spare us the humiliation when World attention is focused on Canada during the G20. Thanks, Steve, I'm sure all Canadians are very grateful.
On the other hand, that does not mean that the other 19 countries can't take the opportunity to emphasis their disapproval of Harper position on Global Warming.
But, will the World understand that 'Canada's position on Global Warming' is the view of a minority of right wing extremists with their political base in the Tar sands of Alberta and not that of Canadians as a whole.
Not likely, I have a lot of trouble understanding this, so how can we expect the rest of the world to understand it.
Then of course there is the 'Theo-Con' position of Canada on International family planning. Who Internationally will understand that Canada is not a religious state comparable to Iran. That Canada's policies ought to be based on rational considerations based on the facts and for the good of all, not emotionalism and the religious beliefs of a few.
Again, not likely, I have a lot of trouble understanding this, so how can we expect the rest of the world to understand it.
"Where abortion is legal, it should be safe." Now that's something that people can understand.
"Soudas said the government is focused on a post-2012 climate framework once Kyoto expires. He said the previous Liberal government 'never had a plan to implement it.'
If I recall the Liberals did have a plan to implement Kyoto, however it was based on co-operation, especially from Alberta and tar sands participants, of which there was none forthcoming. In fact it was, and still is, quite the opposite.
On the other hand, there was not the will amongst Canadians to make its enforcement a priority. One need only recall the national Energy Policy by Pierre Trudeau in the late '70's and the reaction by Albertans - this is still a call-to-arms regarding Global Warming issues.
The political fallout of enforcing Kyoto was great, the political will by Canadians small.
Everyone that believes in Federalism and a united Canada should be very grateful the Liberals did not take steps to enforce Kyoto. Harper has spent most of his political career dedicated to tearing Canada asunder and there is no more diverse issue, except perhaps transfer payments and Health-Care - we shall see. Certainly he was just hoping the Liberals would try to enforce it. If the Liberals were extremist like the Cons and had an in-your face, my-way-or-the-highway leader like Harper, Canada would exist right now only only history, or worse.
Quite simply, 'very likely' generally Canadians were not aware of the significance of Global Warming and the importance of taking action now. It was not until the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conference in '07 and its Global media coverage that focused our attention. Prior to that it was some vague unproven environmentalist, do-gooders pet-peeve, that might occur long in the future, would cost large amounts of money and disruption of industry to address, and besides Canada only contributes less then 2%. So, let someone else deal with it.
(see for example: Global Warming "Very Likely" Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say, John Roach for National Geographic News, February 2, 2007
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070202-global-warming.html)
Something that would help to reveal Harper and the Con's for what they are, is Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin speaking out and explaining exactly what his approach was and why, for the sake of Canada, our future and the futures of our children and our children's children.
Stephen Harper and the Cons, with their die-hard core of supporters that are based in Alberta and rooted in the Oil Industry, and the source of their impressive funding, played on these feelings, and still do.
Stephen Harper and the Cons fought any action to implement Kyoto tooth and nail and incited, and still incite, people in Alberta to do the same. Their obstructionist approach increased the political fallout and lead to the Liberals taking the middle road. Now they are saying the Liberals didn't do anything. What a bunch of redacts and they are running this country. God help us.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Harper rejects plea to put climate change on G20 agenda, May 12, 2010. (Adrian Wyld / The Canadian Press)
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100512/UN-chief-environment-G20-100512/20100512?hub=QPeriod
Harper and the Con's "will not make climate change a priority agenda item when it hosts the G20 summit next month."
Does this mean that Harper is acknowledging that his position on Global Warming is a serious embarrassment for Canad on the International scene and so has decided to spare us the humiliation when World attention is focused on Canada during the G20. Thanks, Steve, I'm sure all Canadians are very grateful.
On the other hand, that does not mean that the other 19 countries can't take the opportunity to emphasis their disapproval of Harper position on Global Warming.
But, will the World understand that 'Canada's position on Global Warming' is the view of a minority of right wing extremists with their political base in the Tar sands of Alberta and not that of Canadians as a whole.
Not likely, I have a lot of trouble understanding this, so how can we expect the rest of the world to understand it.
Then of course there is the 'Theo-Con' position of Canada on International family planning. Who Internationally will understand that Canada is not a religious state comparable to Iran. That Canada's policies ought to be based on rational considerations based on the facts and for the good of all, not emotionalism and the religious beliefs of a few.
Again, not likely, I have a lot of trouble understanding this, so how can we expect the rest of the world to understand it.
"Where abortion is legal, it should be safe." Now that's something that people can understand.
"Soudas said the government is focused on a post-2012 climate framework once Kyoto expires. He said the previous Liberal government 'never had a plan to implement it.'
If I recall the Liberals did have a plan to implement Kyoto, however it was based on co-operation, especially from Alberta and tar sands participants, of which there was none forthcoming. In fact it was, and still is, quite the opposite.
On the other hand, there was not the will amongst Canadians to make its enforcement a priority. One need only recall the national Energy Policy by Pierre Trudeau in the late '70's and the reaction by Albertans - this is still a call-to-arms regarding Global Warming issues.
The political fallout of enforcing Kyoto was great, the political will by Canadians small.
Everyone that believes in Federalism and a united Canada should be very grateful the Liberals did not take steps to enforce Kyoto. Harper has spent most of his political career dedicated to tearing Canada asunder and there is no more diverse issue, except perhaps transfer payments and Health-Care - we shall see. Certainly he was just hoping the Liberals would try to enforce it. If the Liberals were extremist like the Cons and had an in-your face, my-way-or-the-highway leader like Harper, Canada would exist right now only only history, or worse.
Quite simply, 'very likely' generally Canadians were not aware of the significance of Global Warming and the importance of taking action now. It was not until the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conference in '07 and its Global media coverage that focused our attention. Prior to that it was some vague unproven environmentalist, do-gooders pet-peeve, that might occur long in the future, would cost large amounts of money and disruption of industry to address, and besides Canada only contributes less then 2%. So, let someone else deal with it.
(see for example: Global Warming "Very Likely" Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say, John Roach for National Geographic News, February 2, 2007
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070202-global-warming.html)
Something that would help to reveal Harper and the Con's for what they are, is Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin speaking out and explaining exactly what his approach was and why, for the sake of Canada, our future and the futures of our children and our children's children.
Stephen Harper and the Cons, with their die-hard core of supporters that are based in Alberta and rooted in the Oil Industry, and the source of their impressive funding, played on these feelings, and still do.
Stephen Harper and the Cons fought any action to implement Kyoto tooth and nail and incited, and still incite, people in Alberta to do the same. Their obstructionist approach increased the political fallout and lead to the Liberals taking the middle road. Now they are saying the Liberals didn't do anything. What a bunch of redacts and they are running this country. God help us.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
14 May, 2010
- Separation of the State and Harper
Submitted: 6:50am, PDT, 14 May, '10 Ottawa Citizen
By Susan Riley, The Ottawa Citizen May 14, 2010
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Organized+religion/3025561/story.html
The separation of state and Church is vital to our way of life. We are not Iran. Canada's political system is not a facade of Democratic process with the Executive being made up of religious extremists who wield the real power and make policy.
Government policy based on religious beliefs caters to a minority and marginalizes a majority in a diverse society, by the very meaning of 'diverse society' it must. It results in policies that are emotionally based, divest of rationality with no consideration for what it best for all Canadians, except what a small minority of the self-righteous thinks is best for everyone else. It also inflicts beliefs that are extreme, harsh and even cruel, intolerant and not representative of many people. In actuality can represent an infringement of religious freedom that is not justifiable in a free and democratic society.
The Harper tough on Crime is a prime example. As it turns out they have nothing to support their position to say that it is in the best interest of all Canadians. In fact, all the evidence points to the exact opposite. This is illustrated by the Report just released (Sep.'09) by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al.
The response by the Con’s, “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” then Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (to CBC). You got that Right Van Loan.
One need only look at the sins committed in the name of the Church in the last 2000 years, the Inquisition, witch hunts, persecution and other 'religious cleanings' to understand the importance of the principle of separation of Church and State. This sounds extreme and there may be people who say, never in Canada. However, it is insidious. The Self-Righteous have a well developed ability to 'justify' any actions and behavior. One need only look at terrorism and other present day examples.
It took hundreds of years to separate the Church from government and we must vigilant not to allow it to insinuate itself again. I haven't had a chance to read Marci McDonald's book (how much does it cost, anyway) nor her article at walrusmagazine.com,
The rising clout of Canada’s religious right, Marci McDonald, Oct.'06
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2006.10-politics-religion-stephen-harper-and-the-theocons/
but I salute any who stand up to defend our freedoms and cherished way of life.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
By Susan Riley, The Ottawa Citizen May 14, 2010
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Organized+religion/3025561/story.html
The separation of state and Church is vital to our way of life. We are not Iran. Canada's political system is not a facade of Democratic process with the Executive being made up of religious extremists who wield the real power and make policy.
Government policy based on religious beliefs caters to a minority and marginalizes a majority in a diverse society, by the very meaning of 'diverse society' it must. It results in policies that are emotionally based, divest of rationality with no consideration for what it best for all Canadians, except what a small minority of the self-righteous thinks is best for everyone else. It also inflicts beliefs that are extreme, harsh and even cruel, intolerant and not representative of many people. In actuality can represent an infringement of religious freedom that is not justifiable in a free and democratic society.
The Harper tough on Crime is a prime example. As it turns out they have nothing to support their position to say that it is in the best interest of all Canadians. In fact, all the evidence points to the exact opposite. This is illustrated by the Report just released (Sep.'09) by Graham Stewart, Prof Michael Jackson, et al.
The response by the Con’s, “The professor has a different philosophy than us,” then Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan (to CBC). You got that Right Van Loan.
One need only look at the sins committed in the name of the Church in the last 2000 years, the Inquisition, witch hunts, persecution and other 'religious cleanings' to understand the importance of the principle of separation of Church and State. This sounds extreme and there may be people who say, never in Canada. However, it is insidious. The Self-Righteous have a well developed ability to 'justify' any actions and behavior. One need only look at terrorism and other present day examples.
It took hundreds of years to separate the Church from government and we must vigilant not to allow it to insinuate itself again. I haven't had a chance to read Marci McDonald's book (how much does it cost, anyway) nor her article at walrusmagazine.com,
The rising clout of Canada’s religious right, Marci McDonald, Oct.'06
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2006.10-politics-religion-stephen-harper-and-the-theocons/
but I salute any who stand up to defend our freedoms and cherished way of life.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
12 May, 2010
I sing of Con and the Can
Stephen Harper is once again dancing the "Con con"
Isn't it "can can"?
You've hit the nail on the head.
The important question is "can Can" - can the Canadian nation survive it.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Isn't it "can can"?
You've hit the nail on the head.
The important question is "can Can" - can the Canadian nation survive it.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper, a Dirty Little Secret - The Con You Say!
Submitted: 7:55am, PDT, 12 May '10 CBC News
U.K. coalition starts new era
May 12, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/12/uk-cameron-prime-minister.html
A co-alition in a minority govrenment is a violation of the voters' will, a Parliamentary coup, you must have another election.
Stephen Harper did expound these 'Con-stitutional' principles.
Now it is irrefutable that Harper was deliberately Con'ing Canadians when the Liberal and the NDP joined together to form a coalition.
The real purpose was to incite his core die-hard supporters concentrated in Alberta, not to show that Harper had the support of the Canadian people but as a 'show of support' (i.e. force). The 'protests' organized were of course to this end. There is very little other rational explanation for organizing protesting in front of the Governor-General's residence prior to her making her decision. But, Harper didn't organize these protests you say - yah, right! another Con!
Anyone that thinks that Harper is not capable of confrontation in any such transfer of power is simply wrong. Perhaps Harper would release a copy of the transcripts of his two hour meeting with the Governor General. Oh, I forgot, tradition says it is confidential - another Con by Harper. Tradition is that in Canada's system of government Parliament is supreme. The fact is that Harper could release it if he wanted, if he didn't have a dirty little secret to hide. Given the importance to Canada and its potentially precedent setting status, it is essential to Canadian democracy that they be released. We must have some basis for the decision otherwise Harper can Prorogue Parliament any time he gets into trouble. Oh, I forgot he does.
This also highlights the importance of choosing the Governor General and Ignatieff is right (morally) to speak out and flag it for all Canadians. Essentially the Governor General is the referee in these matters, there is nothing after this. It is unimaginable if this break down, or perhaps it is imaginable and has been so be Harper, thus explaining the inflammatory, completely wrong, rhetoric to incite core supporters.
As the Liberal Democratic leading in England says in a coalition:
"Co-operation wins out over confrontation".
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
U.K. coalition starts new era
May 12, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/12/uk-cameron-prime-minister.html
A co-alition in a minority govrenment is a violation of the voters' will, a Parliamentary coup, you must have another election.
Stephen Harper did expound these 'Con-stitutional' principles.
Now it is irrefutable that Harper was deliberately Con'ing Canadians when the Liberal and the NDP joined together to form a coalition.
The real purpose was to incite his core die-hard supporters concentrated in Alberta, not to show that Harper had the support of the Canadian people but as a 'show of support' (i.e. force). The 'protests' organized were of course to this end. There is very little other rational explanation for organizing protesting in front of the Governor-General's residence prior to her making her decision. But, Harper didn't organize these protests you say - yah, right! another Con!
Anyone that thinks that Harper is not capable of confrontation in any such transfer of power is simply wrong. Perhaps Harper would release a copy of the transcripts of his two hour meeting with the Governor General. Oh, I forgot, tradition says it is confidential - another Con by Harper. Tradition is that in Canada's system of government Parliament is supreme. The fact is that Harper could release it if he wanted, if he didn't have a dirty little secret to hide. Given the importance to Canada and its potentially precedent setting status, it is essential to Canadian democracy that they be released. We must have some basis for the decision otherwise Harper can Prorogue Parliament any time he gets into trouble. Oh, I forgot he does.
This also highlights the importance of choosing the Governor General and Ignatieff is right (morally) to speak out and flag it for all Canadians. Essentially the Governor General is the referee in these matters, there is nothing after this. It is unimaginable if this break down, or perhaps it is imaginable and has been so be Harper, thus explaining the inflammatory, completely wrong, rhetoric to incite core supporters.
As the Liberal Democratic leading in England says in a coalition:
"Co-operation wins out over confrontation".
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
11 May, 2010
- Harper's Newest Con
Posted 7:49am, PDT, 11 May '10 National Post
Grants and drag queens don't mix Analyis, Kevin Libin, National Post, May 11, 2010
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=3011070&p=1
Once again Stephen Harper is using the Prime Minister's Office and Canadian tax payers money to implement his own, or worse, Gay Giorno's personal religious agenda. (I know, I know, it's 'Guy' - I normally don't engage in vicious personal attacks but, hey, come on, I couldn't resist, and it is Satin's henchman after all - or is it the other way around???, and besides, perhaps expressing it thus now the Con's will be able to relate to it.) We, of course, saw this with the family planning policy just recently as well.
These funds entrusted to Harper by the Canadian people is for promoting tourism and culture and not to be doled out on political basis, especially extreme right wing that represents a small minority of Canadians.
The Con is that smaller communities will be favoured. Perhaps some enterprising Liberal can do a riding by riding analysis to see what percentage of Con riding compared to say Liberal or others are blessed - yah, like Harper has ever done something like that before.
Bob Rae is right (morally that is). The irony is that Harper and the Con's are implementing their religious beliefs but not honest enough to come right out and tell the truth about it.
It is coming to light that Harper is basing his policies on his personal religious beliefs, thus blurring the separation of Church and State, transforming Canada into a non-secular, religious state despite that at least 2/3rds of all Canadians are being marginalized.
"It's just atrocious political management," Tom Flanagan's pet theory .
And here I though it was that Harper has compromised extremist right wing conservative values to cling onto power and has to do something to convince his die-hard base that he is still the same old Harper that they knew and loved with the same extreme right wing agenda that the rest of Canadians didn't know and don't love.
The separation of state and Church is vital to our way of life. We are not Iran. Canada's political system is not a facade of Democratic process with the Executive being made up of religious extremists who wield the real power and make policy.
By basing his policies on a very narrow religious basis, Harper in fact is violating the Charter of Right regarding religious freedom, which is not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
The Canada our forefathers built with their blood, sweat and tears is a tolerant, moderate, multi-faceted nation (of course, that's what separation of State and Church is all about). We should all demand the Canada of our forefathers back.
During the Second World War Many many tens of thousands of Canadians died and endured severe hardship for many years of their lives fighting tyranny and for a free society where everyone could express their feeling and opinions and seek a full and satisfying life. These men and women were the ones that brought in and established The Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a pinnacle of their efforts and provide the means for future generations to ensure these freedoms and defend ourselves against tyranny.
I want my Canada back.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Grants and drag queens don't mix Analyis, Kevin Libin, National Post, May 11, 2010
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=3011070&p=1
Once again Stephen Harper is using the Prime Minister's Office and Canadian tax payers money to implement his own, or worse, Gay Giorno's personal religious agenda. (I know, I know, it's 'Guy' - I normally don't engage in vicious personal attacks but, hey, come on, I couldn't resist, and it is Satin's henchman after all - or is it the other way around???, and besides, perhaps expressing it thus now the Con's will be able to relate to it.) We, of course, saw this with the family planning policy just recently as well.
These funds entrusted to Harper by the Canadian people is for promoting tourism and culture and not to be doled out on political basis, especially extreme right wing that represents a small minority of Canadians.
The Con is that smaller communities will be favoured. Perhaps some enterprising Liberal can do a riding by riding analysis to see what percentage of Con riding compared to say Liberal or others are blessed - yah, like Harper has ever done something like that before.
Bob Rae is right (morally that is). The irony is that Harper and the Con's are implementing their religious beliefs but not honest enough to come right out and tell the truth about it.
It is coming to light that Harper is basing his policies on his personal religious beliefs, thus blurring the separation of Church and State, transforming Canada into a non-secular, religious state despite that at least 2/3rds of all Canadians are being marginalized.
"It's just atrocious political management," Tom Flanagan's pet theory .
And here I though it was that Harper has compromised extremist right wing conservative values to cling onto power and has to do something to convince his die-hard base that he is still the same old Harper that they knew and loved with the same extreme right wing agenda that the rest of Canadians didn't know and don't love.
The separation of state and Church is vital to our way of life. We are not Iran. Canada's political system is not a facade of Democratic process with the Executive being made up of religious extremists who wield the real power and make policy.
By basing his policies on a very narrow religious basis, Harper in fact is violating the Charter of Right regarding religious freedom, which is not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
The Canada our forefathers built with their blood, sweat and tears is a tolerant, moderate, multi-faceted nation (of course, that's what separation of State and Church is all about). We should all demand the Canada of our forefathers back.
During the Second World War Many many tens of thousands of Canadians died and endured severe hardship for many years of their lives fighting tyranny and for a free society where everyone could express their feeling and opinions and seek a full and satisfying life. These men and women were the ones that brought in and established The Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a pinnacle of their efforts and provide the means for future generations to ensure these freedoms and defend ourselves against tyranny.
I want my Canada back.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
10 May, 2010
- Harper, Some Clarification Here Please
Submitted: 10:11am, PDT, 10 May '10 CBC News
Tories' tougher pardon bill to be tabled, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews will table legislation dealing with pardons on Tuesday. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press) May 10, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/10/federal-pardons.html
Just two questions.
Both are strictly hypothetical, of course, and posed only to try to understand the extent of the applicability of the the Harper government's policy of 'Tough on Crime'.
If our Prime Minister or any of our Minsters were, say, convicted of War crimes under provisions of the current Canadian Criminal Code in relation to something comparable to say, the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and (alleged) ensuing cover-up. Would this Bill mean that they would never be eligible for a pardon. Also, would they have their pen[redacted]s cut off - Oh-ho, I just got a ruling from the Speaker, I have two weeks to reveal what the redaction is - oh, well, "would they have their pensions cut off"
If Canada's Prime Minister or any of our Ministers or others were, say, convicted of War crimes at the ICC (International Criminal Courts) at the Hague (like that would even be a possi . . . - ah ah aaaa Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal...bility Sorry, sneezed). Would this Bill mean that Canadians would never pardon them for disgracing our country's reputation in International community.
I know I won't likely ever pardon Stephen Harper and the Con's for what they've done to my country no matter what, but perhaps Vic Toews could though some light on the above anyway.
How about Canadians getting Tough on Con's, give Harper and his gang the boot.
Lloyd MacILquham
Tories' tougher pardon bill to be tabled, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews will table legislation dealing with pardons on Tuesday. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press) May 10, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/10/federal-pardons.html
Just two questions.
Both are strictly hypothetical, of course, and posed only to try to understand the extent of the applicability of the the Harper government's policy of 'Tough on Crime'.
If our Prime Minister or any of our Minsters were, say, convicted of War crimes under provisions of the current Canadian Criminal Code in relation to something comparable to say, the Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal and (alleged) ensuing cover-up. Would this Bill mean that they would never be eligible for a pardon. Also, would they have their pen[redacted]s cut off - Oh-ho, I just got a ruling from the Speaker, I have two weeks to reveal what the redaction is - oh, well, "would they have their pensions cut off"
If Canada's Prime Minister or any of our Ministers or others were, say, convicted of War crimes at the ICC (International Criminal Courts) at the Hague (like that would even be a possi . . . - ah ah aaaa Afghan Detainee Transfer scandal...bility Sorry, sneezed). Would this Bill mean that Canadians would never pardon them for disgracing our country's reputation in International community.
I know I won't likely ever pardon Stephen Harper and the Con's for what they've done to my country no matter what, but perhaps Vic Toews could though some light on the above anyway.
How about Canadians getting Tough on Con's, give Harper and his gang the boot.
Lloyd MacILquham
08 May, 2010
- Harper and the Con's are 'Gravely' wrong, Again
Posted: 5/8/2010 12:31:00 PM The Globe and Mail
‘Viewer-inspired’ CBC poll works Tories into a lather, Jane Taber, May 7, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/viewer-inspired-cbc-poll-works-tories-into-a-lather/article1560658/
“It would be interesting to find out what issues are most important to women. What qualities they look for in a leader and conversely what issues/characteristics negatively affect their vote.”
I can see how Stephen Harper and the Con's might be concerned that the results are released on a media that reaches out nationally, especially given Harper's extreme right wing position on family planning and dissing financing of International NGO's if they advocate family planning.
Harper, what happened to the media "[shining a] light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable”.
If Harper were not simply being hypocritical, what difference does it make if the person who suggested to inquiry were a Liberal.
The fact is that it is a very important question that all Canadians ought to want the answer.
It is easy to see why the CBC would want to discuss the results of such a question. And, it goes both ways. Perhaps Canadians s
This attack by the Con's is simply an application of their general strategy of attacking anyone that might say something that opposes them. To this end they have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times.
If anyone thinks this 'soften them up first, then advance' (or as Bush 'The Lesser', to put it in ancient Roman terms for Tom Flanagan, called it 'Shock and awe', technically known as 'rapid dominance') is an accident then just recall Harper in Haiti "To do soft power, you need hard power" (wow, what a Zen Master, Yoda step aside).
These attacks are more sinister since they are directed at the media and the possible chilling effect on reporting anything that might go against them. Keep in mind that Harper and the Con's spend millions of their own money and many tens of millions of tax payers money in advertizing in the operation of their Propaganda machine.
These attacks are also designed to incite their core of die-hard supporters in Alberta. Why? you say. I am not su ...ah ah aaaa "election" chooo, ...re. Sorry, sneezed .
There is no comparison between the current application of politically motivated attacks by Harper and the Cons and anything previously employed.
These character attacks not only deliberately misrepresent things but are designed to distract people from the real issues, issues that are vitally important to Canada, our way of life and our future.
There is little doubt that dictatorial regimes suppress open and free press an supplant it with their Propaganda.
The Liberal Party, or other the opposition Parties, will not be able to do this by themself. It is something that will have to result from a general awareness, including the media both traditional and Web "[shining a] light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable” (to borrow a phrase from Harper).
This, of course, is harder than it sounds given Harper propaganda machine and the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials
This is a development that, I think, all Canadians should be very concerned about and take action to marginalize it as all right wing extremist philosophies should be in a tolerant, free, open modern democracy .
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
‘Viewer-inspired’ CBC poll works Tories into a lather, Jane Taber, May 7, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/viewer-inspired-cbc-poll-works-tories-into-a-lather/article1560658/
“It would be interesting to find out what issues are most important to women. What qualities they look for in a leader and conversely what issues/characteristics negatively affect their vote.”
I can see how Stephen Harper and the Con's might be concerned that the results are released on a media that reaches out nationally, especially given Harper's extreme right wing position on family planning and dissing financing of International NGO's if they advocate family planning.
Harper, what happened to the media "[shining a] light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable”.
If Harper were not simply being hypocritical, what difference does it make if the person who suggested to inquiry were a Liberal.
The fact is that it is a very important question that all Canadians ought to want the answer.
It is easy to see why the CBC would want to discuss the results of such a question. And, it goes both ways. Perhaps Canadians s
This attack by the Con's is simply an application of their general strategy of attacking anyone that might say something that opposes them. To this end they have built, and employ ‘liberally’, a propaganda machine the likes of which Western democracies have not seen in recent times.
If anyone thinks this 'soften them up first, then advance' (or as Bush 'The Lesser', to put it in ancient Roman terms for Tom Flanagan, called it 'Shock and awe', technically known as 'rapid dominance') is an accident then just recall Harper in Haiti "To do soft power, you need hard power" (wow, what a Zen Master, Yoda step aside).
These attacks are more sinister since they are directed at the media and the possible chilling effect on reporting anything that might go against them. Keep in mind that Harper and the Con's spend millions of their own money and many tens of millions of tax payers money in advertizing in the operation of their Propaganda machine.
These attacks are also designed to incite their core of die-hard supporters in Alberta. Why? you say. I am not su ...ah ah aaaa "election" chooo, ...re. Sorry, sneezed .
There is no comparison between the current application of politically motivated attacks by Harper and the Cons and anything previously employed.
These character attacks not only deliberately misrepresent things but are designed to distract people from the real issues, issues that are vitally important to Canada, our way of life and our future.
There is little doubt that dictatorial regimes suppress open and free press an supplant it with their Propaganda.
The Liberal Party, or other the opposition Parties, will not be able to do this by themself. It is something that will have to result from a general awareness, including the media both traditional and Web "[shining a] light into dark corners" of government and "assist the process of holding governments accountable” (to borrow a phrase from Harper).
This, of course, is harder than it sounds given Harper propaganda machine and the huge amounts of tax payers money, as well as Con Party money, Harper spends on media - central to the smooth running of their propaganda machine, the Harper and Con largess is tied to media that publish pro-Con materials
This is a development that, I think, all Canadians should be very concerned about and take action to marginalize it as all right wing extremist philosophies should be in a tolerant, free, open modern democracy .
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
07 May, 2010
- Harper, Hears a Must Read - Rear Admiral Paul Maddison's Report
Submitted: 1:05pm, PDT, 7 May, '10 CBC News
Soldiers confused Afghan detainee policy: board, May 7, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/07/afghan-detainee-incident-review.html
"Harper was the one who up'ed the action of our troops in Afghanistan to out and out combat when they took over in '06.
Harper had a pressing and urgent obligation to take every step to ensure it was done in a fashion that accorded to International Law. Turning a blind eye, willfully or negligently ignoring, is not only a violation of the sacred trust placed in them when Harper took the Oath of Office, it was foreseeable that it could placed our troops in the the very tenuous position of allegations of violating serious International Laws.
People in Canada can understand with this out and out fighting in Afghanistan things were happening much, much faster and made it more difficult to get a complete handle on, and sympathize for our generals and troops. "
[cicblog: 1 Dec.'09]
This is in line with what Rear Admiral Paul Maddison, president of the inquiry board, has come out and said today.
"I would be very surprised if Canadians, to a person, would not stand up and support our men and women in uniform, if the truth were to be revealed."
[cicblog: 27 Dec.'09, 03 January, 2010, 6 March, 2010, 09 March, 2010, 27 Apr.'10]
And with this report I can't see it any other way.
"There is little doubt that the Canadian people will close ranks and stand behind our soldiers so that they have little fear of prosecution.
However, I am unable to suggest the same for Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and/or any Con that might be responsible."
[cicblog, 27 Apr.'10]
more to follow
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
***
Submitted: 1:26pm, PDT, 7 May '10
"For whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee, Stephen.
Harper is renowned as a strategist, so perhaps he has previously prepared position to fall back on. I wonder what that could be.
How many will be surprised if it comes out that there can be found no damning evidence after Harper leaves office."
[cicblog, 17 Apr.'10]
"CBC News asked Natynczyk on Thursday, "Do you have any fears of people poring over those documents?"
Natynczyk responded: 'Not at all, not at all.'
. . .
Another, of course, is that even if representatives of Opposition parties in Parliament are allowed to view un-redacted documents, how can they be sure that nothing has been withheld, nothing has been misplaced or 'lost'. The only way is through the power to call witnesses, examine these witnesses and cross-examine these witnesses conducted by people trained, experienced and skilled in such matters.
For example, we might infer that because none of the 'Three Generals' mentioned when they testified [Parliamentary Committee] on, or about, 8 Dec.'09, that they had no fears of people poring over these documents that they, at that time, must have had such concerns. The fact that they don't now, suggests that whatever it was they had concerns over, no longer gives concerns. The International laws have not changed, domestic laws have not changed, the underlying facts have not changed (based on the belief in the immutability of truth and reality). So, what has changed to cause these concerns to 'disappear', we are left with 'the evidence'. "
[cicblog, 30 Apr.'10]
After listening to Rear Admiral Paul Maddison, president of the inquiry board, report, I will let you judge why a full and open Judicial Inquiry is so necessary because if this issue.
Lloyd MacILquham
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Soldiers confused Afghan detainee policy: board, May 7, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/07/afghan-detainee-incident-review.html
"Harper was the one who up'ed the action of our troops in Afghanistan to out and out combat when they took over in '06.
Harper had a pressing and urgent obligation to take every step to ensure it was done in a fashion that accorded to International Law. Turning a blind eye, willfully or negligently ignoring, is not only a violation of the sacred trust placed in them when Harper took the Oath of Office, it was foreseeable that it could placed our troops in the the very tenuous position of allegations of violating serious International Laws.
People in Canada can understand with this out and out fighting in Afghanistan things were happening much, much faster and made it more difficult to get a complete handle on, and sympathize for our generals and troops. "
[cicblog: 1 Dec.'09]
This is in line with what Rear Admiral Paul Maddison, president of the inquiry board, has come out and said today.
"I would be very surprised if Canadians, to a person, would not stand up and support our men and women in uniform, if the truth were to be revealed."
[cicblog: 27 Dec.'09, 03 January, 2010, 6 March, 2010, 09 March, 2010, 27 Apr.'10]
And with this report I can't see it any other way.
"There is little doubt that the Canadian people will close ranks and stand behind our soldiers so that they have little fear of prosecution.
However, I am unable to suggest the same for Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and/or any Con that might be responsible."
[cicblog, 27 Apr.'10]
more to follow
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog
***
Submitted: 1:26pm, PDT, 7 May '10
"For whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee, Stephen.
Harper is renowned as a strategist, so perhaps he has previously prepared position to fall back on. I wonder what that could be.
How many will be surprised if it comes out that there can be found no damning evidence after Harper leaves office."
[cicblog, 17 Apr.'10]
"CBC News asked Natynczyk on Thursday, "Do you have any fears of people poring over those documents?"
Natynczyk responded: 'Not at all, not at all.'
. . .
Another, of course, is that even if representatives of Opposition parties in Parliament are allowed to view un-redacted documents, how can they be sure that nothing has been withheld, nothing has been misplaced or 'lost'. The only way is through the power to call witnesses, examine these witnesses and cross-examine these witnesses conducted by people trained, experienced and skilled in such matters.
For example, we might infer that because none of the 'Three Generals' mentioned when they testified [Parliamentary Committee] on, or about, 8 Dec.'09, that they had no fears of people poring over these documents that they, at that time, must have had such concerns. The fact that they don't now, suggests that whatever it was they had concerns over, no longer gives concerns. The International laws have not changed, domestic laws have not changed, the underlying facts have not changed (based on the belief in the immutability of truth and reality). So, what has changed to cause these concerns to 'disappear', we are left with 'the evidence'. "
[cicblog, 30 Apr.'10]
After listening to Rear Admiral Paul Maddison, president of the inquiry board, report, I will let you judge why a full and open Judicial Inquiry is so necessary because if this issue.
Lloyd MacILquham
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
- Harper, Take Notes: Parliamentary Democracy 101
Submitted: 10:21am, 7 May '10, CBC News
British Tories seek 3rd-place party's support, May 7, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/07/uk-election-minority.html#socialcomments
Anyone in Canada who thinks that choosing the next Governor General is not important or that Stephen Harper won't make it a political appointment, need only read the following quotes:
"In the past, the sitting prime minister has been given the first chance to try to form a government — even if his party didn't win the largest number of seats.
. . .
Brown, who gave no indication he is prepared to concede, said he respected Clegg's desire to hold discussions with the Tories first — but he noted he would also be open to holding discussions with Clegg's party."
In other words, in the next election, even if Stephen Harper and the Con's were to get fewer seats that say the Liberals, Harper is the sitting Prime Minister until either he resigns or the Governor General chooses another Prime Minister.
I know, I know, last time Harper cried that he was elected Prime Minister because the Con's got the most seats so how could he then turn around (or in the vernacular "flip-flop") and say he is holding on. In a word, if that question even needs answering: ethics, morality, fair play and abiding by Canada's time honoured traditions and legislation has never slowed him down before.
If the Governor General is a political appointment by Harper, what is the likelihood that he/she would exercise their discretion, do the right (morally as opposed to politically) thing and compel Harper to resign. Harper would then use the old line "it would be a Parliamentary coup and a violation of Democracy for the other Parties to get together, with a majority of seats and form the government, we must have another election".
Of course, even if Harper obtained the most number of seats, but not a majority, does anyone really think that he would say, well the English Parliament allowed the other parties to get together with a majority of seats and form the government so I will step down.
The Governor General is the 'referee' in these matters. I can only suggest that all Canadians take the appointment to this office very, very seriously. If our time honoured traditions fail us, we have nothing to hold our nation together and can only fall into darkness.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
British Tories seek 3rd-place party's support, May 7, 2010, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/07/uk-election-minority.html#socialcomments
Anyone in Canada who thinks that choosing the next Governor General is not important or that Stephen Harper won't make it a political appointment, need only read the following quotes:
"In the past, the sitting prime minister has been given the first chance to try to form a government — even if his party didn't win the largest number of seats.
. . .
Brown, who gave no indication he is prepared to concede, said he respected Clegg's desire to hold discussions with the Tories first — but he noted he would also be open to holding discussions with Clegg's party."
In other words, in the next election, even if Stephen Harper and the Con's were to get fewer seats that say the Liberals, Harper is the sitting Prime Minister until either he resigns or the Governor General chooses another Prime Minister.
I know, I know, last time Harper cried that he was elected Prime Minister because the Con's got the most seats so how could he then turn around (or in the vernacular "flip-flop") and say he is holding on. In a word, if that question even needs answering: ethics, morality, fair play and abiding by Canada's time honoured traditions and legislation has never slowed him down before.
If the Governor General is a political appointment by Harper, what is the likelihood that he/she would exercise their discretion, do the right (morally as opposed to politically) thing and compel Harper to resign. Harper would then use the old line "it would be a Parliamentary coup and a violation of Democracy for the other Parties to get together, with a majority of seats and form the government, we must have another election".
Of course, even if Harper obtained the most number of seats, but not a majority, does anyone really think that he would say, well the English Parliament allowed the other parties to get together with a majority of seats and form the government so I will step down.
The Governor General is the 'referee' in these matters. I can only suggest that all Canadians take the appointment to this office very, very seriously. If our time honoured traditions fail us, we have nothing to hold our nation together and can only fall into darkness.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
06 May, 2010
- Looks Like We're Being Con'd Again
Posted: 10:57am,PDT, 6 May '10 to Nik on th NUmbers
Federal Conservatives Lead (Nanos Poll Completed May 3rd 2010)
http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/162
The Con's increase to 37.2% can be understood, to a large degree, by the increase in undecided, given the the Con's have a core of immutable die-hard supporters, especially in Alberta, that are very much decided and always will be. If the number of decided's decreases, the number of those that support the Con's is relatively higher.
The Block numbers may also be due to this above effect since we know the undecideds has increased there, so their numbers in Quebec may reflect this.
Another factor is whether the number of decided's in Alberta has actually increased, despite the overall decrease, which it can be assumed increased the Con number to a much higher extent that other Parties. Nik hasn't revealed these numbers, which, obviously, makes analysis very difficult.
It seems that increases by a Party (Con's, Lib's anyway) is in conjunction with decreases in the Green party (except of course, the Green Party and perhaps the NDP).
This would suggest that strong environmentalists in Quebec (and perhaps otherwise) are starting to be pulled way from the Green Party (where is Liz these days anyway). We will have to see what Party they gravitate to. But, I am not sure that this explains the increase in the Block numbers - see above.
Info on second choices would be useful as well. Come on Nik, out with it.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
[updated Thu May 06 13:57:39 EDT 2010]
Federal Conservatives Lead (Nanos Poll Completed May 3rd 2010)
http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/162
The Con's increase to 37.2% can be understood, to a large degree, by the increase in undecided, given the the Con's have a core of immutable die-hard supporters, especially in Alberta, that are very much decided and always will be. If the number of decided's decreases, the number of those that support the Con's is relatively higher.
The Block numbers may also be due to this above effect since we know the undecideds has increased there, so their numbers in Quebec may reflect this.
Another factor is whether the number of decided's in Alberta has actually increased, despite the overall decrease, which it can be assumed increased the Con number to a much higher extent that other Parties. Nik hasn't revealed these numbers, which, obviously, makes analysis very difficult.
It seems that increases by a Party (Con's, Lib's anyway) is in conjunction with decreases in the Green party (except of course, the Green Party and perhaps the NDP).
This would suggest that strong environmentalists in Quebec (and perhaps otherwise) are starting to be pulled way from the Green Party (where is Liz these days anyway). We will have to see what Party they gravitate to. But, I am not sure that this explains the increase in the Block numbers - see above.
Info on second choices would be useful as well. Come on Nik, out with it.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
[updated Thu May 06 13:57:39 EDT 2010]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)