Thursday, January 12, 2006

Glad I'm Not Alone

It seems a few other people are starting to worry about a Tory majority government...Conservatives.

It actually makes sense. A Harper majority means:

1. Martin leaves cleanly, without trying to stick around.
2. He'll be expected to follow through on his entire platform.
3. He won't be able to use the minority government excuse for "shifting to the centre". Because of this, his base will become mighty peeved when he doesn't deliver what they expect him to deliver.
4. The same sex marriage free vote he's promised might actually pass. That's one head-ache he probably doesn't want.


  • I wonder how the liberals will try to spin this to their advantage.

    I'll give it a try:

    "They're not ready to royally screw the country!"

    "Only the Liberal Party has the croney infrastructure in place to blow your money!"

    By Anonymous Don Mitchell, at 6:41 PM  

  • rest assured that harper's majority is far off still. his support in Quebec is despersed and he'll need at least 10 MP's from their to put him into majority territory.

    By Anonymous grey wall, at 6:43 PM  

  • Speaking of Martin leaving cleanly:

    If Martin resigns on or soon after Jan 23rd, will he be the shortest-lived Liberal leader? I can't think of any Liberal leader who has had a shorter term. Turner and Pearson who were short-term leaders by Liberal standards were still around a lot longer than Martin.

    Maybe that will be his legacy?


    By Anonymous Matt, at 6:50 PM  

  • If Harper gets a majority, it will be horrible for this country. How many people are actually voting Conservative because they support his policies? Even the Conservatives aren't doing that!

    By Blogger Jason Cherniak, at 6:59 PM  

  • Jason, glad you're here. 'member when I said you were a fanatic? It's ok to be partisan, TO A POINT. CalgaryGrit is willing to call a spade a spade. If you want people to listen to what you have to say, you should try it sometime.

    By Anonymous KRB, at 7:03 PM  

  • ME I support his policies and his HONESTY. . . a concept lost on PMPM & crew.

    And IF there is a free vote on SSM and IF it passes the House, it will die at the Senate, but IF it did get past the Senate, the SSC which is 90% Liberal judges would kill it.

    And HONEST STEVE said he'd not use NWC.

    Its a dead issue. The free vote stuff is a way to defuse the thing by practising democracy. It ain't gonna happen but he can say "he didn't do it" to the folks in ALL Parties who want to try and revive it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:04 PM  

  • If Harper gets a majority - it will be wonderful for this country.

    Like a breath of fresh air.

    The Grits need to take some time, reflect, get a new leader, revisit their "Vision of Canada" and ..... well... see you in four years...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:24 PM  

  • It won't get past the Senate, because the Liberals will still control the Senate (and will for a long time).

    By Blogger Toronto Tory, at 7:25 PM  

  • Sweet simple Jason ... count me among the people supporting Harper cuz I like his policies. And the man.

    Seems like I'm not alone in this.

    By Anonymous Peter, at 7:27 PM  

  • A Harper Majority Government will really be a Brian Mulroney Government on steroids.

    The country barely survived Mulroney and his $650,000,000,000 public debt policy. It took over a decade of hard work and effort by Canadians to fix the worst features of what was in the Mulroney legacy.

    I plan to vote Liberal. And I don't care if the candidate can win or lose, I want to register my vote for the policies that I think are the best for Canada.

    If you believe that Harper can actually do more good than harm to Canada, then be my guest and vote for him. But remember that for all the talk about "clean" government, you will be trading in a party of alleged influence peddlars, for a group of certain drug dealers, and smugglers.

    In the US we are now seeing the same phenomina that we saw with Mulroney. All the veneer has worn off, and we can see him and his neocon buddies for the liars, cheats and thieves that they are. Just look at the Abramoff corruption and tell me that it was any different with Mulroney and Canadair with the F18 contracts, or that it will be any different with Harper and his buddies in Calgary.

    Don't jump out of the fry pan into the fire.

    By Blogger Joe Green, at 7:40 PM  

  • Course if the Liberals stay,

    Polygamy appears to the future of Canada.

    Check out the Post for details.

    Uhhhm, which party is supposed to be "radical" again???

    By Anonymous Chuckles, at 8:02 PM  

  • Oh, and here's a thought.

    Conservatism is no longer considered scary in this country.

    Liberal/Corruption is.

    You all, including you Calgary, better start getting used to that.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:05 PM  

  • To the holdouts in the Toronto 905 area:

    Do you really want to be known as the only area in Canada that is complacent to corruption,
    that is ruled by fear, rather than hope.

    Embrace a new hopeful future. Put the corrupt Liberals behind us.

    By Anonymous anewdawn, at 8:11 PM  

  • Joe Green said "I plan to vote Liberal."

    I thought he'd never declare!

    Now the thousands of Canadians who have suffered through his spittle-spewing vitriole can satisfy themselves that, no matter what their choice, whether it be NDP or Conservative, they at least aren't on the same side as Joe Green.

    (I wasn't worried. But I think the Dippers were sweatin' this one.)

    By Blogger Patrick, at 8:34 PM  

  • what is wrong with polygamy??? furthermore, who the hell would go for polygamy, when you can just go to a swinger club and swap wives. All the benefits, none of the headaches. DUH

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:50 PM  

  • I think Martin leaves regardless of minority or majority. This whole election is about change and clean slates. I don't see how the Liberal power structure survives.

    By Blogger Steve V, at 9:02 PM  

  • When Martin bans the notwithstanding clause he will take power away from the elected house and give it to five people. Five votes of nine in the courts will make law. Five people APPOINTED solely by the Prime minister. Law for 30 million people. That is scary!

    Polygamy and swinging just may be the first, what else could they possibly do? They've already "protected the rights of a man to have anal sex with a 14 year old boy. Where does it all end?

    What kind of country are we becoming?

    By Blogger CanadianTruth, at 9:04 PM  

  • And if Harper gets a minority, he will not be able to implement any conservative agenda. He'll only wait around for 8 months as the Libs regroup, get Ignatieff and then wait for the election.

    When it happens, the media, WK et all will side with the Libs and tear Harper a new one.

    And the last eight months will have been for not.

    I do not think a majority will happen, but any conservative who thinks a minority could be used to prove themselves to the public and media is not seeing the big picture. The goal is always a majority.

    If we do not get it now, do not expect it after Martin leaves.

    This is it. The big show.

    After this the media goes back to the new Liberal candidate.

    By Blogger Nicol DuMoulin, at 9:12 PM  

  • Liberals declare polygamy will never be legal in Canada.


    This has a familiar ring to it, no?

    From the "heard that one before" dept.

    By Anonymous springer, at 9:14 PM  

  • Hey Canadian Truth, what case was that that protected a man's right to have sex with a 14 year old boy?? You must have the citation. Cause as every person knows section 159(2)(b) of the Criminal Code makes it illegal unless one is 18 years old to have anal sex. So please tell us what case overturned the statute.

    Furthermore, who cares, but that is another point, i would just like to see you back up your homophobic fear mongering

    What a Clown

    By Blogger iloveLaP, at 9:21 PM  

  • IloveyaP,

    Actually that section could very well be unconstitutional.

    Gay "rights" are part of Charter

    (I know this is too graphic but true) Anal sex is an integral part of a male Gay relationship,

    The legal age of consent is 14

    It's thus descriminatory to say "Gay Sex" is illegal but hetero sex isn't.

    Next time you open your yap about that which you appear to know little (citing the CC takes about zero insight), in such a condescending manner, you may want to think twice.

    By Anonymous Chuckles, at 9:43 PM  

  • Oh Chuckles, please tell me where in my post i said that the section was constitutional?? I was asking a simple question, what is the precedent, and you spout off some basic definition of section 15 of the Charter. Of course i am assuming you are referring to such precedent as M. v. H. [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3, or of course Haig v. Can. from the Ontario Court of Appeal (1992) or Rosenberg (1998) all of which read in sexual orientation into section 15, because as you know, it is not an enumerated ground under that part of our cherished Charter (i emphasis cherished as i know you are likely a conservative and cherish all rights, especially "gay" ones, as you so aptly called them)

    Anyways, my question was about precedent, as you know, you can have unconstitutonal laws that are still the law up and until they are overturned as being unconstitutional, i am just unaware of this particular law being overturned.

    Thanks for coming out Chuckles

    By Blogger iloveLaP, at 9:53 PM  

  • IloveyaP,

    You said it was "illegal".

    If that law is unconstitutional it is void. Got that sweety pie. Unconstitutional law, means no law, which means its not illegal.

    Now why don't you spout off a few more cases and/or sections to try to show your prowess with the law.

    And each time you do it, why don't you continue to try to distance yourself from your original point.

    Course rather than spouting off a bunch of cases, which any hack who can do a google search can do, see my original post, go through the reasoning, and tell me how it's NOT unconstitutional.

    By Anonymous Chuckles, at 10:39 PM  

  • Hey Love Lap boy,

    That was your ass that chuckles just handed to you, in case you weren't sure.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:53 PM  

  • Perhaps the best result for Harper would be a "strong minority" with 140-something MPs. It would be enough that he would almost certainly be able to get his economic agenda passed. (The Liberals, who would be in the midst of a painful rebuilding process, could be counted on to keep a few MPs at home for any money bill vote anyway.) The minority, however, would serve as the official excuse to social conservatives in caucus as to why they can't have a legislative bone tossed their way.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:03 PM  

  • Anal intercourse with an individual under the age of 18 is illegal. Just because a law is potentially unconstitutional does not mean that the law is void. The Court has to rule that a law is unconstitutional in order for such a law to be illegal. I never once said that section 159(2)(b) would be found constitutionally valid, it would likely be found illegal under s. 15 and would not be saved under s.1. You should read my original post was that there has NEVER been a SCC decision that made s. 159(2)(b) illegal. As such, it is still the law. My original point, which is legally correct, is that a law is valid, even if it would potentially be illegal under the Charter up and until the Court strikes it down as being unconstitutional.

    Got that Sweety Pie??

    By Blogger iloveLaP, at 11:03 PM  

  • Want more examples annonymous, I will give you some so i can get my "ass" back LOL. The province of Alberta has laws on the books that prevent agrigultural workers from unionizing, which is clearly a violation of freedom of association. This is an unconstitutional law, yet it is still the law of Alberta. Furthermore, there is a case, Dunmore, which ruled that a similar law was illegal in Ontario. Yet the law is still on the books in Alberta and is still operative. This is an unconstitutional law that is still the law and it is still illegal for farmers to unionize or get protection under the Labour Relations Code. Got that bud, an unconstitutional law that is the law, is legal.

    Another example is picketing laws in Alberta and other provinces that state that workers can only picket at their place of work or at an allied place of work (the allied doctrine). Yet Pepsi Cola states that workers should be allowed to picket anywhere as long as they are not committing a tort. Yet another example of the government having an unconstitutional law that is legal and is the law of that particular province.

    Learn something about the law before you spout off clown.

    By Blogger iloveLaP, at 11:11 PM  

  • Keep backing up IloveP.

    I love it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:14 PM  

  • hey annonymous, please tell me how i am backing up?? It is Illegal for anybody above the age of 18 to have anal sex with somebody under the age of 18. My original post was asking a bigot to show me a precedent that showed otherwise. Just to repeat, in case you do not understand, it is Illegal to have anal sex with an individual under the age of 18, that is the law until an SCC decision states otherwise.

    By Blogger iloveLaP, at 11:25 PM  

  • I'll try a concrete example, cuz you seem to be all over the bloody place.

    Man 18, has sex with his partner who's 17. It's anal sex because they are gay.

    Crown prosecutor, who does the same analysis I did, choses not to proceed because he knows he doesn't have reasonable grounds to believe he can obtain a conviction.

    Lawyers who show the slightest degree of analysis.....and.......what's that word I'm looking for........insight, yeah that's it, know that something is unconstitutional by judgeing the prevailing trends, and other related, though not necessarily on point, cases. That law is unconstitutional, and I don't need a judge to tell me that. Neither would a prosecutor.

    Now, back to your original condescending point wherein you stated that "everyone knows" the section (of course you knew that not "everyone knew" that section verbatum).

    Ironically while the guy you were dissing didn't know the exact section, he knew of the trends and general state of the law, and was in effect right. Whereas you, acting all superior, were in fact wrong.

    And oh, yeah, I know plenty about the law.


    By Anonymous Chuckles, at 11:29 PM  

  • your point, prosecutorial discretion, has no bearing on whether the law is illegal. The law is legal, it is the law. Whether a prosecutor decides to prosecute the law is at their discretion.

    You said quote "If that law is unconstitutional it is void. Got that sweety pie. Unconstitutional law, means no law, which means its not illegal." That is quite simply wrong, dead wrong. It is legal, it is unconstitutional and it is not void.

    As for me being all over the place, my original point was that there is a law, it is on the books, and there has not been a case that has overturned it. Therefore the law is the law, it is illegal in Canada to have anal sex with an individual under 18, and anybody having anal sex with an individual under the age of 18 is committing a crime. Whether or not a prosecutor would try the case has no bearing on whether it is a illegal.

    By Blogger iloveLaP, at 11:51 PM  

  • Why I hate lawyer types:

    as quoted by ilovelap.
    "Whether a prosecutor decides to prosecute the law is at their discretion"

    Why in the hell should a law that is in the books as ILLEGAL and have consequences become a whim for a prosecutor to decide whether it should be prosecuted.

    It's the Liberal way. Get the right Liberal judge and prosecutor and people get away with murder or even better... steal hundreds of millions of dollars from the people of Canada and call it ADSCAM.

    By Blogger Fighting for Democracy, at 12:55 AM  

  • This is a screwball story BUT after 12-13 yrs in the wilderness, no one is 'ready aye ready'.

    But Harper has been readying himself for this (and so has Flanagan)since Prestone was his mentor.

    Delacourt is such a kidder and the Star is only just getting used to the idea that it will need to have tory sources in order to write stories about gov't.


    By Anonymous MoDuv, at 1:10 AM  

  • Ilovep,

    "Whether or not a prosecutor would try the case has no bearing on whether it is a illegal"

    Chuckles'point was the opposite: it's unconstitutional, based on the state of the law, so the prosecutor decides not to go ahead. Nice try though.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:51 AM  

  • Keep in mind that many heterosexuals have anal sex as well. (About 15% of the North American population, actually.) and some homosexuals do not, so this should not be linked to the issue as to whether gays should be equal before the charter.

    By Anonymous daninbigd, at 11:37 AM  

  • ------------------------------------

    Jan. 12, 2006. 02:27 PM

    Privately, and perhaps surprisingly, some Conservative strategists are saying they're hoping they don't find themselves with a majority government after the Jan. 23 vote.

    "We're not ready for that," one Tory confided this week.


    Tories are also worried about finding qualified staff, for a majority or minority.


    You can read the rest of the article on the Toronto star.

    Where is the journalistic integrity in this article. She mentions a tory but doesn't give the story any credibility by not giving a name.

    Is this Liberal newspaper paper saying with the help of Liberal propaganda supplied by the Liberal war room that the Conservatives really don't have any experience?

    There is so many things wrong with this article.

    -Is the Toronto Star saying basically that only people that are born Liberal and vote Liberal have experience to run a country?

    -Is the Toronto Star saying that the Shadow Cabinets that opposition parties have run in government are worthless?
    I would arguably say that a Shadow Cabinet is the longest running apprenticeship program in the world.
    I guess the Toronto Star is saying that all training programs, apprenticeship programs and even articling students should just quit because this kind of experience just wouldn't work in a Liberal world.

    -Is the Toronto Star saying that only Paul Martin is "experienced" enough to suffle his cabinet around on a whim and appoint anyone within his caucus to Cabinet and that these people have "magical" experience.

    -Does the Toronto Star explain how someone like Belinda Stronach with less than 2 years of political experience "earned" a Cabinet postion?

    The Toronto Star just showed Canada it's lack of integrity and the hypocrisy by printing this article.

    I'm not making this up.

    By Blogger Fighting for Democracy, at 11:40 AM  

  • More generally, the problem with winning elections is that the day after, you have to actually govern.

    Some have it, and some don't.

    The don'ts - Dief, Joe Who, Kimmie and Dithers

    The haves : P.E.T. , the Chin, Da Liddle Guy.

    I'm undecided which list John Turner belongs to.

    Having watched Harper since his Reform days, I think he's a have, but you never know.

    By Anonymous Paul, at 4:33 PM  

  • The Star story is illogical. What idiot would propose that running a minority government is easier than running a majority? Anyway, if the tories get desperate, there'll be several unemployed Liberals looking for work as advisers ..... OTOH, perhaps that's not the kinda help anyone needs.

    By Anonymous Dave, at 8:51 PM  

  • Just thought I would say that you have put together some nice stuff here. :-) You might be interested in my Erotic Hypnosis blog which is designed to enhance sensuality. Oh, I also have a Seduction blog to help anyone who needs help talking to women. If you get a chance, drop by and let me know what you think.

    By Blogger Stress Help, at 10:55 PM  

  • Oh my god, there's a great deal of helpful information here!

    By Anonymous, at 8:49 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home