Stronach crosses the floor

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Thunderball@May 17 2005, 12:02 PM
This may very well convince Cadman and Kilgour to vote down the budget, since they may feel the Conservatives in her riding are not being listened to, or some other reason along those lines.

Cadman was just on the BC Global news, and while he addressed the happenings it was purely with interest and not disappointment or outrage, so I don't think it will influence how he votes.

As for what his vote will be, he still says he's undecided, waiting for, among other things, the results of a poll in his riding. That being said, he did also add that one big factor will be the fact that an election held now will almost certainly result in another minority gov't, which would mean we would go through all of this 6 months from now.

My feeing is that he's 58-42 for voting to pass the budget.

[Bertuzzied]

Stronach and McKay eating a Kit Kat.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/05...1043677-cp.html

Can it get any better for Martin? You have NDP one-liners now.
Some MPs couldn't resist a giggle at MacKay's expense. Stronach's departure is a blow to him personally and to the Conservatives as they strive to appear election-ready.

The spurned MP appears to be "unlucky at love and unlucky at politics," said New Democrat Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Bertuzzied@May 17 2005, 01:31 PM
Stronach and McKay eating a Kit Kat.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/05...1043677-cp.html

Can it get any better for Martin? You have NDP one-liners now.
Some MPs couldn't resist a giggle at MacKay's expense. Stronach's departure is a blow to him personally and to the Conservatives as they strive to appear election-ready.

The spurned MP appears to be "unlucky at love and unlucky at politics," said New Democrat Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

Vaguely Related Matter: I was in Safeway the other day and there was an American tabloid (the Globe I think) and on the cover was Bill Clinton and the headline screamed "Bill Leaves Hillary for Blonde". Clinton was walking out of some public event and in the background, with a circle around her head for emphasis, was Belinda Stronach. No kidding. Pretty funny stuff.

First that, now today's events. Mackay might be reconsidering his stance on same-sex marriage.

EDIT FOR FUNNY STUFF: http://extratv.warnerbros.com/v2/new...21/3/text.html

New York Daily News columnist Ben Widdicombe told us the woman, Belinda Stronach, is a billionaire member of Canada's Conservative Party, and she's very possibly a future candidate for prime minister of Canada.

"She's blonde, she's ambitious and she's in politics, but she's not Bill Clinton's wife," Widdicombe said. "It's Belinda Stronach, his friend from Canada who's been visiting Bill in New York this week."

"She gives money to his pet projects and in return, he supports her projects, for instance, a children's hospital in Canada," Widdicombe revealed.

Stronach and her father donated money to Clinton's presidential library, and she nearly became an investor in his friend, JFK Jr.'s, George magazine, meeting with him just a week before his death.

And Belinda is no stranger to the limelight either. She's divorced from Olympic champion speed skater Johan Olaf Lass and currently has romantic ties to another politician: Canadian Brian MacKay. Still, there have been rumors of a romance between Belinda and Bill since they met five years ago at a charity event.

Thank god Bill Clinton is on board to get us that children's hospital in Canada. And who's this Brian MacKay fellow? She's triple timing poor Peter, possibly with one of his relatives!

[Natt]

Wow. It's funny how she crosses and most people jsut assume that she was bought with nothing to back it up except maybe a past thread posted on the boards earlier that is also not accurate. Or they compare her to a prostitute. Seriously, if this is what Conservative supporters are about, then I find we are no better than the "scandalous Liberals."
What about when Klein crossed from Liberal to Conservative? No one really cares about that because he LEFT the liberals and went conservative.
Maybe we should try to keep an open mind about why people make decisions instead of looking at everything with a biased view. So when the thread reads "liberals trying to buy Conservative MPs", remember there's more to the story than meets a biased eye. It started when Paul Martin had to go to Holland to celebrate V-E day. Keep in mind that all four political parties were invited, not just the liberals to send MPs. However, two parties declined, the CPC and the Bloc, so Paul Martin suggested a political cease fire so that veterans could be represented by all MPs of Canada in Holland. If you look at this as "buying Conservative MPs", then fine. An argument is only an argument is you can back it up.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Interesting to browse the comments on the CBC site. Gives more of a national perspective than our own thread here...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/yourspace...da_defects.html

The one that struck me the most (and I read the whole thing) being the first one...

"Political affiliation is far overrated.

Belinda Stronach realized the same thing that everyone else has realized: Canada is probably better served by the Devil we know rather than the Devil we don't.

She was motivated to leave her job as CEO of a very successful company to go into politics. She wasn't motivated by money. Her motives were probably a little more pure than many of her colleagues in the Ottawa.

She realized that Stephen Harper is being motivated purely by a lust for power. Were the Conservatives to force an election there is no guarantee that they would win.

Stronach made a huge sacrifice to go into politics and she was not prepared to have her sacrifice go for naught by sticking with the Conservative power play.

She was used to "getting things done" in business and knew that she was destined to lose the next election or be part of yet another minority government opposition.

She is probably more at home in the Liberal Party of Paul Martin, which is essentially small-c conservative. If those responsible for the Sponsorship scandal are dealt with, the Liberals still remain the best of four poor choices for government in this country.

As a member of the governing party and cabinet, she realized that she could more easily reach her goal of being involved in public policy.

I have more respect for her now since she exposed her distaste for Stephen Harper's politics of intolerance and lust for power.

Everyone who goes into politics does so because of a desire for power, why is Belinda Stronach being slammed for realizing her ability to exercise political power was being stunted under Stephen Harper.

Murray | Winnipeg, Manitoba"

[Flames89]

Dear Conservatives:

Why can't we have a Conservative party that puts aside hardline views?

Give us a no-nonsense party that lets Canadian's decide our own issues. Stay out of our personal lives (marriage, abortion) and work on using our money as best as possible - you couldn't do worse than what we have had to endure over the past 10 years.

Don't be afraid to say the word "enviroment" without worrying your cohorts will giggle and call you a hippy. Boost industry, reward green-minded corporations, as you would key-Canadian corporations.

Tackle your immigration issues. We don't want an open door - none of us do. Be realistic, but silence your questionable party members.

You will need a new leader if you will ever be successfull. This leader will have to LEAD as opposed to be a figurehead.

Sincerely,

Belinda

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 17 2005, 07:54 PM
Interesting to browse the comments on the CBC site. Gives more of a national perspective than our own thread here...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/yourspace...da_defects.html

The one that struck me the most (and I read the whole thing) being the first one...

"Political affiliation is far overrated.

Belinda Stronach realized the same thing that everyone else has realized: Canada is probably better served by the Devil we know rather than the Devil we don't.

She was motivated to leave her job as CEO of a very successful company to go into politics. She wasn't motivated by money. Her motives were probably a little more pure than many of her colleagues in the Ottawa.

She realized that Stephen Harper is being motivated purely by a lust for power. Were the Conservatives to force an election there is no guarantee that they would win.

Stronach made a huge sacrifice to go into politics and she was not prepared to have her sacrifice go for naught by sticking with the Conservative power play.

She was used to "getting things done" in business and knew that she was destined to lose the next election or be part of yet another minority government opposition.

She is probably more at home in the Liberal Party of Paul Martin, which is essentially small-c conservative. If those responsible for the Sponsorship scandal are dealt with, the Liberals still remain the best of four poor choices for government in this country.

As a member of the governing party and cabinet, she realized that she could more easily reach her goal of being involved in public policy.

I have more respect for her now since she exposed her distaste for Stephen Harper's politics of intolerance and lust for power.

Everyone who goes into politics does so because of a desire for power, why is Belinda Stronach being slammed for realizing her ability to exercise political power was being stunted under Stephen Harper.

Murray | Winnipeg, Manitoba"

What a crock;

Harper's lust for power, what a joke, maybe he's sick of seeing Liberal corruption and a ineffectual government that is going out of thier way to buy votes with thier money and wants them off of the trough.

Its funny that they type cast the Conservatives as the Devil that we don't know, its the whole evil hidden agenda again, oh no Darth Harper is going to take away abortions, stamp down on homosexual rights, and deport minorities.

She was motivated to leave her job as a CEO for power, and nothing but power, and it became apparent today when she left the Conservatives for a cabinet position with the Liberals. Its great that she's willing to sell her ideals to be with a winning team, and guarantee further power and prestige. Its even cooler that she ran as a Conservative and when it suited her three days before a highly important vote that she switched side. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing the matter with leaving a party in protest if you go independant, your vote still counts the same. But to go crawling to the Liberals because they're going to give you a cabinet position, that the Conservatives didn't feel that you'd earned is another thing.

I love how this person talks about the sponsership scandal being the act of a few evil rogue members of the Liberal party, sorry I'm not buying it.

Again the whole bullshinguard argument about Harpers intolerance and lust for power, what.

Nice opinion piece, but it comes across as being writen by a Liberal with few facts and more smear.

Garbage

[Flames Draft Watcher]

You don't think denying homosexuals the right to marry is intolerance? I do and many others do. Deal with it. That's how the Conservatives are perceived by a lot whether you agree or not. And yet you write it off as "garbage". That's why the Conservatives won't win. They can't realize that these issues are important to people and that they are alienating a large number by the hardline stance they've take on some of them.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 17 2005, 01:54 PM
Gives more of a national perspective than our own thread here...

How does it do that?

It gives a more Liberal view of the situation that's for sure. Unless "Murray" in Winnpeg is now the national perspective I don't see how this offers anything new. This man has a view on things, just like anyone here.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by MrMastodonFarm+May 17 2005, 08:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MrMastodonFarm @ May 17 2005, 08:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flames Draft Watcher@May 17 2005, 01:54 PM
Gives more of a national perspective than our own thread here...

How does it do that?

It gives a more Liberal view of the situation that's for sure. Unless "Murray" in Winnpeg is now the national perspective I don't see how this offers anything new. This man has a view on things, just like anyone here. [/b][/quote]
I provided a link dipshinguard. If you took the time to click it you may have noticed that a TON of people put up their comments from all over the country and from all perspectives. I just picked one out and posted it. I assumed you would be smart enough to figure out that the link provided the national perspective, obviously you're too dense or too distracted trying to annoy me in other threads to get it.

Buzz off little fly.

Here, too lazy to click it yourself? Here's a couple more views from a National perspective...

"Good riddance to Belinda Stronach. Having met her at the Policy Convention in Montreal I can honestly say I had no idea what she was doing in our party.

The Conservative Party doesn't need people like her in its ranks, and will only be stronger without her.

Goodbye Ms. Stronach, we'll miss your soirees.

Matt Terry | Hamilton, ON"

"I applaud the decision of Belinda Stronach.

While under no circumstances am I willing to downplay the seriousness of the ADSCAM corruption, the unity of this country I call home is paramount.

In these trying political times, it is of the utmost importance to provide a unified front to the world, to protect the poor, the young, and the downtrodden.

There are far more important issues facing us as a nation today, and using this turmoil as a weapon to gain more personal and political power is abhorrent. This corruption must be stopped, and we need our parties to work together to increase accountability to us, the public.

While it is undeniably the right of Mr. Harper and his party to attempt a non-confidence motion, I believe it should wait until our country is on more stable ground. We need to come together.

Jesse Christensen | Calgary"

"Wow! She betrayed her party, betrayed her constituents, and broke her electoral promises. This is what she calls making a decision on the basis of principles?

No wonder voters are cynical.

Craig Docksteader | Spruce Grove, AB"

"Stephen Harper says Belinda Stronach's personal leadership ambitions, not any concern for the good of the country, led her to defect to the Liberals today.

But if Stephen Harper were honest, he could say the same about himself.

His personal leadership ambitions, not any concern about corruption in Ottawa or the good of the country, has made him hell-bent on holding Parliament hostage until he brings down the Government, even if it means destroying the country, which a Tory-Bloc coalition implies.

Joe Clark is looking damn good these days.

Andy Visser | Kingston, ON"

GET IT?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 17 2005, 02:29 PM
I provided a link dipshinguard.

I read the link, it was just more of the same. People from all over posting their views, just like here. It wasn't anything spellbounding.

Buzz off little fly.

Did you really edit your post to add in this little zinger?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by MrMastodonFarm+May 17 2005, 08:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MrMastodonFarm @ May 17 2005, 08:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flames Draft Watcher@May 17 2005, 02:29 PM
I provided a link dipshinguard.

I read the link, it was just more of the same. People from all over posting their views, just like here. It wasn't anything spellbounding. [/b][/quote]
Oh, people from "all over"? So a "national perspective" then I guess? Why the hell did you take issue with that then? Yet another nonsense rebuttal from you to one of my posts. There's certainly been a pattern.

[kn]

This is a huge blow to the Conservatives. They've been trying to weed out radical elements only to see a high-profile moderate leave to a cabinet position. Plain and simple, the Liberals know how to play politics. Real or imagined, the Conservative image is crap in central and eastern Canada. This all but guarantees more Liberal rule.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 17 2005, 02:37 PM
Oh, people from "all over"? So a "national perspective" then I guess? Why the hell did you take issue with that then? Yet another nonsense rebuttal from you to one of my posts. There's certainly been a pattern.

Looks like I got in before you could edit your post to get in a zinger like George Constanza. There's certainly been a patern.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Flames89@May 17 2005, 08:13 PM
Dear Conservatives:

Why can't we have a Conservative party that puts aside hardline views?

Give us a no-nonsense party that lets Canadian's decide our own issues. Stay out of our personal lives (marriage, abortion) and work on using our money as best as possible - you couldn't do worse than what we have had to endure over the past 10 years.

Don't be afraid to say the word "enviroment" without worrying your cohorts will giggle and call you a hippy. Boost industry, reward green-minded corporations, as you would key-Canadian corporations.

Tackle your immigration issues. We don't want an open door - none of us do. Be realistic, but silence your questionable party members.

You will need a new leader if you will ever be successfull. This leader will have to LEAD as opposed to be a figurehead.

Sincerely,

Belinda

Dear Liberal Party

Why can't we have a Liberal party that dosen't steal from us, tax us at every turn, disable our military and then send them into danger, and makes our country look like a joke on the International Stage?

Give us a honest party that dosen't believe that representing your constituants gives you a right to steal thier hard earned money and spend it on useless pet projects poorly. I'd ask you to use our money in the best way possible, but you have to realize that doing that dosen't mean that you should lose billions through stupidity, while giving the rest to your ad agency cronies and Liberal party buddies.

I would have hoped for some justice in the matter, but I lost faith in that when it turned out that an important component of being a judge in this country is not fairness, or knowledge of the law, but how much money they give to your party.

Its terrific that your all for environmental reform, but we all knows that this means that you'll be going after the western provinces to pay for this while you protect your voters in Ontario in your Liberal supported ridings.

We wait with baited breath as you sweep the Gomery findings under the rug after you spend more of our money in securing votes in Ontario.

You need a new leader Liberal Party, one who dosen't reflag his ships so he dosen't have to pay taxes in his own country. Somebody who's smart and competant enough to keep track of the illegal activities in your party.

Give us a reason to believe that Canada works for everyone Mr Martin, not just for your party mates, and the people that voted for you.

Ah who am I kidding. It'l never happen.

Sincerely


Alberta.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

I'd suggest most Canadians don't have the military as their top issue Captain.

If that and the corruption scandal are the only reasons to vote non-Liberal that you can come up with then it's quite clear why we'll have another Liberal minority. Especially with many opposed to the intolerant social policies of the Conservatives in regards to being gay and recreationally smoking weed. Not to mention their policy of bending over to Bush, a guy not very well liked up here.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 17 2005, 08:26 PM
You don't think denying homosexuals the right to marry is intolerance? I do and many others do. Deal with it. That's how the Conservatives are perceived by a lot whether you agree or not. And yet you write it off as "garbage". That's why the Conservatives won't win. They can't realize that these issues are important to people and that they are alienating a large number by the hardline stance they've take on some of them.

Where in the hell do they deny it, or did you pull that tidbit out of putting the it to a free vote in the house of commons?

Its in thier party platform.

Or is it part of thier "Hidden agenda"

amazing.

Some members of the conservatives don't believe in it, as surprisingly do some of the members of the Liberals, so whats the matter with practicing democracy and putting it to a free vote?

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@May 17 2005, 09:17 AM
Seems to me she can best help her constituents in this case by becomming an independant. She doesn't screw over all the people in here riding who voted for a conservative, and she can still vote for the budget. She was bought.

To play devil's advocate, which shows more lack of integrity, somebody that strikes a deal to switch parties to take a stand on issues, or someone that sits on the sidelines, hoping to curry favor with both parties? Not that either are great example of character, its really a lesser of two evils situation.

I'm fairly convinced Jesus Christ could join the Liberal Party and we'd be seeing threads about how He sold out and abandoned his constituents, and how morally corrupt and hypocritical He is.

Off Topic Trivia Bit: Murray Edwards is a stong Liberal supporter.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+May 17 2005, 08:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ May 17 2005, 08:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flames Draft Watcher@May 17 2005, 08:26 PM
You don't think denying homosexuals the right to marry is intolerance? I do and many others do. Deal with it. That's how the Conservatives are perceived by a lot whether you agree or not. And yet you write it off as "garbage". That's why the Conservatives won't win. They can't realize that these issues are important to people and that they are alienating a large number by the hardline stance they've take on some of them.

Where in the hell do they deny it, or did you pull that tidbit out of putting the it to a free vote in the house of commons?

Its in thier party platform.

Or is it part of thier "Hidden agenda"

amazing.

Some members of the conservatives don't believe in it, as surprisingly do some of the members of the Liberals, so whats the matter with practicing democracy and putting it to a free vote? [/b][/quote]
Well I have seen a quote on their site that they "support the traditional definition of marrigage". Not sure where it went but they seem to change that "Issues" page every once in a while. In addition they believe that, "We will ensure that issues like marriage are decided by parliament, not the courts." I disagree as do others because we see it as a rights issue. The courts should ensure that the legislation or laws are constitutional.

And of course what's obvious to everyone but you apparently is that the Conservatives are going to house the most socially conservatives members. Therefore a lot of them will vote "freely" to not allow gays to marry. Thus people who don't agree won't vote for them.

The whole vote "freely" thing is the only way they can make it even remotely palatable for most people but I really see that as a smokescreen.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+May 17 2005, 08:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ May 17 2005, 08:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Where in the hell do they deny it, or did you pull that tidbit out of putting the it to a free vote in the house of commons?

Its in thier party platform.

Or is it part of thier "Hidden agenda"

amazing.

Some members of the conservatives don't believe in it, as surprisingly do some of the members of the Liberals, so whats the matter with practicing democracy and putting it to a free vote?

Well I have seen a quote on their site that they "support the traditional definition of marrigage". Not sure where it went but they seem to change that "Issues" page every once in a while. In addition they believe that, "We will ensure that issues like marriage are decided by parliament, not the courts." I disagree as do others because we see it as a rights issue. The courts should ensure that the legislation or laws are constitutional.

And of course what's obvious to everyone but you apparently is that the Conservatives are going to house the most socially conservatives members. Therefore a lot of them will vote "freely" to not allow gays to marry. Thus people who don't agree won't vote for them.

The whole vote "freely" thing is the only way they can make it even remotely palatable for most people but I really see that as a smokescreen. [/b][/quote]
Saying that you support traditional marriage does not mean that your intolerant of homosexuals. I don't know where you get that from. It dosen't mean that they are against Homosexuals getting married, they just don't want to call it marriage. In fact Harper talked about a social union, the same as marriage in every way but name. Ohhhh what a boogie man.

It would be like me saying I'm not a cat person. that dosen't mean that I'm going to start slaughtering cats.

I think some people are taking a long leap of logic when they say that the conservatives have an intolerant societal policy, or they're buying the Liberal line lock stock and barrel.

I'm thinking your misunderstanding the concept of free votw. If a MP votes against the consensus of his constituants he's done, he won't win the next election, so it pretty rare that it happens, unlike the Liberals, and they're vote within party lines or lose your cabinet position, and possibly your place in the party. But again this is part of the whole riding the hidden agenda and making a large leap of logic to me.

And I'm sorry that I don't see your point of view, but I have a hard time reconciling some peoples viewpoints that even though the Liberals are corrupt and thiefs, thier policies really sing to my heart so lets make sure that we don't punish them.