Stronach crosses the floor

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@May 19 2005, 10:35 AM
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.

To condemn the words being used, doesn't necessarily equate to believing blindly everything Stronach has said. The point about the insults has more to do with the appropriateness of the words, rather than defending Stronach's actions.
I would completely agree that this move does smell of some iffy tactics, but that doesn't excuse our politcians from making childish comments. You can make the same points about her being a traitor (as Harper did) without calling her a prostitute.

As for spewing those insults in the forums, I don't really mind. This is a place to voice your opinions without much restrictions and without anyone knowing who you are. Even if it does make someone look like an idiot, they should be able to paint themselves that way. I just think more restrictions should apply to the MP's in the house, than do to us in here.

[Hakan]

I brought up the problematic use of sexist language on this board before and was harangued for it by numerous people. That's fine, I can take the lumps but I do not agree with Winsor that we have some type of leeway over what we say on the internet. The shroud of anonimity should not absolve sexist, racist, etc comments.

To see people actually defending using the words whore and slut in regards to Stronach is disgraceful.

[Resolute 14]

Hot on the heels of Stronach accepting the bribe, Gurmant Grewal said that both he and his wife were approached with bribes of Senate seats or ambassadorships if they would not vote with the Conservatives today.

So, that's four people that the Liberals tried to bribe, sadly, succeeding with one of them.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

[Hakan]

You realize that this is how politics works right? The conservatives would be doing the same thing. It's how the game is played making it all the less shocking if you understand that fact.

[Resolute 14]

Hey, if you can dismiss the continued corruption of the Liberal party, I can dismiss the fact that Stronach "whored" herself out like the power "slut" she is.

Sound fair?

[Hakan]

Actually it doesn't sound fair. That's a false analogy if I've ever seen one.

[Resolute 14]

Wasnt really an analogy. We all seem to have certian aspects of life/politics we are willing to accept. I'm not willing to brush off the bribery of a corrupt party because it is expected. It is expected because we tolerate it. One could make the same argument about the apparently sexist comments regarding Stronach's treachery.

[JohnnyTitan]

Originally posted by Hakan@May 19 2005, 07:05 PM
You realize that this is how politics works right? The conservatives would be doing the same thing. It's how the game is played making it all the less shocking if you understand that fact.

It's dirty and under-handed, but it happens.

Mulroney stacked the Senate to pass the GST Bill way back in the 80s. Talk about people being p*ssed!

The Liberals are constantly up to this shinguard. No surprise.

People believe the only thing stopping Harper and the CPC from pulling some of the worst acts in Canadian Politics is the fact that they aren't in government. (Not Withstanding Clause / Alliance with the Bloc / Social Agenda). I am a long time PCer and even I'm afraid to think what Harper might do given the chance.

Makes Joe Clark and Jean Charest look extremely pure and untainted. Anyone who has some level of power and escapes without baggage is to be respected.

(Sounds like the theme of Lord of the Rings!)

[Incinerator]

So...anyone seen the the interview with Peter MacKay? He looked pretty bummed out lol...sucks to be him

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by JohnnyTitan+May 19 2005, 12:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JohnnyTitan @ May 19 2005, 12:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Hakan@May 19 2005, 07:05 PM
You realize that this is how politics works right? The conservatives would be doing the same thing. It's how the game is played making it all the less shocking if you understand that fact.

It's dirty and under-handed, but it happens.

Mulroney stacked the Senate to pass the GST Bill way back in the 80s. Talk about people being p*ssed!

The Liberals are constantly up to this shinguard. No surprise.

People believe the only thing stopping Harper and the CPC from pulling some of the worst acts in Canadian Politics is the fact that they aren't in government. (Not Withstanding Clause / Alliance with the Bloc / Social Agenda). I am a long time PCer and even I'm afraid to think what Harper might do given the chance.

Makes Joe Clark and Jean Charest look extremely pure and untainted. Anyone who has some level of power and escapes without baggage is to be respected.

(Sounds like the theme of Lord of the Rings!) [/b][/quote]
Your afraid why? Because the liberals have told you this is what harper wants to do, this is the master plan of harper, harper hates human right.... I really can't think of why people are afraid of Harper and the CPC, hell I think people are just afraid of change, even when that change could be a benifit.

[JohnnyTitan]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@May 19 2005, 07:57 PM
Your afraid why? Because the liberals have told you this is what harper wants to do, this is the master plan of harper, harper hates human right.... I really can't think of why people are afraid of Harper and the CPC, hell I think people are just afraid of change, even when that change could be a benifit.

I really hoped Harper would be OK.

I was against all the Liberal media and tarring-and-feathering Eastern Canada was doing last election.

I have been a long time PCer, and I really hoped the "Merger" would result in a party I could support. I have NEVER voted Liberal, nor do I intend to.

But today I am afraid of Harper. Because of what he HAS said, because of what he HAS NOT said and because of those allies he's chosen. He constantly rids him-self of those I feel are worthy of support, and stand-by / sticks up for A-Holes.

And in all honesty, I have probably heard about the inner workings of caucus more than the average poster here. I hear stories about how it's HIS WAY or the HIGH-WAY on important issues that should involve consensus. He forces his will on others more than you imagine. Even the Reformers claimed to have free votes...well there are no free votes under Harper. He is more of a dictator than anyone here knows.

Harper was at odds with Clark, Brison, Stronach, Borotsik, Bachand, Lord, Tory and Segal. He still is with Jim Prentice and Inky Mark. If given the chance, I would easily side with those politicians of past and present than with Harper. And the stories coming from those listed are scary. Give one a call!

I'm certainly not afraid of change. That's my #1 pet-peeve with the Liberals, is how they NEVER do anything. (Referrendum, Iraq, Economy, Health Care). They muddle the middle and work to attract votes, that is all. Somehow though, Canadians STILL choose them over a Harper-Lead Fringe party.

[Flame On]

I've heard some of that too, how Harper has really opperated under the "from the top down" system rather than grass roots up which is I believe where the reform party came from.
Also I love How Belinda is being called stuff for taking bribes, or the Liberals for offering them. Where's the bribe she crossed the floor to a minority government that if not now will lose a confindence vote within 6 months probably? It's not like she crossed to a sure thing. What sure fire opportunities has she crossed to?

[HOZ]

Originally posted by JohnnyTitan@May 19 2005, 07:48 PM


Mulroney stacked the Senate to pass the GST Bill way back in the 80s. Talk about people being p*ssed!

The Canadian senate had and continues to have absolutely no power in Canada. Mulroney could have placed every Albertan into the Senate and it would have made no difference in passing any bill.

Mulroney had a majority...BTW. So he did not need to do anything but put the bill up for a vote to pass it.

[Lurch]

The Canadian senate had and continues to have absolutely no power in Canada. Mulroney could have placed every Albertan into the Senate and it would have made no difference in passing any bill.

Mulroney had a majority...BTW. So he did not need to do anything but put the bill up for a vote to pass it.

I see you go to the Anne Coulter school of argument - facts are unimportant as long as you make loud statements. The Senate was Liberal controlled back then and DOES have the power to stall/kill a bill but Mulroney appointed additional Conservatives to support the GST.

The legislation to enact the tax was tabled before the House of Commons in 1990, and critics urged the Opposition Liberals, who dominated the Senate, to reject it. The Prime Minister at that time, Brian Mulroney, then named 19 new senators, 14 of whom were Conservative and 5 whom were Liberal but pro-GST. Subsequently the bill was passed.

You might also want to look into how the Senate stalled implementation of the free-trade agreement, and outright killed 4 bills during the 1990's when it Liberal dominated and the government was PC. The Senate HAS plenty of power, it just doesn't really have the mandate to use it except when there is a huge outcry against a bill like the GST.

[HOZ]

Well I am glad to know that all this Triple E Senate reform we in the sticks (ie. outside of the Centre of the Universe) have been wanting has been so unnecessary!

1) Stalling or Filibustering is a tactic. Not power. The Senate cannot kill a bill.

2) Mulroney created 8 Senators to kill the GST- Senate filibuster.


So if a PM can snap his fingers and creat and uncreate Senators I am not too sure how you can argue that it has any power!

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by Lurch@May 20 2005, 07:05 AM
I see you go to the Anne Coulter school of argument - facts are unimportant as long as you make loud statements. The Senate was Liberal controlled back then and DOES have the power to stall/kill a bill but Mulroney appointed additional Conservatives to support the GST.

I know that it has been done in the past, but it is my firm opinion that a body which is entirly appointed (apparently that could be done through shady methods at that) should not have the ability to block laws which have been accepted via the elected body. What Mulroney did was the right thing, he insured that democracy stayed alive in Canada. Figureheads and figurehead bodies should remain just that, the last thing that is needed is another King - Bing affair.

[Lurch]

In being able to amend, postpone and veto legislation, the Senate was constitutionally granted the power needed to make it effective. Yet, due to its appointed nature and in the shadow of public criticism, the Senate has often refrained from exercising this power.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus...Upper%20Chamber

Emphasis mine, but it makes the point. There were also conventions around appointing Senators which Mulroney broke when he put the GST through, and it looks like Canadians took those conventions pretty seriously.

[Resolute 14]

Actually no, there is a provision in the Constitution that allows a Prime Minister to add 4 or 8 senators. Very interesting that when Martin/Chretien tries underhanded tactics to ram through their own personal agendas, we are told "that is just politics". However, when Mulroney did the same, it was an act of evil for which Canadians would never forgive the PC's.

[Lurch]

Actually no, there is a provision in the Constitution that allows a Prime Minister to add 4 or 8 senators.

True, that's why I said conventions. Mulroney was the first.

Although at least two Prime Ministers considered invoking section 26 as far back as Prime Minister Mackenzie in 1873, the appointment of senators over and above the usual 104 was not used until 1990 when Prime Minister Mulroney appointed eight additional senators to pass the Goods and Services Tax.

As for the great Senate debate, I'm pretty sure Alberta has the right to implement a triple E Senate at the provincial level. Our argument might carry a little more weight if we actually believed in it.

[JohnnyTitan]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@May 20 2005, 03:01 PM
However, when Mulroney did the same, it was an act of evil for which Canadians would never forgive the PC's.

No kidding! (And I forgive them!).

The current Liberal government is a financial success based on:
1) The GST
2) Free-Trade legislation
3) A robust economy for most of the past decade.

The first two are entirely the doing of the Mulroney government. The third certainly has something to do with it...along with the expected business cycle.

Remember the Liberals were going to scrap the GST? So I guess people can hate the PCs forever over starting the GST, but don't realize the Liberals broke a HUGE election promise and are still...to this day....benefiting from the tax.

Also, I've heard stats before that Mulroney's governement enacted more laws per year than ANY other parliament EVER. The Senate shot down a few laws (four according to the poster above) but they were busy busy busy. Remember Charlottetown and Meetch Lake? Both attempted in less than 8 years, along with Free Trade, GST and several other constructive laws. And it was later found that Mulroney was guilty of nothing with the whole Air Bus "Scandal". He is unfairly dubbed as a crook and a bad guy. Great Prime Minister...one that I wasn't embarrassed of. And even the rest of the world (and the US) got along with him.

Who was it that said people don't like change? No kidding! It was a shock to people's systems. They prefer the Liberals, who have done essentially NOTHING in the past 12 years. Iraq? Defence? Health Care? Referrendums? Status quo my friends...nothing innovative at all. Oh right, Paul Martin balanced the budget, via PC policies and a good economy as I mentioned above.

Stupid Liberals!

Stupid Alliance.

I miss the PCs.