MacKay leaving

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes I have. Pierre Polievre hardly comes across as an ass kisser IMO.

Really! Have you ever heard him spew anything that is not a mindless talking point, over and over ad over.....ad nauseum...

[cybercoma]

Isn't "obsequious sycophants" a superfluous extraneous tautological redundancy?

Yes it is. The fact is they're so bad it needs to be said twice.

[cybercoma]

Yes I have. Pierre Polievre hardly comes across as an ass kisser IMO.

Do you know who Skippy is? I can't imagine anyone, Conservative or not, knowing who he is saying what you just said.

[drummindiver]

Do you know who Skippy is? I can't imagine anyone, Conservative or not, knowing who he is saying what you just said.

Do I know who Skippy is?

Of course I do.

I can't believe you know what the words you are using actually mean if you are using them in reference to him.

Even as a C I don't like him. Regardless.

Many other adjectives are far more apt.

[cybercoma]

And why don't you like him?

[Big Guy]

To Keepitsimple - I believe that when you begin to rationalize that the end justifies the means then you should review the importance of the "end". You are obviously a supporter of the present Harper government and that is your right and good for you. But be careful - subjective and passionate support of an "end" may cloud all other issues of the "means".

That kind of argument has been used to justify and rationalize the Holocaust, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the killings by Irgun, the attack on Iraq, the deaths during 9/11 and all kinds of other atrocities, That is also the excuse used by most war criminals.

I would suggest that a good test of your sense of objectivity regarding MacKay would be to apply the same moral latitude to members of the opposition for them to be prepared to use various questionable means to attain what they consider to be a successful end.

[Keepitsimple]

To Keepitsimple - I believe that when you begin to rationalize that the end justifies the means then you should review the importance of the "end". You are obviously a supporter of the present Harper government and that is your right and good for you. But be careful - subjective and passionate support of an "end" may cloud all other issues of the "means".

That kind of argument has been used to justify and rationalize the Holocaust, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the killings by Irgun, the attack on Iraq, the deaths during 9/11 and all kinds of other atrocities, That is also the excuse used by most war criminals.

I would suggest that a good test of your sense of objectivity regarding MacKay would be to apply the same moral latitude to members of the opposition for them to be prepared to use various questionable means to attain what they consider to be a successful end.

My sense of objectivity is largely validated by the vote of Party members to merge the two parties - fully 90% supported the merger. Your reference to victims who had no say in their demise is outrageously callous. If you were to objectively look at the context of that political period, you'd understand that as difficult as the decision may have been, it was the right one to make.

For a bit more objectivity.....in hindsight, McKay's mistake was to listen to Noel Kinsella and make the backroom deal in the first place. McKay had 45% of the vote on the third ballot, forcing Orchard who had 25% to drop out. Surely - without the deal - McKay could have reaped the further 6% he needed from Orchard's supporters as opposed to the other contender, Jim Prentice.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[Big Guy]

We will never know what would have happened if Orchard had backed Prentice. How many of the previous MacKay votes might have switched to prentice? You must know that support in these things varies and changes with conditions. It is all hypothetical and we will never know.

I was there during that political period and I believe that if MacKay would not have lied and signed his letter of intent that there would have not been any merger. But that is just my opinion.

Peter MacKay made the decision not to honor his word and his signature over 4 months. You consider that to be a "difficult" and "right" decision. Why did he run for the leadership of an amalgamated party if he did it for the good of the party. If you are a Harper supporter you would probably feel that way since Peter opened the door and was prepared to walk through just as Harper gave him an elbow and walked through himself.

I do not believe that Peter was at all courageous or made any difficult decisions. I believe that he had planned to lead a united right and lied about his intentions and signed his name to a lie. He is a liar and manipulator.

A man is only as trustworthy as his word.

The end never justifies the (all) means.

He does not deserve to ever again be trusted to represent others.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Big Guy

[Keepitsimple]

He does not deserve to ever again be trusted to represent others.

It's clear that you don't like the man and as always, you're entitled to your opinion. In this case, I don't happen to share it.

[Derek 2.0]

both parties? I'm not speaking to anything other than the CPC. Or do you simply choose to discount the presence/existence of 'Red Tories'... and the apparent uncertainty of how MacKay leaving might impact upon them?

I've already spoke to it in this thread:

.....the party and cabinet are still stuffed with former Federal and Provincial Progressive Conservatives

I find it odd some speak to the impact MacKay's leaving will have on the Government, but if one where to parse through previous threads encompassing MacKay's "missteps", the same people likened him to a privileged buffoon that was a milestone around the neck of the Government.....

[PIK]

What did he ever do anyways?

[waldo]

I've already spoke to it in this thread:

which has nothing to do with your original post... this following post, which to me, read like you were discounting/denying the existence of a progressive thinking/leaning element within the CPC (regardless of how low a profile they need to keep to avoid the wrath of Dear Leader); hence why I asked you about the delineation between Red and Blue Tories within the CPC... something you've yet to acknowledge or reply to.

Why? They/we are conservative.......there are already "progressive parties" currently in the House to choose from.......The "Progressive" name was a political ploy to win back classic liberal King supporters, and to a lesser extent Socreds (that later seeded the Reform Party), during the war.

.

.

I find it odd some speak to the impact MacKay's leaving will have on the Government, but if one where to parse through previous threads encompassing MacKay's "missteps", the same people likened him to a privileged buffoon that was a milestone around the neck of the Government.....

uhhh... the opinions of critics of MacKay, outside the CPC party, have nothing to do with how he was perceived within the CPC party - ya think!

[Derek 2.0]

which has nothing to do with your original post... this following post, which to me, read like you were discounting/denying the existence of a progressive thinking/leaning element within the CPC (regardless of how low a profile they need to keep to avoid the wrath of Dear Leader); hence why I asked you about the delineation between Red and Blue Tories within the CPC... something you've yet to acknowledge or reply to.

I suppose you will read and interpret posts how you may.......the post your're quoting was a response to another member suggesting the CPC should return to its "progressive roots". Of course the term is subjective, as current "centrists" from within the party are an integral part, likewise its a foolish notion to suppose such centrists were only found from within the former PC party, and not the former Alliance/Reform portion. Inversely, its also foolish to submit that former PC members, due in part to the Progressive label, did not also comprise staunch fiscal and/or social conservatives.

uhhh... the opinions of critics of MacKay, outside the CPC party, have nothing to do with how he was perceived within the CPC party - ya think!

In some circles (from within the Party) he will be missed, likewise, he was one of the most popular MND the Canadian Forces have ever known (Up there with McNaughton). On the International front, through his time as Minister of Foreign Affairs (and MND) he gained respect from our International partners and allies, namely right-leaning Governments. As an MP, he was very popular within his own riding and will likely be a tough act to follow.

So yeah, he will be missed, but his departure will also allow newer members of the Party to climb the political ladder.....cycle of life and all that etc etc.

[On Guard for Thee]

I think Mackay sees the writing on the wall for the CPC, especially under Harper's tutelage, and doesn't want to be there when they get sent back to the doldrums were they have spent most of their time. He can hang out on Bay Street for a time until they dump Harper and maybe try to return as the party's saviour.

[Smallc]

Yeah, Harper's been a real loser:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Canada_by_time_in_office

[On Guard for Thee]

Yeah, Harper's been a real loser:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Canada_by_time_in_office

Im glad you see that he is finally. Here is just how much loser stuff he accomplished in just one day.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-a-telling-24-hours-in-stephen-harpers-world

[waldo]

...likewise its a foolish notion to suppose such centrists were only found from within the former PC party, and not the former Alliance/Reform portion. Inversely, its also foolish to submit that former PC members, due in part to the Progressive label, did not also comprise staunch fiscal and/or social conservatives.

it would be, as you say, "foolish" to presume on what I suppose; regardless, the origin of the progressives within today's CPC has nothing to do with what I posted in regards to MacKay. In any case, he was the so-called standard bearer for progressive conservatives within the CPC. It would also be, as you say, "foolish" to presume that what you speak to as the "Progressive label" has anything to do with social conservatism. You seem quite confused - you do know what a social conservative is, right? Notwithstanding your reference to fiscal conservatism has nothing to do with what we've been discussing.

.

In some circles (from within the Party) he will be missed, likewise, he was one of the most popular MND the Canadian Forces have ever known (Up there with McNaughton). On the International front, through his time as Minister of Foreign Affairs (and MND) he gained respect from our International partners and allies, namely right-leaning Governments. As an MP, he was very popular within his own riding and will likely be a tough act to follow.

ya ya, I'll always remember the guy for his "Russian Bear" photo-ops, his use of military flights for personal use... and, of course, his part in the failed Harper Conservative F-35 charade, etc..

[Derek 2.0]

it would be, as you say, "foolish" to presume on what I suppose; regardless, the origin of the progressives within today's CPC has nothing to do with what I posted in regards to MacKay. In any case, he was the so-called standard bearer for progressive conservatives within the CPC. It would also be, as you say, "foolish" to presume that what you speak to as the "Progressive label" has anything to do with social conservatism. You seem quite confused - you do know what a social conservative is, right? Notwithstanding your reference to fiscal conservatism has nothing to do with what we've been discussing.

.

Confused? I see your Progressive (social) Conservative and raise you Elsie Wayne!!!

[waldo]

Confused? I see your Progressive (social) Conservative and raise you Elsie Wayne!!!

say what! Never heard of her... wiki says she retired in 2004... that she was viewed as a social conservative within the former Progressive Conservative party. Which has what to do with anything being discussed on the broader level in terms of progressive, Progressive, Progressive Conservative Party, etc.? Clearly you seem confused with terms/labels and like to selectively... and incorrectly... apply them. Have you figured out the difference between Red and Blue Tories yet?

.

[Derek 2.0]

say what! Never heard of her... wiki says she retired in 2004... that she was viewed as a social conservative within the former Progressive Conservative party. Which has what to do with anything being discussed on the broader level in terms of progressive, Progressive, Progressive Conservative Party, etc.? Clearly you seem confused with terms/labels and like to selectively... and incorrectly... apply them. Have you figured out the difference between Red and Blue Tories yet?

.

Never heard of her? One of the most socially conservative MPs to ever sit in Ottawa, a former senior member of the Progressive Conservative Party..........And yes, I do understand the various labels, likewise their current position within the Party matrix, but I have not a clue as to what is your point.

[waldo]

Never heard of her? One of the most socially conservative MPs to ever sit in Ottawa, a former senior member of the Progressive Conservative Party..........And yes, I do understand the various labels, likewise their current position within the Party matrix, but I have not a clue as to what is your point.

and your point? I think I get where you're so confused... you actually equate "moral/social conservatism" as some form of progressive position/belief. Do you actually hold that a true Progressive views social conservatism as a "good thing"? So what if some old, now long retired, social conservative was a, as you state, "former senior member of the Progressive Conservative Party"?

[Derek 2.0]

and your point? I think I get where you're so confused... you actually equate "moral/social conservatism" as some form of progressive position/belief. Do you actually hold that a true Progressive views social conservatism as a "good thing"?

No confusion at all, as clearly both are near polar opposites.......I fail to see what would lead you to this opinion.

So what if some old, now long retired, social conservative was a, as you state, "former senior member of the Progressive Conservative Party"?

I thought we're looking at history back.......As both Wayne and the PC party are both vestiges of history........whats next, a looking at the Manning era Social Credit party and its impact on today's party?

What you're failing to understand is that the CPC is but one party, comprised of a whole host of differing "camps". Mackay's leaving, though I and many others liked him personally, will have going forward very little felt impact on Party policy, and in turn, the Government's agenda. Likewise, your implication that the Party lost a "progressive voice" due to Mackay's departure, which doesn't hold water, as during his tenure, Mackay had little influence on party social policy.......

[waldo]

No confusion at all, as clearly both are near polar opposites.......I fail to see what would lead you to this opinion.

the discussion emphasis was on 'Progressive'... so you decided to lay down a mention/reference to a social conservative within the former Progressive Conservative Party. Like I said you were quite confused.

Likewise, your implication that the Party lost a "progressive voice" due to Mackay's departure, which doesn't hold water, as during his tenure, Mackay had little influence on party social policy.......

social (conservative) policy? Is that your "progressive" again? Any progressive inclination MacKay might have had was, of course, stifled by Dear Leader! Imagine a Harper who could actually reach out to real progressives... to present a more inclusive view that spoke to a facet of that former PC party.

[cybercoma]

Harper hasn't exactly passed socially conservative policies. He's done things like killed the abortion case that CHA had against NB, but that was more inaction than anything else.

[Derek 2.0]

the discussion emphasis was on 'Progressive'... so you decided to lay down a mention/reference to a social conservative within the former Progressive Conservative Party. Like I said you were quite confused.

No, not confused at all.........the former Progressive Conservative party very much so comprised social conservatives and economic/fiscal (non-Keynesian) conservatives.........that is how Mulroney formed his two majority Governments in the 80s.

social (conservative) policy? Is that your "progressive" again? Any progressive inclination MacKay might have had was, of course, stifled by Dear Leader! Imagine a Harper who could actually reach out to real progressives... to present a more inclusive view that spoke to a facet of that former PC party.

Again, you're talking out of your arse.........Mackay, nor Harper for that mater, form said "inclusive view", as party policy is formed by the pan-party membership, as such, is a reflection of the Party, not one man.