The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Harper Government to be found in Contempt

Kulindahr said:
That's a rather slimy way of manipulating things.
Click to expand...
That is a traditional means of manipulating things in a parliamentary system. At some point, a minority prime minister who thinks he has a shot at a majority will try to trip up the opposition by engineering his own defeat, but in a way that makes the combined opposition forces look petty or capricious. It famously backfired on the last person to try it, Joe Clark - a conservative PM, briefly, in the late 70's.

What's truly slimy and manipulative is the way they try to stage manage everything. The Harperites don't ever accept accountability or openness for their decisions. For as long as newspapers have been widely read, and since the dawn of TV news, our politicians have been expected to have microphones pushed into their faces and to have to answer questions from reporters. It's not their privilege to tell us what they want us to know. They have to answer the questions we feel like asking. But not so with Harper and his ilk:

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=89eafbaf-ddbe-45b6-aff9-f33ec9cb20a3

For them, everything is just a "photo op."

Kulindahr said:
It will be interesting to see if this even gets mentioned on US media.
Click to expand...
Really?
 
 
^^ Yeah, I mean I really don't get it. The other party leaders spout on about how horrible Harper is yet a majority of the citizens are annoyed as fuck with said parties, sending support to the Conservatives to be rid of this election nonsense. They're just going to call in a majority and crush the petty stalemates we've seen for the last while.

I was at the polling booth six months ago. Sure, it was for completely different reasons...but Jesus Christ, the last thing I want to see is more God damn election signs every three feet on every corner.
 
Dunno I find it annoying for Harper to give fake budget numbers to Parliament on crime and fighter jets. The Opposition didn't even have to dig this up like it was dirt or something: they have an independent Parliamentary Budget Officer who just calculates these things. Harper is supposedly fiscally prudent? Supposedly ethical? Pffft.
 
I find quite a few of the Conservatives (not all) to be wholly unethical. Some of them are frankly disgusting. it's appalling that they have acceptable numbers in the polls. It says a lot for how uneducated Canadians are on the issues.
 
And what's so bad about wanting fighter jets we can actually afford, when we have a pathetic military as it is for a middle power? God, have you seen our navy fleet? It's fucking depressing, that's what it is.

I find the opposition's logic horribly confusing. Yes, I understand Harper's administration has been largely unethical and detrimental to Canadian people. His means are out of hand, yet I believe his intent is just.
 
We could buy jets... or we could build them at home... employ Canadians, have a bid for the contract... I know Saint John has a dry dock that is just itching to get back to work building something...
 
-Callum- said:
And what's so bad about wanting fighter jets we can actually afford, when we have a pathetic military as it is for a middle power? God, have you seen our navy fleet? It's fucking depressing, that's what it is.

I find the opposition's logic horribly confusing. Yes, I understand Harper's administration has been largely unethical and detrimental to Canadian people. His means are out of hand, yet I believe his intent is just.
Click to expand...

I don't want Canada to have an overblown military. But I do expect the military we have to be able to fight with quality modern equipment. I would vote for that. The reason I'm pissed off at Harper is they're actually going to cost twice what he will admit, and 30 billion dollars is a lot of money. So what's it going to be? Is Harper going to raise taxes to pay for it? Or is he going to eliminate the Federal healthcare budget, which would also cover it?

He's as slippery as anything and he's been caught at it.

And to just give the contract to a company without a bid? It just doesn't make sense or seem in any way up front or competent.
 
^ I definitely agree with a need for openness. His administration has been shady at best. But with the world's largest coastline by-far, we need a larger navy. Especially with the Arctic. I have seen little information or comments from the Opposition on the matter. It's in a sad state of affairs...they're crying for employees! And then you have the coalition wishing to cut funding to the DND for diplomacy and social programs? Absurdity. But I'm a military junky so whatever... :p

I don't think the Liberals will get in because Ignatieff's personal history isn't going to jive with the Canadian people (which is what the attack ads in the last two months are try attempting to instill into people). He has proven ineffective in not only marketing his party but directing it as well. Public intellectuals, in my humble opinion, are largely disillusioned to the needs of people. If the Cons win a majority and a coalition is formed to overthrow the majority, it's incredibly disrespectful to Canadian voters.

We just need new life in all of the parties...get rid of the leaders. Harper (untrustworthy), Ignatieff (incompetent), Layton (stale), May (too quiet)...sack'em all. And it's funny that the conventions for the respective parties occur after the election. :lol:
 
FanofFiction said:
I find quite a few of the Conservatives (not all) to be wholly unethical. Some of them are frankly disgusting. it's appalling that they have acceptable numbers in the polls. It says a lot for how uneducated Canadians are on the issues.
Click to expand...
Because if they don't agree with you, it must reflect poorly on their intelligence?

There are plenty of educated people out there who have examined the issues and are of the opinion that they are more scandalous in title than by substance. And there are plenty of educated people out there who have decided that these circumstances only prove that the Tories are as capable of arrogance and deceit as the Liberals are. And, in their eyes, if both parties break even on ethics, there's no point in basing their vote on ethics, is there?
 
My dear Aaron. I only meant that many people are totally unaware of the events transpiring. Also, that those who knowingly vote for the specific candidates who are involves with these scandals because of some unfounded fear that the opposing candidate is somehow more contentious... that's an uneducated fear.

And many of these scandals are just as big as they sound. It's more than title. Substance of some of these scandals are serious. A few face criminal charges. I'd say that's serious.
 
FanofFiction said:
My dear Aaron. I only meant that many people are totally unaware of the events transpiring. Also, that those who knowingly vote for the specific candidates who are involves with these scandals because of some unfounded fear that the opposing candidate is somehow more contentious... that's an uneducated fear.
Click to expand...
If that's what you meant, then fair enough.

I think most people are aware of what's going on, but simply don't fully appreciate the narrative. The bottom line is that Canadian's aren't surprised when Governments are dishonest. ("A politician lied?! OH MY GOD!") They roll their eyes, add it to the extensive list of why all politicians are bad people, and move on with their day. And they don't immediately understand the nature of a contempt ruling or the Parliamentary mechanisms that resulted in the confidence vote. So the opposition is left to construct that for the average Canadian, most of whom couldn't be bothered to learn about it because as far as they're concerned they've seen this episode before (and too often).

By contrast, the narrative on Adscam, for example, was simple. The Liberals were funneling taxpayers' dollars into friendly ad agencies and then back into the Liberal party. That was something the average Canadian could understand within the 30 seconds of give-a-shit that they have for politics each day: "the Liberals stole my money." Yes, the amounts were way smaller, but it was a cheap and easy campaign line and it worked.

That's why these ethics issues aren't going to be easy to capitalize on during a campaign. Prove that Stephen is pocketing some of the cash he's spending on those jets, and you have yourself a Liberal government. Until then, these issues are, for many people (educated or otherwise), more scandalous in title than in substance.
 
Well, you do have the illegal transfer of campaign donations to other campaigns within the Conservative party.

Then there's Bev Oda's questionable handling of money.

Then there's the unanswered question as to why Harper just gave away a contract for jets to a wealthy company. I certainly hope he didn't accept a bribe.
 
FanofFiction said:
Well, you do have the illegal transfer of campaign donations to other campaigns within the Conservative party.

Then there's Bev Oda's questionable handling of money.

Then there's the unanswered question as to why Harper just gave away a contract for jets to a wealthy company. I certainly hope he didn't accept a bribe.
Click to expand...
The first issue came to light just before the 2008 vote and didn't seem to hurt the Tories - and that's when it was fresh. The case is now ongoing, courts have disagreed with each other on the issue (although the Tories did lose in the most recent decision if I'm not mistaken), and the complexities of Elections Canada funding practices and election spending limits are not in the sphere of concern of many Canadians.

Bev Oda added a word to a document to deny funding to an organization. That one sounds small all on its own. And then there are the people who don't really care if they get federal funding or not, anyway, so why should they worry about a "not" being added to a letter?

And that third one's a stretch, at best.

I'm not defending anyone's behaviour here. I'm just showing why this behaviour isn't causing the Tories any great pain right now. You're right - it should. People should be outraged. People should be demanding change. But they're not because lots don't care.
 
Aaron said:
The first issue came to light just before the 2008 vote and didn't seem to hurt the Tories - and that's when it was fresh. The case is now ongoing, courts have disagreed with each other on the issue (although the Tories did lose in the most recent decision if I'm not mistaken), and the complexities of Elections Canada funding practices and election spending limits are not in the sphere of concern of many Canadians.

Bev Oda added a word to a document to deny funding to an organization. That one sounds small all on its own. And then there are the people who don't really care if they get federal funding or not, anyway, so why should they worry about a "not" being added to a letter?

And that third one's a stretch, at best.

I'm not defending anyone's behaviour here. I'm just showing why this behaviour isn't causing the Tories any great pain right now. You're right - it should. People should be outraged. People should be demanding change. But they're not because lots don't care.
Click to expand...

Do you not care? I think the country can be better.
 
-Callum- said:
If the Cons win a majority and a coalition is formed to overthrow the majority, it's incredibly disrespectful to Canadian voters.
Click to expand...
A majority means it has more than half the total seats in the House, so the opposition parties could form a zillion coalitions and nothing would happen.

The term coalition is being used too loosely lately. Just because an MP from one opposing party votes the same way as an MP from another opposing party — or groups of MPs do so — doesn't mean they are part of a coalition. "Pairing" has been around for centuries, and it's no coalition. The term is being misused.

Even with a majority government and a couple of government MPs are absent, it isn't a coalition if MPs from opposing parties happen to vote down the government in a surprise no-confidence motion. It has been done for centuries and is perfectly moral, ethical and legal. It's at the heart of the parliamentary system, whether the man with the wooden hair preaches the opposite to those ignorant of the rules or not.

Another example:
In September 1925, William Lyon Mackenzie King, then Prime Minister of Canada, advised the governor general, the Lord Byng of Vimy, to dissolve parliament and drop the writ for a general election, to which Lord Byng agreed. In the subsequent election, Arthur Meighen's Conservative Party won 116 seats in the House of Commons to 101 for King's Liberals. Counting on the support of the Progressive Party, with its 28 seats, to overcome the Conservative plurality, King (who had lost his seat in the election) did not resign and remained in office as head of a minority government. Strictly speaking, this was not a coalition government, as the Progressives were not given any Cabinet seats and were thus not a part of the government.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top