PunBB

das_hips Wrote:Everything thats happened in this country has been nothing but positive in the last ten years. The value of our dollar, the low inflation, the unemployment, our expansion in trade with South-East Asia. Only health care has suffered in this country...

That's a look at the country over the last ten years through rose-coloured goggles. The fact is, more than just health care suffered in Canada due to the massive slash of provincial transfer payments made by the Liberals when they took office. Education suffered right alongside health care. The gun registry has been a colossal waste of money. We have had a handgun registry in Canada for years (as well we should) since these are the guns normally used in criminal activity. This shotgun registry, already costing taxpayers more than $2 billion, will do nothing to control crime. It is a waste of money that I'm surprised the Liberals have not used as an excuse to claim that the Tories support something along the lines of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. They don't, but the Liberals would say so.

das_hips Wrote:So it's the Finance Minister's job to babysit every department under the Government of Canada to ensure that no funding is being misused?

Oddly, that's not what I argued. I argued that the Finance Minister is responsible for making sure that controls are in place. Or is some other Cabinet Minister responsible for dealing with the Auditor General's reports?

Not that I expect you to respond to my point ... nope, I'll respond for you: "He's got a big job, he's not responsible for his responsibilities."

das_hips Wrote:While the 'contribution' ad is a bit controversial, I was more amused by comments like:
"Canada is content to become a second-tier socialist country boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"

Oddly, that's not what you argued. Sorry, but you're not going to get away with defending Liberal attack ads by saying they're "all based on actual quotes" and then pretending that you didn't say that.

The Liberal ads are not "all based on actual quotes." They are misleading and at least one, which I referred to, invites wild speculation not supported by any evidence.

Factually speaking.

das_hips Wrote:Impeding the progress of private health clinics in Canada is a waste of effort. These clinics already operate in Quebec, Toronto and Vancouver (with one expected to open in Ottawa this summer), the Liberal party won't fund private health clinics.

That's not what their platform says. Maybe you should read it. As I wrote previously, it's nice to know what you're actually voting for.

das_hips Wrote:Martin did flip-flop on the same-sex marriage issue in the late '90s, but sided with it's acceptance last year

Right, so his vision is?

das_hips Wrote:Martin always opposed the invasion of Iraq,

The record on that is quite clear. Martin was initially in favour of Canadian participation, and has always supported the aims of the invasion. His opposition to Canadian participation does not seem to be based on principle or, um, vision.

das_hips Wrote:claiming he supported ballistic missile defence is a bit misleading ... the general consensus from the Canadian public was to decline involvement. And thats what he did. Does that make him a bad leader?

More to the point, does it suggest that his decisions are driven more by polling and less by, um, vision?

das_hips Wrote:The Liberals vision is just as accessible as any of the other parties. Unless you received a story-book outline from the NDP, analyzing the parties platforms is as much of vision as you'll get.

Oh, so you're finally getting around to arguing that they have a vision. Having read their platform, which you don't seem to have done, I'm a little mystified by this claim, because vision is pretty much lacking. It's full of weasel phrases: we won't fund private health care, they say, unless we will.

The Liberal platform is a Rorschach test: it says almost nothing. You look at it and see what you want to see.

That ain't vision.

das_hips Wrote:Only health care has suffered in this country....

And the environment, from the Liberal failure to act on Kyoto, as they had promised to do from the left side of their mouths. They made many promises from the left side of their mouths, but did little to act on them until their government was about to fall.

It was time to make the inkblot look ambiguous, so they acted.

das_hips Wrote:

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Paul Martin's sole vision is to balance the books. He's a glorified accountant.

I'm not sure if that's a shot at Paul Martin, but either way Canada has reduced it's debt more substantially than any other country in the world. I suppose thats a bad thing?

Do try to argue honestly, will ya? I didn't suggest it was a bad thing. I suggested that Martin had no vision beyond it -- that balancing the books is his sole vision.

Well, as long as you're up front about admitting that this is the Liberal "vision."

The Tories have dumped candidate Derek Zeisman in British Columbia. The party learned that he was charged with attempting to smuggle a car and alcohol into the USA a few years back. Harper said that it is too late to choose a replacement candidate, but if he is elected, Zeisman will not sit as a member of the Conservative caucus.

Could this be an example to Paul Martin regarding Mr. Ralph Goodale?

mrlayance Wrote:The only problem is that you can't attack Harper personally because he doesn't have one...

I have no idea what you just said. :?

What?! That's appalling!!!!!!!! Why haven't somebody sic'd Stacy & Clinton (What Not to Wear) on him? Oh yeah he doesn't think gay people are equals. Socks w/sandals...speaks volumes.

fingernailsonhull Wrote:The Tories have dumped candidate Derek Zeisman in British Columbia. The party learned that he was charged with attempting to smuggle a car and alcohol into the USA a few years back. Harper said that it is too late to choose a replacement candidate, but if he is elected, Zeisman will not sit as a member of the Conservative caucus.

Could this be an example to Paul Martin regarding Mr. Ralph Goodale?

Exactly!

Handled poorly, this situation could have proved a disaster for the Conservatives. Instead, they were decisive and principled, everything the Liberals have NOT been.

On another point, I have to say I'm enjoying the point-counter point with das hips and skippy (which started with a das hips post and my response, but anyway...). Just goes to show that people of all political stripes agree on one thing... Martin has got to go!

One other reason the Liberals need to go (and quite funny on its own) is they can't even get their own stories straight. Regarding the English military attack ad which was pulled, some MPs like Anne McLellan and Ralph Goodale, and strategist John Duffy (who got absolutely bitch-slapped on CTV by Mike Duffy!) claim the ad was never approved or released by the Liberal party, while others like Ujjal Dosanjh say all the ads were approved by Paul Martin. Even better, Keith Martin, an MP from BC, said that some idiot sent that ad out along with the 11 others, but Paul Martin himself stated he saw all the ads and approved them all, saying that he eventually decided the military ad should be pulled because it wasn't very good.

Hmmm... does that mean Keith Martin thinks Paul Martin's an idiot? In our cities? Canadian cities? In Canada? I'm not making this up! :lol: :lol:

Really, this stuff writes itself sometimes.

fingernailsonhull Wrote:The Tories have dumped candidate Derek Zeisman in British Columbia. The party learned that he was charged with attempting to smuggle a car and alcohol into the USA a few years back. Harper said that it is too late to choose a replacement candidate, but if he is elected, Zeisman will not sit as a member of the Conservative caucus.

Could this be an example to Paul Martin regarding Mr. Ralph Goodale?

Except that there is no evidence providing Ralph Goodale did anything wrong. Zeisman, on the other hand, had a luxury car filled with booze and tried to cross the border. All I can think is that this guy is an idiot.

This isn't a jab at the Conservatives, the guy is a complete moron.

j-monster Wrote:Just goes to show that people of all political stripes agree on one thing... Martin has got to go!

I don't really feel it's necessary for Paul Martin to go. I think that Paul Martin will stick around until the next election (under the assumption that the Conservatives don't win a majority, in which case he'll jet). As it may appear through my posts, I will be supporting the Liberals in this election. The Liberal image has been tainted, there is no denying that, but I honestly feel Paul Martin can play an integral part in parliament and for the Liberals when months, or even years pass and the Sponsorship Scandal is old news.

From the Liberal website (yes, I suppose it's biased and completely inaccurate, but either way it is interesting)

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=11379">http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=11379</a><!-- m -->

The Liberal Website Wrote:Stephen Harper Raises Funds for Radical Right-wing Organization
January 12, 2006

Ottawa – Conservative Leader Stephen Harper spoke at a large fundraising dinner in Richmond, B.C. on March 31, 2005, for a far right group that advocates against same-sex marriage and abortion, and published cartoons depicting Liberal Prime Ministers as Nazis.

The Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association (CASJFVA) is a far-right-wing association that recently published a caricature on the cover of its July/August issue which portrayed Prime Minister Paul Martin as a Nazi receiving an award from Hitler for “the destruction of Canada’s foundational institution (family).” The group also published a similar illustration of former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. Continued...

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Oddly, that's not what I argued. I argued that the Finance Minister is responsible for making sure that controls are in place. Or is some other Cabinet Minister responsible for dealing with the Auditor General's reports?
Not that I expect you to respond to my point ... nope, I'll respond for you: "He's got a big job, he's not responsible for his responsibilities."

Oddly enough, I will respond. While neither of us have ever occupied, or truly understand the true responsibilites of the Finance Minister (unless of course you think you do, and I'm not entirely sure I would be surprised if you claimed to possess such knowledge), I find difficulty in trying to determine why you think that the Finance Minister is responsible for ensuring that the Health Deparment, the DFAIT, the Department of Agriculture, and the dozens and dozens of other departments branched under the Federal Government do not misuse funds that have been alloacted to them because of the Federal Liberals mandate. While I acknowledge the importance of the Finance Minister playing an active role in providing guidance and feedback through communication, I think your claim that Paul Martin is required to develop controls for each individual department under the Federal Government is a just a tad unsubstantiated. Politicians don't work as a sole proprietor under a politically appointed banner with the purpose of self-benefit, and Paul Martin did his job to the best of his ability. Members of the Liberal government abused their powers under order from a different authority figure. I suppose we can agree on one disillusioned part of your comment: The Finance Minister does report to any Auditor General inquiry, even if the misspending and corruption happen from the farthest grips of his realm, because, alas, he is the Finance Minister.

Perhaps the Government should have developed an inquiry that questioned everyone involved, and everyone potentially involved, to determine and allocate responsibility for the abuse of Federal funds... oh, they did that? And how much involvement did Paul Martin play in the Gomery Inquiry anyways? Very little... and (factually speaking) he was exonerated by a Federal commission?

No offence to you at all... you come across as very educated in the political environment, but I just completely disagree with you on this. I'll take Gomery's report and the results and convictions that followed over anybody who continues to suggest that Paul Martin is explicitly involved... the same way you would take his findings as the predominant source and evidence of corruption if Paul Martin had been found guilty of the misuse of Federal funds (while the Conservatives do this without evidential merit).

das_hips Wrote:While the 'contribution' ad is a bit controversial, I was more amused by comments like:
"Canada is content to become a second-tier socialist country boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status"

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Oddly, that's not what you argued. Sorry, but you're not going to get away with defending Liberal attack ads by saying they're "all based on actual quotes" and then pretending that you didn't say that.

The Liberal ads are not "all based on actual quotes." They are misleading and at least one, which I referred to, invites wild speculation not supported by any evidence.

Factually speaking.

Yes, I did claim that thet Liberal ads are "all based on actual quotes." This was a response to 'j-monster' who claimed that

j-monster Wrote:The Conservative ads, while definitely on the amateurish side in terms of production values, point out the positive things the Conservatives will do, and where they criticize the Liberals, it is based on facts (i.e. their various scandals, negative campaigning, etc.).

which I found to be entirely false, and I previously outlined why that is so. I then claimed that the Liberal ads are "all based on actual quotes", which implicates that all Liberal ads with quotes from Stephen Harper are based on actual words spoken from Stephen Harper. I'm sorry for the confusion, and I do accept the blame, but my intentions were relative to the Liberal ads including Stephen Harper's spoken words. I still stand by my original statement that all Liberal ads (based on quotation, as such as been provided by my original statement with the inclusion of the term 'quotes'...) are based on actual quotation from Stephen Harper. While you may feel inclined to argue with that on the basis that Stephen Harper has claimed they were all to be taken 'tongue-in-cheek', I'm not entirely sure why I should believe that now when ten years ago they were spoken without any evidence to provide that it was all part of an elaborate joke. I also did provide that I wasn't a fan of the only Liberal ad that didn't include a quote.

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:That's not what their platform says. Maybe you should read it. As I wrote previously, it's nice to know what you're actually voting for.
...
Right, so his vision is?
...
The record on that is quite clear. Martin was initially in favour of Canadian participation, and has always supported the aims of the invasion. His opposition to Canadian participation does not seem to be based on principle or, um, vision.
...

More to the point, does it suggest that his decisions are driven more by polling and less by, um, vision?

Your continuous insistence that I read the Liberal's platform had already been absolved after your second post. After I had read your somewhat distorted responses to my comments, I took it upon myself to read your blog. This is where I found quotations from the Liberal platform, and to be completely honest, I had no idea the entire Liberal platform was available. I read it thoroughly before my post last night.

While we obviously disagree fundamentally, I'm curious as to why critism is appropriate for the PM when:


1) On Health Care: I'm not entirely sure why you find the Liberals position on health care that is provided from their platform to be any less accurate than what I initially stated. The Liberals will not provide funding to private health clinics, unless it is the interest of specific Canadians to do so (i.e.: neccessary treatment that cannot be provided immediately through the public system... a contingency plan)

It will also be deemed an infringement of the Canada Health Act for a physician to provide public and private services simultaneously if the treatment of patients is deemed medically necesary and is available through public health care within a reasonable time, unless under the aforementioned scenario.

2) On Gay Marriage: this was neither a concern of the Canadian public, nor was it even a major issue in 1999. If Paul Martin develops a new acceptance and understanding a few years later (along with scores of other MP's), and determines that Canadian Homo-sexuals should be allowed the same rights and benefits of hetero-sexuals, I don't really feel this constitutes a lack of vision (It doesn't involve any vision at all... a change in acceptance by the Canadian public, and a spawn of distaste from the gay community that promotes constitutional reform isn't the result of anyone's indecisiveness). If Paul Martin lacked vision because he didn't subscribe to the necessity of same-sex marriage, I think it's fair to apply that logical disorientation to any MP in the last twenty years.

3) Paul Martin was pro-war? I'm still not entirely sure about that... can you provide anything that suggests he was pro-war? I can understand that he may have considered it, but to the best of my knowledge, keeping Canadian troops out of Iraq was the only thing Martin and Chretien ever saw eye-to-eye on. Did he spill this out over a coffee at Starbucks?

4) You're suggestion that Paul Martin gave into the Canadian public's demand for avoiding the BMP is accurate. This is the result of a lack of vision (as you so gracefully provided in italics as to catch my attention)? Consider for a moment the Liberal government Paul Martin inherited. It was the genuine wish of many Canadians to improve Canada-US relations. Paul Martin, under the influence of such wishes from not only the opposition, but the Canadian public as well, suggested that he would consider the proposal of accepting membership in this once proposed bi-lateral program through NORAD. He then declined, based on the negative public perception of such an admission. You previously stated that he was pro-BMD... again, I'm not sure thats accurate, but if you provide anything to the contrary I'll apoligize...

Really, I am curious as to why you question the Liberals (and Paul Martins) vision for the future of Canada. According to you the Liberal platform is filled with 'weasel phrases'...

I've read in through, I see his tax cuts and expenditures, and while I don't completely agree with all of them, it is entirely fair to say that his vision is outlined with the exact degree of clarity (and probably more) than the NDPs and Conservatives. I'm more curious as to the Conservatives 'vision' for Canada? Have they provided a 'vision'? It is essentially up to Canadians to analyze the parties records and platforms, and then determine their vision. And from doing so I truly dislike the Conservatives 'vision'.

If Paul Martin doesn't have a vision because he flip-flopped on same-sex marriage and opened up the possibility of joining the BMD, I'm not entirely sure what you consider to be a vision.

das_hips Wrote:Oddly enough, I will respond. While neither of us have ever occupied, or truly understand the true responsibilites of the Finance Minister (unless of course you think you do, and I'm not entirely sure I would be surprised if you claimed to possess such knowledge)....

No offence to you at all...

Offence taken.

I do not claim to know all about being finance minister. I do know, however, what accountability is and what it means to take responsibility.

You, on the other hand, apparently can't even take responsibility for your own words.

das_hips Wrote:Your continuous insistence that I read the Liberal's platform had already been absolved after your second post. After I had read your somewhat distorted responses to my comments....

Okay: so I criticize Paul Martin for a lack of vision, using specific examples. You dispute the fine details of the examples, without addressing the question of vision. I return to the original point: vision.

This is an example of my distorting the argument?

And you're still playing the same game: discussing the detailed history of same-sex marriage while refusing to acknowledge the point: that Paul Martin proposed to act on the issue only when his hand was forced, and then pretended it was a matter of vision.

das_hips Wrote:The Liberals will not provide funding to private health clinics, unless it is the interest of specific Canadians to do so (i.e.: neccessary treatment that cannot be provided immediately through the public system... a contingency plan)

That is not what the platform says. On the contrary, the platform makes it clear that funding will be provided to private clinics by default, unless there is evidence that it undermines the public system -- the onus is completely the opposite of what you claim.

No standard is set for what undermining the public system actually means.

das_hips Wrote:It will also be deemed an infringement of the Canada Health Act for a physician to provide public and private services simultaneously if the treatment of patients is deemed medically necesary and is available through public health care within a reasonable time, unless under the aforementioned scenario.

Wrong again: the same standard will apply, whatever it turns out to be.

The standard is not whether private care will benefit the public, as you claim. Private care will be allowed to proceed unless it can be demonstrated to harm the public interest.

That's a significant distinction.

das_hips Wrote:It was the genuine wish of many Canadians to improve Canada-US relations. Paul Martin, under the influence of such wishes from not only the opposition, but the Canadian public as well, suggested that he would consider the proposal of accepting membership in this once proposed bi-lateral program through NORAD. He then declined, based on the negative public perception of such an admission.

Oh, so he wasn't personally pro-WMD. I see. Apparently, he was reacting to perceived public opinion, and then decided to react to perceived public opinion.

That's a hell of a defence of his vision: "You can't accuse the Prime Minister of a lack of vision on this issue, as he never had one to begin with."

But no matter: the good news is that his political career is effectively over.

The Liberal Party has dumped candidate David Oliver in British Columbia for trying to bribe the NDP candidate in his riding to drop out. Kudos to Mr. Martin for dealing with this properly. What's with the candidates in BC this election?

BC is always weird.

Think of the history of scandals at the provincial level in BC. Svend Robinson is running. Grewal. And these two latest clowns.

How could I forget about Svend? I also didn't realize that Gurmant Grewal was from BC. That's just bizarre.

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:I do not claim to know all about being finance minister. I do know, however, what accountability is and what it means to take responsibility.

I also understand the concepts of 'accountability' and 'responsibility'. Paul Martin took his share of 'responsibility'. Is it even necessary to continue debating Paul Martin's role in the sponsorship scandal? He was absolved by Judge Gomery, which for whom the entire Liberal government provided anything that was asked for, and was completely accessible for investigation.

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:You, on the other hand, apparently can't even take responsibility for your own words.

I take responsibility for everything I've said, I'm not sure what this is a reference to.

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Okay: so I criticize Paul Martin for a lack of vision, using specific examples. You dispute the fine details of the examples, without addressing the question of vision. I return to the original point: vision.

This is an example of my distorting the argument?

And you're still playing the same game: discussing the detailed history of same-sex marriage while refusing to acknowledge the point: that Paul Martin proposed to act on the issue only when his hand was forced, and then pretended it was a matter of vision.

Where did I claim that Paul Martin's reversed stance on same-sex marriage was either part of some elaborate vision, or as you claim, an image that the Prime Minister adapted after public pressure? Same-sex marriage was legal in 90% of the country before Paul Martin even brought the motion before parliament. You're becoming a tad naive in claiming that everything Paul Martin has done is a result of a vision, when it would be ridiculous for him to do so (which he has never done).

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Oh, so he wasn't personally pro-WMD. I see. Apparently, he was reacting to perceived public opinion, and then decided to react to perceived public opinion.

That's a hell of a defence of his vision: "You can't accuse the Prime Minister of a lack of vision on this issue, as he never had one to begin with."

You use the term vision more often than the Prime Minister himself. As I stated (feel free to check, because I don't take responsibility for my words), Paul Martin came into office with expectations to improve Canada-US relations. Paul Martin proceeded to open up the possibility of providing support for the program. The public itself denounced any involvement. Paul Martin did not support the BMD program.

First, I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that he initially supported the program, and second I'm intrigued by your assumption that such a result is characterized by somebody lacking vision. Finally, I'd like to know why you continue to produce this absurd assumption that everything done by the Prime Minister (and not specifically Paul Martin), is done through a pre-conceived vision. Is it your understanding that MP's elected to the Federal Parliament arrive on Day One with a vision, an understanding, and a prescribed response to issues that have no immediate relevance, or at the time were not a matter of Federal debate.

Paul Martin's responses to such matters are not the result of a lack of vision, rather it is the response of Canadians through public opinion polls that heavily influenced his decision (while I think that Paul Martin, himself, did not invision joining the BMD from the get-go, and did initially invision same-sex marriage (which he did, it's after Jean Chretien persuaded the Liberal government to decline support that he flip-flopped))

If this, as I am gathering from your arguments, is not the appropriate approach that should be taken from the PM, and MP's themselves, then I'm not sure what you suggest be more appropriate. If the Conservatives had been in power with a majority government, than there would be Canadian troops in Iraq, and we'd be part of the BMD program, both things I strongly dis-agree with and I know you do as well, but would be a result of the Conservatives vision.

Public opinion has it's place. The Federal Government has no reason to request public opinion 99% of the time something is passed in parliament. But the aforementioned topics, BMD and SSM, are issues that the Canadian public are entitled to comment on with the reasoning that they provide a major shift in social policy. With BMD, SSM, and the war in Iraq, Canadian's provided the same response as the Liberal government did.

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:That is not what the platform says. On the contrary, the platform makes it clear that funding will be provided to private clinics by default, unless there is evidence that it undermines the public system -- the onus is completely the opposite of what you claim.

No standard is set for what undermining the public system actually means.

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Wrong again: the same standard will apply, whatever it turns out to be.

The standard is not whether private care will benefit the public, as you claim. Private care will be allowed to proceed unless it can be demonstrated to harm the public interest.

That's a significant distinction.

You were quite insistent that I read the Liberals platform, but have you read their entire platform on health care, or did you just skip to the bulleted points at the end? The Liberals, by default, will support private clinics over publicly funded clinics? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Are you suggesting that a Liberal government would place precedence on supporting private health care clinics? It's a yes or no question, and it would seem to me that you think this is the case.

The Liberals platform clearly outlines their expenditures, and the recipients of these funds. Show me, please, where private clinics fit into their expenditures. As I posted (and feel free to check), the Liberals will fund private health care clinics when it is necessary to ful-fill gaps in the public system.

Just to reiterate (in case you're skipping to the bulleted points again), your notion that the Liberal government will allocate funds by default, to private clinics is absolutely incorrect. You've read too much into the clauses that act as a contingency plan for patients who can not receive timely access to public health care, a reality of our public health care system under any government.

Can you explain to me why you continue to suggest that Paul Martin hasn't provided a vision, or has provided a vision that was filled with 'weasly phrasing'. I'm curious as to what you accept as a vision. It's such a subjective term, and I want to know who you think has provided a better vision, and why this persons vision is more sincere than Paul Martins.

das_hips Wrote:As I stated (feel free to check, because I don't take responsibility for my words), Paul Martin came into office with expectations to improve Canada-US relations. Paul Martin proceeded to open up the possibility of providing support for the program. The public itself denounced any involvement. Paul Martin did not support the BMD program.

Paul Martin made public statements indicating support for BMD -- suggesting, in fact, that he intended to begin negotiations with the US -- a matter about which I was moved at the time to write him a letter. I did not write that letter because he opened up the possibility of participating. I wrote it because he suggested that Canada would participate, despite the fact that at the time he had yet to win a mandate from the public.

That was Thursday, January 8th, 2004. I suggest you find a copy of the Globe & Mail from that date, and have someone read it to you.

das_hips Wrote:Finally, I'd like to know why you continue to produce this absurd assumption that everything done by the Prime Minister (and not specifically Paul Martin), is done through a pre-conceived vision.

That's a nice straw man, friend, but I didn't ever suggest such a thing. I merely suggested that Paul Martin's vision of government does not extend beyond balancing the books. That's a little bit different, but why worry about what I actually wrote when you can lie about it?

Now you're as good as acknowledging my point.

das_hips Wrote:You were quite insistent that I read the Liberals platform, but have you read their entire platform on health care, or did you just skip to the bulleted points at the end? The Liberals, by default, will support private clinics over publicly funded clinics? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Are you suggesting that a Liberal government would place precedence on supporting private health care clinics?

I did not suggest that the Liberals would support private clinics over public. I wrote this: "funding will be provided to private clinics by default," and "private care will be allowed to proceed." In other words -- and I'll type very slowly, to ensure that you get it: they will continue to fund private clinics, and they will fund new private clinics.

Well, I don't see how anyone could have misinterpreted that. Perhaps you're just dishonest? I do see a pattern emerging....

das_hips Wrote:You've read too much into the clauses that act as a contingency plan for patients who can not receive timely access to public health care....

That's not what those clauses say. Wording, my friend, is meaning. The words mean what they say: that new funding to private clinics will proceed unless harm to the public system is demonstrated.

das_hips Wrote:It's such a subjective term, and I want to know who you think has provided a better vision, and why this persons vision is more sincere than Paul Martins.

I've said it before: Trudeau had vision. Mulroney had vision. Martin, having had his chance in the big chair, has demonstrated that he does not.

You may dispute the differences between the likes of Trudeau and Mulroney and the likes of Paul Martin if you wish.

You may also strip naked and run down Main Street singing "Oh. Susanna" off key.

It all depends on whether you have any self respect.

Das Hips, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong Skippy) that Skippy's point regarding vision is that Martin has no comprehensive plan that he views as necessary for the country's well-being and advancement. Instead, his policy moves are dictated entirely by public opinion. That's not a vision, that's just going with the whims of the people. Skippy is correct that both Trudeau and Mulroney had vision. You can argue with those visions, but they had a plan for the country nonetheless. Martin just goes with whatever is popular.

fingernailsonhull Wrote:The Liberal Party has dumped candidate David Oliver in British Columbia for trying to bribe the NDP candidate in his riding to drop out. Kudos to Mr. Martin for dealing with this properly. What's with the candidates in BC this election?

skippy the wonder dog Wrote:BC is always weird.

Think of the history of scandals at the provincial level in BC. Svend Robinson is running. Grewal. And these two latest clowns.

fingernailsonhull Wrote:How could I forget about Svend? I also didn't realize that Gurmant Grewal was from BC. That's just bizarre.

Too much marijuana out there, perhaps? :lol: :lol:

The weirdest part about the statements by the NDP candidate, Jeffery Hansen-Carlson, regarding David Oliver was that during the meeting where Hansen-Carlson was allegedly bribed, he was offered a KFC dinner but turned it down. A Kentucky Fried Chicken dinner??? Were they all high and just had the munchies, or are the Liberal candidates out there so short of funds they can't even make bribe offers at a half-decent restaurant? cratch: Man, sometimes truth IS stranger than fiction!