Stronach crosses the floor

[JohnnyTitan]

Originally posted by oilers_fan@May 17 2005, 11:41 PM
Getting back to the topic at hand if anyone wants to, how would you feel if your MP decided to switched parties? I would be pretty damn p*ssed off. Does one consult with the electorate and the constituents that voted you in to see if their opinions have changed? So much for a democracy.

I'd feel fine if I were in any Conservative riding and my MP crossed.

Unlike the traditional Liberal / PC / NDP parties of the past 50-100 years...no one really knew what this new conservative party would stand for. That made it a hard election for them. Sure they had a platform, but how would things REALLY work.

Well, Harper has since proven that he is not moderate and has no time for any social issues other than his own. There looked for a while that maybe there was a chance that the moderates would slowly gain some influence...but the opposite has happened and I wouldn't blame my MP for switching to a party more in-line with my social values.

I'm more in-line with a right-wing fiscal policy, but the Liberals are running fiscally conservative enough for me to sleep at night. Unlike discriminating, regionalism and fear-mongering which would keep me up.

[browna]

Back on track.
I wonder what Layton thinks of all this, on the inside.

Here he was walking step for step alongside Martin, and a couple days away from holding the power of the vote in th Commons that would have made him front and centre.

Instead, the Liberals go on a recruting mission. They try to take some of the gas out of the Conservatives, not so much with the help of the NDP, but by handing off a touchy feely cabinet post to a PC.

The big news now for the vote won't be the help of the NDP like Layton was gearing up for, rather the focus will be on Stronach and what color scarf she wears for Parliment.

The NDP is being used and abused...and soon enough, tossed out of Martin's bed when he gets what he needs from them. I can't say they don't deserve it, but I don't think they thought that they'd start losing the limelight so quickly.

[Resolute 14]

I dunno, if I am Layton, I am dancing inside. Even with his support, the Liberals were still pegged at losing the vote. Losing that vote would kill this incredibly socialistic budget that he demanded, rendering Layton's temporary stint as Prime Minister more meaningless than Kim Cambell's was.

But with Stronach, the Libs only need one of those independants to survive the vote, and implement a budget that no truely fiscal conservative would.

The only winner today is Jack Layton and his small band of misfits.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by oilers_fan+May 17 2005, 10:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (oilers_fan @ May 17 2005, 10:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@May 17 2005, 04:05 PM
Stonach for PM!!

I don't know much about her, excpet she shares my concern about the Harper-Duceppe alliance. Like Stonach said, the country must come before blind partisanship.

A woman with both some conservative and some liberal beliefs may be what this country needs for leadership. I hope she considers pursuing it.

And she is foxy!! (Hopefully single too soon!! )

Bill Clinton beat you to her.

She is just a power hungry BITCH. [/b][/quote]
Whoa... the class just shines through in this post. You're a credit to your side.

[Hakan]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@May 17 2005, 05:20 PM
I dunno, if I am Layton, I am dancing inside. Even with his support, the Liberals were still pegged at losing the vote. Losing that vote would kill this incredibly socialistic budget that he demanded, rendering Layton's temporary stint as Prime Minister more meaningless than Kim Cambell's was.

But with Stronach, the Libs only need one of those independants to survive the vote, and implement a budget that no truely fiscal conservative would.

The only winner today is Jack Layton and his small band of misfits.

Are we living on different planets?

What on Earth in this budget makes it "incredibly socialistic?"

Incredible socialism is a command economy. Jack simply asked to cancel the tax cuts to the largest corporations in Canada. Corporations which have ALREADY been reaping windfall profits for the past 5 years without the tax cuts.

Read a book on socialism.

[browna]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@May 17 2005, 06:20 PM
I dunno, if I am Layton, I am dancing inside. Even with his support, the Liberals were still pegged at losing the vote. Losing that vote would kill this incredibly socialistic budget that he demanded, rendering Layton's temporary stint as Prime Minister more meaningless than Kim Cambell's was.

But with Stronach, the Libs only need one of those independants to survive the vote, and implement a budget that no truely fiscal conservative would.

The only winner today is Jack Layton and his small band of misfits.

Well, although it may help the budget getting through, I am sure Layton had a grander plan to leverage the party forward and distance the party from the Liberals after this gets passed, in order that he could *dear goodness* step into the PM chair and set the country back 10 years in 2 months.

This vote, with him front and center, would've been stage one in the PR campagin. Now, all the cameras and talk are going to be focused on Stronach, and the perceived erosion (in the eastern media) of the Conservatives thanks to today's moved, Layton's not getting the attention he's really hoping for.

Short term, yes, it helps the NDP cause. Long term, people are going to remember Stronach's role in the May 19 vote as opposed to Layton.

Be interesting to see how the next couple days go...Peter McKay's response could be classic.
Since Ralph's taken the week off in Legislature, maybe Harper can roll him out on or before Thursday?

[browna]

Originally posted by Hakan@May 17 2005, 06:41 PM
Jack simply asked to cancel the tax cuts to the largest corporations in Canada. Corporations which have ALREADY been reaping windfall profits for the past 5 years without the tax cuts.

Oh oh...did Belinda see that in the last few weeks when she was voting on motions with the Conservatives? Hmm. Must have.

Spending those tax dollars on vauge social programs like job creation or "re-training", certianly has a socialist element to the budget, but that's the NDP's credo.

[Resolute 14]

Go read the dictionary definition of hyperbole if my words upset you Hakan.

Cancelling tax cuts + lots of spending we dont need = incredibly socialistic in my view.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Layton has to be pleased. I'd suggest he doesn't want the spotlight too much, just enough to remind Martin who's boss.

In a lot of ways this is an ideal scenario for the NDP. The liberals and cons can snipe at each other 'til the cows come home and he gets to push the NDP agenda up the middle.

[Reaper]

Originally posted by Reggie Dunlop@May 17 2005, 05:10 PM
I support Gay Marriage as long as both chicks are hot.

Thank you for visiting T Shirt Hell.

[Reaper]

Originally posted by BlackRedGold25@May 17 2005, 05:12 PM
Since marriage is an institution whose function is to raise children in a well balanced environment and society as a whole prefers children are born in wedlock, how can a couple know if they are infertile until after they are married?

So, are you saying that heterosexual couples who get married with absolutely no intention to bear children shouldn't be allowed to do so?

[Reaper]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@May 17 2005, 05:31 PM
Also, and you may not know this because it's a new custom, but women go to the Doctor sometimes and they learn all sorts of weird and wonderful things.

This one had me snickering quite loudly.

[Hakan]

I have no problem with corporations making money in an ethical fashion.

My point simply was that these corporations didn't need the tax cuts as much as the Canadian people needed extra money to housing, the environment and our foreign service.

I thought I was clear that corporations are already making money, they don't need tax cuts to help them make money. Investment in Canada has been the best in the G7, we don't need corporate tax cuts to attract investment.

In another thread I linked to a TD report advocating for no tax cuts. So it isn't just the crazy 'extremely socialistic' people that have a problem with this.

[kn]

Originally posted by Reggie Dunlop@May 17 2005, 05:10 PM
I support Gay Marriage as long as both chicks are hot.

LMAO!

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by JohnnyTitan@May 17 2005, 05:48 PM
Scott Brison is a political star. Visionary and intelligent.

You have GOT to be KIDDING!!!!!

A star?? Not a freakin' chance.

Maybe a moon..... a useless waste of space that appears on the horizon day in, day out. Regardless of the question put forward to him in the house regarding the Gomery inquiry, he replies with the same old sad line. You could set your watch by him.

As for the rest of your lame post...

How many of you as Albertans really support a party that wants to tear the country apart?

Not many, that is why we don't vote Liberal. The sponsorship scandal is fuelling the fire of Quebec separatism by a landslide compared to ANYTHING that has happened since the last Quebec referendum. Good politics by the Liberals.

Joe Clark could not support anything Harper.

Good. He is a failure, and a turncoat.

And his [Harper's] decisions are too religously based.

Like giving Atlantic Canada rights over their own offshore resources, a policy put forward by the Conservatives, then later stolen by the Liberals. Now it is a political land mind. It is now linked to the budget debate and those that are too stupid to understand where this policy originated think that the Conservatives will kill this accord if the government is defeated. Dumb and dumberer voters anyone? How is this decision by Harper religiously based?

Calgary was the only Urban riding to really support the Conservatives......Even Edmonton had a hard time swallowing him.

Kilgour won in Edmonton by 132 votes (+0.33% vote share) over the Conservatives while McLellan won by 721 votes (+1.35% of vote share). BTW, she won in 1993 by a mere 12 votes. This is in contrast to the other Edmonton area districts that voted with AT LEAST +10% of vote share difference and as much as +35% difference. That is not a "hard time swallowing him".

But maybe they're actually voting for what is REALLY important over dollars.

Seriously, 120 million is NOTHING.

Name one Liberal initiative that they are doing which is effective use of taxpayers money, and how its importance benefits all Canadians moreso than the cost thereof.

EVERY taxpayer dollar IS important.

And Hakan...Corporations which have ALREADY been reaping windfall profits for the past 5 years without the tax cuts

With a bulk of retirement savings funds, pension funds and RRSP's tied directly into the profitability of Canadian corporations, you would have to be quite naive to suggest that by companies profitting that Canadians in general do not.

Not only do corporate tax cuts (small, medium and larges corps) help the ecomomy by being able to reinvest within (job creation, expansions, etc), but it directly relates to the prosperity (and economic viability) of the elderly whom have invested their retirement savings into mutual funds and other securities that will help them maintain self sufficiency throughout their final years.


Uggghhhh... I am tired of this (CPC/Liberal) debate. For the record... I am not religious whatsoever, but I support conservative platforms. I have walked the road of the hemp culture (and more), and determined that it was without question, my worst demon... don't go there. As for the gay marriage issue, why is the word marriage vs union worse than the current church marriage vs civil marriage? No one is debating that gays cannot unite and be respected thereafter with all due recognition of their united status. I support that. So do all political parties, including the CPC. Why is leaving the definition of marriage as something between a man and a woman such a problem? I would think that "civil union" vis a vis "civil marriage" is significantly better than the potential "heteromarriage" vis a vis "homomarriage", if one were to superimpose marriage onto sexuality into the current nomenclature.

I am digressing.... bottom line for me... Stonauch's change of party is no worse to me than if Kipper ran off to the Oilers just before the playoffs. Inconceivable.

[calf]

Originally posted by fotze@May 17 2005, 07:11 PM
Why can't there be a party that represents my views and many of those here. Fiscal conservatives whom allow gay marriage, recognizes immigrants are a good thing, doesn't want to invade Iraq on baloney, don't spend 1 bilion dollars on a registry even though I like gun control, don't steal money, don't spend money advertising Canada in Canada. I am more p*ssed at the conservatives over this.

I think the Green Party is pretty close to that :unsure:

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Shawnski@May 17 2005, 08:04 PM
I am digressing.... bottom line for me... Stonauch's change of party is no worse to me than if Kipper ran off to the Oilers just before the playoffs. Inconceivable.

I'd think you CPC supporters would be used to having the party being duped and outsmarted by now.

Question -- did this Stronach woman seem like a good fit for the party? She didn't ever seem like the type to me. Interesting seating plan they picked out for her as well. Sitting next to Stockwell Day was probably not a good move. Nobody can look smart or even credible hanging out near that boob.

[Resolute 14]

I dont think the Green party has any idea at all what it stands for past the environment.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+May 17 2005, 07:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ May 17 2005, 07:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Shawnski@May 17 2005, 08:04 PM
I am digressing.... bottom line for me... Stonauch's change of party is no worse to me than if Kipper ran off to the Oilers just before the playoffs. Inconceivable.

I'd think you CPC supporters would be used to having the party being duped and outsmarted by now.

Question -- did this Stronach woman seem like a good fit for the party? She didn't ever seem like the type to me. Interesting seating plan they picked out for her as well. Sitting next to Stockwell Day was probably not a good move. Nobody can look smart or even credible hanging out near that boob. [/b][/quote]
But much better now that she is sleeping in Martin's bed...

[MarchHare]

Originally posted by calf+May 17 2005, 08:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calf @ May 17 2005, 08:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-fotze@May 17 2005, 07:11 PM
Why can't there be a party that represents my views and many of those here. Fiscal conservatives whom allow gay marriage, recognizes immigrants are a good thing, doesn't want to invade Iraq on baloney, don't spend 1 bilion dollars on a registry even though I like gun control, don't steal money, don't spend money advertising Canada in Canada. I am more p*ssed at the conservatives over this.

I think the Green Party is pretty close to that :unsure: [/b][/quote]
Or the Progressive Conservative Party (RIP).