Cadman was bribed by Harper but refused.

[Clarkey]

You can't get on a moral high horse and tell people what words they can and cannot use to describe Belinda Stronsa, and then turn around and whine about conservatives pushing their morals on you.

I would never call another female politician, Deb Gray, a prositute, whore, dipstick or airhead because she hasn't done anything to warrant that kind of insult. Belinda on the other hand has. With that said personal insults are a very base and unintelligent way of conveying your contempt for a person but sometimes you've got to expect it from people and quit whining about political correctness.

Belinda Stronach is not a hero.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Buff+May 20 2005, 09:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ May 20 2005, 09:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-octothorp@May 20 2005, 03:15 PM

No, when you use 'whore', in the sense that it's been bandied about here, you're using it to refer to any woman who is ambitious, any woman who values her personal lot above her loyalty to her workplace.

Which, in this situation, I believe to be a lie.[/b][/quote]
What's the lie? That she's ambitious? That she's out for herself ahead of her party? Sounds bang on to me... show me a politician who'll fall on his/her sword for his/her party, and I'll show you a liar.

[RedHot25]

I too would echo the comments regarding the poor choice of words - slut, whore, bitch, etc.

In my opinion, it lacks forum, taste and is quite sexist - whether its the references to Martin/Harper, or to Belinda.

As someone else has said, its one thing to disagree with what Belinda says or does.

People may disagree with this - ok, they likely will - but something like this, I do think has a negative impact on your cause. To me, to be honest, tell me why you disagree. Fine. You thinks she lacks honesty, commitment, is power hungry. Fine, that's your opinion. But no need to call her (or him) a whore or whatever else word you want to use. I think the people on here - from whatever political stripe and/or belief are able to take a higher road than that.

[Buff]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+May 20 2005, 03:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ May 20 2005, 03:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Which, in this situation, I believe to be a lie.

What's the lie? That she's ambitious? That she's out for herself ahead of her party? Sounds bang on to me... show me a politician who'll fall on his/her sword for his/her party, and I'll show you a liar. [/b][/quote]
I misinterpreted. Thank you for pointing it out for me.

I don't believe it is a lie that she did it for herself, I percieve her acts as very selfish.

I believe it is a lie that she jumped parties because she was unhappy with her party. It may have been a factor in making her decision easier (who doesn't have gripes about their workplace from time to time), but I think that the sole reason was the brand new position offered to her. She saw a fast track into power and she took it. When she says the position has nothing to do with her decision, that is where I think she is lying... she's a politician, lying is supposed to be 2nd nature to her

[RedHot25]

Originally posted by Clarkey@May 20 2005, 09:22 PM


I would never call another female politician, Deb Gray, a prositute, whore, dipstick or airhead because she hasn't done anything to warrant that kind of insult. Belinda on the other hand has. With that said personal insults are a very base and unintelligent way of conveying your contempt for a person but sometimes you've got to expect it from people and quit whining about political correctness.

Belinda Stronach is not a hero.

Clarkey:

I am not attacking this, saying good or bad or whatever. I guess I would just like some further explanation; I don't understand your point.

So its ok to call Belinda "a whore", but not ok to call Deborah Gray one. So where is the line, then?

This line, below, really confused me:

"With that said personal insults are a very base and unintelligent way of conveying your contempt for a person but sometimes you've got to expect it from people and quit whining about political correctness."

Again, I am just asking - for information purposes; I must be missing something - but doesn't that kind of see contradictory? On one hand you say "hey, its not right and its unintelligent to say/use", but then 2 seconds later you say "but hey its ok and to be expected".

Sorry, I was just wondering if you could provide some clarification for me....

p.s. - what's the matter with stating your opinion like this, like you did at the end of your post: "Belinda Stronach is not a hero." Doesn't that get your point across a lot more effectively?

[Shawnski]

Well since I was the one that said she was a "power slut", consider this to put it in context....

"Slut", definition 1b from an online dictionary.

A woman prostitute.

"Prostitute", definition 2 from an online dictionary.

One who sells one's abilities, talent, or name for an unworthy purpose

"Unworthy", definition 2 and 3 an online dictionary.

2. Not suiting or befitting

3. Vile; despicable.

For readers/posters whom took offense to my post based on your interpretations of the wording used, consider the above clarification of my usage of the English language. English is such an amusing and clear language, isn't it?

The balance of my post regarding that comment is a satirical look at "politics makes strange bedfellows" and "sleeping with the enemy" style sayings.

Get over it. I stand completely by my statement that she is a "power slut."

Had she resigned from the Conservatives and sat as an independent, and even voted for the Liberal budget and Liberal/NDP amendment, I could not fault her.

But she didn't. Martin would have been thrilled if she had offered that, and that alone. It was more. It took a Cabinet position to get her to move. That is all about power, and nothing else.

And just so this post stays on the topic at hand, the facts of the matter are very clear. Cadman won as a Reform candidate, then again as an Alliance candidate. When the Alliance and PC merged candidates from both parties had to put forth nomination lists. Cadman lost, even though he was the incumbant. "Democracy" spoke per se, even though I am sure Harper would have preferred to have Cadman as the representative.

Now that the Alliance/PC merger is over, it is back to business as usual. Nomination papers for any candidate can be signed by the leader without a riding vote, and this is not an unusual occurance, for any party. So the "bribe" as indicated in the original post is quite minor; untimely at worst.

Compare that to a $4.6 billion dollar vote buyoff of the NDP, or a Cabinet position for Stronach. They don't compare...at....all.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Ok Natt, and the rest of the crowd which has called me out for my comments calling Belinda Stronach a power-whore if you will, and someone who would prostitute their integrity in order to get ahead in the political world. By no means am I saying that she is a prostitute, or that all women in politics or in general are prostitutes. However it is a way of describing the way in which she acted, she acted in a manner that I find to be appalling. She ran for the leadership of the conservative party, and also the nomination in her riding knowing what the platform of the Conservative Party of Canada was. She ran knowing full well what the ideals of the party were, and the fundamental beliefs of the party. She then right before the big vote for this government decides to switch sides, and abandon her party for lack of a better word, while at the same time in a way which apparently benefits her own personal career in receiving a nice cabinet position. Now what am I as an observer supposed to think. It seems as though she waited until the optimal time in order to switch sides in order to get the best possible deal from the Liberal Party, as it was her vote which ultimately was the deciding vote. That is the way it looks to myself, and if that is the case then it would be fair to say that she acted in a manner that potentially compromised her morals in order for some form of a benefit. Hey wait a second if you look at the definition of a whore, well you can read it for yourself, and see how far off my comment that she was a power whore are.

whore n.
1. A prostitute.
2. A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

In looking through the dictionary definitions I have yet to find a definition, which states that a whore is limited to females. Furthermore does anyone remember back to Reg’s picture a couple weeks back with Fleury, and it called him an attention-whore. Where was the outcry in that situation? Where was the outrage and the anger? It is odd, I don’t remember any.

The same idea goes for the use of the term slut. It has been used to describe people in the past, both male and female, and it has nothing to do with her being sexually promiscuous, but it has everything to do with her acting in a manner where she only looked out for number one, and getting ahead in the world. I can see how some people would view it as an insult towards women in general, but it is an insult at Belinda Stronach, and Belinda Stronach alone.

And it differs from the black man thing that was brought up, because obviously (at least from my perspective) I am insulting Belinda for what she has done, and her personal actions. I am not insulting her for being a woman, or anything along those lines. If I call a Jew an idiot, it doesn’t mean that I am an anti-semite, if I call a black man a fool, it doesn’t mean that I hate all black people, if I call an Italian a criminal, it doesn’t mean that I am part of the KKK, just like if I call a woman a power-whore, it doesn’t mean that I think all women are whores. It is a way to describe the individual’s actions, and my viewpoint on their actions.

[Lurch]

But she didn't. Martin would have been thrilled if she had offered that, and that alone. It was more. It took a Cabinet position to get her to move. That is all about power, and nothing else.

Pretty big assumption on your part. IMO, Martin is more thrilled to put her in the Cabinet position than have her as an independent. First, better damage to the CPC's. Second, I can just see the election ads with Belinda saying "As a moderate in the CPC caucus, I just couldn't come to terms with Harper's direction". Third, my understanding is she will have some input into handling any Gomery recommendations, though I could be wrong on this. Looks like an attempt an good press by Martin to me. Seems an awfully big leap to say Belinda held out for a Cabinet spot when it was a mutually beneficial solution for both her and Martin. I would be interested to know the offer and counter-offer that went on in this situation - mostly out of personal interest rather than some misplaced sense of outrage at something that happens in every company in every industry and goes without comment.

[fokakya]

Originally posted by octothorp+May 20 2005, 02:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (octothorp @ May 20 2005, 02:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Buff@May 20 2005, 01:27 PM

Calling one woman a whore is detrimental to that woman. Whore does not refer to every woman it refers to a select few.

Calling a black man a racial slur is detrimental to that man and the entire black population. That slur is in reference to their entire race.

No, when you use 'whore', in the sense that it's been bandied about here, you're using it to refer to any woman who is ambitious, any woman who values her personal lot above her loyalty to her workplace. You're saying that a woman who is willing to trade loyalties for an improved lot in life is equivelant to someone who trades their sexuality for money. Similar rehetoric has been used as a tool of oppression for centuries, in the same way that racial slurs have been used as an articulation of superiority. Women have stayed in abusive relationships because of fear of being called a whore. It's an incredibly destructive and harmful accusation to be using so casually. [/b][/quote]
My sentiments exactly. Regardless of what your personal opinions of Belinda Stronach may be, it does not excuse the use of such clearly oppressive language. So you may not agree with what she did, so you may consider her actions a sign of disloyalty, this does not make her, or any other woman who has put her own personal gain ahead of her party's or her company's or any other entity, someone who trades sex for money.

This kind of thing comes up a lot in the business world. A man who stops at nothing to climb the corporate ladder is called ambitious or a go-getter, while a woman who does the same is called a whore/slut/bitch/any other sex-based slur.

Personally, I believe that Belinda Stronach owes loyalty to her own moral convictions, values and beliefs and by switching parties, she stayed true to it. I believe it would have shown a lack of personal integrity for her to show blind partisan loyalty to the conservatives if their values are in direct opposition to some of her own. The timing may seem odd to some and it does appear she landed in quite a cushy place but that does not change the fact that she would have been betraying her own morality and values to blindly stay where she was.

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by Lurch@May 20 2005, 04:22 PM

Pretty big assumption on your part. IMO, Martin is more thrilled to put her in the Cabinet position than have her as an independent. First, better damage to the CPC's. Second, I can just see the election ads with Belinda saying "As a moderate in the CPC caucus, I just couldn't come to terms with Harper's direction". Third, my understanding is she will have some input into handling any Gomery recommendations, though I could be wrong on this. Looks like an attempt an good press by Martin to me. Seems an awfully big leap to say Belinda held out for a Cabinet spot when it was a mutually beneficial solution for both her and Martin. I would be interested to know the offer and counter-offer that went on in this situation - mostly out of personal interest rather than some misplaced sense of outrage at something that happens in every company in every industry and goes without comment.

OK Lurch, I'll bite.

Point 1, he wanted her in Cabinet. If I am walking in the shoes of a Liberal non-Cabinet member, I am ticked. Anyone would be when they are passed over for a promotion. There are what, a hundred plus people from his own caucus that he just dissed to get her into that role? Dangerous gamble there. Ditto the "political points" comment. The only poll I have seen on the issue is one that indicated 38% didn't like the move, while 34% did like it. With everything else that is going on, if he was gambling on political points, he should have been aware that at best, he galvanizes a large section of the populace, one way or the other, and since his polling is well under a majority, this can't bode well for him.

Point 2, again, a political gamble with the odds stacked against him. People that cross the floor typically have a political shelf life of less than a quart of milk. Trustworthyness among voters is definitely an long term issue.

Point 3, he already has Brison as a puppet for all that. He didn't need Stounach.

As for the comment this type of event "happens in every company in every industry and goes without comment", I might ask that you find me a link to any situation where someone voted into a position in any company by thousands of people, in a vote of significant trust like that with MPs, walks over to the direct competition, within days of confidential meetings over the direction of the "company." She sat in critical meetings regarding the CPC's strategic course. In private business, confidentiality agreements are required, or suits are possible. In politics.... nada...

That said, I agree, it would be interesting to have been a fly on the wall for their talks.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by fokakya+May 20 2005, 03:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (fokakya @ May 20 2005, 03:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

No, when you use 'whore', in the sense that it's been bandied about here, you're using it to refer to any woman who is ambitious, any woman who values her personal lot above her loyalty to her workplace. You're saying that a woman who is willing to trade loyalties for an improved lot in life is equivelant to someone who trades their sexuality for money. Similar rehetoric has been used as a tool of oppression for centuries, in the same way that racial slurs have been used as an articulation of superiority. Women have stayed in abusive relationships because of fear of being called a whore. It's an incredibly destructive and harmful accusation to be using so casually.

My sentiments exactly. Regardless of what your personal opinions of Belinda Stronach may be, it does not excuse the use of such clearly oppressive language. So you may not agree with what she did, so you may consider her actions a sign of disloyalty, this does not make her, or any other woman who has put her own personal gain ahead of her party's or her company's or any other entity, someone who trades sex for money.

This kind of thing comes up a lot in the business world. A man who stops at nothing to climb the corporate ladder is called ambitious or a go-getter, while a woman who does the same is called a whore/slut/bitch/any other sex-based slur.

Personally, I believe that Belinda Stronach owes loyalty to her own moral convictions, values and beliefs and by switching parties, she stayed true to it. I believe it would have shown a lack of personal integrity for her to show blind partisan loyalty to the conservatives if their values are in direct opposition to some of her own. The timing may seem odd to some and it does appear she landed in quite a cushy place but that does not change the fact that she would have been betraying her own morality and values to blindly stay where she was. [/b][/quote]
I think you are reading to much into this, if a man were to switch sides he would also be a power-whore. I understand where people are coming from when they say it is wrong, but at the same time to start sayign that it objectifies women everywhere, and that it is a horrible crime against women in general are reading to much into the comments. She acted in a way where it wouldn't be a stretch to say that she did so in order to benifit her career first and formost, and in doing so at the expense of her morals. Not really a glowing review in my opinion at least.

[Shawnski]

This kind of thing comes up a lot in the business world. A man who stops at nothing to climb the corporate ladder is called ambitious or a go-getter, while a woman who does the same is called a whore/slut/bitch/any other sex-based slur.

Maybe in your business world, not mine.

In my 20 years within the business world, I have had the privilege of working with many "ambitious, go-getting women". I have respected all of them tremendously. Not one bad egg, and some very astute people to say the least. Not once have I found one to be a " whore/slut/bitch" etc. But I HAVE used those terms for some A-hole males that thought the world revolved around them and who were some of the dumbest people I have ever met. Power "sleazy" beyond belief, to say the least.

Personally, I believe that Belinda Stronach owes loyalty to her own moral convictions, values and beliefs and by switching parties, she stayed true to it.

And CPC members get blasted ad nausem for this exact trait, if in fact that is what she did. One of the many circular arguements that occur on these boards.

The timing may seem odd to some and it does appear she landed in quite a cushy place...

What is the saying? "Appearance is everything"? How about "there is no such thing as coincidence."

[Clarkey]

Apparently some of you guys work for Webster.

Otherwise the lame debating over semantics needs to go.

[FlamesAddiction]

I think Harper is gay.

It's OK for me to say that because gay also means happy according to the dictionary!


I also think Harper likes to put roosters in his donkey. Wow, synonyms are fun!

Give me a break you guys. Those who are calling Stronach a slut and whore know what they are implying. They chose those words to insult her based on the fact she is a woman.

[Shawnski]

And just as a side note regarding this issue of using the word "whore" here. Consider this. Two of the most significant genres of music, hip-hop and rap, are using this term, or "hoe", in many, many songs that play over the radio. I have a LaunchCast station, where I have these genres set to "don't play", but once in a while, I get one, and sure enough, just now, one came over with a "hoe" reference several times.

The lyrics clearly reference the sexually negative version of the word, but no one seems to mind. The genres are wildly popular ("progressive"?) yet there has NEVER been a thread that I can recall on this issue.

But use alternative references to the word in a political thread and you are the scum of the world.

Can you say hypocritical?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

No your the one who is trying ot change what we are saying and then ignoring the legitiment points which have been made in order to fulfill your own idea that all conservatives are woman hating or whatever agenda you have. Sorry if this offends you, but you know exactly what is being said.

Where was your outrage with Theo was called an attention whore? Link to the Fleury being an attention whore...

Wait here is a post sayign Rob and Amber were Media whores..... oh oh! Link

An Intellectual Whore?

A Publicity Whore!

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@May 20 2005, 11:40 PM
No your the one who is trying ot change what we are saying and then ignoring the legitiment points which have been made in order to fulfill your own idea that all conservatives are woman hating or whatever agenda you have. Sorry if this offends you, but you know exactly what is being said.

Where was your outrage with Theo was called an attention whore? Link to the Fleury being an attention whore...

The word "whore" doesn't carry the same meaning when you refer it to a man. Just like the "n" word doesn;t carry the same meaning if you call a white person it.

Quit pretending that calling a woman a "whore" is not a sexual reference. You're smarter than that.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Shawnski@May 20 2005, 11:38 PM
And just as a side note regarding this issue of using the word "whore" here. Consider this. Two of the most significant genres of music, hip-hop and rap, are using this term, or "hoe", in many, many songs that play over the radio. I have a LaunchCast station, where I have these genres set to "don't play", but once in a while, I get one, and sure enough, just now, one came over with a "hoe" reference several times.

The lyrics clearly reference the sexually negative version of the word, but no one seems to mind. The genres are wildly popular ("progressive"?) yet there has NEVER been a thread that I can recall on this issue.

But use alternative references to the word in a political thread and you are the scum of the world.

Can you say hypocritical?

It's only hypocritical if those who are arguing against calling Stronach a "whore" is defending rap music that objectifies women.

I haven't seen that here.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+May 20 2005, 04:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ May 20 2005, 04:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mean Mr. Mustard@May 20 2005, 11:40 PM
No your the one who is trying ot change what we are saying and then ignoring the legitiment points which have been made in order to fulfill your own idea that all conservatives are woman hating or whatever agenda you have. Sorry if this offends you, but you know exactly what is being said.

Where was your outrage with Theo was called an attention whore? Link to the Fleury being an attention whore...

The word "whore" doesn't carry the same meaning when you refer it to a man. Just like the "n" word doesn;t carry the same meaning if you call a white person it.

Quit pretemding that calling a woman a "whore" is not a sexual reference. You're smarter than that. [/b][/quote]
Oh so now you are the one promoting a double standard between men and women, while the derogitory folks are the ones who are treating everyone on a level playing field. What about Dar Hethrington, she is a woman, and yet you didn't seem to object to people calling her a publicity whore?

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 20 2005, 05:33 PM
Wow, synonyms are fun!

Synonyms do not equate to definitions, Addiction.

Feel free to debate on this without having nihil ad rem.