As for political views, I don't think any politician should leave the country and disparage us to foreign leaders and press. We are a small country and we need to present a united front.
So presumably you don't support Danielle Smith's trips to Washington and other US cities where she 'shares' how much better a CRA government would be than the current PC government?
After all, I'm sure you'd want to be consistent in what you believe.
Only an idiot would think this is about free speech.
He is down there on the taxpayers dime which in turn should mean that he should have the taxpayers best interest in mind. His only interest here is self serving and not for the greater good of the Canadian taxpayer.
And how exactly did his speech do a disservice to the Canadian taxpayer?
Last edited by longsuffering; 03-14-2013 at 11:03 AM.
So presumably you don't support Danielle Smith's trips to Washington and other US cities where she 'shares' how much better a CRA government would be than the current PC government?
After all, I'm sure you'd want to be consistent in what you believe.
I don't like either, but you have to admit that its a bit different when Mulcair is talking to members of the Presidents team blasting a Canadian project that's important to Canada and is basically a vital interest issue up here.
I don't see where Smith was saying, don't do Business with alberta because Allison is conning you.
I believe that whether your opposition or government when you go down and meet representatives of a government you toe the fracking line, get behind the label or don't go and keep your big mouth shut.
Oh and its a bit of a difference between talking to a think tank and talking to the government don't you think.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
And how exactly did his speech do a disservice to the Canadian taxpayer?
If you are seriously asking this question I have to conclude that you do not think Keystone would be a benefit to Canadian taxpayers. If that is the case, no answer I can provide will satisfy you.
So presumably you don't support Danielle Smith's trips to Washington and other US cities where she 'shares' how much better a CRA government would be than the current PC government?
After all, I'm sure you'd want to be consistent in what you believe.
Absolutely, I don't want Danielle Smith or any other politician going against the government on foreign soil.
I don't mind the trips if they stay positive and only highlight the good things.
Saskatchewan’s new NDP leader says he supports the Keystone XL pipeline, a position that puts him at odds with federal leader Thomas Mulcair.
Quote:
Broten’s position means Mulcair can’t count on support from any of the premiers or party leaders in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where the pipeline is seen as an important boost the the provincial economies. Mulcair has also been disavowed by B.C. NDP leader, Adrian Dix, for his effort to modify the Clarity Act to make it easier for Quebec to separate.
If you are seriously asking this question I have to conclude that you do not think Keystone would be a benefit to Canadian taxpayers. If that is the case, no answer I can provide will satisfy you.
You're a master debater there RubberDuck.
I support Keystone, but I recognize that not everyone does - in fact, I'd hazard to guess that a majority of Canadians don't. I also support the right of those who don't support government policy to question it.
Apparently you only support free speech if it supports policies of the current government.
Is that the analogy you really want to make? Is Mulcair Harper's employee?
I flabbergasted that you apparently think it is the duty of every loyal Canadian to support government policy when outside of the this country.
What a world it would be if all we heard and read in International news was the official position of the government in power.
Where did I say support? I said presenting a united front. This include a variety of things including not saying anything regarding that issue.
And, yes, that's the analogy i'm making. You can change the employer to Canada then.
I'm attacking your point of free speech being taken away, and I'm saying it's not.
Now you are switching to "International News = Government in Power news". Where did I say that? Did I suggest that the government put a gag order on all information leaving this country?
I'm suggesting that people in power that are representing Canada should represent a united front to the world. If Mulclair doesn't agree with a policy, fight it at home and keep it shut outside. If he wants to swing the policy over to his side (environmental issues in this case), there are ways he could have done it and still presented a united front.
The Following User Says Thank You to bomber317 For This Useful Post:
Money - Refineries are incredibly expensive and there are unused ones in the US so it is cheaper to re-purpose them than build new ones.
Labour - There simply isn't the manpower in Alberta to build and run enough refineries to handle all the product
Transportation - Right now we want to build one pipeline to ship one product to the refineries. Those refineries turn it into hundreds of different products and ship them around. Most of the products aren't used only in Alberta so they would have to be shipped to their markets. Now instead of one pipeline we would need 400 different systems to transport all the refined products.
The Following User Says Thank You to GP_Matt For This Useful Post:
I guess we will have to agree to disagree then. I support the right of all Canadians to question government policy at home and abroad. I am not threatened by political dissent.
Where did I say support? I said presenting a united front. This include a variety of things including not saying anything regarding that issue.
And, yes, that's the analogy i'm making. You can change the employer to Canada then.
I'm attacking your point of free speech being taken away, and I'm saying it's not.
Now you are switching to "International News = Government in Power news". Where did I say that? Did I suggest that the government put a gag order on all information leaving this country?
I'm suggesting that people in power that are representing Canada should represent a united front to the world. If Mulclair doesn't agree with a policy, fight it at home and keep it shut outside. If he wants to swing the policy over to his side (environmental issues in this case), there are ways he could have done it and still presented a united front.
I'm curious whether you took exception with American politicians who spoke out against the Iraq invasion in interviews with foreign journalists during the Bush presidency. Were they traitors for speaking out as some on the extreme right had suggested at the time?
History shows us that many ideologues praise the value of a united front when it suits their purposes but argue the opposite when speaking out against any policy or program they oppose.
I'm curious whether you took exception with American politicians who spoke out against the Iraq invasion in interviews with foreign journalists during the Bush presidency. Were they traitors for speaking out as some on the extreme right had suggested at the time?
History shows us that many ideologues praise the value of a united front when it suits their purposes but argue the opposite when speaking out against any policy or program they oppose.
I was not following politics at that time. If you wish to send me some links of their quotes, I can comment on it. I can promise you I'll give you my honest opinion on it.
Just to be clear here, I respect your opinion of "I support the right of all Canadians to question government policy at home and abroad." even if I may not agree with it.
I however did not agree that Free Speech is being violated here by asking that Mulclair tow the party line or keep quiet about it. Your initial drive by comment of "Right-wingers express misgivings about Free Speech" would have been much better served with your latest statement.
Apparently Mulcairs comments picked up a little traction in Washington. Talking about it on CBC right now. Pelosi brought up the meeting and made some comments. The feeling was a little pro a little con, but the discussion was given credit.
As far as what Mulcair did, I still think it stinks. I don't think any politician should be going behind the back of the ruling party or members internationally. Whether you agree with the ruling party or not, I don't see how it helps either side. It just slows things down and muddles things up.
