Why the Conservatives have been in Power since 2006: Liberal Corruption

72 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

What the Liberals actually did was compound the plight of the poor working Canadians by giving away the store to the corporations.

Correct.

Quote:
And you must mean because the Liberals were so involved in corruption like the Sponsorship Scandal don't you?

Wrong. That's over, forgotten, no Liberal politician charged or convicted, just one pathetic bureaucrat, no one cares. Get over it. We cared in Québec, not because it was "corruption", but because the rest of Canada was happy to spend millions in taxpayers' money to profess "LOVE" for us.

 

Aristotleded24

NorthReport wrote:
What the Liberals actually did was compound the plight of the poor working Canadians by giving away the store to the corporations.

That claim at the time was supported by none other than the leftie crackpots at the CIBC.

Jacob Two-Two

Unionist wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

You don't think draining the EI fund was a crime?

Yes, I do. It was a dirty anti-worker deed, typical of that government. No, it was not "corruption", and it was not a "crime" under the Criminal Code.

I disagree. I definitely think it was a crime under the criminal code. These things aren't always cut and dried, but a legal case could be made for sure. Those were not general revenues. That money was never theirs to mismanage or not. They had no right to touch it.

Quote:

I'm wondering what the NDP intends to do to ensure that such dirty behaviour cannot be repeated? Perhaps you can refer me to their policy in this regard.

I doubt they're going to do anything, but they might surprise me. In any event nobody is offering me a chance to actually prosecute these crooks for their actions. If there was such a party, I would vote for it. In the absence of that, I'm still voting NDP.

Quote:

Quote:
There's still a few here who want to cover up the Liberals' criminal behaviour.

Maybe. But there are also a few here who are apparently still harping on the stupidity of the "Liberals are corrupt" theme - the stupidity that helped Harper win the 2006 election, in fact, which was probably the turning point of the campaign, as we discussed here at that time. You can put the names of Judy Wasylycia-Leis and Paul Summerville (remember that scumbag?) in the annals of infamy for being the shills of Harper and Zaccardelli at that time.

At least we can muster enough of a sense of shame to understand that Harper and Trudeau and their ilk will be defeated on their hostility to the interests of Canadian working people - not on sheep-like choruses worthy of the National Citizens' Coalition about "corruption". It's frankly amazing that 8 years later, there are still well-intentioned adults that haven't wrapped their brain around that simple truth yet.

I'm sorry, Unionist, but just because something becomes a Harper talking point doesn't mean it gets stricken from my vocabulary. The Liberals were corrupt. They deserved to lose that election. They deserved it so much that it's a testament to Harper's sheer unlikeability that he could only score a minority of seats.

And speaking of that, it sounds like you've fallen into a bit of Conservative messaging yourself. The Cons never "won" the election in 2006. They got a plurality but not the government. If the Liberals could have swallowed their pride and worked with the opposition then Canadians could have been spared the last eight years. If, on the other hand, the public just kept voting the Libs back in despite their corruption just because "AAH! Conservatives!" then democracy becomes meaningless. There has to be consequences for the kind of shit that the Libs did back in the ninties.

But we could have punished them and still avoided a Conservative government if they hadn't been so arrogant and refused to team up with the opposition parties. That was their decision and we've all paid dearly for it. And now they want to run the henhouse again? After mismanaging the government all through my adult life and then handing Harper the keys to the throne? If anything, the 2006 election is the best argument for why these jokers should never be in government again.

NorthReport

 This is a discussion board, not a courtroom full of lawyers, a jury, and a judge.

Corrupt and/or corruption are common every day used terms, unfortunately because there is so much of it.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
They lost the election just when they were ready to open up the cookie jar. Then Harper got in and emptied the cookie jar.

Did their hands ever touch, awkwardly, in the cookie jar?

"Oh, sorry, I...
"No, please, you were here first..."

sherpa-finn

I understand that some people don't like Judy Wasylycia-Leis for assorted political reasons. But to put a hate on her for her role in the Zacardelli - Goodale smear seems unreasonable.

She was NDP Finance critic at the time.... there were rumours of information leaks from the Finance Dept around the income trust announcement, with related insider trading. Judy followed up with a letter to the RCMP Commissioner asking for an investigation. So far, sounds reasonable to me.  The letter was more symbolic than substantive - a rather lame effort to keep the scandal in the public eye.   

Then the Commissioner confirmed to her in writing that yes, a criminal investigation was indeed underway. And so she passed on that information to the public, proposing that Goodale stand down while the criminal investgation was ongoing. Again, sounds reasonable to me - what in the world was she supposed to do?

Appears to me that she did a wholly responsible job as Finance critic in the circumstances. If anyone was responsible for the smear that killed Paul Martin's Gov't it was Zacardelli. So who exactly appointed this a-hole to the post of RCMP Commissioner? Oh, yeah, that would be Jean Chretien.

PS And the scandal was real - not contrived. A senior Finance Dept bureaucrat was later convicted of benefiting from insider trading around the income trust announcement, though it was never proven he also leaked the information to others.

So the Liberals went down due to a Liberal appointee overzealously pursuing another Liberal for alleged corruption.  Poetic justice of sorts, I would have thought. No reason to blame any NDP messengers or intermediaries. In every sense, it was an inside job.

NorthReport

Thanks sherpa-finn

It is indeed unfortunate the NDP haters like Unionist and Debater constant their constant nonsense, as if they are some kind of authority on these events.

NorthReport

Thanks sherpa-finn

It is indeed unfortunate the NDP haters like Unionist and Debater continue with their constant nonsense, as if they are some kind of authority on these events.

Jacob Two-Two

Whoa now. Unionist is by no means on a par with Debater. He's an extremely principled person and Debater is the exact opposite. Unionist is an NDP critic, not a hater. It's unfortunate that we have these Liberal shills milling about like a swarm of shit-flies, trying to take advantage of every critical thing anyone says about the NDP, but it's not the fault of those who are being critical. The party needs criticism and I tend to agree with Unionist's issues.

Unionist

sherpa-finn wrote:

I understand that some people don't like Judy Wasylycia-Leis for assorted political reasons.

Personally, I hate her because of her relentless pro-Israel lobbying and her participation in the failed CPCCA attempt to paint criticism of Israel as anti-Semites. With friends like her, we Jews need no enemies. I was very pleased to see her career go down the toilet. She would have made a pathetic mayor.

Quote:
But to put a hate on her for her role in the Zacardelli - Goodale smear seems unreasonable.

I don't hate her for that - certainly not. I cited that episode because of its seminal importance in turning the polls around, literally overnight, and allowing Harper to form the government.

[NOTE that I didn't say "allowing Harper to win the election", thus saving NorthReport another meltdown. Yeah, I had noticed, NR, that he won only a plurality, thanks so much for the math lesson.]

The reason I don't hate her is because she obviously didn't do this out of malice or design. She did it out of sheer unmitigated stupidity. She has never been distinguished by her political acumen. She likely thought she was doing something worthy by making a big deal out of a non-event, right in the thick of an election campaign. Sherpa-finn, your analysis is a worthy attempt to read intelligent behaviour in what was clearly, at the time, a brain which was not functioning at 100%.

I don't hate her for that. I pity her. She became Harper's shill. I do hate Harper. But he is extremely intelligent. Hope the distinction is clear.

 

Aristotleded24

Unionist wrote:
I don't hate her for that. I pity her. She became Harper's shill. I do hate Harper. But he is extremely intelligent. Hope the distinction is clear.

So pointing out the misdeeds of the previous Liberal government during the 2005-6 election campaign is automatically helping Harper? Harper mentioned the issue of Liberal misdeeds because there actually were misdeeds, and as the Opposition Leader at the time, of course he was going to use it to attack the government. Just because Harper points out what the Liberals did wrong doesn't automatically excuse it.

NorthReport

Revisionists, revisionists, revisionists.

Not only was it right-wing Liberal corruption that put right-wing Conservatives into power, it was also the right-wing Liberals, once right-wing Conservatives had power, who blew the one chance to bring the right-wing Conservatives down.

And as Rokossovsky has just pointed out in the polling thread, there will be no arrangement between the right-wing Liberals and the left-of-centre NDP, as the right-wing Liberals will just continue their support of the minority right-wing Conservative government. 

terrytowel

But what if Trudeau takes a page from Kathleen Wynne and moves the Liberal Party to the extreme left?

clambake

extreme left lol

clambake

Why didn't anyone tell me that Kathleen Wynne was nationalizing major industries while endorsing worker cooperatives!?

NorthReport

Well every thread needs a comedian I suppose, so you're it for this one TT. Wink

terrytowel wrote:

But what if Trudeau takes a page from Kathleen Wynne and moves the Liberal Party to the extreme left?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

clambake wrote:

Why didn't anyone tell me that Kathleen Wynne was nationalizing major industries while endorsing worker cooperatives!?

What you describe is the old extreme left. The new extreme left is suggesting that it would be good if people had enough money to live on after they retire.

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Unionist wrote:
I don't hate her for that. I pity her. She became Harper's shill. I do hate Harper. But he is extremely intelligent. Hope the distinction is clear.

So pointing out the misdeeds of the previous Liberal government during the 2005-6 election campaign is automatically helping Harper?

Not at all. My beef with the NDP is they have never, in a thoroughgoing way, condemned the neoliberalism which was brought to it acme with the Chrétien-Martin regimes. And that beef continues to this day. They need to demarcate themselves from the economic policies of the Liberal party - and not by having insipid mudslinging matches about who has "gravitas" and who is more "prime ministerial".

My problem with Wasylycia-Leis and Paul Summerville is precisely that they pointed out none of the real, ugly, profound, structural misdeeds of the Liberal government - probably because they had no real clue or plan or intent to undo them.

My problem with Wasylycia-Leis and Paul Summerville is that instead of doing that, they took up the Reform-style "they're corrupt!!" scream, based on zero evidence, sucked right in by Zaccardelli, and thus ably served the needs of Harper.

So to return to the imbecilic topic of this thread. Liberal "corruption"? A. Who gives a shit - that's not what will move Canada forward or hold it back in 2015. B. For those who give a shit - name names.

Have you noticed that not a single one of my questions has been answered here?

ajaykumar

Satellite offices -CORRUPTION 

thorin_bane

ajaykumar wrote:

Satellite offices -CORRUPTION 

Right just like how the libs also had them, but hey they only went after the NDP in the media. Or rthe fact the reason all parties HAVE them is that they only became illegal after the cons with the consent of teh libs changed the rules, while the friendly libs played dirty and brought it forward in committee, off camera. But yeah you are right there was a lot of courruption, but mostly the libs playing two ends to the middle.

NorthReport

Unionist, you must of course realize that not everyone who is corrupt gets charged, and goes to jail.

We have such an amazin' array of defence lawyers to keep the rich scum out of jail.

Actually though, if the truth be known, it is Chretien who has sought and obtained his sweet revenge over the years on the Liberals who supported Martin's putsch. Chretien was involved in the sponsorship scandal, he even tried to justifiy it in his own peculiar way, but he threw the hot potato to Martin as Chretien was being shoved out the back door. It was Martin who completely and utterly blew it, going from a PM who was going to win 250 seats (we all remember those hey days very well), to well, a minority government. 

And that was it for the arrogant ego infested Liberals thinking they could push their weight around, but they only had a minority government.  What could those stupid Liberals have been thinking!

And the rest they say is history.

Pages