He’s Not Coming Back For You

Excellent blog post by The Parallel Parliament on how Harper has not only broken all his democratic promises for the past five years of his reign but cares for little else than power for powers sake, living in a bubble hoping he can slide back in by fooling the people… just one more time.

He’s Not Coming Back For You

This post is a good eye-opener for sure on the devil we have come to know whose record has proven he has nothing but distain and contempt for both the people of this great country, and their democratic institutions. If you are not of his political and ideological persuasion you are nothing. You are less than nothing. And as such, must be avoided at all costs because although being less than nothing in his books, you are still a threat, and therefore the enemy.

A pretty scary and warped mind, I would say.

Now that you have really got to know him, is this someone you want running your country? I think not!

 

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

from John Prince
This entry was posted in Canadian Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to He’s Not Coming Back For You

  1. Chloe says:

    I wonder why he hates us so much. I would think his handlers though would be warning him of the risk of losing solid Conservative supporters, especially those with deep pockets. There are a few I bet who can no longer stomach the Harper government.Take care.

  2. John Prince says:

    Hi Chloe, despite MSM distorting the picture with their phoney nightly pools and biased news coverage of the election (CTV is especially bad) I believe Harper will have a hell of a time maintaining his base, with no chance of winning over converts and therefore I would be quite surprized if the conservatives are even able to win enough seats to form a minority government.

    The winds are shifting and public opinion (at least on-line public opinion) is moving away from the torys. Iggy is growing in popularity and people are seeing for themselves that the smear campaign the HarperCONS have been doing against him is just that… nothing more than smear.

    Even Jack is doing well in my opinion having some good policies and speaking to issues that matter to ordinary people, although, once again, he is not getting a fair shake from media such as the aforementioned CTV.

    Elizebeth needs to be included in the debate and if not it will not only be a travesty with respect to our democracy but further vidication of who really runs this country i.e. CORPORATIONS.

    Thanks for stopping by Chloe, and for sharing.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Elizabeth does NOT need to be included in the debates. She does not have an MP in office and she herself is not in office. Her being included in the debates is an affront to those leaders that have democratically elected MPs. If we’re going to let her participate in the debate, why not the Christian Heritage party? Why not the Marijuana party? Why not the Libertarian party? Why not my dog? My cat? Why not all these other fringe groups that have never elected an MP (at least not in recent history)?

  4. Anonymous says:

    And FYI, Blair Wilson, the Green’s lone MP was elected a Liberal, but crossed over to the Green. He was defeated in the 2008 election.

  5. John Prince says:

    Anon @5:46
    Granted, I respect your argument. But she was in the debate last time, people expect to see her again. After all, people know her and her party got over 1 million votes last time around and her party is running a candidate in every federal riding. All 308 of them! I don’t believe the other parties you mentioned (including your cat and dog parties :-)) can claim anything even remotely close to what the Greens can claim. No their legitimacy for being included is well documented and proven.

  6. John Prince says:

    Anon @5:53
    Yes, I was aware of that and if that is the only reason you are giving for excluding Elizebeth, well, I have already answered that, haven’t I?

  7. Anonymous says:

    Ok. Fair enough. I, in turn, respect your argument. However, even with the usual protocal bent to allow her to debate last time around, she STILL failed to get an MP elected. If she can get an MP or 2 elected this time, then NEXT election it would be more than fair and acceptable for her to participate. Until then, it is unfair to the existing leaders as well as the leaders of the other parties to make special concessions for Elizabeth May.
    Fair question, and please do not take this as an insult, because it is not meant to be an attack:
    If a conservative, Reform-like fringe party that had political beliefs that leaned to the right was in the same boat as the Greens (candidate in every riding, over 1 million votes but no seats won, prolific, etc) regarding the leaders’ debate, would you be so quick to argue for and advocate their participation?
    -MR

  8. John Prince says:

    MR, if the sole criteria is whether a party has a seat or not, then I can’t argue with you on that, but I don’t believe that should be the sole criteria. We know from last time she would not detract from the debate but rather enhance it. She has proven she in her own right a power to reckon with, and a much needed female addition to what is otherwise a very male testorone driven debate. Half our population is female. How can we exclude them and still call ourselves a democratic society?

    What are you and the others afraid of… surely not a plump little woman who looks like Mrs.B … albeit, one having a rapier wit to stab you with? :-)

    I guess if I was Harper or any of the rest of them, despite my protestations to the contrary, I wouldn’t want her there either. Maybe the media consortium got their marching orders before the game was even afoot?

  9. Anonymous says:

    Ok, again, fair enough John.
    I don’t think this is a gender thing. Whether the population is 51% female or not is besides the point and, quite frankly, is not the reason that she (Elizabeth May) is being excluded. Certainly if Alexa McDonough were still leader of the NDP, she would be involved in the debate and a welcome participant. I agree with you, some female participation would be ideal, but unfortunately until more ladies run for party leader of their respective parties, it is what it is.
    I’m not afraid of Liz’s participation in the debate. I think she’s an intelligent woman and a formidable opponent that brings reason and a calm head to what turns into otherwise fired up arguing and non-sense bantering. I am opposed to the idea of allowing people to partake in a leader’s debate when they are not a leader of a party that has elected representation.
    -Mike Robbins

  10. John Prince says:

    I hear ya. Fair enough Mike Robbins. Nice debating with you. Take care!

  11. Anonymous says:

    Take care John.
    You’re a formidable opponent, yourself. Don’t let the “trolls” get to you.
    Hope to talk again soon.
    -Mike

  12. John Prince says:

    :-) you got it, Mike. :-)

  13. Jose says:

    Let’s see — we have Iggy, who is a Goldman Sachs plant who would love to get their hands on the Canadian resources. Along with ex Goldman Sachser Bank Of Canada Head Carney, we will soon have banking debacle to match the USA banking mess.

    Then we have Layton, who will fill the Govt Cabinet with do-gooders, hand out the goodies to everyone, tax the “rich” and corporations, nationalize the resource companies, and lead us down the typical road to ruin.

    Or we have Harpo, who so far has kept the country’s economy rolling, but who lacks the ability to relate to the very people who have elected him, and who appears to have more than his share of crooked cronies.

    Hardly a good choice. Stick with the devil we know, or go for the other choices????

    Jose

  14. John Prince says:

    Yep, as usual Jose you know how to paint them. :-)

    I too have my reservations about Iggy. What’s his real agenda for this country? So far he has talked Family Pack but at the end of the day will he too sell us out to the highest bidder? I don’t know, but I do know he is much smarter and worldly than Harper and he is a Liberal which for now is good enough for me becaue I have had ENOUGH HARPER!

    Jose, look at history and around the world today and you will see that many great leaders have turned their country’s around and done quite well by their people through nationizing, educating, providing great health care and social programs, etc. etc. Quebec nationizing their hydro is a good example of tremendous benefits for the people of that province (maybe we should nationize our oil here in Alberta? Now there is an idea! Except in short order I’m sure, we would have some B-52 bombers visiting us, don’t you think?) :-) Far from roads of ruin as you describe. In fact it is actually quite the opposite. Take America, the richest country in the world having one of the worst track records anywhere in that world with respect to all of the above. No I think Jack would be a good thing. Except for one thing? The mass exodus of companies leaving this country as a result of his party winning an election. But hey, we do have a global economy.

    Harpo has been riding on the good works of Martin and Chretian and not because of anything he and Flaherty have done. In fact, the so-called economist who at the height of the financial collapse adviced everybody that it was a good time to buy stock. And Flaherty, under Harris, as finance minister pretty well bankruped Ontario before he left. No these guys have no track record except a bad one which they have both demonstrated again in how they have been managing things.

    No, it is time for a change. We’ve had enough conservative/republican type management where it is all about filling the deep pockets of the rich and well connected, and to hell with everybody else.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Many countries done well by nationalising you say. And which countries would that be?

    The Sovjet-Unionen and easterne Europe? The nearly bankrupt western european welfare states? Cuba? Venezuela? The slavecamp of North Korea? The former breadbasket of Africa (Rhodesia) which now instead has become a socialist basketcase {Zimbabwe}?

    Just wondered which ones you had in mind.

  16. John Prince says:

    Without getting into a long drawn out argument on that front, what I am trying to say is when a country has control over its resources it has power. When it doesn’t, due to foreign ownership, it has lost control over its country and destiny. Conservative governments have consistently been taking us down this road, both provincially and federally, for some time now. That needs to stop!

  17. Anonymous says:

    Hi John,
    how the Conservative buy votes with Community Futures money. When Brian Mulroney yelled “JOBS, JOBS, JOBS” he created Community Futures Society to give money directly to the local politicians to spend as they please and by passing the Provincial Government. In 1994, when the Liberals took over they changed that Society into a Corporation incorporated under part 2 of the Act, with is also a Society but it sound much better under Industry Canada and they abuse it as much as possible, ask Steven Owns, he was the Minister at the time. The Government of Canada gets elected by the voters, not the Province. If you supply money by the truck load to the local Government they would work their heart out for you, they’re just like hookers, they love money and have no conscience. They would re-elect you again, and again. As long as the money keeps on coming and they’re not accountable to anyone accept themselves or the court if the complainant is willing to pay the cost. You find Mayors, Aldermen, Area Directors, friends of the Mayor on those irresponsible Society Boards as volunteers to control those loans, grants or gifts disguised as “non-repayable loans” and it seems in all these little towns the Mayor is pushing for a conservative candidate that controls the “cash cow”, very disgusting democracy.
    The friend gets a letter of recommendation from the politician to get the grant for his company to make sure he can pay his rent for office to that politician’s business and sometimes the person who gets the grant is on the Board of CFDC but we aren’t allowed to know this in a positive and transparent way, everything is very very gray. I even have documentation of a grant from Fishery Renewal given to a small business to pay a loan to CFDC when Russ Hellberg was the Mayor of Port Hardy. HE was also on the Board of Fishery Renewal in Vancouver. How is this fair to another small business when they are suppose to compete?
    Our politicians runt the show in a very twisted way and always have the guts to ask for our support. What a sick democracy! Only one remedy, kick the rejects out.

    -Fred Poirier

  18. John Prince says:

    You are right Fred, Community Future offices run out of Western Economic Diversification are nothing more than a corrupt and criminal crown corporation that is used as a political tool to reward cronies of the government with our hard earned tax dollars. Transparency and accountability does not apply to these guys despite the good works done by people such as yourself to expose them for what they are.

    The truth needs to come out and with people such as yourself on the job, it slowly is coming out. Keep up the good work, Fred!

Leave a Reply