Guest Peeves Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 that would be my thoughts as well... And Libby will run for leadership of Hamas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 She is fully qualified but they would never elect a woman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 Do you feel some sort of obligation to be deliberately stupid? I just find it odd when people here says that posters weren't more critical of Jean Chretien, when he served throughout the 90s into the 00s. I'll take back what I said if you just mean people in general, but I don't see what that has to do with people on this forum being critical of Harper. Who cares what other people in general say or do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 She is fully qualified but they would never elect a woman. Libby's a woman? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 She is fully qualified but they would never elect a woman. never?...Alexa McDonough and Audrey McLaughlin...libby won't be elected because she isn't bilingual not because she's a woman... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 never?...Alexa McDonough and Audrey McLaughlin...libby won't be elected because she isn't bilingual not because she's a woman... They weren't opposition leaders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 never?...Alexa McDonough and Audrey McLaughlin...libby won't be elected because she isn't bilingual not because she's a woman... for the leadership of Hamas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 Layton could have no possibility whatsoever of influencing, much less "orchestrating," the matter of his State funeral. There's no way to do this. How sure are you that he had no hand in orchestrating his funeral? Note that I said, "funeral," not "state funeral." He couldn't have known that he was going to be given a state funeral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 Then what did you mean by "affair" in reference to his funeral? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) never?...Alexa McDonough and Audrey McLaughlin...libby won't be elected because she isn't bilingual not because she's a woman... That whoooooosh you heard was a post going over your head. Edited August 31, 2011 by Peeves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 Alexa McDonough and Audrey McLaughlinI did not realize they belonged to Hamas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 I just find it odd when people here says that posters weren't more critical of Jean Chretien, when he served throughout the 90s into the 00s. I'll take back what I said if you just mean people in general, but I don't see what that has to do with people on this forum being critical of Harper. Who cares what other people in general say or do? No, I mean posters here as well as the great unwashed. Numerous rants here before the last election about the dread of Harper/Hitler getting a majority and riding roughshod over Parliament, forcing his agenda on the country and running evrything from the PMO. Hello.....hello....hello... Chretien did that for 13 years, as did every PM before him with a majoritywith a majority. Yet it is promoted as something new, something only the fascist Harper could imagine. There are few checks and balances in our version of Parliamentary democracy. The Opposition is largely a formality. The closest thing to an actual check/balance is the media. I have no problem with people being specifically critical of Harper. I do object to posters pretending he has any different approach to governance than his predecessors. What is scary is that they actually believe anything has changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 I did not realize they belonged to Hamas. You obviously missed the joke! Not so much Alexa but certainly Libby is well known for always siding against Israel and backing Hamas and the Palestinian terrorist groups, sometimes to the point of just looking silly. Up till now it hasn't mattered, with the NDP always being in perpetual 3rd place. Now, when Jack got them all the way to a strong Opposition position, they can't afford to look like a party just of flakes. They have to appear to be more mature and responsible. Less the union party of 1967 and much more like the Labour Party of Tony Blair. Libby just did it again, when a day or two ago she announced she was going to introduce a private members bill to erase the 10 year wait period for old age pensions for new immigrants. A new Canadian would be able to bring their granny over here under a family reunification program, a granny who had never invested a dime into Canada's tax base and immediately start collecting a pension! This would of course cost us a fortune in new taxes and upset a huge number of Canadians, namely those who would have to pay for it! Before, nothing much would have happened. The private members bill would have died a quick death in the Commons and we would have moved on. However, as I said, being in Opposition is a different situation and within 24 hours the NDP Party damage control was in full bore! Libby was quietly told to get out of the limelight and keep her mouth shut. Wayne Marsten, the party's pension critic, stood up in her stead and announced that the whole thing was just floating an idea and never intended to be serious. Libby hadn't paid attention to how things have changed, obviously. She made what in the private sector we call a CLM, or Career Limiting Move. Something tells me that the NDP party brass has finally got their heads together. If they keep on developing their party to be more sensible, it may well be the Liberals who are condemned to perpetual 3rd place! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 You obviously missed the joke! Um, no, I made the joke. Sooner or later the mask will be ripped from Libby and she will be revealed as Mike Duffy in drag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 Um, no, I made the joke. Sooner or later the mask will be ripped from Libby and she will be revealed as Mike Duffy in drag. Or Hedy Fry's twin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 No, I mean posters here as well as the great unwashed. Numerous rants here before the last election about the dread of Harper/Hitler getting a majority and riding roughshod over Parliament, forcing his agenda on the country and running evrything from the PMO. Hello.....hello....hello... Chretien did that for 13 years, as did every PM before him with a majoritywith a majority. Yet it is promoted as something new, something only the fascist Harper could imagine. There are few checks and balances in our version of Parliamentary democracy. The Opposition is largely a formality. The closest thing to an actual check/balance is the media. I have no problem with people being specifically critical of Harper. I do object to posters pretending he has any different approach to governance than his predecessors. What is scary is that they actually believe anything has changed. Nothing has changed. You're absolutely right. Jeffrey Simpson wrote a book addressing the distressing fact that almost all power in Ottawa rests with the PM. It's called The Friendly Dictatorship and it's about Chretien's time as Prime Minister with successive majorities. I don't think it's any better putting all that control in the hands of Stephen Harper. An additional problem, numerically anyway, with Stephen Harper's leadership is that fewer and fewer people are turning out at the polls. Having 39% of 60% of the electorate is an insult to the word "majority". Add to that the concentration of power with the PM and you have one person with all the power and an uncontested mandate from 25% of eligible voters. Stephen Harper has also been criticized as being one of the most, if not the most, controlling party leader in the history of the country. Take all the power that PMs traditionally have and add to the fact that this particular PM also controls everyone in his caucus and cabinet and you have a mess. I might be more critical of Harper because his political ideology doesn't fit with my outlook and beliefs, but it worries me that the system is designed in such a way that so much power rests in the hands of a single person, regardless of their political stripes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Then what did you mean by "affair" in reference to his funeral? The "SHOW" that's been put on! State funeral or not - it takes time to orchestrate such a good show that is so inclusive that it has an aboriginal spiritual blessing, reading from the Quran, political speakers that got quite stirring so-called "eulogies" already prepared - they even gave their speeches ahead of Layton's children's eulogies - the list of performers to perform, the scaterring of his ashes etc.., Either Layton had a hand in that.....or the NDP Party hijacked his funeral and exploited the death of Layton! Take your pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) Libby Davies from BC will run and she seemingly has the anti semitic, pro Islamic stance NDP'ers like. Based on her past quotes. Paul Dewer From Ont will run. I like him, he's up front, hardworking and honest which is rare in politics. He won't win though. Mulclair from Qc should run and hopefully win, he is the best man for the job. The most qualified and is hugely popular in his home province. Plus Qc is the province which gave the NDP its massive victory so they'll want a leader from Qc. I'd put my money on Mulclair winning. I hope that the NDP can shed some of their anti Jewish/anti Israel stance. Sure it plays well in some parts of the country but we must rise above this sort of thing. Antisemitism can never be allowed to take a foot hold in a governing party ever again. Edited September 1, 2011 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 The "SHOW" that's been put on! State funeral or not - it takes time to orchestrate such a good show that is so inclusive that it has an aboriginal spiritual blessing, reading from the Quran, political speakers that got quite stirring so-called "eulogies" already prepared - they even gave their speeches ahead of Layton's children's eulogies - the list of performers to perform, the scaterring of his ashes etc.., Either Layton had a hand in that.....or the NDP Party hijacked his funeral and exploited the death of Layton! Take your pick. That's a false dichotomy, betsy. Feel free to look it up. Let's just say that the "SHOW" you're talking about is the fact that his funeral was so public. Are you really surprised that someone that has made their life entirely public would have such a public funeral? I don't think it would take all that much time to orchestrate organize. It was nearly 5 days later that they had the funeral. Most of the "SHOW" was by way of it being a State funeral. Nonetheless, most of those people were probably lining up to give eulogies. Stephen Lewis, whose eulogy was going around Facebook because it was so stirring, was in power with the NDP through the 70s. It's hardly surprising that he would be there, giving such a stirring eulogy. And why wouldn't Jack's family go last? Their eulogies are the most important. You build up to their speeches. Having them go first would be like putting the headlining act at a concert before the opening act. I'm sure the NDP helped organize his funeral, but also the rest of the government considering it was a state funeral. Politicians of all stripes were in attendance, so I hardly see how this was exploitation of his death. It was simply a show of respect for a man who dedicated his entire life to politics and his beliefs, which is well deserving of that respect. If as a public figure he were not given such a public funeral, people would quite vocally criticize that. It would also be a middle finger to everyone across this country that supported and believed in him, who couldn't make it to the funeral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilter Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 No, I mean posters here as well as the great unwashed. Numerous rants here before the last election about the dread of Harper/Hitler getting a majority and riding roughshod over Parliament, forcing his agenda on the country and running evrything from the PMO. Hello.....hello....hello... Chretien did that for 13 years, as did every PM before him with a majoritywith a majority. Yet it is promoted as something new, something only the fascist Harper could imagine. There are few checks and balances in our version of Parliamentary democracy. The Opposition is largely a formality. The closest thing to an actual check/balance is the media. I have no problem with people being specifically critical of Harper. I do object to posters pretending he has any different approach to governance than his predecessors. What is scary is that they actually believe anything has changed. It's the "evil harper" thing of which they speak--- we have to watch him like a hawk or he'll : 1) do away with the gun registry 2) negotiate an elected senate 3) kill a bunch of useless spending programs such as grants to faeces artists 4) tell the CBC to start earning their own way 5) do all these things with an evil smirk, causing the Canadian media to hate him more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 The "SHOW" that's been put on! State funeral or not - it takes time to orchestrate such a good show that is so inclusive that it has an aboriginal spiritual blessing, reading from the Quran, political speakers that got quite stirring so-called "eulogies" already prepared - they even gave their speeches ahead of Layton's children's eulogies - the list of performers to perform, the scaterring of his ashes etc.., Either Layton had a hand in that.....or the NDP Party hijacked his funeral and exploited the death of Layton! Take your pick. Jewish funerals often have stirring eulogies and are always on moments' notice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilter Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Jewish funerals often have stirring eulogies and are always on moments' notice. or the NDP Party hijacked his funeral and exploited the death of Layton! Take your pick. Ya think?????????????--- gee, how cynical can ya get--- using Jack's death for political purposes--- never happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Take all the power that PMs traditionally have and add to the fact that this particular PM also controls everyone in his caucus and cabinet and you have a mess. Yeah, right and thanks for providing a more current rant and saving me the effort of searching the archives for examples. You think Chretien survived 13 years as PM because he did not have control of his caucus and cabinet? That did not frighten you? That wasn't a mess? I'd be more interested in a rant about reforming our dysfunctional political system than hearing this tired, recycled crap over and over. Next on the agenda: The Secret Agenda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) Nothing has changed. You're absolutely right. Jeffrey Simpson wrote a book addressing the distressing fact that almost all power in Ottawa rests with the PM. It's called The Friendly Dictatorship and it's about Chretien's time as Prime Minister with successive majorities. I don't think it's any better putting all that control in the hands of Stephen Harper. An additional problem, numerically anyway, with Stephen Harper's leadership is that fewer and fewer people are turning out at the polls. Having 39% of 60% of the electorate is an insult to the word "majority". Add to that the concentration of power with the PM and you have one person with all the power and an uncontested mandate from 25% of eligible voters. Stephen Harper has also been criticized as being one of the most, if not the most, controlling party leader in the history of the country. Take all the power that PMs traditionally have and add to the fact that this particular PM also controls everyone in his caucus and cabinet and you have a mess. I might be more critical of Harper because his political ideology doesn't fit with my outlook and beliefs, but it worries me that the system is designed in such a way that so much power rests in the hands of a single person, regardless of their political stripes. What power? God has power, Harper has words. People have the option to follow or enter employ. The PM FOLLOW the instructions of parliament. MP's have a free vote, there is no legal obligation to vote with a party or remain a member there of. Understand it is all reasonable discourse. It is a consensus. While the political ideology of the Conservatives may be united, beyond that there is only a means to consensus. They are still accountable at law, the law they commonly decide to create. They have been pushing against the executives, the judges, the cops the lawyers, the military, pushing the legal boundaries. While cabinet does have some powers, the powers of the PM are VERY limited in the executive sense - under regular circumstances. People have that choice in a free and democratic society. Free means individual choice in life. The law isn't yet so partisan that it is dictatorial. People have choice. Criminal doesn't always mean wrong. People do have the choice of confronting the law or giving into resisting corrupt rule, or in defense of themselves. Give a failure of humanity to maintain life, there is the afterlife, wrath and curse of damnation, and any powers that are at grasp to those wronged in life on passing away from the biological life. I believe in an afterlife so any martyrdom that is created is overcome in mind so as to provide tranquility as a baseline in life. Only vengeance and annihilation awaits those that destroy me through corrupt means upon my liberation from biological life, and I think this will hold true for any other good person. If life holds the same holds true. Unfortunately your opinion seems to incline submissiveness in people rather than people putting forth their own position and enhancing their goals, or mutual goals with compatriots. Edited September 1, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 It's the "evil harper" thing of which they speak--- we have to watch him like a hawk or he'll : 1) do away with the gun registry 2) negotiate an elected senate 3) kill a bunch of useless spending programs such as grants to faeces artists 4) tell the CBC to start earning their own way 5) do all these things with an evil smirk, causing the Canadian media to hate him more what about the omnibus bill and billions for new jails? http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Nicholson+rejects+lawyers+plea+soften+crime+bill/5259680/story.html 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.