Stronach crosses the floor

[V]

Doesn't take a lot to shock you, does it?

But, yeah you're right, that CPC guy is a dumbass for saying the whole prostitute thing. These guys are supposed to be schooled in what to say and when to say it, aren't they? I mean, isn't that politicking 101? Why make things even easier for the Libs? Now instead of perhaps needing to defend Stronach for her ridiculous power starved move, they can point the finger at the CPCs yelling 'sexist!!'. And it's nobody's fault but the CPCs alone. They really need to learn to keep the bad focus away from themselves and on the Libs.

edited for wrong label

[Winsor_Pilates]

In all fairness, I think Stronachs motives are both moral and opportunistic at the same time.
Of course she has turned her back on The CPC, and Mackay and is motivated by her new position, but there is also alot of truth to the fact that she probobly fits better in the Liberals ideologicaly.
She was far more moderate than most of the CPC members and on some issues (ie. same sex marraige) she was even more left than many Liberals.

[V]

Well, how much has the CPC changed in the last year? Have they gotten more 'right-wing fanatical'? Maybe if Stronach made the move before the election we could talk about moral decisions being made, but the timing and reward of this move just makes it look opportunity driven.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 18 2005, 09:42 PM
Wow . . . thats all I can say is wow.

you sound like a liberal trying to marginalize everyone who dosen't agree with you.

Unreal

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with everything he said, but...

I could spend the rest of the night dragging out similar quotes hurled at Liberal supporters. Brainwashed, sheep, idiots, deluded, naive, etc., etc., all trying to marginalize Liberal views without any sort of reasoned basis for their argument.

That was a big look in the mirror for a lot of regular posters in the political threads.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@May 18 2005, 10:23 PM
In all fairness, I think Stronachs motives are both moral and opportunistic at the same time.
Of course she has turned her back on The CPC, and Mackay and is motivated by her new position, but there is also alot of truth to the fact that she probobly fits better in the Liberals ideologicaly.
She was far more moderate than most of the CPC members and on some issues (ie. same sex marraige) she was even more left than many Liberals.

Ya know what? You can share Liberal beliefs if you want, whatever those may be, but don't try associating the word "moral" with that party or anyone who joins it...especially someone who's bought off with a fancy job title. It makes me sick that there is NO GOOD OPTION for leadership in this country. How is it possible, though, that criminal behaviour is easier to stomach than the possibility of some changes?

fata people...they're a bunch of morons who deserve the shinguard government they get. I've always been against Quebec separation because I thought Canada was a special place...well fata that. This machine is broke, and needs to be dismantled. I've never been more disgusted by politics, and I'm not even drunk. I thought I'd make it to at least age 30 before voter disillusionment set in...guess not.

Politicians can burn in hell.

p.s.: I thank "the makers" for censoring my post, because I really enjoyed typing all those words up there ^

[longsuffering]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+May 18 2005, 09:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ May 18 2005, 09:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Wow . . . thats all I can say is wow.

you sound like a liberal trying to marginalize everyone who dosen't agree with you.

Unreal[/b]

How can I be trying to marginalize you with your own words?

You guys are doing a fine job of that yourselves.
:P

Originally posted by Captain Crunch
What a snake.

Originally posted by Captain Crunch
At least prostitutes have the the ability to say what they are. She dosen't

Originally posted by Shawnski

In a small
dimlight restaurant
far, far away......

Darth Martin: "Come to the dark side, Belinda!! We will give you a post."

Stronach: "A bedpost?"

Darth Martin: "No, a cabinet post."

Stronach: "Hmmmm. OK, it will have to do.... for now. But Darthy baby, I DO so want that bedpost too. I am soooooo... eager, I guess is the politically correct] word.... lately, as I have been surrounded by small "c" men, err conservatives. I need a big "l" Liberal to fill my void."

Darth Martin: "Well, well. I must say I DO like your, err, 'human resources'... allot, actually.... I do have a trip coming up to the G-spot. I mean G8. You can come along and explore what positions you can have under me now."

Power sluuuutttttttttttttttt.

Originally posted by oilers fan
She can rot in hell

Originally posted by oiler fan
She is just a power hungry BITCH.

<!--QuoteBegin-snakeeye@
Believe me, I will never consider a gay union to be a marriage.[/quote]

<!--QuoteBegin-BlackRedGold25
Shut the fata up. Does every political discussion has to get turned into a platform about same sex marriage by homosexual activists and the bleeding heart homohuggers[/quote]

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@May 18 2005, 06:18 PM

I'm sorry that I've hurt your feelings HOZ by questioning comments made on a post. I thought that's what posts were for. You are free to critique my comments as well.

What half did I not read? Are you referring to the rest of his post that I didn't quote? That's becuase I don't have an issue with the rest of his post. I quote the section that troubles me, and asked him a question about it. Where's the problem.

I equat his comment of saying "Stronach crossing the floor = attack on Alberta" because this is a post about Stronach crossing the floor and he was talking about Alberta getting snuffed by the rest of the country. What else does this equate to?

Anyway. I'm sure Captain can respond himself if he wants, without you coming to his defense because you have a gruge with me over something I said on a different post.

I'm sorry that I've hurt your feelings HOZ by questioning comments made on a post. I thought that's what posts were for. You are free to critique my comments as well.


What? What in the world are you talking about here? Where did this come from now?

I equat his comment of saying "Stronach crossing the floor = attack on Alberta" because this is a post about Stronach crossing the floor and he was talking about Alberta getting snuffed by the rest of the country. What else does this equate to?

Here is the answer to this and in CC's own words and the reason why I think you don't read half of people's posts...

Its too bad, over the last 10 years I've become really dis-illusioned about government in Canada, and today really punched another nail through it for me.


Understand?

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 18 2005, 08:42 PM
How many people actually listened to her whole statement?

I just heard the soundbites until now. After listening to the whole thing, I am even more impressed with her decision. She sounds like he heart is in the right place.

http://www.cbc.ca/clips/ram-newsworld/stro..._stmt050517.ram

Wait, all politicians lie, except for Liberals?

Or, at least, Stronach told the truth in her "heartfelt" speech explaining why she was betratying her party? All she needed was the crocodile tears and her conference would have been a clone of Bertuzzi's.

Hell, her entire conference came right out of Martin and Layton's speech book.

I'm sorry, you have to be pretty damn naive to think that Stronach's decision to bail on the Conservatives, two days before one of the biggest votes in the last two decades to become a senior Liberal minister, after already accepting the CPC nomination was based on her personal morals or some heartfelt belief she was doing the right thing for her consituents or her country.

Lust. For. Power.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Longsuffering I think there is a huge difference between calling calling someone a power whore (remember when we called Fleury a media whore... was that sexist?) And saying that every single person that supports a party is for all intents and purposes an idiot who has their head burried in the sand, or right up their ass (could have been what you are trying to get at).

I would respect her more if she took a backbencher position, but right now it smells fishy, and no that isn't a sexist slur against women in general, or anything like that. The real reason I don't like this woman is that she went out and in a move that apparently supported her career she decides to prop up a government that has been shown to be corrupt, wasteful, and built upon lies.

I would rather go with the route that I don't know that get repeatedly stabbed in the back by the Liberals.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by CaramonLS+May 19 2005, 01:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaramonLS @ May 19 2005, 01:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flames Draft Watcher@May 18 2005, 10:44 PM
I love it how some Conservative supporters try to paint it as if we're this huge victim. As if Ontario was completely raping and pillaging Alberta of everything good.

Last time I checked our standard of life is pretty dang good here. And if we're subsidizing some of the poorer provinces, heck, that's the way I think it should be.

Are you saying you don't know anything about transfer payments to other provinces?

Maybe your wording isn't correct, but it seems like you have no clue that we make transfer payments. [/b][/quote]
How did you get that out of what I said?

[longsuffering]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@May 19 2005, 07:28 AM
Longsuffering I think there is a huge difference between calling calling someone a power whore (remember when we called Fleury a media whore... was that sexist?) And saying that every single person that supports a party is for all intents and purposes an idiot who has their head burried in the sand, or right up their ass (could have been what you are trying to get at).

I'm assuming you're asking a sincere question, so I'll give you a sincere answer.

In this case, context, or more accurately the gender of the person, means everything. It is a very, very fine line to draw when you try to claim that any reference to a woman as a whore is not meant as the generally accepted definition of the word.

That's my take on it. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept your suggestion that the whore reference was unintended, but 'whore' was still a very poor choice of words. But putting aside the "power whore" reference, what context can anyone claim makes it okay to refer to a woman, political opponent or not, as a slut or a bitch, then try to claim it wasn't a sexist, demeaning (or hateful) remark.

As for the rest of your question. Supporting the CPC doesn't make one an idiot. I didn't say that. The point I was trying to make was that the vocal CPC supporters on this board who claim the CPC represents moderate Canadians, and repeatedly claim that the average Canadian has no reason to worry about the CPC or possible hidden agendas, are the first to bring out the bitch, whore, slut, homo-lover references.

Scratch the veneer from this CPC party and hate and intolerance never seems to be too far below the surface.

Surely I can't be the only person who sees the irony in that?

And isn't it the CPC supporters on this board who generally refer to any Liberal supporter as stupid? You inferred that is the message I was trying to send. The CPCers on this board don't infer anything. Read the thread. They flatly state anyone, in any province, for any reason, who supports the Liberals is an idiot, or worse.

Believe it or not, I can accept that a powerful and wealthy person, in this case a woman, can choose to change parties for fundamental reasons of a lack of shared values - or not sharing the values of the Party or it's leader. The CPC said it would moderate its policies. Apparently Stronach didn't think that was happening.

My recollection of the PC - Reform merger was that the Reform side promised to include the moderate conservatives, would moderate some of their more extreme positions and reach out to all Canadians. Is it really inconceivable that Stronach had grown increasingly uncomfortable with what she saw in the CPC caucaus? Is it inconceivable that being scolded over stating an opinion then becoming involved in a shouting match with the Party leader would cause a person to reconsider their involvement in a Party that wasn't moderating it's views, wasn't trying to unify the country? She was inside the caucaus, inside the shadow cabinet. She heard the conversations, the policy plans.

I say it's conceivable.

The CPC can spin this anyway they like. The fact remains that one of their stars - one of the individuals the Party touted as a symbol of the new CPC - left or was pushed out of the Party.

Say what you will about Stronach. Call her an opportunist, say she's a snake, etc. It will not change the fact that she, with her resume and credentials, brings more to any Party than a the majority of politicians on either side of the house. No one who is serious about political debate in this country can deny that, no matter how low they are willing to go with the mudslinging and name calling.

[Clarkey]

Give it up with 'intolerance' charges.

You can't just throw that word around because you disagree with what someone says. It's the easy way out of an argument, if you don't like what someone is saying shout racist, nazi, sexist, intolerant et al.

Conservatives have the right to be p*ssed, scathing comments are to be expected.

[JohnnyTitan]

Originally posted by longsuffering@May 19 2005, 04:37 PM
Scratch the veneer from this CPC party and hate and intolerance never seems to be too far below the surface.

The CPC said it would moderate its policies. Apparently Stronach didn't think that was happening.

My recollection of the PC - Reform merger was that the Reform side promised to include the moderate conservatives, would moderate some of their more extreme positions and reach out to all Canadians. Is it really inconceivable that Stronach had grown increasingly uncomfortable with what she saw in the CPC caucaus? Is it inconceivable that being scolded over stating an opinion then becoming involved in a shouting match with the Party leader would cause a person to reconsider their involvement in a Party that wasn't moderating it's views, wasn't trying to unify the country? She was inside the caucaus, inside the shadow cabinet. She heard the conversations, the policy plans.


The CPC can spin this anyway they like. The fact remains that one of their stars - one of the individuals the Party touted as a symbol of the new CPC - left or was pushed out of the Party.

Say what you will about Stronach. Call her an opportunist, say she's a snake, etc. It will not change the fact that she, with her resume and credentials, brings more to any Party than a the majority of politicians on either side of the house. No one who is serious about political debate in this country can deny that, no matter how low they are willing to go with the mudslinging and name calling.

Great post!

I even tried to boil it down to just the good points, but there were so many there's still a lengthy quote above.

Without Belinda, the CPC is now just the Reform Party. No more, no less. Only Manning was a slightly better leader than Harper is.

She doesn't represent just a vote in the house today or a seat in an election in the future. Whether or not she's a good politician, she represented the idea that the CPC was an exciting, fiscally conservative yet more moderate party than what we had seen before. She was what "Stupid" Ontario voters have been waiting for.

Now the CPC are seen for what Harper has wanted them to be all along. A fringe / niche party with a social agenda not in line with the beliefs of most Canadians. Divisive, angry and not a threat to govern.

Bravo Harper!!

And on top of that, I now have no-one to vote for....unless Fotze runs.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Clarkey@May 19 2005, 04:53 PM
Conservatives have the right to be p*ssed, scathing comments are to be expected.

So immaturity from Conservatives should be expected?

Really, are we in grade school still or what? Whore? Slut? C'mon man. That sure is a real mature, adult reaction. How would you act if one of your kids was caught calling a defector a slut or a whore? Why do we have lower standards in terms of morals for adults than we teach out kids?

I can't believe some are trying to justify these insults. It's immature, face it.

[RedHot25]

Originally posted by Clarkey@May 19 2005, 04:53 PM
You can't just throw that word around because you disagree with what someone says. It's the easy way out of an argument, if you don't like what someone is saying shout racist, nazi, sexist, intolerant et al.

This is just a simple question, I am not being accusatory or not or anything. But....

Fine, let's say that I take your point at face value. But couldn't you just as easily, then, apply your logic to the posts above that have been quoted (i.e. the bitch, slut, etc)?

I am just asking a question, maybe I am missing something here that I don't see?

Thanks.

[Clarkey]

Woopty Doo! People get passionate and they say things, no need to turn it into a freakin inquisition.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Clarkey@May 19 2005, 05:06 PM
Woopty Doo! People get passionate and they say things, no need to turn it into a freakin inquisition.

So you don't think people should take responsibility for things they've said?

Anything bad said when passionate should just be accepted no matter how classless or inappropriate?

Hey I'm not perfect either but I don't understand why people are trying to justify these comments.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

And the individual did take responsibility, and said that he shouldn't have called her a whore or whatever he did. People on the internet message board were obviously not saying that she goes out onto dark street corners, and picking up random men and having sex with them. What they were saying is that she was selling her personal integrity for a better position in the government. To switch sides and to inconspicuously recieve a cabinet post days before a budget does really smell of some iffy tactics being used, especially with the recent accusations which have been floating around, you would have to be rather blind to think otherwise.

[RedHot25]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@May 19 2005, 05:35 PM
To switch sides and to inconspicuously recieve a cabinet post days before a budget does really smell of some iffy tactics being used, especially with the recent accusations which have been floating around, you would have to be rather blind to think otherwise.

Mean - again, just a question, not accusatory or not or anything else.

But why not say something like this (that I quoted) to get your point across, rather than whore, slut, etc?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

I agree, but at the same time you can not take the terms used by the few and extrapolate them into the terms used by the majority. I don't think this is any different than a number of individuals who have all but called Stephen Harper a red neck, bible thumper, and who has been compared to groups such as the Klu Klux Klan. The individuals in the public eye who made those statements have for the most part appologized, and I for one will accept that appology. They should have acted in a more civilized manner, but to disregard the point which is being made because of the words employed by the minority would in my opinion be foolish at best, and ignorant at worst.