Shakeyhands Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 This is a terrible thing to say man.I don't know if youre trying to put words into someones mouth or if this is a reflection of you or what. I don't even feel comfortable using it to point out your error here WWWTT As Molly pointed out, those are his own words. A CPC MP you can be proud of*!!!! [*sarcasm WWWTT] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 Dmitri Soudas to Reshmir Nair (who's kinda hot!)... Once... After obfuscating the Contempt of Parliament issue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 You're right that Canadians are unaware of the choices available within the Westminster system. I have no clue how Canadians could be taught these choices other than through the educational system. That said, in my view, the right system of governance is the system that Canadians today feel most comfortable with. Your condescension is repugnant. In fact, Canadians are quite aware of the choices available to them, which is more or less limited to voting for the candidate of their choice when somebody in Ottawa- in this case Jack, Mike and Gilles- tells them when they'll be allowed to speak. What pisses them off is when these folks- and include Harper in that mix now- tell them immediately after an election that their choice will be ignored, and that somebody else will be installed. It is all legal of course, as was the prorogation. The folks on the farm also feel very uneasy that a separatist party is right at the heart of power. That reality is a first in the hostory of our country, we have had coalitions before but none with a separatist party at the heart. Oh, we can all pretend that the Bloc is not somehow part of a colaltion, but that again would be treating the entire electorate as if they were complete f***ing idiots who could not do simple addition. Like proof of this? Refer back to the events of Nov 2008, when M. Dion/Layton/Duceppe formed the last coalition, and the reaction from the great unwashed was visceral. That doesn't mean that Iggy won't do it again, of course, but he'd be a fool not to understand what will happen. And that is why he is so desperately coy about the prospect, no make that certainty, that there will be a coalition of Bloc/NDP Lib if Harper does not win a majority. So why would Iggy do now what he shunned in 2008, since it was that event which brought him to be appointed Liberal leader immediately after the failed coalition attempt? Simple. Because he knows now what he did not know then: there is no other way he will ever be PM. He is either PM of a coalition on May 3, or he is unemployed. In early 2009 he thought he could charm and finesse his way into power, now he knows that will not happen. Desperate times make for desperate measures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 Big Mouth Pierre Poilievre on Power and Politics right now... 7 times... So far,the winner... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 As Molly pointed out, those are his own words. A CPC MP you can be proud of*!!!! [*sarcasm WWWTT] Sorry if I had said anyone here had made this comment. What a terrible thing to say from an MP But regardless of whom had made the comment,I would not repeat it.And in the future I will not quote a homophobic,racist or sexist comment. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) It speaks well of you that you found the words offensive. But they do need to be repeated. We should not forget that someone said them, nor who that person was. Edited March 25, 2011 by Molly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 And what if the Tories win another minority but get defeated on the Throne Speech? It's quite possible that Iggy could become PM of another minority government and try to do it vote-by-vote like Harper has. Why should Iggy constrain the possibilities? I wouldn't. Would you? Would Stephen Harper? Then let him have the courage to say so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 Your condescension is repugnant. In fact, Canadians are quite aware of the choices available to them, which is more or less limited to voting for the candidate of their choice when somebody in Ottawa- in this case Jack, Mike and Gilles- tells them when they'll be allowed to speak. What pisses them off is when these folks- and include Harper in that mix now- tell them immediately after an election that their choice will be ignored, and that somebody else will be installed. It is all legal of course, as was the prorogation. The folks on the farm also feel very uneasy that a separatist party is right at the heart of power. That reality is a first in the hostory of our country, we have had coalitions before but none with a separatist party at the heart. Oh, we can all pretend that the Bloc is not somehow part of a colaltion, but that again would be treating the entire electorate as if they were complete f***ing idiots who could not do simple addition. Like proof of this? Refer back to the events of Nov 2008, when M. Dion/Layton/Duceppe formed the last coalition, and the reaction from the great unwashed was visceral. That doesn't mean that Iggy won't do it again, of course, but he'd be a fool not to understand what will happen. And that is why he is so desperately coy about the prospect, no make that certainty, that there will be a coalition of Bloc/NDP Lib if Harper does not win a majority. So why would Iggy do now what he shunned in 2008, since it was that event which brought him to be appointed Liberal leader immediately after the failed coalition attempt? Simple. Because he knows now what he did not know then: there is no other way he will ever be PM. He is either PM of a coalition on May 3, or he is unemployed. In early 2009 he thought he could charm and finesse his way into power, now he knows that will not happen. Desperate times make for desperate measures. We'll see. I wonder what is more condescending though? That people will focus so much of their time and effort on some phantom coalition all the while raising up those who were found - as in fact - that they were in contempt of Parliament? I mean, let's weight that out: On the one hand, a phantom coalition. On the other hand, contempt of Parliament Phantom coalition. Contempt of Parliament. Delusion. Reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 Tom Lukiwski to Rosemary Barton on the Ceeb right now... "The Opposition Coaliton"... Three times!!! Hey Jack, did you watch the networks this evening? You would have lost count of the number of times the reporters and commentators said coalition, and how they were scratching their heads at Ignatieff's idiotic performance when he was asked about it by the press. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 Do you not realize that those are his words? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1f3_1207259932 "Lukiwski, then an official in the Progressive Conservative campaign, speaks directly to the camera at one point in response to a question from the camera operator. "There's A's and there's B's. The A's are guys like me, the B's are homosexual faggots with dirt under their fingernails that transmit diseases," he said. As I recall, that was during some sort of drunken college party, was it not, full of half dressed people acting stupidly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted March 25, 2011 Report Share Posted March 25, 2011 Do you not realize that those are his words? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1f3_1207259932 "Lukiwski, then an official in the Progressive Conservative campaign, speaks directly to the camera at one point in response to a question from the camera operator. "There's A's and there's B's. The A's are guys like me, the B's are homosexual faggots with dirt under their fingernails that transmit diseases," he said. According to your own link Molly, he said those words 17 years ago. 17 years is a long time and things were different then. I would think that the real question would be if this man still believes that rot or were his apologies sincere? I personally know a few 'rednecks' who have lightened up considerably over the last 17 years. It's possible that Lukiwski is still prejudiced and it's also possible he no longer holds those extreme views. I don't know which is true but I would be leery about condemning him unless and until I could find out! Positive behavior should be rewarded and negative behaviour should result in being beaten with an ugly stick! The comments in this thread have not mentioned this point. They all sound as if he made those comments last weekend. Doubleplus unfair! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 Jack Layton is not averse to discussing The Coalition, since he is already openly proposing one. How else does he avoid being a has been/never was? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 According to your own link Molly, he said those words 17 years ago. 17 years is a long time and things were different then. I would think that the real question would be if this man still believes that rot or were his apologies sincere? I personally know a few 'rednecks' who have lightened up considerably over the last 17 years. It's possible that Lukiwski is still prejudiced and it's also possible he no longer holds those extreme views. I don't know which is true but I would be leery about condemning him unless and until I could find out! Positive behavior should be rewarded and negative behaviour should result in being beaten with an ugly stick! The comments in this thread have not mentioned this point. They all sound as if he made those comments last weekend. Doubleplus unfair! So when are we going to see you take the CPC to task for the ads that quote Ignatieff from 1990? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 I see that Jack still can't acknowledge that it's no different from the "secret agenda" meme used against Harper ad nauseum. That was perfectly acceptable to him, but this is outrageous! He gets a serious case of the vapours. Along with his already rank hypocrisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) And the gutless,contemptuous coward would take no questions... And you call this (link in title, excerpts below) answering questions? John Ivison: The first gaffe goes to Ignatieff He was asked whether he would pursue a coalition government, even if the Conservatives win the most seats on election day. Mr. Ignatieff hemmed and hawed; he blathered and skited; he baldered and dashed. At the end of expressing how he’d been a Liberal since age 17 and how he was leading a team of proud Canadians to form an alternative government, he concluded: “I can’t be clearer than that.” But reporters wouldn’t let it lie. “You are not clear at all sir, actually. Do you believe that a coalition is a legitimate parliamentary option that you will pursue … ?” “I’ve answered that question in the past.” It went on in this vein for some time, with Mr. Ignatieff advising journalists they should talk to the Governor-General about “abstract constitutional principles.” He tried to make a break for it but was caught by one final question. “Mr. Ignatieff, surely this coalition monkey is going to stay on your back every day of the campaign because people will assume if you don’t rule it out, that’s because you’ve got something to hide and secretly you will entertain it, you just don’t want to admit it. Isn’t that the inevitable conclusion that you’re inviting voters to draw?” “You’re buying the Conservative line here. There’s nothing to hide,” said the Liberal leader. “I am saying as clearly as I can to the Canadian people, looking them straight in the eye, if you want to replace the Harper government, you’ve got to vote Liberal. It can’t be clearer than that.” Edited March 26, 2011 by jbg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 As I recall, that was during some sort of drunken college party, was it not, full of half dressed people acting stupidly? "NDP Deputy Leader Pat Atkinson said the video, which appears to have been shot at the provincial Progressive Conservative headquarters on the night of a 1991 leader's debate, was found in the Opposition offices at the legislature when the NDP moved in after its defeat in last November's provincial election. Lukiwski, then an official in the Progressive Conservative campaign, speaks directly..." Yeah. Pretty much a bunch of drunken sophomores. The clip's in the link. You be the judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 So when are we going to see you take the CPC to task for the ads that quote Ignatieff from 1990? How about right now? The CPC should not keep dragging up 1990 quotes from Igatieff! Didn't bother me none! Make you feel any better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 The Tories are indeed using the word "coalition" an awful lot.Perhaps it makes up for the fact that the Liberals will not,under any circumstances,use the word at all.Anyone that thinks there won't be a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition should the Tories get another minority government is naive.At least Socialist leader Jack Layton openly admits he will support a coalition.Just listen to Count Iggy or David McGuinty dance around when questioned about it.No Liberal will talk about it.Why not? How many times are the Liberals using the word "contempt"?When the Liberals said the long gun registry would cost but two million dollars but ended up costing over one billion and counting,was that contempt?When Jean Chretien stood up in Parliament and shrugged and said "A few million dollars may have been stolen....".Was that contempt? Was Adscam contempt for Canadians? How about Shawinigate?Ever read the nasty details of that affair?Was that contempt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 The Tories are indeed using the word "coalition" an awful lot.Perhaps it makes up for the fact that the Liberals will not,under any circumstances,use the word at all.Anyone that thinks there won't be a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition should the Tories get another minority government is naive.At least Socialist leader Jack Layton openly admits he will support a coalition.Just listen to Count Iggy or David McGuinty dance around when questioned about it.No Liberal will talk about it.Why not? How many times are the Liberals using the word "contempt"?When the Liberals said the long gun registry would cost but two million dollars but ended up costing over one billion and counting,was that contempt?When Jean Chretien stood up in Parliament and shrugged and said "A few million dollars may have been stolen....".Was that contempt? Was Adscam contempt for Canadians? How about Shawinigate?Ever read the nasty details of that affair?Was that contempt? So, you'd rather have a party that's in contempt of parliament now over one that you believe had contempt of parliament years ago and whose members you accuse are long gone? Really? Just admit you're a conservative partisan and will vote conservative no matter what. That's a better reason than the one you gave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 So, you'd rather have a party that's in contempt of parliament now over one that you believe had contempt of parliament years ago and whose members you accuse are long gone?The "contempt" is blatantly a political, not real, one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 The "contempt" is blatantly a political, not real, one. No it's not... It's an afront to our democratic traditions... An example of this you might be able to relate to is the "public option" Obama tried to put forward a couple of years ago,as it relates to health care legislation... Remember the howls of it being "Unconstitutional"?...And it might very well be... In Canada,how can the government ask member to vote on a budget that the committee looking into the financing of initiatives in that budget cannot get reliable financial information?? And then,when it is found that the government was not being truthful with those numbers and is indeed found in Contempt of Parliament,how is it not "real"? Contempt of Parliament is contempt for the people of Canada and contempt for the constitution they all swore to uphold... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 Contempt of Parliament is contempt for the people of Canada and contempt for the constitution they all swore to uphold... Yep, it really is that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 The "contempt" is blatantly a political, not real, one. Why? Because it's somehow 'not political' for the CPC to pretend this is a republic when it's to their paltry partisan advantage to claim privileges that don't exist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 The "contempt" is blatantly a political, not real, one. So claiming that it is lawful and constitutional to withhold documents from Parliament isn't an act of contempt? Somebody better attach Charles I's head to his body to tell him that those damned Parliamentarians were wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironstone Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 So, you'd rather have a party that's in contempt of parliament now over one that you believe had contempt of parliament years ago and whose members you accuse are long gone? Really? Just admit you're a conservative partisan and will vote conservative no matter what. That's a better reason than the one you gave. I have voted Conservative every occasion but one.During the election waged over the free trade debate I voted for John Manley,Liberal.At the time I had serious doubts about the free trade issue,and the Liberals were very strongly opposed to it.We know what happened later of course,lol.They did the usual Liberal turnabout(wage and price controls,Joe Clark's hefty gas tax increase,GST etc). I will vote Tory again in this election although I am not completely satisfied with their record since coming to power,not by a long shot.In short,they spend too much money,they increased the size of the Public Service,and they haven't done enough to end the culture of waste and corruption within most levels of government. When I look at the only alternative,the Liberals,I cannot in good conscience vote for that party.Have the Conservatives done some unethical or corrupt things since coming to power?Yes they have.But these examples truly pale in comparison to things the Liberals have done in recent memory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.