August1991 Posted May 19, 2005 Report Share Posted May 19, 2005 (edited) Stronach decided that it was boring to be an ordinary MP (true), and she wanted to be a high roller. She was willing to take the chance the Liberals might fail, at least temporarily. THe odds are in her favour, given the last half century of largely Liberal rule."Willing to take a chance?"No. I think the Liberals had Cadman in the bag awhile ago. To preserve his integrity, they allowed him to appear to make his decision at the last minute. I don't know Cadman but I suspect there's nothing material for him. He may well be motivated by the fact that he doesn't really like Harper and he probably genuinely thinks he's doing the right thing. Stronach (can I say that now because "Belinda" is irritating?) came on side when the PMO could say the vote would be won. Peterson was roped in to make the story believable - hell, there was probably some truth to the story. Grewal? If you listen to the conversation, it's clear that Murphy was looking for an insurance policy - but an important one. (I'd be looking for insurance if I only had the Speaker's vote.) ---- Read John Crosbie's No Holds Barred for a bare-all description of a similar one-vote minority situation in Newfoundland politics involving Frank Moores, Joey Smallwood and Clive Wells. Ah, Clyde Wells. Stephen Harper is the Clyde Wells of Canada. They even look the same - piercing blue eyes and dark hair. But Clyde Wells was (is still I hope) from Newfoundland and Stephen Harper is from Calgary. Canada. ---- Clive and Clyde. Oups. Corrected. Edited May 19, 2005 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
takeanumber Posted May 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2005 QUOTE(takeanumber @ May 19 2005, 11:50 AM)QUOTE And tell me how and why some petty name calling from a few no-name Conservatives is bigger news than her actual defection? That petty name calling cost the Conservatives MANY votes amongst the people you guys needed the most: Ontario women. Bullshit. Talk to Ontario women much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortunata Posted May 19, 2005 Report Share Posted May 19, 2005 McKay did what he did for the sake of the party, not for personal gain. Sure he did. That's what he says. It is indisputable that the PCs were going nowhere, except into bankruptcyf, and that in the very near future. The party was going to be dead within a year. He had no choice whatever but to mend fences with the Alliance/Reform. Of course it's different when your side does it. Stronach says she did it for the COUNTRY (bigger than a party), not for personal gain. Drivel. She says that partisanship is destroying the country. And somehow her betraying her party and those people who voted for her is going to do something to tone down partisanship? What about those people that voted for McKay. Just how is that different again? She knows that there is a real danger that: 1) her constituents won't vote her back in because of her actions, 2) that the Cons could win and she would be a backbencher opposition member,No danger of the latter. If Stronach's Liberals lose the next electioni she will quit - unless it is a shaky minority where she thinks she has a real chance of getting the limo back soon. Stronach decided that it was boring to be an ordinary MP (true), and she wanted to be a high roller. She was willing to take the chance the Liberals might fail, at least temporarily. THe odds are in her favour, given the last half century of largely Liberal rule. Boy, I wish I were a clairvoyant like you are! Your ability to know what is in people's minds is truly amazing. Even without the corruption, kickbacks and racketteering this government is on wobbly legs. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That statement, not withstanding that you are nothing but a CPC apologist, I can agree on. It doesn't help that Harper is nothing but an opportunist and is out for nothing but his own personal power. The country be damned! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted May 19, 2005 Report Share Posted May 19, 2005 I would agree with you, August, in the main. I don.t think there was any real doubt about Cadman. If the vote were to be close, he would not want to go down in history as the one who brought us into the nightmare election that would have followed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 If anyone has the fortitude to read through this thread, I'm sure we'd find a few hypocritical posts. Give credit for the idea to concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 If anyone has the fortitude to read through this thread, I'm sure we'd find a few hypocritical posts.Including yourself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 If anyone has the fortitude to read through this thread, I'm sure we'd find a few hypocritical posts.Including yourself? I cringe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 If anyone has the fortitude to read through this thread, I'm sure we'd find a few hypocritical posts. Of Liberals condoning switcheroos or Conservatives condemning them. I think many of us CPC supporters have come out against this Emerson move. You got to call it as it is. A unprincipaled opportunist is an unprincipaled opportunist whether they wear blue or red at the end of the day. The problem more with the left that were ok with Belinda's defection because she played the oppressed woman in a party ran by men card. If you were ok with Belinda, you must support David too. He's just an oppressed conservative in a party of socialists. I'm not ok with either... When I first saw this move up to the top of the 'Federal Politics' forum I nearly jumped thinking this was a new thread and Belinda actually switched back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 If anyone has the fortitude to read through this thread, I'm sure we'd find a few hypocritical posts. Of Liberals condoning switcheroos or Conservatives condemning them. I think many of us CPC supporters have come out against this Emerson move. You got to call it as it is. A unprincipaled opportunist is an unprincipaled opportunist whether they wear blue or red at the end of the day. The problem more with the left that were ok with Belinda's defection because she played the oppressed woman in a party ran by men card. If you were ok with Belinda, you must support David too. He's just an oppressed conservative in a party of socialists. I'm not ok with either... When I first saw this move up to the top of the 'Federal Politics' forum I nearly jumped thinking this was a new thread and Belinda actually switched back. So did I... I think you're right though geoffrey... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 My highlites of this thread: I think she's a political prostitute. I miss Reagan Brison was a political whore for defecting when he did, his excuses at the time sounded forced. He wanted power, and I sense the same from Stronach. - Argus . I would not call Belinda Stronach particularly intelligent or succesful - Argus "complexity is not a word I associate with Belinda Stronach". - Harper It's funny how the Cons demonstrated Stronach's point: She's been called a whore, a dipstick and effectively a stupid person, each by different conservatives.takeanumber And the alltime best by Black Dog 'know, it just struck me how sordid this whole thing is. First Peter screwed Joe to get with Stephen. Then Belinda and Peter started screwing each other. Meanwhile, Stephen and Gilles got together in hopes of screwing Paul but then Belinda turned around and screwed both Peter and Stephen by jumping into bed with Paul. And, in the end, we're all screwed. biggrin.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 And the alltime best by Black Dog'know, it just struck me how sordid this whole thing is. First Peter screwed Joe to get with Stephen. Then Belinda and Peter started screwing each other. Meanwhile, Stephen and Gilles got together in hopes of screwing Paul but then Belinda turned around and screwed both Peter and Stephen by jumping into bed with Paul. And, in the end, we're all screwed. biggrin.gif Pure brilliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 My highlites of this thread:I think she's a political prostitute. I miss Reagan Brison was a political whore for defecting when he did, his excuses at the time sounded forced. He wanted power, and I sense the same from Stronach. - Argus . I would not call Belinda Stronach particularly intelligent or succesful - Argus "complexity is not a word I associate with Belinda Stronach". - Harper It's funny how the Cons demonstrated Stronach's point: She's been called a whore, a dipstick and effectively a stupid person, each by different conservatives.takeanumber And the alltime best by Black Dog 'know, it just struck me how sordid this whole thing is. First Peter screwed Joe to get with Stephen. Then Belinda and Peter started screwing each other. Meanwhile, Stephen and Gilles got together in hopes of screwing Paul but then Belinda turned around and screwed both Peter and Stephen by jumping into bed with Paul. And, in the end, we're all screwed. biggrin.gif The left has a lot of time to do research now that the purse-strings aren't in the public hand, eh newbie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I miss Reagan Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 I think she's a political prostitute. I miss Reagan I said that eh? Ya well I still think she is and I think Emerson is too. If I was a voter in his riding I'd be livid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Miss Trudeau Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 The left has a lot of time to do research now that the purse-strings aren't in the public hand, eh newbie? If you cared to read the forum rules, you'd see that insulting entire groups of people based on your narrow stereotypes is explicitly prohibited. But more to the point, I don't see why you insist on throwing out these pointless and inflammatory comments constantly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 The left has a lot of time to do research now that the purse-strings aren't in the public hand, eh newbie? If you cared to read the forum rules, you'd see that insulting entire groups of people based on your narrow stereotypes is explicitly prohibited. But more to the point, I don't see why you insist on throwing out these pointless and inflammatory comments constantly. Oh come on IMT I am not insulting the left in a vile way, just making a little joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I miss Reagan Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 T If you cared to read the forum rules, you'd see that insulting entire groups of people based on your narrow stereotypes is explicitly prohibited. But more to the point, I don't see why you insist on throwing out these pointless and inflammatory comments constantly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Quit being such a whiney little biotch IMT. Your guys lost. Face facts, you gotta get used to being in opposition. The left has a lot of time to do research now that the purse-strings aren't in the public hand, eh newbie? If you cared to read the forum rules, you'd see that insulting entire groups of people based on your narrow stereotypes is explicitly prohibited. But more to the point, I don't see why you insist on throwing out these pointless and inflammatory comments constantly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbie Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Shoop, for the record, I'm lovin' this opposition thing. Now Stevie has to watch his back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Me too Newb's.. no sense us getting used to it though. Glad to see our resident Conservative supporters are calling the Emerson affair what it is, and not blindly following. I suppoose after this and Fortier we can all expect you to Stand Up for Canada and vote for the Liberals in 18 months, if only for the sake of honesty and integrety of course..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Me too Newb's.. no sense us getting used to it though.Glad to see our resident Conservative supporters are calling the Emerson affair what it is, and not blindly following. I suppoose after this and Fortier we can all expect you to Stand Up for Canada and vote for the Liberals in 18 months, if only for the sake of honesty and integrety of course..... I have issues with Emerson's move but I will evaluate the entire Harper term on what happend during the entire Harper term. If this is the only mistake he makes then he is OK and still better than the Libs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Me too Newb's.. no sense us getting used to it though. Glad to see our resident Conservative supporters are calling the Emerson affair what it is, and not blindly following. I suppoose after this and Fortier we can all expect you to Stand Up for Canada and vote for the Liberals in 18 months, if only for the sake of honesty and integrety of course..... I have issues with Emerson's move but I will evaluate the entire Harper term on what happend during the entire Harper term. If this is the only mistake he makes then he is OK and still better than the Libs. I'm running independant, I've lost all faith in the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Fair enough. Get used to being in opposition ... y'all will probably be there for a while! Seriously though, it appears that the little tempest in a teapot over Emerson is going to blow over. This story about the hockey gambling ring in New Jersey may push it off the headlines. (Gretzky's wife, tsk tsk.) Shoop, for the record, I'm lovin' this opposition thing. Now Stevie has to watch his back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Seriously though, it appears that the little tempest in a teapot over Emerson is going to blow over. This story about the hockey gambling ring in New Jersey may push it off the headlines. (Gretzky's wife, tsk tsk.)The story itself will disappear from the headlines, however, it has damaged Harper's reputation and will affect his credibility in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.