The Shotgun Blog
« Bimbo eruption | Main | The challenge »
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Only the Liberals can save Canada, riiiight
Forehead slap! CP: Martin prepares to make national unity campaign theme, links Tories and Bloc. I'm not sure how this looks down east (probably different) but from here in the west it looks just plain dumb. Adscam is all about the Liberals financially profiting from the national unity issue; you know, faking Canadians out by pretending they were saving the country while instead lining the party's pockets.
Let's hope Paul Martin puts some kind of proposed sponsorship program in the Liberal Party Platform on unity. Yeah, that would be great for the country.
Posted by Kevin Steel on April 13, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22305/2244859
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Only the Liberals can save Canada, riiiight:
» Leaked Liberal Talking Points? from small dead animals
I'm republishing two comments from a Shotgun thread here. Take a gander at them. The talking points are in the extended entry, as the list is long. Now, I suppose this could be a crank, or a devious diversion scheme,... [Read More]
Tracked on 14-Apr-05 12:57:36 AM
» Win at all costs. from larry borsato
From the Western Standard, by way of small dead animals, you will find the allegedly leaked Liberal talking points in the extended entry. This is an example of the Liberal "win at all costs" strategy. Paul Martin has been in... [Read More]
Tracked on 14-Apr-05 10:15:30 AM
Comments
So true - Maybe Martin can explain how the Liberals, as saviors of the one party federal state, managed to invigorate the Separatist cause like no others with their numerous scams... coming next - Dual separatism when both Alberta / BC and Quebec seek to secede.
I can't wait (only because as an ex-canadian who lives in the US, watching the implosion of Ontario's fantasy country will be pure pleasure).
The latter prediction depends upon the crooks / liberals retaining government. But why doubt the stupidity of the Ontario electorate - its not like there is any evidence that they think at all before returning the ever crooked libs to power, always in the face of an even bigger and more brazen scandal.
Posted by: SEchappe | 13-Apr-05 3:47:16 PM
"October 27th,2004
------The Paul Martin Watch:
I knew, you knew,we all knew that Paul Martin knew.Globe and Mail reports that Paul Martin has been called to testify before the Gomery Inquiry into the sponsorship scandal to answer questions on a letter that was described yesterday as an intervention in favour of a former leadership supporter.
The inquiry announced that Mr. Martin will appear early in 2005 after the lawyer for the federal government made a successful bid to delay the release of the letters between Mr. Martin and Claude Boulay, president of the advertising firm Groupe Everest.
The Globe and Mail later obtained the 1994 correspondence.
... Mr. Martin has always tried to distance himself from the scandal as a relic from the days when Jean Chretien was prime minister.
Now even Paul knows, that we all know.
http://www.rightpoint.org/blogo.html
(Scroll down).
To the Globe and Mail: Release the letters to the Canadian people. Now.
This ties PM Martin directly to the Adscam/sponsorship scandal.
Posted by: maz2 | 13-Apr-05 4:13:20 PM
Um, actually, SEchappe, I'd rather Canada didn't implode; even a peaceful separation of Quebec is not an implosion. And there is no question that it is not the case that the Ontario electorate, or Quebec electorate, or Alberta electorate, or any other group of people are stupid. In each case they have normally distributed intelligence and self-interests.
As far as I can see, at this point in time the situation is completely open. Everything depends on the rest of the Gomery commission testimony. The end result could be anything from a Liberal crash like the PCs had, or a Liberal majority government.
For example, it is possible that Quebecers will see that their gravy train is in danger, and swing to support the Liberals. It is possible that the scandal will spread into Ontario, and they will swing to support the Conservatives. It depends on the testimony, the politicing, and the way it's handled by the media.
We shall see.
Posted by: Tony | 13-Apr-05 4:46:38 PM
Did Paul Martin perjure himself? Good discussion at Andrew Coyne's site.
http://andrewcoyne.com/2005/04/lunch-with-claude.php
Posted by: qwerty | 13-Apr-05 7:23:34 PM
Everyone has heard that the Liberals have been preparing their upcoming election strategy today. A confederate within the hierarchy has leaked the main talking points the Liberals will follow during the campaign. Conservatives might be surprised to learn that it is only more of the same old, tired stuff, but as the Conservatives show no sign of having developed an effective counter-attack, and remain amateurs (at best) in manipulative political messages, the Libs are confident of being returned to government with a minority, at the very least. The Big Lie has always worked for them in the past, and they haven't suffered much by playing Canadians for unthinking chumps. I am disseminating this information because for the sake of Canadian democracy Harper needs to prepare a response to rebut the Big Lie. Simply pointing at the Liberals and shouting "you're a liar, you're a crook" didn't work in the last election with much of the country. And it won't work this time around if Martin keeps hammering the Big Liberal Lie on the hustings and keeping Harper on the defensive by having to repeatedly deny that he hasn't got a "secret agenda". The Liberals will stick to what works until it fails to work at all. The Liberals will stop at nothing to retain power; not only are jobs on the line, but jail sentences too.
Here are the campaign talking points:
A. Gomery spin:
** testimony given at Gomery is unsubstantiated allegation; much has been contradictory and inconsistent; much has come from witnesses who are being indicted for fraud and other criminal activity.
** Gomery and his PC counsel are biased against the Liberals and his commission has been a miscarriage of justice.
** alleged events have been isolated to Quebec only.
** alleged events have been isolated to a handful of rogue operatives in business and the bureaucracy who betrayed the trust and the honest intentions of the Liberal Party.
** the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party is a victim of the alleged fraud.
** Only Paul Martin was interested in seeing justice done: he established the commission, he shut done the sponsorship program, his government laid charges against alleged perpetrators
** Paul Martin and his Liberal Government had no connection whatsoever to any of the people involved in the alleged events; he has purged any and all who have.
** Paul Martin and his Liberal Government had no knowledge of or participation in any of the alleged events
** the purported sums involved in the alleged events are minuscule compared to the ultimate significance and importance of the real issue: saving Canada. And the Liberals saved Canada.
** the Cons and Bloq are not interested in discovering the truth; they want to scuttle the Gomery commission, prevent his report from being released, and score cheap political points by exploiting unproven allegations taken out of context.
** Only the Liberal Party is committed to ensuring that justice is done. The Liberals are the party of ethics and integrity in government.
B. general anti-Conservative, pro-Liberal spin
** If the Liberals lose an election to the Cons, the Cons will form only a minority government with no Quebec support. The PQ will win the next provincial election in Quebec, and will agitate for separation. The only voice speaking for Canada in this crucial situation will be a weak, regional, unstable, Franco-hating federal Conservative government. This must be avoided at all costs by returning a Liberal majority government. Only the Liberal Party, Canada's Party, can keep Canada together; only the Liberal Party is the party of national unity and Canadian values.
** Canada's greatest treasure and possession is the Charter of Rights, which was given to the country by the great Pierre Trudeau and his Liberal Government. The Cons want to rip the Charter apart and trample on Canadians' rights and freedoms. The Cons don't care about minority rights.
** The Cons are anti-immigration and don't like new Canadians; the Cons are afraid of the world and want a small, parochial Canada. The Liberal Party wants to embrace the world, and wants a big, welcoming, tolerant Canada. Liberals love new Canadians, and Liberals want to share our country's good fortune with others. The Cons will shut down immigration and make it difficult for new Canadians to re-unite with their families. The Cons will try to take rights away from new Canadians.
** The Cons oppose clean air for Canadians because they oppose the Kyoto Accord. The Liberals want clean air for Canadians, and their children and children's children. The Cons are anti-environment; the Liberals are pro-environment and want a sustainable future for all Canadians.
** The Cons are opposed to international treaties because, like George Bush and his Republicans, they hate the UN and the countries of the world community. The Liberals want to make the world better by working with the international community as a respected, proud, strong nation.
** The Cons want to take away a woman's right to choose what's best for her own body. The Cons are anti-women. The Liberals are pro-women and unequivocally support women's rights and equality.
** The Cons thinks gays are second-class citizens; who's the Conservative Party's next target of intolerance and hate?
** The Cons want to take away Canadians' right to free and accessible health care. They want health care only for the rich.
** Ralph Klein and Preston Manning, and probably the whole western firewall crowd, have proved that the Cons have a secret agenda on destroying the public health system, and on giving tax breaks for the rich. (cf. recent report of Manning and Harris for the Fraser Institute)
** The Cons are against equalization payments from well-off provinces to those provinces that need a help up. The Cons are greedy and don't want to share Canada's wealth; the Cons want to keep the average Canadian down.
** The Cons have killed the Liberal budget that promised equity to the Atlantic provinces; now Nova Scotia and Newfoundland will suffer without their rightful resource payments. The Cons think Atlantic Canadians have a defeatist attitude, and a Conservative government would keep the region down. Liberals want to help Atlantic Canadians, as they proved in the Liberal budget the Conservatives killed.
** The Conservatives have plunged the country into an unwanted election during a perilous time for unity. Canadians voted for the progressive Liberal agenda of the Paul Martin Liberals, and the Cons have spat in Canadians' faces by ripping up the people's agenda the Martin government was delivering on
** The Cons have killed the Liberal budget that promised a national day-care program for hard-working Canadian parents. The Cons don't want to help hard-working Canadians who can't afford exorbitant day-care costs for their children. The Liberals want to help Canadian children get the best care for their development; they're the future, and the Liberal Party is the party of Canada's future. The Cons are the party of the distant past
** Liberals want to help Canada's aboriginals; the Cons want to keep aboriginals in poverty and ignorance.
** The Cons have a secret agenda so scary and creepy, they are afraid and ashamed to make it clear to Canadians what they really stand for. The Liberal Party has a transparent agenda that makes Canada stronger and unified, and enhances Canadian values and freedoms and equality.
** the Liberals inherited a financial mess from the Conservatives, and it was Paul Martin who cleaned up Canada's finances, balanced the budget, and has paid down the debt. Martin and the Liberals are the party of financial prudence and responsibility.
** the Liberals are the party of Canadian values; the Cons are non-mainstream and extreme. The Cons represent divisive, bigoted, xenophobic, Canada-haters. If the Cons come to power, they would break up Canada by allowing Quebec to separate, by stacking the judicial benches with their like-minded ilk who hate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and by stepping on average Canadians by giving money to their rich friends.
** The Cons would allow their pay-masters in the oil industry to rip off Canadians while wrecking the environment.
** The Cons have no government experience, no sophistication, and are simply political opportunists.
** Remember Mulroney and all his corruption and scandals? Mulroney's Conservative Government screwed Canadians and helped only his rich friends.
** The Cons would destroy Canadian culture by privatizing the CBC and getting rid of Canadian cultural institutions. The Cons would weaken the Canadian fabric that keeps us all bound together.
** The Liberal Party is the party that has given good government to all Canadians. Canadians keep electing Liberal governments, because the values of Canadians are Liberal values, and Liberal values are Canadian values. The Liberal Party gave Canada its flag, its social welfare programs, its rights and freedoms, and its strong and growing economy. The Liberal Party is the party of fairness, equity, tolerance, and justice.
** NDP supporters need to vote for the Liberals instead of throwing away their votes and which would ensure a Conservative government. The Liberal Party is the real party of social justice anyway; NDP values are Liberal values. NDPers must support the Liberals to save Canada from the Cons.
** If federalists in Quebec vote for the Bloq, they will be jeopardizing Quebec's place in Confederation, and all the privileges and advantages and financial benefits that entails.
** All Quebec federalists must vote for the Liberal Party, Canada's only truly national party, the only party that has saved and will save Canada.
** Steven Harper takes his orders from the backroom; Mulroney, Manning, Klein, and Harris are all telling him what to do. This backroom crowd will wreck health care for Canadians, but Paul Martin and his Liberals will save health care. Liberals think health care is for everyone; Harper and the Cons want to see your wallet before they let you, or your parents, or your children have an operation or treatment. Under a Conservative government, you'll have to be rich before you can have a hip replacement, a cardiac bypass, or dialysis treatment.
** The Liberals are the party of light; the Cons, the party of darkness. Canadians must ensure that the dark never extinguishes the light.
Posted by: A Friend On the Inside | 13-Apr-05 8:24:19 PM
If the Criminal Party is the only one to save Canada, who will save Canada from the Criminal Party?
Is there anything the Liberal Regime can say that doesn't embarrass them more than what has already emerged?
Posted by: Scott | 13-Apr-05 8:53:11 PM
I should add that the Libs have been feverishly testing the campaign talking points I outlined above on representative voter groups across the country. The "strategy" is also being bounced off some contacts within the Asper and Thompson media, the CBC, and Global. More communications work rendered to the Liberals as donations "in kind". In a one party state, the regime has powerful friends everywhere.
Based on preliminary survey results, they are convinced they will pick up seats from the Conservatives in B.C., Sask, & Man. They also believe the Conservatives will collapse in Ontario. Bye-bye, Belinda! They will hold Atlantic Canada. Here's a surprise: the Liberals will be pulling a nolo contendere in Alberta. Their numbers are abysmal and they don't see that the fight would be worth it -- particularly as Alberta will be the bogey man of Confederation in the Liberal campaign, yet again. Look for an announcement just after the government falls that Landslide Annie is getting some government-engineered plum appointment. My source said she'd rather cash in on a sinecure with some payola than run again in Alberta. The Liberals can't believe their good luck on how soft and shifty Conservative support is across the country. The Libs are getting prepared for a battle of Berlin fight with the BQs in Quebec -- street by street, and, if necessary, house by house combat. Emotions are getting so volatile, I wouldn't be surprised if, by the end of it all, some good ol' Dupplesies ballot box tactics aren't resorted to. The Liberals are determined not to lose any of the seats in Quebec. When all the seats are counted across the country, the Libs believe, based on their current polling and their election "strategy", they will come off with a very modest (read: squeaker) majority. No Liberals will be going to jail in that case, and CSL and Power Corp. (BNP Paribase et al.) will be getting will be getting some very nice contracts, courtesy the Canadian taxpayer. I think a Martin majority will be a disaster for the justice system and for good government. Hence this leaked info.
Posted by: A Friend On the Inside | 13-Apr-05 9:15:27 PM
I just wish someone would point out the obvious. Canada has only ever had seperatist problems and votes during Liberal governments. Maybe Libs are bad for unity? (Personally I don't believe the Bloc or the PQ would leave Canada ever. If they won a vote they'd just use it for more money. Quebec is a have-not province. Without Canada, the Republic of Quebec becomes a bankrupt nation. Newfoundlad could buy it a flea market. )
Posted by: Steve | 13-Apr-05 9:18:05 PM
The most effective thing to do right now is to formulate a strategy against the points listed, and it was mighty brave of the source to come forward. Thank you sir.
Posted by: rob | 13-Apr-05 9:40:16 PM
I suggest we consult the Oracle of Powercorp. The Desmarais family will not stand idly by watching their net worth decline. This is the real lens through which we must examine Kanuckian Politiks. If it were I running Powercorp, I would be diversifying like mad in the EU and Asia, using the retirement savings of Canadians to fund it, and doing this as fast as I could. The country is deadlocked in futile naval-gazing, paying insuffient heed to the forces actively eroding our standard of living. Unless there is serious, serious reform, collapse is just a matter of time. Whatever gives rise to this angst in the country must be eradicated - if that means Quebec goes it alone, so be it. We can either sit by and passively watch the country go down the tubes, or encourage Quebec to make good its threats so the rest of us can take action on the reforms we need to undertake in order to compete in the global economy and thus maintain our standard of living. I think the Liberal Party for making all of this crystal clear.
Posted by: BrightLeaf | 13-Apr-05 9:40:21 PM
Oh, hi, it's me, wearing my pending Shotgun Range Safety Officer hat. I think there's something fishy about the posts from "A Friend on the Inside". The email link goes to dkilgour@freedom.net, but whatever your think of Mr. Kilgour, I seriously doubt he would "leak" such information to us, the commenters at the Shotgun, using a silly poster name.
Think carefully, look at the words closely, especially the latter parts of the second message. Someone my just be deliberately trying to push your buttons here. Such response might result in a negative return on investment for you.
Posted by: Tony | 13-Apr-05 11:29:20 PM
If I had quickly glanced at the "leaked info" I would have mistaken it for a JG rant. (especially the last line about the "party of light" and "party of darkness" BS. )
Thankfully, he doesn't blog here anymore.
Posted by: Jack | 14-Apr-05 12:43:33 AM
The Prime Minister told his MPs and senators that the Liberals are the answer to national unity.
"Canadians will vote for unity given a choice between the separatists and federalists," he said, according to a source. "We [Liberals] will expose the unholy alliance between the Bloc and the Conservatives."
--------------
This is the Libs most effective weapon. (Yes, I know, it won't sell in the West, but the electon will not be won or lost in the West.) If the Conservatives are to prevail, they must drive a stake through the heart of the vampire.
The way for the Conservatives to do that is to become the champion of preserving the Confederation. This entails advocating the idea that, to save 'Canada,' political power must be decentralized - each province must be granted more power to control its own destiny. "We cannot have a 'Canada' unless we evidence greater respect for our differences."
The beauty of the position is that it is starkly true. Canada is being torn apart by the Liberals' notion that "one size fits all."
Posted by: Texan | 14-Apr-05 5:57:41 AM
Texan;
Although I agree with your suggestion 100% I think you use to much common sense for the average canadian to understand.
Posted by: table | 14-Apr-05 8:50:47 AM
Table,
I cannot have much sympathy for those who permit themselves to be exploited when they have the means at their disposal to end the exploitation.
Canadians have ceded too much of their freedom to the federal government; now they are faced with the onerous task of reclaiming it. But, an opportunity like the one currently presented (where the opposition has shot itself in both feet, both hands, in the chest and between the ears) comes along only once in a generation.
If the Canadian provinces fail to reclaim their sovereignty under the present set of circumstances, the current generation of young adults will be telling their grandchildren, fifty years from now, of the opportunity missed in 2005.
Posted by: Texan | 14-Apr-05 9:18:49 AM
What is Ralph going to do? I read something in the NP that made me think his number one concern is whether he was going to lose the opportunity to schmooze with the Queen, which is what would happen if we have a spring election.
Posted by: skelly | 14-Apr-05 10:09:40 AM
Texan
"But, an opportunity like the one currently presented (where the opposition has shot itself in both feet, both hands, in the chest and between the ears) comes along only once in a generation."
Here's the problem. Despite bleeding from all those wounds, and shuffling zombie-like on the campaign trail, these spectres need only groan the words "hidden agenda" to make their own grotesqueness pale compared with the horror of a possible Conservative government.
I hope I'm wrong. That $10 billion for Kyoto yesterday has really got me wondering what I could have spent on my kids with the cash that I'll now have to send to Russia to buy carbon credits.
Posted by: surly | 14-Apr-05 10:38:01 AM
Surly,
I fully appreciate the extent of the problem. What I do not understand is the passivity in the face of it. (Qualification: I'm not speaking, here, to the sensible citizens of the West.)
Posted by: Texan | 14-Apr-05 10:58:49 AM
I'm starting to think Chretien and Martin didn't starve the military out of apathy and shortsightedness... but out of a calculated decision to pre-empt the only solution Canadians may one day have to rid ourselves of them. A military coup.
Posted by: Kate | 14-Apr-05 11:15:33 AM
Good thing Norman isn't still around to berate you for the next 10 posts about that comment, Kate. I really don't think I could have stomached it.
Texan
Have you read Thomas Sowell's "The Vision of the Anointed:Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy"? Or John Kekes' "The Illusion of Egalitarianism"? The illusion-believing anointed described in these two books make up the majority of my fellow Ontarians, I would say. Unlike in Texas, a government here is rewarded for taking responsibility away from us.
Posted by: surly | 14-Apr-05 11:54:52 AM
PM Martin does not recall meeting ad man (Claude Boulay).
PM Martin is forgetting... Oh, my...not a good omen.... where are my glasses?
Chretien's pal contradicted at inquiry: Luc Lemay remembers Jacques Corriveau- Chretien's right hand flack/flunky/acolyte ... & etc.- who has lost his memory also.
Blind men at the wheel... Canada in a fog of forgetfullness... miasma... land of darkness... Cimmerians...
Posted by: maz2 | 14-Apr-05 12:19:08 PM
My concern is similar to surly's. Ontario definitely resonates to Hobbs rather than Locke.
I think for liberals to be overturned in Ontario would require a kind of zeitgeist that I doubt they possess. I could just as easily see them closing ranks behind the old paradigm. Naturally, I would like to be wrong.
It's instructive to look at how liberals behaved down here when they closed ranks around the Clinton scandals. They practically acted like trying to fix a civil rights trial was the manifestation of great new virtue.
One of my hopes is that more can be unfolded about the Alphonso Gagliano connection. If enough facts were gathered there that tainted the liberal establishment, maybe even liberals would respond.
Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 14-Apr-05 12:22:41 PM
maz
Yes, but against all that we'll hear...Charter shredders!...medicare manglers!...day care destroyers!...and the worst...America-lovers!
Posted by: surly | 14-Apr-05 12:26:22 PM
Surly,
I haven't read those books. Familiar, though, with Sowell - read one of his books, but can't recall the title at the moment.
Posted by: Texan | 14-Apr-05 1:05:30 PM
"Vision of the Anointed" is a great summary of the liberal worldview, and of how liberal policies often produce the opposite of the intended effect. I'm reading Sowell's "Basic Economics" now. Despite the title, it's a very entertaining and accessible read. Every concept is illustrated with many real-world examples.
Sowell is a regular at townhall.com and in the Western Standard incidentally.
Posted by: surly | 14-Apr-05 1:22:45 PM
That's the Sowell book I read.
But the problem facing Canada isn't a matter of theory; instead, it's a matter of practical politics.
How can the Conservatives build themselves into a potent political force, one that draws strength from all provinces?
Posted by: Texan | 14-Apr-05 1:28:50 PM
By adopting Liberal policies, of course. That's the problem.
Posted by: surly | 14-Apr-05 1:32:15 PM
Still, Trudeau turned a conservative society into a socialist one. Perhaps it can be turned back. Even Darth Vader could be turned back.
Posted by: surly | 14-Apr-05 1:34:13 PM
Tony, our Shotgun Range Safety Officer, I think you are right to point that out (i.e. the list being someone's "secret agenda". But Jack, I think it sounds more like a Warren Kinsella intraparty warfare tactic against his own party and the Martin people he hates than it does JG.
Posted by: TL | 14-Apr-05 1:52:23 PM
What I see happening in Canada is that the Libs have succeeded in establishing any number of taboos - ones that enable them to control the terms of the public debate. Let me give you an example.
On April 9, Kate posted at the Shotgun under the title "The Most Politically Incorrect Question You'll Read All Day."
On April 10, Kinsella blasted her on his blog, calling her remarks worse than "racist filth."
http://www.warrenkinsella.com/musings.htm
Additionally, Kinsella tossed a bone to Ezra Levant, saying that he can't understand why Levant, who he "knows and likes," would permit "a person like this" to publish in his magazine. Kinsella goes on to raise the question of whether Kate "deserves some sort of legal sanction," as if there were some possibility she had committed a criminal offense.
Now, go to the archives covering the date of April 9:
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2005/week14/index.html
You will find that Kate's post has been removed. Someone at the Western Standard kowtowed to Kinsella's criticism.
I don't care whether Kate's post was offensive or not - that's not the point. The point is that you don't permit the opposition to establish the boundaries of propriety. When they sling mud like Kinsella did, you tell 'em to go to hell.
Posted by: Texan | 14-Apr-05 2:29:19 PM
The "talking points" are a bit too close to parody.
Posted by: dr_dog | 14-Apr-05 2:47:22 PM
Has anyone noticed that the poster "A friend on the inside" left his email as "dkilgour@freedom.net" ie: David Kilgour, recent defector and long time Liberal?
Right click his name and choose "copy shortcut" and then paste it somewhere you will see what I mean.
I know its easy to leave a fake email address but I just noticed that none of the replies to his post have mentioned the co-incidence.
Posted by: M.K. Braaten | 14-Apr-05 4:46:37 PM
Not to put to fine a point on it, M.K.Braaten, but I mentioned that last night in the April 13, 2005 11:29 PM post ;-)
Posted by: Tony | 14-Apr-05 5:03:21 PM
eh... Texan.
That post was at my blog. It never appeared here, so was never removed.
It was Kinsella reacting to a posting in which I called him "Whorin' Warren". He's now a chemical industry lobbyist, and had been caught at a cabinet meeting in the Dalton Guinty government - a conflict of interest.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/001666.html
He couldn't directly address that, so decided to take a different post and try to slander me over it.
I've been called worse, by better people.
Posted by: Kate | 14-Apr-05 5:32:12 PM
My error. You do so much cross-posting, it appears I simply assumed it was posted at both sites.
So he's leaning on Levant because of what you say on SDA, huh? Pretty much the same sort of attempted intimidation, don't you think?
Posted by: Texan | 14-Apr-05 5:50:58 PM
Thanks for that data Kate.
Not that there's anything particularly wrong with the chemical industry, of course. I'm a firm believer in better living through chemistry[1].
It's the appearance of conflict of interest that's problematic.
[1] http://tinyurl.com/5jkor - Texas City, Texas
Posted by: Tony | 14-Apr-05 6:13:06 PM
Interesting photo. Brings back memories. I worked in that refinery two summers while in college. (Owned then by Amoco.)
Posted by: Texan | 14-Apr-05 6:27:33 PM
Reach out and touch someone ;-)
It's a pleasure writing with you, Texan.
My home turf's more here: http://tinyurl.com/5hrwe
Posted by: Tony | 14-Apr-05 6:36:57 PM
Political incorrect? Love it . More please..
LGF has a link re thousands of Moroccans being circumcised. Link to it at your peril; after you, Ahmed ; no, after you, Kemal,...
Posted by: maz2 | 14-Apr-05 7:04:31 PM
One has to be pretty new to the blogosphere to be that easily offended. His attempt to generate hatemail was a bust though - two negative ones and three of support. The funniest part was the comment left by someone who suggested that Kinsella linking to me had generated the most traffic SDA had ever seen.
There were 3500 visits that day - Kinsella sent about 5 percent of them.
Posted by: Kate | 14-Apr-05 7:13:06 PM
Liberals & Jean Chretien & Paul Martin, et al.
Darkness has descended upon the Liberals. Their Faustian bargain was with corruption, greed, avarice, & etc.
Can they distinguish any longer between good and evil? Can Martin tell the difference between lies and truth?
Go to Belmont Club; read,if you will: "Nightfall".
..." the deadening of the ability to distinguish between good and evil... by Theodore Dalrymple.
Posted by: maz2 | 14-Apr-05 7:38:30 PM
I'm an ethical skeptic, not a utilitarian, but the sentance that jumped out to me from Wretchard's essay at the Belmont Club was: "Dalrymple makes a strong case for the utility of morality as a survival skill."
I agree, and I think that is the point that people like Mark Steyn and Bill Cosby are making.
Posted by: Tony | 14-Apr-05 7:55:47 PM
A ethical skeptic denies that moral values or moral facts form part of the objective world.
The viewpoint of Sextus Empericus of the ancient Greek world.
Posted by: maz2 | 15-Apr-05 2:56:28 PM
Having just been in Buffalo earlier in the week I was able to listen to talk radio in T.O.
After hearing on Bill Carroll and Michael Coren's shows , callers ,in T.O. seem to be favouring a
Liberal government returning . So many of the callers were pissed at the Libs but were not ready to put in the Conservatives , mainly because they were afraid of the hidden agenda.
When asked to elaborate on their uneasiness with the Torys you could hear crickets chirping or they would just say they couldn't trust stupid rednecks from Alberta to run the country.
Not one caller that I could hear was able to give a good reason other than cliched answers, or parrot what they heard elsewhere.
It seems to me that if the Libs get in again with even a minority Gov. that it will sow the seeds of a western sepratist movement.
I hope this happens soon so I can move back to a country I can be proud of once again.
Posted by: Quidnunc Savant | 16-Apr-05 11:59:24 AM
Re: Qwerty
For the most part I agree with Qwerty that the Liberals have been the best bet for Canada over the years, and that the Cons, from Brian on, have been a much less desirable choice for those of us who favour a socially progressive country.
But now I am both dismayed and angry because the people we once found relatively palatable, are now preparing to embrace "deep integration", which metaphorically is another nail in our coffin.
It is bad enough that Chretien welched on his promise to abrogate or reform the "free" trade
agreement. Not only didn't he do it, he made matters worse with NAFTA. You could expect this from the cons who brought the Trojan Horse here in the first place, but the Liberals? That is when I first began to hate their duplicity. I just hate them less than the Cons. Instead of loving them as I once did under Trudeau, I began to see them as the lesser of two evils.
We know that Stephen is Bush's boy, he proved that by his foray into the US with Ralph Klein at the time of the commencement of the Iraq invasion. He was definitely on side with the Empire.
So now what do we do? The Empire wants to put us inside its regressive razor-wire paradise and harmonize with them, and we're considering it? So we can't even trust the Liberals to stand up for the True North Strong and Free? What kind of sycophantic lackeys are our politicians anyway? As far as John Manley is concerned, the answer is obvious. But what about the rest?
Frankly it looks to me that there is no viable alternative but to create a new political vehicle entirely, into which all of of us who believe in an independent and civil Canada, must go; Liberals, NDPers or Red Tories. People of good heart who want to retain the mildly socialist and decent country we have largely been since the fifties. This is what our still good international reputation is based upon. If only they knew we are but a shadow of our former selves!
I live in China at present and we are much loved here, whereas the United States is not. But then we are not trying to undermine other people's countries and tell them how to live either. We are no threat. But if we allow ourselves to be subsumed by them and their agenda, how will we be different? For that matter, how will we exist as a separate nation at all, except possibly in name? Obviously,this is a rhetorical question.
How dare our politicians even entertain such madness? It is treason. So I ask this question to our Liberal politicians in particular; what happened to you? What happened to the great vision of Pierre Ellliot Trudeau who built what once promised to be the best nation on earth? Has NAFTA brought us to heel? Have you no guts left? Get off your knees and stand up!
Oh Canada,
Paul Jonassen
Posted by: Paul Jonassen | 21-Apr-05 10:04:16 PM
The great vision of Pierre the Terrible was a lie. He was a cruel, heartless monster who went to extraordinary lengths to defend corporate interests and his rich supporters. Quebec and Alberta paid most of the cost, but all except Ontario made some sacrifice. Pierre the Terrible did more to destroy national unity than anyone before. Since, Chretien and Martin have damaged it further.
If any conclusion is to be drawn, it is that the Liberal Party has been the cause of all of Canada's problems.
Posted by: Scott | 21-Apr-05 10:46:46 PM
Yeah, we missed Trudeau out here, too.
Aim was high.
Posted by: Paul | 21-Apr-05 10:49:36 PM
Post a comment