PIK Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) 1st , he should have sid no to the NDP lady wanting to crossover, that would hve been huge for them, but he did not ,so nothing has changed. 2nd. Coming out and going after harper for wanting to fight the green religous freaks on the pipeline, the PM's job is to protect canada and it citizens and interests, what he did is almost treason. I could not believe he would tread into this one, anything for votes, the libs have not changed. Edited January 11, 2012 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
guyser Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 1st , he should have sid no to the NDP lady wanting to crossover, that would hve been huge for them, but he did not ,so nothing has changed. Like the PC's would have done? Sure..sure... Quote
PIK Posted January 11, 2012 Author Report Posted January 11, 2012 Like the PC's would have done? Sure..sure... Does not matter what they would do,they are not ready to drop off the political map. Rae had a chance to show he would have been different, He blew it BIGTIME on this one, he could have shown how the libs are different then the tories. Harper must be smiling over that missed oppotunity. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Rick Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 Harper must be smiling over that missed oppotunity. Harper's probably pissed she defected to the Liberals and not to him like David Emmerson did...Liberals, Conservatives same shit, different name. Quote “This is all about who you represent,” Mr. Dewar (NDP) said. “We’re (NDP) talking about representing the interests of working people and everyday Canadians and they [the Conservatives] are about representing the fund managers who come in and fleece our companies and our country. Voted Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' 2011
guyser Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 Does not matter what they would do,they are not ready to drop off the political map. Rae had a chance to show he would have been different, He blew it BIGTIME on this one, he could have shown how the libs are different then the tories. Harper must be smiling over that missed oppotunity. Load of hypocrisy . Good job my man! You do know that Harper appointed a lackey to the Senate just yesterday? Let me re-phrase your line from above. "Harper had a chance to show he would have been different, He blew it BIGTIME on this one, he could have shown how the Conservatives are different then the Liberals. All the other leaders must be smiling over that missed oppotunity.' Methinks you will agree. Quote
segnosaur Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 I don't think those really count as 'screw ups' as you stated in the thread title. 1st , he should have sid no to the NDP lady wanting to crossover, that would hve been huge for them, but he did not ,so nothing has changed. The right of a member to cross the floor is well established in the Westminster Parliamentary system. And given the fact that the Conservatives have benefited from people crossing the floor, its kind of hard to criticize the liberals for it. At worst, they gain a member who may not get re-elected next election. At best, they can at least say "Look! the NDP was just a blip and people are coming back to us." 2nd. Coming out and going after harper for wanting to fight the green religous freaks on the pipeline, the PM's job is to protect canada and it citizens and interests, what he did is almost treason. I could not believe he would tread into this one, anything for votes, the libs have not changed. Keep in mind that "protecting Canada and its Citizens" is a pretty broad term. Its possible that 2 people may both be acting in what they think is the best interest of the country, but still come down on different sides of the issue. Issues related to energy production are complex... environmental issues, short AND long term economic plans can and do conflict. Quote
PIK Posted January 11, 2012 Author Report Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) Load of hypocrisy . Good job my man! You do know that Harper appointed a lackey to the Senate just yesterday? Let me re-phrase your line from above. "Harper had a chance to show he would have been different, He blew it BIGTIME on this one, he could have shown how the Conservatives are different then the Liberals. All the other leaders must be smiling over that missed oppotunity.' Methinks you will agree. Yes you are right ,but harper is the leader of the country and will be for sometime to come, it is the libs that need to change thier ways, or they are done like the dodo bird. I not saying this to just make fun of them, but they need some serious changes, and when bob rae becomes full time leader, with sheila copps as president, it shows the same old arrogance of the old liberal party. Now I hear they want mark carney to run for the leadership, there they go again, lets try and pick a sure thing, forget policy and any new ideas, just try to win on someones name. And I should say ,that they did come out with a new idea, get rid of the monarchy, the whole world is falling apart and they want to discuss the monarchy. As a con I like it ,as a citizen I don't because I do believe that we need strong opposition. Edited January 11, 2012 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
PIK Posted January 11, 2012 Author Report Posted January 11, 2012 And what about #2, do you agree with rae ,that when foreign money is being used to possibly destroy our economy, that as PM he should keep his nose out of it??? Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Wild Bill Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 Load of hypocrisy . Good job my man! You do know that Harper appointed a lackey to the Senate just yesterday? Let me re-phrase your line from above. "Harper had a chance to show he would have been different, He blew it BIGTIME on this one, he could have shown how the Conservatives are different then the Liberals. All the other leaders must be smiling over that missed oppotunity.' Methinks you will agree. A Triple E Senate was a fundamental plank in Reform's platform. Equal, Elected and Effective. Now Harper acts like any other PM we've ever had and just appoints them. Tell me again that there's still some Reform left in the present CPC! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
guyser Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 Yes you are right ,but harper is the leader of the country and will be for sometime to come, it is the libs that need to change thier ways, or they are done like the dodo bird. I not saying this to just make fun of them, but they need some serious changes, and when bob rae becomes full time leader, with sheila copps as president, it shows the same old arrogance of the old liberal party. Now I hear they want mark carney to run for the leadership, there they go again, lets try and pick a sure thing, forget policy and any new ideas, just try to win on someones name. And I should say ,that they did come out with a new idea, get rid of the monarchy, the whole world is falling apart and they want to discuss the monarchy. As a con I like it ,as a citizen I don't because I do believe that we need strong opposition. Thank you for the reply. The Conservatives had to change their ways to get elected. I imagine both other parties know...oh wait I doubt the NDP do,they need to change to become electable. No diff than when Harper was sitting on the other side. I agree whoelheartedly that a strong opposition is needed. However, I dont thihnk Harper feels that way. Quote
guyser Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 And what about #2, do you agree with rae ,that when foreign money is being used to possibly destroy our economy, that as PM he should keep his nose out of it??? The gist of your statement suggest others want to ruin Canada or otherwise harm us. That would include our closest neighbour , and no, I dont think America nor Americans want to ruin us anymore than than Canucks opbjecting to some cross border interest of the Yanks. Enviros, lobbyists et al are not out to ruin anything. That some things may get ruined or hardship stems from the decision is different than outright ruination. Simply put, no one says "lets ruin this cuz they are Canucks" Quote
PIK Posted January 11, 2012 Author Report Posted January 11, 2012 Thank you for the reply. The Conservatives had to change their ways to get elected. I imagine both other parties know...oh wait I doubt the NDP do,they need to change to become electable. No diff than when Harper was sitting on the other side. I agree whoelheartedly that a strong opposition is needed. However, I dont thihnk Harper feels that way. LOL This opposition is every PM's dream. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Newfoundlander Posted January 11, 2012 Report Posted January 11, 2012 1st , he should have sid no to the NDP lady wanting to crossover, that would hve been huge for them, but he did not ,so nothing has changed. Why? Quote
UofGPolitico Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 The main problem with Rae is his refusal to say one way or another whether he will seek the permanent leadership. I think its pretty clear he will. For a party talking about renewal and transparency, its kind of hypocritical for the interim leader when asked about running as the permanent leader hides behind veiled rhetoric. I don't know what Liberals are thinking if they are considering him as their "white knight". Ontario will stay Conservative blue if he is Liberal leader in the next election. What's that they say about fooling me twice? Quote
g_bambino Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) And I should say ,that they did come out with a new idea, get rid of the monarchy, the whole world is falling apart and they want to discuss the monarchy. That's hardly a new idea for the Liberals; they've been tossing that around since Pearson's day, albeit not often explicitly and in public, anyway. The party has an odd and mixed-up relationship with the Crown: Some Liberal ministers have been rather pro-monarchy; among the prime variety of ministers are Laurier, King, St. Laurent, Trudeau, and Chretien. But simultaneously, the Liberals have been surreptitiously quite hostile towards the institution: Over the last 40+ years during which the Cabinet and, subsequently, the wider government has been mostly Liberal, the Crown has gradually vanished from public life. And regard the result: Canadians are generally confused and deluded about the civics of their own country and now many of both the Liberal and simply liberal (though certainly not only they) among them believe that a "true" Canadian must embrace made-in-Canada (but also decisively Liberal) symbols like the flag, the Charter, health care, and multiculturalism, and view as foreign and retrograde and subsequently reject certain randomly selected traditions, symbols, and institutions that have British roots, the monarchy being one, if not number one. Why else has a noticeable chunk of the media evidently considered the hanging of the Queen's portrait or the reappearance of the word "royal" in the names of the navy and air force as things controversial? The Young Liberals who put forward the resolution on abolition of the monarchy are a perfect example. Instead of performing easy research on the subject, they simply assumed their numerous misconceptions about the Canadian Crown were true and upon those based the conclusion that the institution is something offensive to the Liberal sacred cows of multiculturalism and Charter rights, which the Young Liberals further assumed were concepts cherished by all Canadians. This says to me that the problem for the Liberals isn't just with long-time members sticking around with old-time ideas and attitudes; it's that the youth of the party are carrying on the same self-aggrandising arrogance as their forbearers, still believing the Liberal Party has the right to define the criteria one must meet in order to be considered a Canadian. It's exactly the same attitude that I used to hear from Liberal ministers and MPs during the Chretien and Martin years and it truly turned me off the party. [ed.: c/e, +] Edited January 12, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
Bryan Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 Load of hypocrisy . Good job my man! You do know that Harper appointed a lackey to the Senate just yesterday? Let me re-phrase your line from above. "Harper had a chance to show he would have been different, He blew it BIGTIME on this one, he could have shown how the Conservatives are different then the Liberals. All the other leaders must be smiling over that missed oppotunity.' What opportunity is it that you think Harper missed here? You do know that Betty Unger was elected, right? When an elected senator-in-waiting was available, that is who got the job 100% of the time under Harper. If your province won't elect their senators, take it up with them. Quote
guyser Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 What opportunity is it that you think Harper missed here? You do know that Betty Unger was elected, right? When an elected senator-in-waiting was available, that is who got the job 100% of the time under Harper. If your province won't elect their senators, take it up with them. Oh my, is the kool aid that tasty? Tell us ,what did Harper say about appointing Senators when he sat across the aisle? Figure that out and the folly of your post will become crystal clear. Quote
PIK Posted January 12, 2012 Author Report Posted January 12, 2012 Oh my, is the kool aid that tasty? Tell us ,what did Harper say about appointing Senators when he sat across the aisle? Figure that out and the folly of your post will become crystal clear. Did he not try to do something with the minority gov, and was voted down? And if that did happen,all bets are off. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
guyser Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Did he not try to do something with the minority gov, and was voted down? And if that did happen,all bets are off. Thats called being ingenious. Not that it gets to the heart of the matter. Politics. politicians.....yadda yadda Edited January 12, 2012 by guyser Quote
fellowtraveller Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 The gist of your statement suggest others want to ruin Canada or otherwise harm us. That would include our closest neighbour , and no, I dont think America nor Americans want to ruin us anymore than than Canucks opbjecting to some cross border interest of the Yanks. Enviros, lobbyists et al are not out to ruin anything. That some things may get ruined or hardship stems from the decision is different than outright ruination. Simply put, no one says "lets ruin this cuz they are Canucks" Can you spell 'disingenuous'? Building the Gateway pipeline is certainly not in the interests of American energy security strategy. The 'postponement' of the Keystone pipeline was a clear message that Obama knows full well that the emperor has no clothes, that Canada has no options for marketing oil to anybody except them because...... we really don't have any options. I'd put more credence in environmentalists willingness to crush our economy if it was based on any equitable sense that all oil is bad and all oil production must be termihated. I'll rethink it when I see Greenpeace organizing demonstrations on the streets of Riyadh or Teheran or Caracas. Quote The government should do something.
g_bambino Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 Thats called being ingenious. Hardly. It's called making a promise without understanding what's required to fulfill it. Harper said he would never recommend the appointment of an unelected senator. Once he was in the position to make such recommendations, he found it wasn't possible to do what he said he would, or not do what he said he wouldn't. It's not a secret that the constitution reguires the appointment of senators, completely regardless of whether they were elected or not, in order to keep the upper chamber's membership at 105. Harper should've known that before he was appointed prime minister. Quote
guyser Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 Can you spell 'disingenuous'? I can spell it. The word I used is 'ingenious' , meaning contrived insofar as the poster I responded to. Quote
guyser Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) deleted Edited January 12, 2012 by guyser Quote
Evening Star Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Didn't think PET was especially pro-monarchy? Some Liberal ministers have been rather pro-monarchy; among the prime variety of ministers are Laurier, King, St. Laurent, Trudeau, and Chretien. Edited January 12, 2012 by Evening Star Quote
fellowtraveller Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 I can spell it. The word I used is 'ingenious' , meaning contrived insofar as the poster I responded to. I used disingenuous, applied to you and you know what it means and why I used it.. Quote The government should do something.
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.