Trudeau loses it in QP

cybercoma · December 16, 2011

when the liberals were (for too many years) slinging the shit in Parliament as the governing party there would be 0 complaints from the `truthseekers`posting on these pages

That's funny. Your registration date says 2011. I signed up halfway through 2005 and Harper took office in 2006. I recall plenty of criticism of the Liberals when I first signed up. In other words, you're full of it and only making crap up to suit your narrative.

cybercoma · December 16, 2011

Maybe if you guys quit blowing smoke about nonsense like this.

Maybe if you were a real Conservative, instead of a useless partisan troll, you would stand behind your values and demand transparency and accountability from our government. When they refuse to answer questions during QP, that's the exact opposite of being accountable, regardless of who the dirtbags are that are doing it.

CPCFTW · December 16, 2011

Maybe if you were a real Conservative, instead of a useless partisan troll, you would stand behind your values and demand transparency and accountability from our government. When they refuse to answer questions during QP, that's the exact opposite of being accountable, regardless of who the dirtbags are that are doing it.

:rolleyes:

I demand less government because I know the crap that goes on in government and I know that it will continue to go on regardless of which party is in power.

What's your suggestion for improving "transparency and accountability" in this case? The sitting government isn't allowed to read answers in QP? :rolleyes:

Talk about a useless partisan troll.

Edited December 16, 2011 by CPCFTW

cybercoma · December 16, 2011

You demand LESS government, yet the Conservatives have the largest government in history and they're planning on more seats.

You keep swinging at the strawman that the government shouldn't read their answers. They can read their answers all they want. What the government has been doing is reading speeches that have nothing to do with the questions being asked. That's the problem and if you cared about accountability at all, you would be pissed.

You say you care about accountability and transparancy, but when your team is the one that does things to undermine those values, you condone it. Yet, you call me a partisan troll? Your posts are quite literally the definition of partisanship. You sell out your values just because the boys in blue have the reigns. Either that or you have no values.

Edited December 16, 2011 by cybercoma

Topaz · December 16, 2011

Yes, you are right, they have read more non-answers then before. Is it so hard for them to give a honest answer? Probably because they instructed by the PMO. Maybe the PMO wants to make sure that they CAN read! Before the election they were bobbleheads shaking their heads up and down up and down, whatever the minister standing said and now they are robots, standing and reading, standing and reading.

Scotty · December 17, 2011

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The government brings a delegation to a conference and it brings business interests but excludes elected representatives of constituencies?

What part of 'team' did you not understand? The team concept is that everyone is playing on the same side in pursuit of the same objective. Clearly this excludes the opposition.

olp1fan · December 17, 2011

I think MPs should swear more

whats up with this politically correct bullshit?

swearing is about as normal as farting

Scotty · December 17, 2011

Off the original topic, but still pertaining to QP, I'm incredibly disappointed in how Question Period has become "Reading Period". The Opposition poses its questions and the Conservative MPs and Cabinet read canned responses that often times have nothing to do with the questions asked..

I like how you phrase that. The opposition poses questions -- while the government 'reads' answers.

I seem to recall seeing the opposition questioners often reading them. You think they're not written down in advance by someone?

As for the answers not being on topic... perhaps if the questions were more on topic and less insulting and pejorative, the answers would be better.

I remember an episode of MASH where Hawkeye poses as a reporter and asks a question of a General. The General says "That question had a lot of bite to it" and Hawkeye says "I bet the answer will too." Yep. That's the way it works.

Let's examine a question taken completely at random. It was the first one I found on the internet.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): next intervention

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have been so unhelpful at the Cancun summit, many Canadians are wondering why they bothered to go. The part-time Minister of the Environment went to the summit and dismissed the Kyoto accord, dismissed Canada's responsibility to address its historic greenhouse gas emissions. These are “sidecar issues” he said.

Once again, Canada is seen around the world as a stumbling block to global climate progress. Are the Conservatives really trying to beat the Liberal record and get more fossil awards than they did?

And you're outraged that such questions aren't given a respectful answer? Give us a break, please. :rolleyes:

olp1fan · December 17, 2011

the opposition should try asking questions without insults or accusing the cons of anything

then if the cons respond arrogantly it'll make them look even

bad to their supporters

but the opp. is not that strategic

Scotty · December 17, 2011

the opposition should try asking questions without insults or accusing the cons of anything

then if the cons respond arrogantly it'll make them look even

bad to their supporters

but the opp. is not that strategic

The rules say:

Avoid using abbreviated terms such as "Cons" or "Libs" that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best and official abbreviations are acceptable.

olp1fan · December 17, 2011

The rules say:

Avoid using abbreviated terms such as "Cons" or "Libs" that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best and official abbreviations are acceptable.

the rules dont mean anything to me when the people who referred to me as a nazi and third reich supporter werent warned or punished

guyser · December 17, 2011

What part of 'team' did you not understand? The team concept is that everyone is playing on the same side in pursuit of the same objective. Clearly this excludes the opposition.

No, it clearlymeans you did not think this through at all.

An opposition member may represent a large riding with manufacturing interests or options for trade outside our borders. That MP may very well be able to better rep that interest than anyone else.

He would of course play second fiddle to the trade minister, but by denying him that trip, due to silly juvenile tactics as displayed by our guys in power, that ability is greatly diminished.

Scotty · December 17, 2011

the rules dont mean anything to me when the people who referred to me as a nazi and third reich supporter werent warned or punished

You might recall I took umbrage at that, as well.

And you could have reported them.

olp1fan · December 17, 2011

You might recall I took umbrage at that, as well.

And you could have reported them.

I reported them twice 2 days a go, I got a msg back saying they were within the rules

and yes I seen you reacting to that, thank you

and in kind I will refer to them as the cpc now

Moonlight Graham · December 17, 2011

The rules say:

Avoid using abbreviated terms such as "Cons" or "Libs" that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best and official abbreviations are acceptable.

What a horrible rule. People do that to save time, not to insult.

cybercoma · December 17, 2011

Yes, you are right, they have read more non-answers then before. Is it so hard for them to give a honest answer? Probably because they instructed by the PMO. Maybe the PMO wants to make sure that they CAN read! Before the election they were bobbleheads shaking their heads up and down up and down, whatever the minister standing said and now they are robots, standing and reading, standing and reading.

You're not helping.

olp1fan · December 17, 2011

What a horrible rule. People do that to save time, not to insult.

I don't see whats so offensive about it

I found right wingers calling Layton "Taliban Jack" incredibly insulting yet I seen it on threads here

but its insulting to call them cons?!

Whats even more offensive is Harpers the one who paid ransom money to terrorists

but Layton is "Taliban"

cybercoma · December 17, 2011

What a horrible rule. People do that to save time, not to insult.

I don't use Con or Lib. It's just as easy to use LPC or CPC and it keeps the tone more civil. People frequently use "Cons" pejoratively, as well. Discussions get heated enough with the issues, we don't need to be adding insults to the mix. And, I believe the rule came about when people had given Paul Martin his nickname and there was talking of the Canadian Alliance and Reform Parties merging as the Canadian Reform Alliance Party. The acronym was not official and not very flattering.

cybercoma · December 17, 2011

I found right wingers calling Layton "Taliban Jack" incredibly insulting

Then you should have reported it because it's specifically written in the rules that you're not allowed to call politicians by a name that they don't use themselves. On that note, it's also against the rules to call Stephen Harper, "Stevie". It's diminutive and insulting. We could all try to be more civil on here, myself included. We all can get pretty worked up.

olp1fan · December 17, 2011

Then you should have reported it because it's specifically written in the rules that you're not allowed to call politicians by a name that they don't use themselves. On that note, it's also against the rules to call Stephen Harper, "Stevie". It's diminutive and insulting. We could all try to be more civil on here, myself included. We all can get pretty worked up.

Stevie is insulting? okay now that is looney

cybercoma · December 17, 2011

Stevie is insulting? okay now that is looney

It's diminutive and therefore insulting. He's not a child; he's the Prime Minister and head of the government. If he doesn't go by the name (ie, Steve), it's just disrespectful and therefore insulting. Quite simply, it lowers the level of discourse on the forums by weaving derision into your posts rather than relying on the quality of your arguments and ideas.

olp1fan · December 17, 2011

It's diminutive and therefore insulting. He's not a child; he's the Prime Minister and head of the government. If he doesn't go by the name (ie, Steve), it's just disrespectful and therefore insulting. Quite simply, it lowers the level of discourse on the forums by weaving derision into your posts rather than relying on the quality of your arguments and ideas.

thats hypocritical coming from a poster whom today has called a few posters "trolls"

and whom calls people racist or bigot daily

Edited December 17, 2011 by olp1fan

olp1fan · December 17, 2011

will you not answer for your sins cyber?

your motto is do as i say not as i do

Scotty · December 17, 2011

What a horrible rule. People do that to save time, not to insult.

With 'libs' yes, but the diminutive 'con' is often used in a pejorative form as in conning people, con artist, etc.

cybercoma · December 17, 2011

thats hypocritical coming from a poster whom today has called a few posters "trolls"

and whom calls people racist or bigot daily

I call people trolls, racists or bigots when their arguments indicate as much. When you make a bigoted post, I'm going to call it bigoted. And I didnt' make the rules, so I fail to see how that makes me a hypocrite.

Edited December 17, 2011 by cybercoma