We are told that ample vaccine is available for those people of high risk. Yet, those who are getting seriously ill and dying are not high risk cases, but perfectly healthy people. That's what's caused the surge in demand. They are hearing one thing from the feds, but seeing quite another on the ground. That is what is scaring people and fueling a great deal of distrust of the government.
The Liberals are using H1N1 to scare people. Can they get any lower, using people's fear of this flu to try and score political points?
The attached article "The Broken Contract" was written by our leader Michael Ignatieff in response to the Bush government's utter failure to rise to the obvious challenge to public security, order and health presented by Hurricane Katrina. Is the H1N1 pandemic the "Hurricane Katrina" of our own laissez-faire, fend for yourself government? Read the attached. Reflect on the analogous situation we face. Consider the priorities and values that underlie our own government's response to the threat to public health that this pandemic represents. Recognize that Mr. Harper's government has utterly failed to stand with Canadians and for Canadians in a matter of clear and unequivocal public duty.
Whatever happens, let us fervently hope and pray that the threat to general health and the risk of loss of life flowing from this government's incredible irresponsibility is contained to the absolute minimum.
Sick little puppies, fear mongering in the extreme. Are there any adults running the Liberal clown show? Written by our (dear) leader Iffy, sounds kind of creepy. Yes master, we will follow you no matter what you have said about torture in the past. Why didn't he mention the Bush response to 9/11? Why Katrina? Guess he is just parroting his American cousins.
SCHIEFFER: What do you do to correct this kind of thing? You’re told one thing, you’d have so much and you didn’t. These are the kinds of things we heard after Katrina during a previous administration.
Not a single original idea in any Liberal head.
In my mailbox I found a Liberal 10 percenter, yapping about the senate. Here in Alberta we have elected Senators, not like in Ontario. Ontario Liberal Alan Tonks picked the wrong issue to hit us Albertans with, clearly he has no understanding of what makes us tick. The desperation is clearly taking over the Liberals. They are floundering with no leadership and throwing everything at the voters hoping something will stick. Here is the 10 percenter:
1. Did Stephen Harper deceive Canadians when he said he would cease patronage appointments to the Senate?
I'm trying to remember when he said that, maybe Tonks could give us a reference to that statement? As far as I recollect, PM Harper said he wanted an elected Senate, and he would not appoint any new Senators until the provinces elected Senators, only Alberta has done so to date. Hey, Liberal MP Tonks, get yourself a list of good Senator candidates, and maybe a Liberal will get a place in the Senate.
2. Is Stephen Harper justified in appointing a string of Conservative cronies to the Senate after saying he wouldn't do so?
Hello Tonks, you sent this to Albertans, do you really know how mad we still are about Mitchell being given a Senate seat over all our elected Senators in Waiting? A failed Liberal leader in Alberta got a seat in the Senate over the people we had voted for, it was a disgrace and he is there until 2026 and the people of Alberta have no way of getting rid of him or any other Liberal appointments. Suck it up Tonks, PM Harper is doing what he needs to do to balance the Senate.
3. Who do you trust more to restore integrity to government? Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals or Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.
Ha, that is just too funny, Liberals and integrity? Is Tonks so out of touch with Canadians that he doesn't understand that we voted the Liberals OUT because they had no integrity.
I suggest you respond to his 10 percenter in a very polite manner at the on-line address supplied
32 comments:
''Not a single original idea in any Liberal head.''
It's been like that since after Trudeau.
They sat in government wheeling and dealing other party's ideas.
Well except Liberals were really good at cooking up ideas to get kick backs into Liberal pockets.
The govt HAS TO fill about 3500 appointments per year.
Harper said he would appoint a person to make selections for ''qualified'' appointees. The opps voted down Harper's pick. so no selection guy.
If you lived in a non-Conservative riding, you would have been getting a "10 percenter" every week for the past year!
What you do with these (and I have been getting creative!), is:
1) You draw a mustache on Dear Leader;
2) You tick "none of the above"; and
3) You write a snotty remark like:
What did you do with the surplus?
Have you figured out about the recession yet?
Why are brown Canadians treated differently?
What happened to fixed election dates?
Why wasn't any of the stimulus money spent in my riding?
Why do you have Canada?
Grrr...last one should have been:
Why to you hate Canada?
On senate appointments, the Liberals as usual are hypocritical.
http://tinyurl.com/ycluclj
“The Hill Times, May 12, 2008
Senator urges Prime Minister Harper to fill increasing Senate vacancies
Currently, there are 14 Senate vacancies, but there will be 30 vacancies by the end of 2009.
… [Liberal] Sen. Moore wants to address the number of vacancies in the Senate, currently at 14 and rising to 30 by the end of 2009, by forcing the prime minister to make appointments within six months of a Senate seat being vacated. …
Liberal democratic reform critic and MP Brian Murphy (Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe, N.B.) said the government is not following the law by refusing to appoint Senators and is doing "a disservice" to provinces with vacancies. "I think it matters because you have a Senate that exists and it should be fully filled," Mr. Murphy told The Hill Times last week. …”
And to force the PM to fill those vacant seats, Senator Moore introduced Bill S-224
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/Senate/Bills/402/public/S-224/S-224_1/S-224_text-e.htm
S-224
"Second Session, Fortieth Parliament, 57 Elizabeth II, 2009
SENATE OF CANADA
BILL S-224
An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act (vacancies)
First Reading, February 5, 2009
The Honourable Senator Moore
SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act with respect to filling vacancies in Parliament. With respect to vacancies in the Senate, the enactment amends the Parliament of Canada Act to require the Prime Minister to recommend to the Governor General a fit and qualified person for appointment within 120 days after a vacancy happens." [my bolding]
In other words, the Liberal senator, I imagine with the support of other Liberal senators and other great Liberal thinkers, were ready to compel the PM to fill existing vacancies.
I didn't follow up the progress of that bill, so I don't know its present status. But I guess it was no longer needed, since the vacancies have been filled.
zzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzz
Nice to hear from the Official Conservative Party of Canada mouthpiece...
give us another bologna sandwich
I'm quite curious as to how you got on Allan Tonks' mailing list Huntsy. Are you sure someone who lives in his riding didn't send that 10 percenter to you?
Or maybe you inadvertently signed up for his email updates?
I haven't seen that one yet, Hunter but the ones I have seen or received, have a consistent pattern. They NEVER discuss what THEY would do or have done, they only bash or trash ( and in this case, use an infantile variation of his name)the Prime Minister and Conservatives.
No ideas, never.
Meanwhile the 10%-ers from the Conservatives (mine) have questions, priorities and accomplishments.
I can't say that I have had a bash and trash, yet.
questions, priorities and accomplishments?
zzzzzz
''Nice to hear from the Official Conservative Party of Canada mouthpiece...''
LOL, that is a standard Liberal comment,
they still don't get the grassroots thing that the CPC has inspired.
SQ, we Conbots are the foundation the CPC stands on.
You Libs are clingers, with no input, no direction.
Gabby - the complaint is not that there have been appointments, the complaint is that those appointments have gone to party hacks to compensate them for services rendered (otherwise known as patronage).
Now, while I am certainly no conservative, I am quite confident there are any number of conservatives who would qualify for the senate. Sadly, Harper decided to break his promise and use the senate to reward the party faithful.
That is the hypocrisy this 10 percenter is designed to address.
Unless you kind find some comment in that document that says Harper should not appoint anyone? Not all appointments have to be patronage appointments. They do not have to be one and the same.
Mysty-sue ... thanks for the enlightened comments on the discussion today.
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
"SQ, we Conbots are the foundation the CPC stands on."
That is so sad, on sooooo many levels...
You are most welcome Teddi
I see the little bratty riff-raff have been visiting again.
======
Gayle, you and I have already had that discussion, if I'm not mistaken, and I'm not interested in joining you on another pointless merry-go-round. So let's dispense with the preliminaries; go ahead, declare yourself the winner of the discussion, like you usually do.
I couldn't care less.
Gosh Gabby, passive aggressive is so, 2006. And conceding while pretending you just can't be bothered is baloney, considering your 322 word spiel further up the thread. It's not a matter of someone else declaring themself the winner, it's a matter that you have effectively conceded.
Why are you in this kitchen then, if you can't take the heat?
Hahahahahahaha!
I see the Liberal trolls are cluttering up my blog again. Give them an inch and they take a mile, they just can't help themselves.
Mystereeoso, grow up or I will remove all your comments from now on, you are why SQ and LS got banned as well, so maybe they can control you or they will also get banned again.
Hey guys....you KNOW WHO YOU ARE, with the exception of a pretty half a$$ed attempt by mysty and Gayle, none of you even attempted to discuss the topic.
How hard is that? Perhaps either show-up or shut up and that is a polite, sincere request.
Thanks
How hard is that? Perhaps either show-up or shut up and that is a polite, sincere request.
Done:
I receive CPC 10%ers which invariably try to bash the Liberals. They are quite skillful at weaving the narrative so that Liberal is essentially a pejorative. They make misleading claims and whine about the Liberals.
Now to the questions from the post:
1. Did Stephen Harper deceive Canadians when he said he would cease patronage appointments to the Senate?
Yes. He started by appointing the unelectable Fortier so he could be in Cabinet and have Quebec representation in Cabinet. However that slid by, since it was understood he needs all regions in Cabinet.
However, appointing Mike Duffy solely for broadcasting the Dion blooper reel two days before an election is clearly an abuse of the intent of having the Senate. Valuing rigid party loyalty over substance is what Harper is doing, contrary to his pledge not to.
2. Is Stephen Harper justified in appointing a string of Conservative cronies to the Senate after saying he wouldn't do so?
No, he is not. He hates the Senate, and is therefore poisoning it by appointing party hacks. Probably they were given the same CPC handbook that is given out to MP's on how to disrupt committees and make Parliament dysfunctional.
3. Who do you trust more to restore integrity to government? Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals or Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.
The Liberals. They had some bad underlings who are now gone, some in jail. The lack of integrity in the CPC starts right at the top, with Stephen Harper, an example being his appointment of CPC cronies to the Senate.
"...go ahead, declare yourself the winner of the discussion, like you usually do."
"Winner"? No. I don't see reasonable debate as winning and losing.
I see it as me being correct - which I am.
Gayle, explain how the Liberal leader of Alberta got into the Senate? We never voted for the guy but he's in the Senate sucking up taxpayers dollars.
Is that not favoritism. Remember that we had a list of elected Senators that Martin could have chosen from, but he snubbed all Albertans by nominating the most partisan Liberal Albertans he could find. Then he expected us to vote Liberal?
Good job, LS, very good job.
I will take this opportunity to respectfully disagree with most of your positions other than the point about the 10%-er. I have never seen one that went 'personal' (changing the name of Ignatieff as this one has done to the PM)so when it challenges policies or performance, no problem but to butcher someones name for partisan points, not attractive.
As for your Senate position, well most of would agree that appointing Senators was plan Z and I am certain, had he received a majority and the coalition fiasco had not occurred, the chamber would sit as it did last October.
Just sayin'...
"Mystereeoso, grow up or I will remove all your comments from now on, you are why SQ and LS got banned as well, so maybe they can control you or they will also get banned again."
Huntsy, it's up to you to pick the battles you want to fight. I've been nothing but courteous in this thread even if I HAVE MADE IT PLAIN your blog posts lend me the distinct impression of a writer dressed in a woolly brown squirrel costume. I get the same kicks out of your blog whether I get to leave a comment here or not. You on the other hand get to be the admonishing and censorious "author" of a blog that bans squirrel links. Coolio.
Okay than Mystereo, if you get the same enjoyment of my blog whether you comment or not, consider all your comments deleted from now on. You asked for it, I am happy to comply, now scoot on back over to the dark side.
Go Huntsy!
zzzzzzzzz
Go Huntsy!
"Gayle, explain how the Liberal leader of Alberta got into the Senate?"
He was appointed of course.
First, he is obviously qualified, even if you do not agree with his politics (and as you may have noticed, I have already noted there are undoubtedly qualified conservatives out there, even though I do not agree with their politics).
Second, at no point did the man who appointed him promise he would not appoint senators, nor did he promise he would not use the senate for patronage appointments.
I thought people like you did not like politicians using the senate to reward their political friends. I do not see how you can complain about Grant Mitchell being appointed if you are OK with Mike Duffy's appointment.
Post a Comment