Mike Duffy hints at summer election? Or is the media election-biased?

In the mainstream media, they’re at it again! Everyone seems to be asking about the next federal election. To describe elections as the Superbowls of politics would be accurate in significance but overstated in frequency; unfortunately for those of us that live and breathe one writ-drop at a time, there doesn’t seem to be another one so soon on the horizon.

The Prime Minister has stated as much. In a recent press conference, Stephen Harper made mention that party leaders should be focused on the economy rather than hitting the hustings.

So, what’s got the media in a tizzy today? Well, it’s a weekday so it must be any desperate thread of a future election. The “news” today is that Sen. Mike Duffy gave a speech to the Charlottetown Rotary Club where he “hinted” at an election. Let’s take a look at the headline from The Charlottetown Guardian that followed.

“Duffy’s speech hints at looming federal election”

After unexpectedly taking notice to what would otherwise be a hum-drum article from the Island, we find ourselves somewhat disappointed after scanning Duffy’s quotes looking for an explicit or even implicit election “hint”. The article seemingly apologizes at the end but provides an excuse for misleading us,

“He made no mention of an election during his speech on Monday, but used rhetoric reminiscent of an electioneering politician.”

A politician speaking about politics outside of an election?
Dog bites man.

The media, trying to find any reason for us to take notice? Desperate for increased readership and future windfall of ad dollars that come during an election?
Also par for the course.

But was Sen. Duffy’s speech even filled with rhetoric? Let’s take a closer look,

The speech is hardly filled with partisan rhetoric and does not mention Stephen Harper or an election once. The most political item is where Duffy says that he and Minister Gail Shea will fight for Islanders.

Comments

comments

  • East of Eden

    In case anybody missed it, Terry1 (aka Tarpo) accused our PM of bringing religion into our secular structure. Now, those of us with intelligence and knowledge, know that this is a lie but, to be fair, I asked Tarpo to provide some examples. To date, he has not provided one iota of proof to back up this accusation. This is very typical of his ilk – spout sock puppet speaking points (aka lies) but have nothing to back them up.

  • terry1

    e of e……….how about reading neil reynold's column in Fridays G&M and you will see why Chretien/Martin are now hailed internationally for breaking that promise and resetting Canada's compass to fiscal responsibility. I know it doesn't matter to jerk off's like you but then I'm a serious taxpayer and not a whiner on the take.

  • terry1

    stupid asked so stupid gets:
    http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.h

    On the outside, RockPointe Church looks like a bunker. On the inside, it's a cavernous auditorium with no crosses, altar or pulpit. Instead it has a “stage” on which its many pastors champion conservative moral values while strolling like casual talk-show hosts, remarking on how “cool” things are, exclaiming “Right on!” and referring to adherents as “You guys.”

    Trask believes the more than 2,000 evangelical Protestants in his thriving church, as well as most of the 2.5 million evangelicals across the country, are enthusiastic supporters of his old friend, the prime minister.

    Evangelicals like the Conservative leader, Trask says, because he's a “small-c conservative” on moral issues, encourages followers to help the poor through Christian charity rather than government programs, trusts in the free market and shares the evangelical belief Jesus Christ is the route to salvation.

    As a sign of how evangelicals support Harper on policy issues, Trask last year joined a network of Christians across the country in vigorously supporting Harper's cancellation of the Liberals' universal daycare program, in favour of handouts for parents. Evangelicals, Trask says, don't want the state meddling in the sacred duty of raising children.
    …………………………………………………………………………….
    http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blog
    It's the first newspaper article to try to tease out the evangelical Christian beliefs of Harper. Harper keeps his religion private because polls suggest it would hurt him badly to be upfront about it in secularized, pluralistic Canada. This piece explores the strict conservative beliefs of the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, a denomination that Harper has attended for decades.
    Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with political leaders having firm religious views. But I'm fascinated by the inner conflict Harper must be feeling
    ……………………………………………………………………………
    http://www.walrusmagazine.ca/articles/2006.10-p
    As Harper navigates the tricky waters of minority rule—keeping the lid on any eruptions of rhetorical fervour from the rambunctious theo-cons in his caucus—it is noteworthy that he has continued to cultivate a man regarded as the lightning rod of the Christian right. Last spring, those around the prime minister drafted McVety to help sell the government’s contentious child-care policy, and on budget day he was the personal guest of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty in the Commons’ vip gallery.”

    “We’ve got a born-again prime minister,” trumpets David Mainse, the founder of Canada’spremier Christian talk show, 100 Huntley Street. They see him as an image-savvy evangelical who has been careful to keep his signals to them under the media radar, but they have no doubt his convictions run deep—so deep that only after he wins a majority will he dare translate the true colours of his faith into policies that could remake the fabric of the nation. If they’re right, it remains unclear whether those convictions would turn government into a kinder, gentler guarantor of social justice for all or transform the country into a stern, narrow-minded theocracy. And what would his evangelical worldview mean for international relations?”

    ““Yes, I became a Christian in my twenties,” he replied, before acknowledging, “I don’t talk a lot about it.” Still, he attempted to reassure secular listeners who might have tuned in. “I won’t say I always keep my faith and my politics separate,” he said, “but I don’t mix my advocacy of a political position with my advocacy of faith.”

    “He did not elaborate on those experiences, but according to others, Harper’s evangelical conversion dates back to when he was helping Preston Manning hammer out the Reform Party’s credo. “

    “Shortly after Manning recruited him, Harper began trying out the evangelical services that seemed to offer many of the party’s early players, especially his confidante Diane Ablonczy, such certainty. But Mackey fingers Manning himself as Harper’s chief spiritual mentor—a role that Reform’s godfather waves off. “I’d take that stuff with a little bit of a grain of salt,” Manning says. “Stephen was very unhappy about that book.” Still, Deborah Grey, Reform’s first MP and Harper’s boss during part of that period, confirms Mackey’s account. “Preston was key,” she says. “Stephen had some very long, very involved discussions with Preston in the late 1980s, early 1990s. He saw Preston and a faith that was real, and how you could marry faith and politics.”

    “Harper sidestepped the question of why Joseph Harper had jumped ship but he pointedly noted that Marshall’s evangelical audience would get his drift. What he seemed to be referring to was the charged 1988 decision by the United Church General Council to approve the ordination of homosexuals—a decision that provoked thousands of defections.”

    “Three years ago, when Harper returned to Ottawa as leader of the Canadian Alliance, Bow Valley’s pastor recommended family-friendly East Gate, where a former Reform researcher, Laurie Throness—later chief of staff to Chuck Strahl, Harper’s minister of agriculture—happened to be a pianist and elder.”

    “While the Ottawa press corps has been preoccupied with Harper’s ability to keep the most blooper-prone Christians in his caucus buttoned up, he has quietly but determinedly nurtured a coalition of evangelicals, Catholics, and conservative Jews that brought him to power and that will put every effort into ensuring that he stays there. Last spring, when Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty could barely wangle an hour with him, Harper made time for dozens of faith groups, including a five-woman delegation from the Catholic Women’s League which hadn’t managed to snare a sit-down with any prime minister in twenty-four years. “Smile if you’re a so-con,” ran a headline in the Western Standard above a photo of the meeting. “Canada’s traditional Christian groups can’t say enough good things about the Tories’ social policies so far.”

    Borrowing a page from Bush’s White House, which boasts a deputy responsible for “Christian outreach,” Harper has installed a point man for the religious right, among other groups, in his government, under the title “director of stakeholder relations.” But evangelical activists know that a more direct route to the prime minister is through his parliamentary secretary, Jason Kenney. After the election, many in the Ottawa press corps were astonished when the Calgary loyalist who served as a critic in every recent Reform/Alliance shadow cabinet didn’t win a portfolio. But these days, Kenney may have more clout than any minister, playing emissary to groups with whom Harper doesn’t wish to leave prime ministerial fingerprints, above all on the religious right. Despite being a Catholic, Kenney is a regular on the evangelical circuit, turning up at so-con confabs and orchestrating discreet meetings with the boss. “Jason,” says one Ottawa insider, “has a lot more influence than you might think.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You see dummy its all there in black and white.

  • terry1

    stupid asked and stupid gets…part 2

    http://dawn.thot.net/harperstiestousa/american_
    Since Mr. Harper’s
    address, links between Conservative Party members and groups sponsored by the CNP
    like Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition of America and the National Rifle
    Association have grown. In turn, these groups have taken an increasingly forthright role
    in influencing Canadian politics through radio broadcasts, Canadian affiliates, and
    training for grassroots advocacy efforts in support of Conservative Party candidates.
    This should perhaps come as no surprise given that the Vancouver Sun estimates
    that “roughly half the current 98 members” of the Conservative caucus “are religious
    social conservatives,” which is “well over double the national average.”6

    “Mr. Harper told Canadians that he is fundamentally the same thinker he was 10
    years ago: “I don’t think my fundamental beliefs have changed in a decade,” Mr. Harper
    told the Globe and Mail.28 This gives the content of Mr. Harper’s 1997 speech before
    the CNP particular importance, especially when considered in light of Mr. Harper’s
    statement to the CNP audience that “your conservative movement…is a light and an
    inspiration to people in [Canada] and across the world.”29 When recently asked about this
    speech, Mr. Harper equated the activities of the CNP with the activities of the National Citizens Coalition, saying, “I was the leader of one conservative organization addressing
    another conservative organization.”30
    During the CNP appearance, Mr. Harper made a number of statements
    denigrating Canada and Canadians: “Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the
    worst sense of the word,” said Mr. Harper;31 “In terms of the unemployed, of which we
    have over a million-and-a-half, don’t feel particularly bad for many of these people. They
    don’t feel bad about it themselves, as long as they’re receiving generous social assistance
    and unemployment insurance,” continued Mr. Harper.32
    Mr. Harper was also critical of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Charter of
    Rights and Freedoms: “[W]e have a Supreme Court, like yours, which, since we put a
    charter of rights in our Constitution in 1982, is becoming increasingly arbitrary.”33
    On specific policy issues, Mr. Harper demonstrated his contempt for ideas at the
    heart of Canadian society, including public health care and international cooperation. For
    example, the Charlottetown Agreement, he explained to his audience, included “some
    [things] that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and
    feminist rights.”34 Mr. Harper also showed dissatisfaction with Canada’s strong support
    for the UN, and the pride Canadians take in their country’s status at the UN: “This
    distresses conservatives like myself quite profoundly, but I will warn you, it’s a
    widespread view, and I will always say, one that could only be maintained as long as
    [Americans] basically provide us with military protection.”35
    Mr. Harper also provided the CNP audience with a glimpse of his opinion of
    future political reform in Canada. He called the Reform Party a “conservative
    Republican” organization that espoused “a constitutional agenda that challenges the way
    our entire political system operates.”36 Most revealingly, Mr. Harper shared his view
    that the Reform and Progressive Conservative parties would ultimately merge and “[o]ne
    party is going to win out….And Reform is not going to lose that contest in the long
    term.”37

    “Mr. Harper’s speech before the CNP appears to have served as a galvanizing
    moment in American social conservative interest in Canada. The Christian Coalition of
    America, Focus on the Family, the National Rifle Association, and Concerned Women
    for America have all increased their focus on Canadian public policy issues upon his
    ascension to the head of the Conservative Party, while also expanding their connections
    with high-ranking members of Mr. Harper’s party. These links are important, not simply
    because they indicate the nature of the beliefs of members of the Conservative Party, but
    because they are likely to be the views determining the actions of a Conservative
    government should it ever gain power because of the important positions of these social
    conservative members within the party.
    As Mr. Harper himself has said, “I have a history, in terms of reuniting the
    [Canadian] Alliance and the Conservative party in being able to bring people together
    without asking people to sacrifice their most fundamental beliefs.”39 Coupled with Mr.
    Harper’s CNP remarks about the Reform Party winning out over the Progressive
    Conservatives in a combination between these two parties, Mr. Harper clearly seems to
    indicate the future direction of his Conservative Party.
    Vic Toews, MP for Provencher40 and Conservative Party Justice Critic in
    Stephen Harper’s shadow cabinet, would play the lead role in selecting Supreme Court
    justices and other leaders of the judicial branch in a Conservative mandate. Mr. Toews
    has close connections with two of the most conservative Christian groups in the United
    States: Focus on the Family41 and Concerned Women for America.42 Focus on the
    Family is run by Dr. James Dobson, a CNP member43 and one of the most influential
    Christian activists in the United States.44 Dr. Dobson is a fierce opponent of abortion and
    stem cell research, which he has called “state-funded cannibalism.”45

    “He has stated the gay rights movement is seeking the “utter destruction of the family,”46 and has likened proponents of gay marriage to Nazis.47″

    “Dr. Dobson uses the Focus on the Family Institute to cultivate future young
    leaders about his organization’s views,48 utilizing materials such as anti-abortion activist
    Scott Klusendorf’s writings to shape students’ views.49 Jason Kenney, Conservative MP
    for Calgary Southeast, 50 and Conservative Party Revenue Critic, also follows Mr.
    Klusendorf’s views and has praised Mr. Klusendorf for his contribution to the pro-life
    movement in Canada: “[Scott’s] contribution to the pro-life movement in Canada has
    received rave reviews. Having been involved in pro-life argumentation for most of my
    life, I nevertheless learned a great deal from Scott's techniques and arguments, which I
    plan to employ in the future,” Mr. Kenney has posted on the website of Mr. Klusendorf’s
    organization, the Life Training Institute.51
    Dr. Dobson has made several forays into Canadian politics, spreading his social
    anti-same sex marriage conservative message through paid broadcasts on 130 radio
    stations across Canada.52 His organization has also contributed at least $1.6 million worth
    of “in-kind” contributions to its Canadian affiliate, Focus on the Family Canada,53 which
    also strongly opposed the recognition of same sex marriages.54 Two Vice Presidents of
    Focus on the Family sit on the Board of Focus on the Family Canada.55
    Mr. Toews has worked closely with Focus on the Family Canada to launch
    national issue campaigns,56 has quoted their studies in the House of Commons,57″
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    This stuff futher confirms that Harper is a facist in his thinking.

  • Parnella

    What I find hard to understand is why Stephen allows such disrespect meted out by “Terry1″for others who comment here and the outright lies, bordering on slander, about the Prime Minister.

  • terry1

    1. look at your own insults first and your copycat alias.
    2. what have I said about Harpo that is a lie or slanderous. He is a public figure and others have said much worse about him. I'm presuming you would like some censorship here which suits your cowardly personality.

  • terry1

    funny thing about Iggy. He has raised more money than Harpo in the last six months. So, you guess where he's been when the end of september comes around and the respective numbers get posted. Iggy is doing his job of raising money for the party and has been doing it in a low key and informal manner.

    More facts again that you know nothing.

  • Parnella

    OT:
    Excuse me for thinking the Prime Minister of the country is more than just a “public figure” and deserves some respect.
    No one is calling for censorship, just a bit of decency and respect for others who comment. Having a difference of opinion is what makes a debate.

    You have other blog aliases, does that make you a “coward”?

  • Gabby in QC

    Dindi, you find “Harper and his policies utterly disgusting.”

    May I remind you that PM Harper is implementing policies that most leaders of the world have had to implement in order to deal with this extraordinary recession, regardless of their political leanings?
    http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/678164
    “… The plan presented by Harper was not prepared in Canada and doesn't have the Conservative trademark on the package. It's a plan that was supported by all G8 governments at the recent summit in L'Aquila, Italy, by the conservative Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, as well as by the socialist Gordon Brown of Britain and the definitely non-conservative Barack Obama of the United States. It also has been adopted by Communist China, the leftist Brazilian Luis Inacio Lula and whatever you want to call Putin's government in Russia.

    Back in Canada, the same plan has been adopted by all provincial governments of all political stripes, including the Ontario Liberals of Dalton McGuinty, as well as Harper's federal Conservatives. …”

    Had the Liberals or the NDP been in power they too would have introduced similar measures to stimulate the economy, the only difference being deficits would be even higher than now forecast, and the measures would probably not be time limited like the Harper government's are.

    Furthermore, you argue whatever stimulus money is being used to help struggling industries would be put to better use if it were in individuals' own pocket.

    You say “let ALL consumers and taxpayers decide where their retail dollar should be spent …”

    Well, those people working in struggling industries would have no choice in where to spend their money, because they wouldn't have any money to spend without a job. How's that for a Hobson's choice?

    No one is telling you, the individual taxpayer, where you must spend your money. The government offers you a real option of improving your own home, which would add re-sale value to it, while at the same time injecting money into the economy.

    You don't want to take advantage of those measures? OK, you can be building your individual savings in the newly implemented TFSA. You may eventually decide to use that money you've saved towards a new car, which is another option open to you. Or you may decide to let your savings grow without any tax repercussions. Again, real choices.

    Finally, you say “It ain't rocket surgery.”
    Why would a rocket need surgery? Now that would be money foolishly spent.

  • Gabby in QC

    East of Eden, Terry1 has shown utter contempt for people of faith both here and in previous threads. He has also feigned outrage during the sham controversy over the PM's communion.
    Terry has conveniently forgotten this information I posted in a previous thread about the Liberal leader’s efforts to garner support from people of faith.

    http://www.cfrb.com/node/928171
    “Michael Ignatieff finds his religious voice
    Wed, 2009-05-13 14:50.
    Brian Lilley
    Michael Ignatieff, leader of the Liberal Party will be giving a speech to a religious conference on Faith and the Sustainable Economy. From the website of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. [my bolds]

    Join the Forum on Faith and the Economy, Ottawa
The EFC and the Canadian Council of Churches are together sponsoring a lunchtime roundtable discussion on “Faith and Sustainable Economy” with MPs from all four political parties on May 12 as part of the CCC's weeklong meetings in Ottawa of the CCC Commission on Justice and Peace. Liberal party leader Michael Ignatieff will speak on “What Difference do Churches Make?” at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, 82 Kent Street on May 13 from 3 pm to 5 pm. The public are invited.”

    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=
    “Liberals courting religious vote
    Charles Lewis, National Post 
    Published: Monday, June 01, 2009
    The federal Liberals are making a deliberate attempt to woo religious groups after years of “benign neglect” by the party, Liberal MP John McKay says.

    Mr. McKay, an evangelical Christian, said Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff asked him to start meeting with religious leaders across Canada to find ways of including them in the national discussion.”
    [my bolds]

    I guess Terry1 thinks Michael Ignatieff and Liberal MP John McKay are religious fanatics.

  • terry1

    Gabby, nice try. There is a big difference in courting votes as opposed to pushing those beliefs into the governence of this country. As the Walrus article points out Harpo is very reluctant to express his faith publicly but yet believes his religion drives his agenda somewhat and that his support comes from thse evangelicals.

    I have great respect for religion but it belongs in churches and the privacy of ones home or mindset. We are a very secular country now and it must continue to develop along those lines because of our multi national ethnic makeup. As usual you slam me for the sake of it. That's the problem with narrow minded reformatorts.

  • terry1

    my other blog aliases are because I cannot maintain the same ones everywhere due to others having them. I don't hide behind a duplicate name like you do,speaking of cowards.

    Harpo deserves no respect from me. He has not earned it and most likely never will. As for the other posters here that is an individual call.

  • Parnella

    Wondering if it would be fair to consider the Liberals to be a bit hypocritical to be wooing people of faith, especially evangelical Christians, when they have poked fun at people like Stockwell Day for his beliefs.

    John McKay is an evangelical Christian, I believe John Manley is also.

    What are Michael Ignatieff's religious beliefs? Is that a question only asked of Conservative leaders?

    Desperation in politics can lead down roads previously less traveled.

  • Gabby in QC

    “There is a big difference in courting votes as opposed to pushing those beliefs into the governence [sic] of this country.”
    Like … ?
    Which religious beliefs have been pushed?
    Proof?

    “As the Walrus article points out Harpo is very reluctant to express his faith publicly …”
    You have just contradicted yourself yet again.

    At times you've said Harper openly expresses his faith, which you have objected to, and now you likewise claim that he is “very reluctant to express his faith publicly.” More double-speak on your part.

    It's the same silly argument you people have been making about the Conservatives' hidden agenda.
    If it's hidden, how can you guys claim to know so much about it?
    Give it up, you know you're being silly and parroting silly outdated arguments from people who have an agenda of their own.

    “As usual you slam me for the sake of it.”
    Oh, please! Terry, stop playing the whining victim. Victimhood doesn't become you.

    “Both Chretien and Martin are staunch Roman catholics …”
    Untrue.
    In case you don't know, both SSM and abortion are no-nos in the Catholic church, so Chretien and Martin cannot be considered “staunch Roman catholics.”
    They have been portrayed as such in the media and now by you, but if they were as staunch as you say they are, they would not have voted for SSM, nor fought an election on the false premise that the Conservatives wanted to take away “a woman's right to choose.” Paul Martin was not even honest enough to use the word “abortion”.

    Not only was Martin defending abortion, which as a “staunch Roman catholic” he should not do, but he was also lying – another no-no for “staunch Roman catholics” – about the Conservatives' position.

    If Chretien and Martin were “staunch Roman catholics” and wanted to maintain the secular character of Canada, the SSM vote would have been a completely free vote, not a whipped vote for cabinet ministers.
    The Conservatives have allowed free votes on matters of conscience, including for cabinet ministers, while the opposition parties have not, they have whipped such votes.

    That is what true secularism means. No religion is imposed on anyone, but everyone is free to express that religious conviction on certain matters of conscience.
    And lest you jump to the wrong conclusion … I do not wish to reopen the question of SSM, nor the question of abortion.

    I think this thread has reached its endpoint. It was originally about Sen. Duffy hinting at a looming election, wasn't it?

  • Soccermom

    “Both Chretien and Martin are staunch Roman catholics …”

    Now THAT'S funny!

    If that's the case, then a lot of liberals have some 'splainin' to do about their support of SSM and abortion…

  • terry1

    Gabby, do you ever get tired of being duplicitous?

    Martin went agaisn this religion to support SSM becasue it was a constitutional issue. that's what secular really means.

    Think about Harpo not supporting gay activities once his right wing nut bars found out he susbsidized the Toronto gay pride parade. His religious constituency rode him hard and published many articles in the religious press which forced him to stop the funding in other cities like Montreal. That's what I eman about religous inteference.

    The rest of yout stuff indicates you didn't really read up, or didn't want to know the truth, on harpos religion leanings in his thought and governence processes.

    You are a lemming!!!

  • Parnella

    Pardon me, tell me of anyone else with the name Parnella on any of the blogs? I am not aware of you using that alias either, but then, haven't been checking such things.

    This thread, like so many others here has gone off the rails which appears to be your reason for being here.
    Fail to see how the topic relates to anyone's religion or lack thereof, but it's the usual, when the going gets tough, change the subject.

  • terry1

    Soccermom, you typify the Tory ignorance of our constitution. They followed the law of the land not their religious beliefs. That's good goverence and why they whipped the original votes on the issue. Harpo tries to skirt it every chance he gets.

  • terry1

    You wer ethe one who attempted to relate me to another blog where parnel is a poster. More of your BS catches up to you.

    Ask E of E about the religious topic. He's the robot who challenged me on it.

  • Parnella

    Then why are we talking about religion? What has religion got to do with politics for Liberals beyond making fun of someone's religion in hope of political gain, then, going to the same people, snake oil salesman style in a desperate attempt to gain votes?

    If it mattered to either Chretien or Martin they would have allowed a free vote and voted according to their Catholic beliefs. Politics trumped their religion in both cases, there were many Liberals who did not support SSM or abortion, still are.

  • Switchyard O'Taylor

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW3n_F1tZMk

    Terry, you should consider being a troll or a clown. Being both seems to have overextended you.

  • terry1

    I see aqnother reformatort has joined the fray………. a rat would have improved your image.

  • Switchyard O'Taylor

    Have you no shame? I mean even comparatively to other Liberal partisans. Personally I think all the parties are a joke, but clowns like you give the LPC a really bad name.

  • East of Eden

    Well Ter-Ber, you just showed that it is actually you who knows nothing. You see, Ter-Ber, Mr. Harper, the Prime Minister (which Ignatieff is not) kind of has a job right now – he's busy running a county while Ignatieff is trying to get the Libs out of a hole. If you did know anything at all, Ter-Ber, you'd know that the CPC has full-to-bursting coffers while the LPC is…uh…well, in debt. How many leadership candidates still have not paid off their loans? Hmmm?

    So, Ter-Ber, you might want to be a little more selective in your mud-slinging. BTW – where are the examples of Prime Minister Harper (Ignatieff is not the prime minister, BTW) bringing religion into our secular structure? I guess you were just robotically spouting sock puppet speaking points (also known as LIES) when you wrote that.

  • East of Eden

    Shoot, forgot to mention. I'm a little more interested in how Ignatieff would ruin…er…I mean…run the country than he is at beggin for nickels and dimes from the party's big business buddies – of which there seem to be far fewer than once before. I wonder why it is that the LPC is so broke while the CPC is swimming in cash. And the CPC didn't pass any brown envelopes either.

  • East of Eden

    Nothing in your drivel shows what, exactly, Stephen Harper did to bring in any legislation, policies, or otherwise of a religious nature into our secular structure. You have given zero factual, concrete examples which actually became law in our country. Sorry, fallopian features, you just crapped all over yourself. Man, you have to post the dumbest and most idiotic comments of all the idiot comments I've seen on the net. And that includes a couple of idiots over at that dude ranch blog.

  • East of Eden

    Yawn. Hearsay, your Honour. Dismissed, Mr. Prosecutor. Next case please.

  • East of Eden

    I believe that Steven is allowing Ter-Ber to spew his verbal crap to reinforce the type of slug mentality that is rampant in the LPC. He even makes our female annoyance (you know who I mean) seem tame. Her inane and factually incorrect comments cannot hold a candle to this creature.

  • dindi

    *Why would a rocket need surgery? Now that would be money foolishly spent.
    Are you really that clueless?
    *

  • East of Eden

    Excellent, Gabby. I'll also add that Terry cannot provide one example where Mr. Harper “pushed” his faith into law or legislation or even a minor policy. As for Chretien and Martin – they are churchgoers who belong to the Catholic church. Period. As for Terry saying that we MUST continue down the secular path, I have only one thing to say: “who says so?”

    Also, Ter-Ber, if you feel that strongly, I challenge you to go to Saudi or Iran and preach that little doctrine of yours. Hah. Chicken. I dare you to tell Muslim women who work in the civil service to leave their hijabs at home – go on, Ter-Ber, try it. Hah. Chicken.

  • East of Eden

    John Manley is very much a man of faith and he's a very decent type of guy. Too bad he's with a bunch of lying creeps. Ignatieff has publicly announced that he is an athiest.

  • East of Eden

    Hey, you know what? Mr. Harper really IS trying to push his faith-based agenda on the government. You know, good Christian values like honesty, fairness, compassion, generosity, hard work, accountability. You know what? I think that, in his ignorance, Ter-Ber just paid our Prime Minister a wonderful compliment. Mr. Harper is honest, he doesn't steal from the taxpayers, he is compassionate, decent, polite, courteous…the list goes on and on. Man, I am so happy to have a man of faith pushing those values on the government. Thank God for giving us Mr. Harper.

    For once, Ter-Ber, you are correct and thankfully, Mr. Harper is pushing those values on the country. God Bless Mr. Harper and God Bless Canada.

  • Parnella

    For some time I considered the owner of this blog remiss for allowing Terry1 to 'comment' with insults and constant name calling, taking the threads off the rails. I now realize he's exposing what the Liberals condone and consider to be clever debate.
    Appears he's a missionary for the Liberal war room.

  • Parnella

    You saying “Terry1″ is used by others? They'll be wanting to change it pronto!

  • Gabby in QC

    “… being duplicitous?”
    Oooohhhh! I'm so impressed! Terry used a 4 syllable word!
    Did you check with your oracle to make sure you spelled it correctly?
    Too bad you didn't double-check the rest of your little spiel: 9 typos, not including caps where needed.

    Of course, those errors are insignificant in comparison to the distortions in this spiel of yours.
    You continue to spread the myth that PM Harper is anti-gay.

    Of course, you conveniently neglect to mention that then-opposition leader Stephen Harper supported civil unions like many European jurisdictions did and still do, i.e. they have not redefined marriage.

    Verify what Mr. Harper said in the House on Feb. 16, 2005.
    “We believe that our proposals speak to the majority of Canadians who stand in this middle ground and frankly, who seek such a middle ground. Our proposal is that the law should continue to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, but at the same time we would propose that other forms of union, however structured, by appropriate provincial legislation, whether called registered partnerships, domestic partnerships, civil unions or whatever, should be entitled to the same legal rights, privileges and obligations as marriage.”

    Furthermore, in your so-called reply to Soccermom you said Chretien and Martin “… followed the law of the land [on SSM] not their religious beliefs.”
    That shows your ignorance in general, and your lack of knowledge of this file in particular.

    From CBC Timeline of Same-Sex Rights
    “Dec. 9, 2004:
    The Supreme Court of Canada rules that the federal government can change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, but does not answer whether such a change is required by the Charter. It also reaffirms that religious leaders can not be compelled to perform same-sex marriages.”

    This is question 4:
    http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc79
    “4.   Is the opposite‑sex requirement for marriage for civil purposes, as established by the common law and set out for Quebec in section 5 of the Federal Law–Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?  If not, in what particular or particulars and to what extent?”

    And here’s the SC’s decision not to render an opinion on question 4
    “Question 4 
    In the unique circumstances of this reference, the Court should exercise its discretion not to answer Question 4.  First, the federal government has stated its intention to address the issue of same-sex marriage legislatively regardless of the Court’s opinion on this question.  As a result of decisions by lower courts, the common law definition of marriage in five provinces and one territory no longer imports an opposite-sex requirement and the same is true of s. 5 of the Federal Law–Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1.  The government has clearly accepted these decisions and adopted this position as its own.  Second, the parties in the previous litigation, and other same-sex couples, have relied upon the finality of the decisions and have acquired rights which are entitled to protection.  Finally, an answer to Question 4 has the potential to undermine the government’s stated goal of achieving uniformity in respect of civil marriage across Canada.  While uniformity would be achieved if the answer were “no”, a “yes” answer would, by contrast, throw the law into confusion.  The lower courts’ decisions in the matters giving rise to this reference are binding in their respective provinces.  They would be cast into doubt by an advisory opinion which expressed a contrary view, even though it could not overturn them.  These circumstances, weighed against the hypothetical benefit Parliament might derive from an answer, indicate that the Court should decline to answer Question 4.

    IOW, there was NO “law of the land” regarding SSM that Chretien and Martin followed, contrary to what you stated. The Supreme Court declined to rule on whether SSM was consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    As I said previously, I am not in favour of reopening the issue of SSM, but it is time that idiots like you, Terry1, stop spreading lies about the PM being anti-gay and a religious fanatic.
    I’m using the word “idiots” because it seems you only function at that low language level.

    You disagree with Conservative policies? Fine. Suggest better ones.
    Work hard to convince Canadians yours are better than those of the Conservatives.
    But stop spreading your lies about the PM, and most of all, stop your infantile name-calling.
    Your behaviour is worse than that of a child who has just contracted potty mouth disease.

  • Gabby in QC

    “Are you really that clueless?”
    Pedantic, perhaps, but clueless? No.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I&eurl

  • Parnella

    Thank you Gabby. Mr. Terry1 will have a peck of trouble to contradict the facts you have posted.

  • Gabby in QC

    Thanks, Parnella, but he'll be back with even more outlandish claims.

    Terry1 is probably checking up on something little Stephen Harper said when he was in kindergarten, proving little Stephen wanted to ram his religion down every little tyke's throat.

    *Sigh*

  • Parnella

    The bottom line, the constant speculation about when the next election will be, is all stemmed from the one fact, the Liberals are not in power, it's driving them to all sorts of inane actions and comments.

  • East of Eden

    Yes, and I hope others join in to give the LPC an even worse name. It all started with a certain former MP who blogged indiscreetly and it was all downhill from there. Nothing like showing their true colours.

  • Soccermom

    They can't be called “staunch” Catholics if they support those causes.

    Fake Catholics would be more accurate. Or “Catholic in name only”. Another laughable one is “devout”, the tag Paul Martin had attached to him. Yeah right.

    Support whatever you want. Just don't pretend to be something you're not.

  • East of Eden

    You are absolutely correct about some Libs who did not and do not support SSM and/or abortion. Funny how slugs like Ter-Ber neglect to ever mention that. Some of them do not support those initiatives for various reasons – not always faith-based. What slugs like Ter-Ber fail to ever mention is that there are many seculars who object to SSM and abortion. But the slug trolls like to make it a Christian issue. Hey, talk to any Hindu or Muslim about either of those two issues – I have friends of all faiths and, believe me, they are not exactly marching in the streets to promote those two issues, that's for sure. I even know seculars who are down on both of thsoe issues. Then, there's myself, a lifelong Christian believer who couldn't care less what two people do in the bedroom or with whom they fall in love. As for abortion – it's a whole different story: I do not believe in murdering a baby (I believe that life begins at conception and that negating a fetus' existence is simply an excuse to murder a baby in the womb) as a method of contraception. If the mother's life is in danger, yes terminate IF SHE SO CHOOSES OF HER OWN FREE WILL.

    I know many seculars who are so uptight that it would take a backhoe to remove a needle from their butts.

  • East of Eden

    The law is not always correct. Heck, at one time, homosexuality was – by law – a criminal offence. So, following the law is not always the right thing to do if the law is flawed. Try another argument, Ter-Ber. Man, your ignorance is stunning.

  • Switchyard O'Taylor

    Speaking of Sweet G (Garth)…

    Any truth the the rumour that he'll run for the Liberals in Caledon?

  • Switchyard O'Taylor

    St Augustine said that an unjust law is no law at all.

  • terry1

    Just back from a great afternoon of great music and then I read all this whining and angry reformatort garbage. you have all proven another point that many subscribe to. all Tories are angry all the time which is why tory times are tough times.

    You people area barrel a of laughs especially E of E as he tries to move around his nonsensical garbage and BS bravado. At least Gabby corrects my typos!!!

    LOL :)

  • Switchyard O'Taylor

    I've got 5:1 odds that Terry was actually under a bridge eating children… any takers?

  • terry1

    soccermom your comments are putrid. I know Paul Martin and I know his beliefs and I know his character.

    To those of you who bitch because I do character assasinations of harpo, soccermom and her ilk of angry and ugly reformatorts are a lesson you should all heed. If you can't destroy a character because they are reformatory then you can't destroy anyone else's. Hypocrites all.

    Hateful and despicable about something she knows nothing about.

  • Parnella

    It appears Liberal leaders who recently served as PM's parked their religion at the doors of power, became non-practicing Catholics in exchange for the ideology of Liberalism, to be all things to all people, stand for nothing.
    It's was amusing to hear Liberal apologists running off at the mouth about our PM not having the right to consume the Host because he is not Catholic or he put it in his pocket which was a mortal sin or something of that nature. They had it made up to get him one way or the other. What an amateur set-up that turned out to be.

  • Parnella

    You need serious help man, you've lost control of yourself, your hatred is palpable; you make no sense. That kind of emotion can lead one to regrettable acts, get some help for God's sake.

    We are not here to call each other names but to debate issues posted by the blog owner.