Enjoy the hockey game, Mr Harper or

[Wild Bill]

It is quite amusing to see someone argue about "heart" and "head" people when you yourself are not using your head.

Who has demonstrated that I "hate" Harper?

Why, YOU have!

Considering the scale of the costs in the grand scheme of things and the fact that the leader of the country is entitled to at least a modicum of respect and special treatment, the facts that you have presented, while perhaps perfectly accurate, are trivial!

Nobody nitpicks like you have without some sort of agenda.

[Wild Bill]

Of course it is. If these fellows are implying that criticism of a politician is "hating" then they are haters of a profound sort.

BM, there's a big difference between criticism and nitpicking.

[msj]

Why, YOU have!

Considering the scale of the costs in the grand scheme of things and the fact that the leader of the country is entitled to at least a modicum of respect and special treatment, the facts that you have presented, while perhaps perfectly accurate, are trivial!

Nobody nitpicks like you have without some sort of agenda.

How does this translate to me hating Harper?

What's wrong with pointing out certain facts and asking for some accountability?

Sure call me a nitpicker; perfectly fair given our disagreement over whether or not a principle is trivial or not.

But where is the hate?

Is there some kind of dollar limit where if it's under $X then it's nitpicking and, therefore, I'm a "hater" whereas if it is over $X then I'm not nitpicking and, therefore, I'm a defender of accountability?

I mean, lets agree to disagree over the trivialization of the matter but all this other ad hominem BS is really just stupid.

[Topaz]

Ok, people, Harper couldn't fly commerical because of security reasons, right? Well why is it when he got to the game he and the rest of the gang sat with the rest people at the game?? I would think that is more of a security risk then being on a plane? Why can't the Conservative party pay for this trip like they did for Mulroney, when its a personal nature?

[msj]

My gripe is that the ones criticizing Harper in this thread have just said the same things over and over and over and over and over .........................................

Has it really come down to this?

I mean really - is this the latest argumentative method?

Kind of hypocritical too....

[Scotty]

Ok, people, Harper couldn't fly commerical because of security reasons, right? Well why is it when he got to the game he and the rest of the gang sat with the rest people at the game?? I would think that is more of a security risk then being on a plane? Why can't the Conservative party pay for this trip like they did for Mulroney, when its a personal nature?

Harper paid what he would otherwise have paid to get a flight there, and paid for or was given his own tickets. All the added expense is simply because the security requirements do not allow him to travel on commercial flights or to travel alone. Ever. Anywhere. So that meant a number of security people, and probably aides had to accompany him, and he had to take one of the government jets. That cost is born by taxpayers, but it is the cost of security. It is not a benefit which Harper receives. I'm pretty sure that at this stage he'd be delighted to be able to go somewhere alone without his ever-present minders. I know of no one in public life who has ever confessed to enjoying having all those security people around them.

And if you saw any portion of the video of him at the game you would have seen a number of gentlemen in suits with plastic badges around him checking people out and making sure no one came near. Some would have been RCMP and others would have been Secret Service. I doubt the Americans complained about the added cost, either. They recognize that the cost of security is what it is, and you don't take chances with it. It's routine. The cost of doing business.

And no, it's not fair to suggest that the guy forgo any and all personal visits or trips anywhere in order to save money. You might as well demand that his personal limo only travel between work and home and that he never go anywhere else, like to a movie or play, because of the added cost.

[msj]

Harper paid what he would otherwise have paid to get a flight there, and paid for or was given his own tickets.

Oh come off it.

At the very least he should pay the cost of a last minute purchase of a commercial ticket which is $2,600 per the story I linked to back on page 5.

I still don't like the fact that Harper made the trip at all but, once again, we will just have to disagree on that point.

[snip some stuff that I mostly agree with]

[Avro]

Cons fly on the tax payers dime.....good.

Libs fly on the tax payers dime.....bad.

Cons build gazebos on our dime and hide it from parliment.....good.

Libs go on shopping sprees on our dime....bad.

Cons run up a huge deficit and debt....good.

Libs run up a huge deficit and debt.....bad.

You can swap the good and bad depending on your political ideology.

[msj]

Cons fly on the tax payers dime.....good.

Libs fly on the tax payers dime.....bad.

Cons build gazebos on our dime and hide it from parliment.....good.

Libs go on shopping sprees on our dime....bad.

Cons run up a huge deficit and debt....good.

Libs run up a huge deficit and debt.....bad.

You can swap the good and bad depending on your political ideology.

A fair summary of the thread.

Only thing missing is: call the other guy a "hater/sore loser/lefty" no matter how irrelevant it is to the argument.

[Scotty]

This really makes no sense.

I don't think this forum was even established when Chretien was in power so I fail to see how I could have complained about his abuses on here at that time.

The forum certainly was around then. But there really is no comparison between Harper and Chretien. Chretien made lavish use of the Challengers and other government jets. Sometimes it seemed like life was one long holiday for the man. He flew EVERYWHERE, taking vacations, some thinly disguised as business trips, all over the world every couple of months. On one occasion in some craphole of a country, the jet broke down and he was delayed hours while another was brought in. In response, he ordered that a second challenger was to trail the first everywhere, just in case the first broke down.

And no Liberal EVER complained about any of it.

[Scotty]

Cons fly on the tax payers dime.....good.

Libs fly on the tax payers dime.....bad.

Cons build gazebos on our dime and hide it from parliment.....good.

Libs go on shopping sprees on our dime....bad.

Cons run up a huge deficit and debt....good.

Libs run up a huge deficit and debt.....bad.

You can swap the good and bad depending on your political ideology.

I wouldn't have complained about Chretien going to a hockey game, so no, it's not quite the same. The level of picayune sniveling is far higher when it's Harper doing something than when it was Chretien or Martin.

[Avro]

I wouldn't have complained about Chretien going to a hockey game, so no, it's not quite the same. The level of picayune sniveling is far higher when it's Harper doing something than when it was Chretien or Martin.

I recall many times when righties whined about what the Libs did so don't hand me that pile of steaming dong.

[Scotty]

I recall many times when righties whined about what the Libs did so don't hand me that pile of steaming dong.

They had a lot more to complain about.

[Avro]

They had a lot more to complain about.

Yeah like surpluses and not fighting in Iraq.

Thanks for proving my point btw.

[Scotty]

Yeah like surpluses and not fighting in Iraq.

Thanks for proving my point btw.

I wasn't aware you had a point. Certainly none has been evident in your postings thus far.

[cybercoma]

Presumably, this trip will foster good relations with Americans, or some such.

This has got to be the funniest thing I have read in this thread. You're a riot August.

[bloodyminded]

I'm not saying that one or the other kind of people is better, Molly. Actually, we need both and we need to BE both in different situations. I guess my point is really that people who let their heart lead instead of their head are prone to lack perspective.

And people who let their head lead instead of their heart are technically termed "sociopaths."

At any rate, this cute little myth about "rational conservatives" vs. "emotional liberals" is meaningless, and a totally false choice on more than one level.

[bloodyminded]

BM, there's a big difference between criticism and nitpicking.

The difference itself is often a matter of subjectivity and selective partisanship.

You'd have to lay out an expansive record of msj's "nitpicking"...and, more importantly, carry out an equal, disintrested assessment of those who spend so many posts--so many bloody posts!--pontificating about the sorry state of "the left," with their particualr targets.

A daunting task, I admit, but I believe you'd find there is no demonstrable difference between conservative and liberal behaviour in this regard.

[msj]

The forum certainly was around then. But there really is no comparison between Harper and Chretien. Chretien made lavish use of the Challengers and other government jets. Sometimes it seemed like life was one long holiday for the man. He flew EVERYWHERE, taking vacations, some thinly disguised as business trips, all over the world every couple of months. On one occasion in some craphole of a country, the jet broke down and he was delayed hours while another was brought in. In response, he ordered that a second challenger was to trail the first everywhere, just in case the first broke down.

And no Liberal EVER complained about any of it.

How convenient of you to not notice the rest of what I posted:

Once again - this [whether one has whined in the past about the Liberals corruption] has no relevance to the issue.

Clearly if I think it is wrong for Harper to do this then I think it is wrong for any other politician to do it too.

Whether I choose to publicly complain about it in a forum has more to do with how much time I have, whether I feel like arguing about something, if it has already been brought up by others etc....

So, I think the point you make above is BS: absence of a complaint does not imply in any way that I would not complain about a similar situation by another party.

Given that I was not a member of this forum (and unaware of its existence) until August 2007 I hardly see how I would have been able to establish a record within this forum for nitpicking, or otherwise, about Chretien's undue personal benefits.

Despite that, yes, I think Chretien should have reimbursed us taxpayers for the equivalent cost of a commercial flight for times he used the jet for vacation rather than true business purposes.

And, yes, I have repeatedly given kudos to Harper for at least bringing us along this far by paying a nominal amount.

I still think the perception stinks: taking advantage of his new majority to attend a hockey game in an age of austerity budgets doesn't look good, politically.

I still think the principle stands: he should be reimbursing us for the price of a last minute ticket.

I think this is more relevant to us today given that it only happened last week and Harper is in power rather than complain further about Chretien who has been retired for nearly 7 years now.

And, I think whether one whines about other politicians or not is irrelevant to this particular nitpick - it stands on its own grounds.

[msj]

I wouldn't have complained about Chretien going to a hockey game, so no, it's not quite the same. The level of picayune sniveling is far higher when it's Harper doing something than when it was Chretien or Martin.

Well, I would have had it happened while I was a member of this forum.

Maybe you guys are whining about the wrong bias: it's not that I'm a "lefty;" it's that I really don't like hockey.

[msj]

I wasn't aware you had a point. Certainly none has been evident in your postings thus far.

This seems to be the mantra for those who would proudly call themselves "right."

Ignore the points that have been made and rather than argue the points focus on the alleged bias of the person.

As I have already stated: argue the issues and not the person if you don't want to look like a fool.

[Sir Bandelot]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/photoshopped-stop-harper-sign-stanley-cup-finals-signals-204028946.html

[cybercoma]

And people who let their head lead instead of their heart are technically termed "sociopaths."

At any rate, this cute little myth about "rational conservatives" vs. "emotional liberals" is meaningless, and a totally false choice on more than one level.

For example, academics are often criticized for being too "liberal" or "socialist". Academia isn't exactly known for being an emotional profession.

edit to add:

It's not entirely accurate to say that psychopaths lead with their heads though. While it's true that they are manipulative and play on the emotions of others by being charismatic, they do have protoemotional responses, such as rage.

Edited June 11, 2011 by cybercoma

[Wild Bill]

For example, academics are often criticized for being too "liberal" or "socialist". Academia isn't exactly known for being an emotional profession.

edit to add:

It's not entirely accurate to say that psychopaths lead with their heads though. While it's true that they are manipulative and play on the emotions of others by being charismatic, they do have protoemotional responses, such as rage.

Once again, I guess it depends on how we look at things. To me, this post of yours is just a classic example of your heart leading with an ad hominem viewpoint, using your head to back it up with innuendo.

BTW, I'm hardly a 'rightwinger'. When things have slid so far to the left that a classic Liberal is defined as rightwing then maybe things have gone too far!

[cybercoma]

I'm not really sure what you're talking about, Bill. I was expanding on bloody's post specifically. I don't even know what you guys are talking about.