Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Enough is Enough

posted by calgarygrit at 8:00 a.m.

15 Comments:

  • Enough is indeed, as you say, enough. But now how do we make that 40% who don't mind a rogue, illegal government as long as it is their party in power????

    By Blogger Kirbycairo, at 8:32 a.m.  

  • Whoever leaked this draft obviously had access to every draft including the final draft. Why was the final draft not leaked? It seems to tell a different story than the one we are lead to believe is true. Here is what Ms. Fraser said. "I strongly caution the public to wait until our final report on the G8."

    Unfortuantely where Liberals are concerned, if you're a rapist you're innocent until proven guilty. (but mostly innocent) If you're a Conservative you're guilty until proven innocent.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:34 a.m.  

  • I didn't notice this until this morning, when youtube offered me Naomi Klein up next - the "Enough Harper branding is identical to her "No Logo". Is she behind EH?

    By Blogger Don, at 9:16 a.m.  

  • Effective ad but voting for the Liberals will not stop corruption. (Neither will voting for Layton or Green)

    Voting the CPC in to punish the LPC's criminal behavior has not made the system more honest. Voting in the LPC to punish the CPC's deceitful dishonest patterns of behavior will not make the system more honest.

    how do we make that 40% who don't mind a rogue, illegal government as long as it is their party in power?
    Wow, blast from the past. And from the future. And pretty much applies to all parties, too.

    I used to be weary of people griping about "the system!", but -- really, it's the system. It's not Chrétien, it's not Harper, it's the system which rewards and encourages deceit and dishonesty and cheating.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 9:44 a.m.  

  • Enough is indeed, as you say, enough. But now how do we make that 40% who don't mind a rogue, illegal government as long as it is their party in power????

    Honestly, the crucial 6 percent of that 40% just wants everyone to leave them alone for 4 years. I do not know how you can persuade them otherwise.

    By Blogger Greg, at 10:18 a.m.  

  • Prairie Kid - You could ask the same question about why the Tories leaked the second draft rather than the final report?

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 10:22 a.m.  

  • Prairie Kid - nice spin - were you paid to write that?

    Pretty safe for the CPC to call for the final draft to be released when you know the A-G can't release her report unless parliament is sitting.

    Also, if the final draft is such a glowing report for the government, you'd think those bits would be leaked to the press today. I'm not seeing anything yet ...and that says volumes.

    Greg Weston said he's seen the final draft, and aside from the line 'mislead parliament' being changed, he said it's still a damning report for the Harper Government.

    And before you claim Weston is biased, need I remind you that he was your champion back when he was skewering the Liberals over Adscam.

    By Blogger Tof KW, at 10:32 a.m.  

  • JBV is right. If you think replacing CPC with LPC will make government act more ethically, then you need to explain why replacing LPC with CPC in 2006 failed to do so.

    There is no ethical choice on your ballot (as JBV said in the past).

    As H2H said, you can only choose the type of corruption, not its presence.

    And hey - over 30% of the country still voted Liberal after their corruption was revealed. Blind partisanship knows no political stripe.

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 10:35 a.m.  

  • Vollman is correct to be cautious about believing any party on the issue of corruption. However, voting for Harper at this point sets a dangerous precedent which will only encourage more corruption. How about voting for a party that has not been in power before?

    As for Prairie Kid, he/she is just another partisan hack who hates corruption unless it is his/her party being corrupt and believes in treating criminals harshly until it is his/her political buddies that are the criminals.

    Anyone who is unable to see that this Government has systematically lied and deceived the people and the House, as well as attempting to undermine the fundamentals of our democracy is so blindly partisan that they are just not worth the effort of discourse. Their only answer is that "other guys were corrupt too, so there." All that is is an admission of guilt.

    Next time a conservative is charged with a crime like, say, murder why don't they try the defence that "other people have murdered too, so it must be ok."

    By Blogger Kirbycairo, at 10:57 a.m.  

  • Mr Vollman, as Kirbycairo wrote you are 100% correct. I have no illusions that the Liberals will somehow ride in on a white horse and clean up the swamp that is Ottawa, however Robin Williams said it best...

    Politicians need to be changed as often as diapers, and for the same reason

    I don't see how rewarding a government's transgressions by re-electing them is a good thing.

    By Blogger Tof KW, at 11:53 a.m.  

  • We have two main patterns of scandals in Canada. The problem is that addressing one, will likely worsen the other.

    Pattern 1 is outright theft and abuse of power by governments that have been in power too long. Unafraid of losing elections, actors within the government loot the public purse. Adscam, or Charest's nominations for hire are an example of this. A harsh voter reaction is a good and effective deterrent to this kind of corruption.

    Pattern 2, however, involves playing fast and loose with the rules in order to gain political advantage. In-and-out, or the G-8 pork-barreling are examples of this. This tends to be the action of governments that are insecure and desperate to maintain power. As a result, fear of a harsh voter reaction may actually be counterproductive. With little to lose, they may go double-or-nothing.

    In Canada, the problem is that we tend to extremes. Either our government is too secure or not secure enough. What we need are stable majority governments, in which the opposition represents a viable alternative to the party in power.

    By Anonymous hosertohoosier, at 12:24 p.m.  

  • How about voting for a party that has not been in power before?

    As JBV said, I don't see an honest, ethical choice on my ballot. That includes parties that haven't been in power.

    Unless you mean an independent or minor party candidate? If so, then I agree.

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 1:00 p.m.  

  • TofKW:
    I totally agree, and that's a great way of putting it.

    In my entire life I've voted Conservative/Reform/Alliance/whatever only once, and that was 2006, and it was to change our dirty diapers.

    If the Liberals didn't have to cater to regionalists nor to dangerous economic policies, I'd happily vote the original dirty pair back on.

    As it stands, I'm really hoping there's an independent candidate for whom to vote, because I really don't want to have to choose between dirty diapers.

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 1:07 p.m.  

  • I get a kick out of PrairieKid using analogies to entertain us. I wonder if he sees the humour in comparing despicable criminals (rapists) to Conservatives. Heckuva basis for comparison, eh?

    By Anonymous Saskboy, at 6:10 p.m.  

  • Who here has read the Budget (or the Supplementary Estimates) in detail, and can claim to know exactly what each line item represents?

    How much of a department's budget is spent on conferences and travel? Is Parliament misled because that travel is listed in the Estimates under the heading of "Fisheries and Oceans"?

    The AG is not wrong to complain that the level of budgetary micromanagement oversight presented to Parliament will never be fully "transparent". But that doesn't mean that anyone was misled about this or any other approved spending.

    For the Opposition to claim otherwise demonstrates a certain contempt of its own.

    By Blogger Paul, at 6:43 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home