Tory MP warned of suspension

[jdobbin]

I'm mocking your post. YOU don't get it. I'm mocking the depth to which you'll plumb the internet to find everything and anything that can be in any ways construed as anti-CPC, no matter how trivial. You've turned it into a crusade and now you've take to obscuring and omitting relevant facts.

Yes, we get that you attack personally when you get angry but you still don't get that there are rules in place, there have been warnings given and the Speaker was elected to enforce them. I haven't omitted anything.

You failed to mention here that the Speaker Peter Milliken is a Liberal MP. The Tory MP in question has been warned for accusing Ignatieff of hypocrisy on a number of issues. THAT'S the personal attacks we're talking about here.

And you think the Speaker is acting unfairly? How so? You think that just because he is a Liberal that he is being unfair on the rules that have been in place for Member's Statements since the 1980s. You think he is allowing other parties to insult one another during that time? What exactly are you trying to say here?

Like the Liberal hack you are, however, you deliberately left out the sentence where they explained they were only criticizing Ignatieff's hypocrisy, because you'd like to spin that they're attacking his personal life or something. Nice try.

You know, you really should refrain from the namecalling. All you are going to do is get yourself suspended.

The rules are clearly in place in Member's Statements that you don't do what the Tories are doing. You seem to think that it is allowed. Have you read those rules? Do you think they are unfairly applied? Do you think other parties should do the same thing or do you think that they are already are?

The news is thus: Liberal Speaker threatens to suspend Tory MP for criticizing Liberal Leader for hypocrisy.

Only if you believe the Speaker is applying the rules unfairly. Do you?

When you give the FULL story, it's even less interesting, but that doesn't do anything to promote your Bible Thumping Liberal cheerleading, so you omit details to fudge the story.

Sorry, your misdirection and personalizing does not distract from the fact that all MPs have been warned not to use member statements for attacks. The Tories continue to do so. Do you have evidence to suggest that the Speaker is applying the rules unfairly? If not, then you are simply misdirecting.

Edited April 3, 2009 by jdobbin

[Topaz]

As a taxpayer, and so paying the wages of the MPs, the Tories are slipping back to the way they had been last year! Harper said he would try to keep the members in check as far as the attacks go and they were until the governement came back to the present session. Some members of the Tories can't stop themselves from being rude and more than that they use it when they know they shouldn't. They are now known to NOT obey the rules of government. The reason they are using personal attack is they can't come up with a probably debate and they are running scared that they may be in the EI line in the next election! Of all the parties in the Commons, the Tories are the ones that treat the other parties the worse and I wonder when are these 30`s-40`s going to grow up. They shouldn`t get paid for doing what they do!

[Alta4ever]

I never new that using the members statements to read exerpts from articles and books to be insulting. Especially since they were written by the Liberal leader.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Alta4ever

[tango]

Today's update:

http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1506293

Under Standing Order 31, MPs have time to make statements on matters that are of concern to them before Question Period. However, the statements, instituted in 1983, cannot contain personal attacks, according to parliamentary rules, since there is no opportunity for the person in question to respond.

In late February, Conservative MPs started using their personal speech time to take personal shots at Ignatieff.

Milliken warned MPs to stop and went as far as threatening to suspend Prince Edward-Hastings MP Daryl Kramp if he didn't desist.

Wednesday Kramp's statements were devoid of personal attacks.

So ... it worked! Cheers to Speaker Milliken!

I sent him this letter, cc'd to party leaders, Kramp and Cuzden

Thank you for your efforts. I am very hopeful that you will be successful in returning some civility to the House. It's an embarrassment to Canadians to see so many elected representatives behaving like arrogant, dull-minded bullies.

I was going to say 'schoolyard' bullies, but kids are not allowed to do that anymore. A lot of effort has gone into anti-bullying programs and ongoing peer monitoring to expunge it from schools. In fact, I recall reading two (independent) teachers' accounts of taking classes to observe the House, and being mortified at what they saw there. The kids were appalled, and clearly identified what they were seeing as 'bullying'. It is somewhat horrifying that kids now understand civility better than our MP's. They could take a lesson from the kids. I suggest contacting any school board for appropriate learning materials.

It appears that Mr. Kramp is the most immature twit of all, and I wish you success in teaching him some manners. I hope someday soon the MP's will grasp the difference between partisan campaigning (paid for out of party funds) and governing (paid for by the taxpayers). In the House, all attention should be focused on the needs of the people of Canada, not on taking cheap partisan potshots.

If the House does not function, Canada is in danger. MP's need to grow up, set a better example, and remember: Between elections we pay them to govern in the House, not to do partisan campaigning on the taxpayers' tab!

Governing is not like a hockey game, as Mr. Cuzner would have us believe.

That kind of childish attitude is the problem with the House.

Edited April 3, 2009 by tango

[jdobbin]

I never new that using the members statements to read exerpts from articles and books to be insulting. Especially since they were written by the Liberal leader.

Are you aware what the rules are on Member's Statements?

[tango]

Are you aware what the rules are on Member's Statements?

Just posted for him above.

[Moonbox]

Yes, we get that you attack personally when you get angry but you still don't get that there are rules in place, there have been warnings given and the Speaker was elected to enforce them. I haven't omitted anything.

See my previous quote. I told you exactly what you omitted. I'm also not arguing against the speaker. I'm mocking how you surf the internet what seems to be enormous portions of the day to find anything you possibly can to support the Liberals and criticize the CPC. When you can't find something worthwhile and obvious, you find something trivial, LIKE THIS, and try and twist it into some sort of newsworthy story way bigger or badder than it actually is.

And you think the Speaker is acting unfairly? How so? You think that just because he is a Liberal that he is being unfair on the rules that have been in place for Member's Statements since the 1980s. You think he is allowing other parties to insult one another during that time? What exactly are you trying to say here?

I didn't say he's unfair. I'm saying that this is hardly the outrage or worthwhile news you're making it out to be. There's nothing interesting/surprising about a LIBERAL speaker (elected by the majority opposition) reprimanding a Tory MP for calling the Liberal Leader a hypocrite. Again, I'm just mocking how desperately hard you're crusading on behalf of the Liberal Party.

You know, you really should refrain from the namecalling. All you are going to do is get yourself suspended.

Liberal hack is about the worst you'll get from me. The rest of the 'personal attacks' I direct your way generally criticize your conclusions and your deliberate efforts to ignore anything that doesn't support your religion the Liberal party. Take whatever satisfaction you get from thinking you're getting under my skin. The fact is I get a laugh out of watching you squirm/avoid/ignore/plug your ears when people unravel and knock down your often dubious claims and conclusions.

Let's look at what you've dug up in the last few days. There was the story of the $27,000 of help a western magazine received (clearly the PM was involved with such a giant sum of money) and now we have the SHOCKING story of a Conservative MP calling Ignatieff a hypocrite after being warned not to....WHAT SCANDALS!!!

You're trying so hard, but you're failing so badly. Please man, no personal attack intended, YOU MUST see how silly you're making yourself look right? This stuff you're digging up...it's garbage news...The more of this junk you throw the community's way the less likely ANYONE is going to take you seriously even when you DO have a legitimate and well-reasoned point to make.

By now you've so clearly labelled yourself as living, eating and breathing LPC that it's impossible to see ANY objectivity in your posts. With this you lose any credibility you might otherwise have. I don't think you're a dumb guy, I just think your unquestioned support for the LPC is far beyond rational. It's VERY emotional.

[jdobbin]

See my previous quote. I told you exactly what you omitted. I'm also not arguing against the speaker. I'm mocking how you surf the internet what seems to be enormous portions of the day to find anything you possibly can to support the Liberals and criticize the CPC. When you can't find something worthwhile and obvious, you find something trivial, LIKE THIS, and try and twist it into some sort of newsworthy story way bigger or badder than it actually is.

Yes, there is is more of that personalization.

If it is trivial, why do you spend time responding?

I didn't say he's unfair. I'm saying that this is hardly the outrage or worthwhile news you're making it out to be. There's nothing interesting/surprising about a LIBERAL speaker (elected by the majority opposition) reprimanding a Tory MP for calling the Liberal Leader a hypocrite. Again, I'm just mocking how desperately hard you're crusading on behalf of the Liberal Party.

You dismiss it but you can't seem to help responding to it and attacking personally. Just as the Tory MPs do.

Liberal hack is about the worst you'll get from me. The rest of the 'personal attacks' I direct your way generally criticize your conclusions and your deliberate efforts to ignore anything that doesn't support your religion the Liberal party. Take whatever satisfaction you get from thinking you're getting under my skin. The fact is I get a laugh out of watching you squirm/avoid/ignore/plug your ears when people unravel and knock down your often dubious claims and conclusions.

I find it amusing that you misdirect away from the issue of Parliamentary dysfunction, say it is trivial, blame the problem on the Speaker being a Liberal and then personalize thereafter. And you wonder why your Conservatives suffer in the polls?

Let's look at what you've dug up in the last few days. There was the story of the $27,000 of help a western magazine received (clearly the PM was involved with such a giant sum of money) and now we have the SHOCKING story of a Conservative MP calling Ignatieff a hypocrite after being warned not to....WHAT SCANDALS!!!

And you responded to both.

You're trying so hard, but you're failing so badly. Please man, no personal attack intended, YOU MUST see how silly you're making yourself look right? This stuff you're digging up...it's garbage news...The more of this junk you throw the community's way the less likely ANYONE is going to take you seriously even when you DO have a legitimate and well-reasoned point to make.

You seem to take the posts very seriously.

By now you've so clearly labelled yourself as living, eating and breathing LPC that it's impossible to see ANY objectivity in your posts. With this you lose any credibility you might otherwise have. I don't think you're a dumb guy, I just think your unquestioned support for the LPC is far beyond rational. It's VERY emotional.

I think your emotions lend themselves to personalizing and then blaming the other person for making you act out.

If you don't take something serious or find it trivial, don't respond, put the poster on ignore. But for pete's sake, don't get yourself banned for finally flying off the handle and going on a rant about that person.

[scorpio]

See my previous quote. I told you exactly what you omitted. I'm also not arguing against the speaker. I'm mocking how you surf the internet what seems to be enormous portions of the day to find anything you possibly can to support the Liberals and criticize the CPC. When you can't find something worthwhile and obvious, you find something trivial, LIKE THIS, and try and twist it into some sort of newsworthy story way bigger or badder than it actually is.

I didn't say he's unfair. I'm saying that this is hardly the outrage or worthwhile news you're making it out to be. There's nothing interesting/surprising about a LIBERAL speaker (elected by the majority opposition) reprimanding a Tory MP for calling the Liberal Leader a hypocrite. Again, I'm just mocking how desperately hard you're crusading on behalf of the Liberal Party.

Liberal hack is about the worst you'll get from me. The rest of the 'personal attacks' I direct your way generally criticize your conclusions and your deliberate efforts to ignore anything that doesn't support your religion the Liberal party. Take whatever satisfaction you get from thinking you're getting under my skin. The fact is I get a laugh out of watching you squirm/avoid/ignore/plug your ears when people unravel and knock down your often dubious claims and conclusions.

Let's look at what you've dug up in the last few days. There was the story of the $27,000 of help a western magazine received (clearly the PM was involved with such a giant sum of money) and now we have the SHOCKING story of a Conservative MP calling Ignatieff a hypocrite after being warned not to....WHAT SCANDALS!!!

You're trying so hard, but you're failing so badly. Please man, no personal attack intended, YOU MUST see how silly you're making yourself look right? This stuff you're digging up...it's garbage news...The more of this junk you throw the community's way the less likely ANYONE is going to take you seriously even when you DO have a legitimate and well-reasoned point to make.

By now you've so clearly labelled yourself as living, eating and breathing LPC that it's impossible to see ANY objectivity in your posts. With this you lose any credibility you might otherwise have. I don't think you're a dumb guy, I just think your unquestioned support for the LPC is far beyond rational. It's VERY emotional.

NEWSFLASH!!! This is a political forum. The articles Dobbin brings to this forum are of a political nature. I'd say quit your whining and either add a non-inflammatory comment or keep your attacks to yourself.

[Molly]

What ISN'T news is that Milliken (or Dobbin, for that matter) is a Liberal.

Milliken, however, was an all-party choice-- which might lead us to believe that he's capable of exercizing his duties in a non-partisan manner --which further suggests that the MP in question has exercized very poor conduct.

And since it has been REPEATED poor conduct, it can be further supposed that it is done with the approval of his party-- which calls into question their claim to desire greater decorum in the house-- which suggests that there are plenty of candidates to recieve accusation of being a hypocrite.

[Progressive Tory]

You failed to mention here that the Speaker Peter Milliken is a Liberal MP. The Tory MP in question has been warned for accusing Ignatieff of hypocrisy on a number of issues. THAT'S the personal attacks we're talking about here.

I can tell you from personal experience that Peter Milliken takes the neutrality of his position very seriously. Even when he's campaigning locally, he never attacks; and may be one of the least partisan politicians I know.

This issue was of concern to all opposing MPs and his words of caution were applauded by the Bloc, NDP and Liberals. We are paying their salaries to address issues of concern to Canadians. They need to save their campaigning for the next election and not use valuable time to run 'free' attack ads.

Clement cherry picked Ignatieff's speech, and took much out of context. However, even if it had been a complete flip-flop, that is not the time to address it. We kind of hoped that mass unemployment and the economic crisis would be a priority for this government. We should have known better.

[Progressive Tory]

why the need for a personal attack?

It's the only thing the Conservatives have left.

[Progressive Tory]

Jdobbin is a conservative-hating, John Cretin bum buddy.

And this addresses the issue of Tory misconduct, how?

[Progressive Tory]

Today's update:

Thank you for your efforts. I am very hopeful that you will be successful in returning some civility to the House. It's an embarrassment to Canadians to see so many elected representatives behaving like arrogant, dull-minded bullies.

I was going to say 'schoolyard' bullies, but kids are not allowed to do that anymore. A lot of effort has gone into anti-bullying programs and ongoing peer monitoring to expunge it from schools. In fact, I recall reading two (independent) teachers' accounts of taking classes to observe the House, and being mortified at what they saw there. The kids were appalled, and clearly identified what they were seeing as 'bullying'. It is somewhat horrifying that kids now understand civility better than our MP's. They could take a lesson from the kids. I suggest contacting any school board for appropriate learning materials.

It appears that Mr. Kramp is the most immature twit of all, and I wish you success in teaching him some manners. I hope someday soon the MP's will grasp the difference between partisan campaigning (paid for out of party funds) and governing (paid for by the taxpayers). In the House, all attention should be focused on the needs of the people of Canada, not on taking cheap partisan potshots.

If the House does not function, Canada is in danger. MP's need to grow up, set a better example, and remember: Between elections we pay them to govern in the House, not to do partisan campaigning on the taxpayers' tab!

Governing is not like a hockey game, as Mr. Cuzner would have us believe.

That kind of childish attitude is the problem with the House.

Excellent letter. I sent him an email as well. He will only respond by saying that he prefers a written response to address your issue; but he will always send that letter and it will be personal and succinct. Good for you.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[Moonbox]

If it is trivial, why do you spend time responding?

That's your argument? It's not trivial because I come on here and tell you it's trivial?

You dismiss it but you can't seem to help responding to it and attacking personally. Just as the Tory MPs do.

You're really hung up on the whole personalization thing aren't you? All I'm doing is making fun of your obvious bias. Are you even going to claim you take a fair perspective when you post things like this? I dare you to.

I find it amusing that you misdirect away from the issue of Parliamentary dysfunction, say it is trivial, blame the problem on the Speaker being a Liberal and then personalize thereafter. And you wonder why your Conservatives suffer in the polls?

Once again you're putting words in my mouth that I never said. I didn't blame the Speaker. What I said is that parliamentary bickering is hardly exciting news and that you deliberately omitted relevant details from what you posted (just like the magazine grant post). You cut out the sentence where it explained EXACTLY what the attacks were (calling Ignatieff a hypocrite) and tried to pass it off as if it was something worse.

And you responded to both.

Not to deny anything happened. I responded to clarify how misleading and politically charged your posts were.

You seem to take the posts very seriously.

Is it the 'rolling eyes', the mockery or sarcasm that leads you to that belief?

I think your emotions lend themselves to personalizing and then blaming the other person for making you act out.

If you don't take something serious or find it trivial, don't respond, put the poster on ignore. But for pete's sake, don't get yourself banned for finally flying off the handle and going on a rant about that person.

Flying off the handle? My personalization is VERY tame. That's generally the angle you take when I've hit the mark and you know you can't defend yourself. If I get suspended for taking you to task for being a fanatical and totally unobjective Liberal Partisan, so be it. Like I said, it's entertaining to pick your dubious/misleading arguments apart and watch you get into a huff over it.

If we're talking emotions, you rule the day in that regard. The incredible effort you take to dig up anything anti-CPC is VERY personal and your defence for the Liberal Party on all sorts of issues is beyond denial.

[jdobbin]

That's your argument? It's not trivial because I come on here and tell you it's trivial?

Actually, my argument is that you must not find it trivial since you feel the need to read it and respond to it.

You're really hung up on the whole personalization thing aren't you? All I'm doing is making fun of your obvious bias. Are you even going to claim you take a fair perspective when you post things like this? I dare you to.

I don't make any such claim. I am partisan. This is a political forum. Just pointing out to you that you personalize when you post and tend to go negative.

Once again you're putting words in my mouth that I never said. I didn't blame the Speaker. What I said is that parliamentary bickering is hardly exciting news and that you deliberately omitted relevant details from what you posted (just like the magazine grant post). You cut out the sentence where it explained EXACTLY what the attacks were (calling Ignatieff a hypocrite) and tried to pass it off as if it was something worse.

We have been told to post the link and an extract and not the whole article. Most times I just post an extract of the pertinent data if you care to look. I haven't omitted anything if people are free to read the whole article. You see to think that calling someone a hypocrite is not a personal attack but for Member's Statements it is as the rules clearly indicate.

Harper has said Parliament is dysfunctional and many in his party have said that the Speaker needs to jump on un-Parliamentary language and violations of convention such as in Member's Statements. Since 1983, this has been generally free of sniping but the Tories have been using it as a strategy to attack.

By the way, you did blame the Speaker. You said he was Liberal and that this was not news because he was somehow partisanly going about his job

Not to deny anything happened. I responded to clarify how misleading and politically charged your posts were.

By saying that I deliberately omitted something when clearly I didn't. We are told to post an extract and I did.

Is it the 'rolling eyes', the mockery or sarcasm that leads you to that belief?

It certainly indicates that you want to personalize things.

Flying off the handle? My personalization is VERY tame. That's generally the angle you take when I've hit the mark and you know you can't defend yourself. If I get suspended for taking you to task for being a fanatical and totally unobjective Liberal Partisan, so be it. Like I said, it's entertaining to pick your dubious/misleading arguments apart and watch you get into a huff over it.

I think people can judge for themselves what constitutes personal attacks. I have seen a few like yourself go down this road and they are not here anymore.

If we're talking emotions, you rule the day in that regard. The incredible effort you take to dig up anything anti-CPC is VERY personal and your defence for the Liberal Party on all sorts of issues is beyond denial.

I am partisan for the Liberals. I have said so many times.

You take things personal though and go after the person. You should stop playing down the fact by calling it tame. You have said that people have it coming when you respond like that and that is a rather alarming philosophy to have.

It would be a shame if you were suspended from the forums for acting out.

[Topaz]

I can tell you from personal experience that Peter Milliken takes the neutrality of his position very seriously. Even when he's campaigning locally, he never attacks; and may be one of the least partisan politicians I know.

This issue was of concern to all opposing MPs and his words of caution were applauded by the Bloc, NDP and Liberals. We are paying their salaries to address issues of concern to Canadians. They need to save their campaigning for the next election and not use valuable time to run 'free' attack ads.

Clement cherry picked Ignatieff's speech, and took much out of context. However, even if it had been a complete flip-flop, that is not the time to address it. We kind of hoped that mass unemployment and the economic crisis would be a priority for this government. We should have known better.

I agree with you 1000%, the Speaker is very neutral and since I've watched him for the last 3 years, he doesn't play favourites!

[Moonbox]

Actually, my argument is that you must not find it trivial since you feel the need to read it and respond to it.

As I said before, I enjoy picking apart poorly formed and biased arguments.

I haven't omitted anything if people are free to read the whole article. You see to think that calling someone a hypocrite is not a personal attack but for Member's Statements it is as the rules clearly indicate.

Just found it funny that you omitted the sentence saying exactly WHAT the attack was. I would think that's the most important part of the whole story. You didn't and as a self proclaimed Liberal partisan, it leads us to wonder why.

By the way, you did blame the Speaker. You said he was Liberal and that this was not news because he was somehow partisanly going about his job.

I didn't say he was partisan. I said he was a Liberal MP. I said it was not news that federal parties are bickering.

I think people can judge for themselves what constitutes personal attacks. I have seen a few like yourself go down this road and they are not here anymore.

I criticize your perspective on things. I don't have anything to say about you personally other than I think it's sad how blind you are to Liberal criticism and how unrealistic your view of politics are. If that gets me suspended, so be it, but I think it's more a matter of you being constantly discredited and ridiculed for your VERY compromised postings and opinions.

It would be a shame if you were suspended from the forums for acting out.

Keep hoping.

[jdobbin]

As I said before, I enjoy picking apart poorly formed and biased arguments.

By personalizing?

Just found it funny that you omitted the sentence saying exactly WHAT the attack was. I would think that's the most important part of the whole story. You didn't and as a self proclaimed Liberal partisan, it leads us to wonder why.

I didn't matter what anyone was accused of. Member's Statements was not the forum to make it. You seem to think it is.

I didn't say he was partisan. I said he was a Liberal MP. I said it was not news that federal parties are bickering.

But it is news that the Speaker is prepared to suspend MPs for defying his warning on using Member's Statements to direct criticism at MPs. The rules since 1983 have made it clear that it is not to be used for that but Tory MPs continue to do it.

You seem to think it okay or that the Speaker is somehow doing something incorrect.

I criticize your perspective on things. I don't have anything to say about you personally other than I think it's sad how blind you are to Liberal criticism and how unrealistic your view of politics are. If that gets me suspended, so be it, but I think it's more a matter of you being constantly discredited and ridiculed for your VERY compromised postings and opinions.

You discredit yourself with attacking the person. The rules, which I abide by, say not to do it but you can't resist. You blame the other person for your behaviour.

Keep hoping.

In the end, I'll probably not have anything to do with your implosion on the forum.