Free Advice to Peter MacKay

[jdobbin]

For example Mackay could say he believed the liberal asked about his doll and he responded go ask her you now have her. Why not just see this for what it is a sad attempt by a sad party to try to get something on an honest and fair government.

That comment you made would also have been sexist and boorish.

Mackay would have been better off to just say it was inappropriate and that he regreted it.

I've listened a few times and I hear the same thing over and over. And were it only the Liberals saying that it was MacKay, you might have point. But it has been all opposition parties saying they saw and heard him.

[jdobbin]

Had ther been no personal history between these two I might agree. When you have jumped in the sack with someone, Parliamentary rules no longer apply.

So it would be okay for Stronach to say what a small man MacKay has become and always has been. That would be okay?

[Wilber]

How is he acting sexist? He insulted his exgf, something many people do and are not labelled as sexist. Although it was boorish, calling him and especially the conservative party sexist is just asinine.

Other Conservatives have made the sexist remarks and have not faced any caucus rebukes.

MacKay himself was acting like a boor and the remark is sexist in an of itself because it is generally used as a comment on how a woman looks.

Dog (the word he didn't say) is also used to descibe anthing that doesn't perform.

[jdobbin]

Dog (the word he didn't say) is also used to descibe anthing that doesn't perform.

Or working like a dog.

If you want a list of things associated with dogs, they run the gamut.

Seems even the National Post believes he said what he said.

I think people have formed their opinion of what he meant also. We'll see how it plays out.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Seems even the National Post believes he said what he said.

I think people have formed their opinion of what he meant also. We'll see how it plays out.

Evidence?

What exactly was it that he said, in your view.

Tempest in a teapot. This is a story that will be long gone by Monday. If the Conservatives didn't have an annoucement planned for Monday before this they sure have now or are working on it at least.

[B. Max]

The first and most important is respect. Never let anyone hear you say a disrespectful thing about an ex girlfriend

The second is to have a third just in case one and two find out about one an other. A lesson from my miss spent youth.

[sideshow]

Well i dont support the Conservatives, but really, this whole thing is blown out of proportion. McKay made an offhand stupid remark-big friggin deal. Everyone pulls a boner now and again-it shows the guy is just human like the rest of us. If i had a nickel for every dumb thing ive heard members of ALL the political parties say, i would buy mexico and retire.

[betsy]

The journalists are saying that the House of Commons had gotten worse. That the MPs on both sides are like children.

[Wilber]

Had ther been no personal history between these two I might agree. When you have jumped in the sack with someone, Parliamentary rules no longer apply.

So it would be okay for Stronach to say what a small man MacKay has become and always has been. That would be okay?

Absolutely.

[Ricki Bobbi]

So it would be okay for Stronach to say what a small man MacKay has become and always has been. That would be okay?

Guaranteed you wouldn't hear the outrage from the Liberal woman's caucus, you or any of the other anti-Harperistas on this board who have kept at this story even thought it isn't news anymore...

[jdobbin]

Absolutely.

Probably better that she didn't. I can imagine what sort of names he would have called her then.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Probably better that she didn't. I can imagine what sort of names he would have called her then.

Exactly. Opposition MPs must be treated with respect and dignity by Conservative MPs at all times. But if it is a Conservative MP it's fair game. That is what you are saying, isn't it?

[Wilber]

Absolutely.

Probably better that she didn't. I can imagine what sort of names he would have called her then.

I disagree, a comback like that would score a lot of points and likely shut him up before he dug himself a bigger hole.

[Figleaf]

Hiding behind the fact that it wasn't written in the record of Hansard is a weak excuse..

It's not written down, the speaker didn't hear it, the clerks went over the audio record carefully and didn't hear it either.

Mackay's comment is quite audible in the CPAC recording.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Mackay's comment is quite audible in the CPAC recording.

Read the thread. That's been dealt with about five times already. What is 'clearly' audible is ... "you already have her."

[Figleaf]

Mackay's comment is quite audible in the CPAC recording.

Read the thread. That's been dealt with about five times already. What is 'clearly' audible is ... "you already have her."

McGinty's comment is quite audible too.

[Figleaf]

Gee, that would be like smearing

a whole party based on something one prominent member said. Where have you heard that before?

Refresh my memory please. Who?

You can't guess?

No. I can't think of anyone...either from the NDP or Conservatives.

So whom are you refrring to? And what incident?

Search your memory, I'm sure it will come to you.

[Figleaf]

People may try to remember Trudeau's foray with improper language. They even made a poem about it

"Sing a song of fuddle duttle,

Trudeau's found a broad to cuddle,

NDP just stopped and stared,

Stanfield crapped his underwear,

All the world is in a muddle.

All because of fuddle duddle"

Now if my memory does not fail me, Trudeau never apologised for this or ever even acknowledged what he really said. This whole issue is more a political tool then anything, and MacKay can easily turn this back on the Libs. So I think we will just wait and see. If he really just wants to defuse it, he may well apologise, but not admit to ever having said it. Since it is not even on the record of being said and there are only a few who are saying he did. It really makes you wonder. Just as the voters will wonder as well. The Libs will soon realize the more you make people look at the CPC the more they are inclined to support them.

There is a difference between general swearing and taking a cheapshot AT someone else.

[gerryhatrick]

Mackay's comment is quite audible in the CPAC recording.

Read the thread. That's been dealt with about five times already. What is 'clearly' audible is ... "you already have her."

Did you hear the tape? Are you telling this forum you could not hear the "what about your dog" question that was asked of MacKay immediately before he answers "you already have her"?

This lawyers defense is beautiful. I hope MacKay never apologizes and keeps parroting "read the Hansard". It demonstrates to Canadians what kind of man he is and what kind of party it is that stands behind that kind of thing. If it's not on the record, they didn't do it!!

[Ricki Bobbi]

Did you hear the tape? Are you telling this forum you could not hear the "what about your dog" question that was asked of MacKay immediately before he answers "you already have her"?

This lawyers defense is beautiful. I hope MacKay never apologizes and keeps parroting "read the Hansard". It demonstrates to Canadians what kind of man he is and what kind of party it is that stands behind that kind of thing. If it's not on the record, they didn't do it!!

Tiresome Gerry. If you are going to say the same thing over and over and over and over you can't really expect me to do any different.

Your analogy is deceitful. It goes to show that Liberals don't really get it. Instead of focusing on their internal problems they try and make a mountain out of a molehill.

[Figleaf]

Well i dont support the Conservatives, but really, this whole thing is blown out of proportion. McKay made an offhand stupid remark-big friggin deal. Everyone pulls a boner now and again-it shows the guy is just human like the rest of us. If i had a nickel for every dumb thing ive heard members of ALL the political parties say, i would buy mexico and retire.

I would agree with you, insulting Belinda is a very small transgression. What is much more problematic is Mackay's weaseling dishonesty in light of being caught. That demonstrates that his ethics are 'convenient' at best, and serves to re-inforce his already well-known truth-deficient conduct.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I would agree with you, insulting Belinda is a very small transgression. What is much more problematic is Mackay's weaseling dishonesty in light of being caught. That demonstrates that his ethics are 'convenient' at best, and serves to re-inforce his already well-known truth-deficient conduct.

Weasling dishonesty?

He didn't call her a dog. Any attempts to draw the analogy are weak and strained.

Tempest in a teapot.

Coonservative majority in the spring!

[Figleaf]

I would agree with you, insulting Belinda is a very small transgression. What is much more problematic is Mackay's weaseling dishonesty in light of being caught. That demonstrates that his ethics are 'convenient' at best, and serves to re-inforce his already well-known truth-deficient conduct.

Weasling dishonesty?

He didn't call her a dog. Any attempts to draw the analogy are weak and strained.

Tempest in a teapot.

Coonservative majority in the spring!

Conservative majority? You're dreaming in technicolor.

Weaseling dishonesty? Yes. What else would you call his attempt to deny the exchange?

[Ricki Bobbi]

Conservative majority? You're dreaming in technicolor.

Weaseling dishonesty? Yes. What else would you call his attempt to deny the exchange?

Dreaming in technicolor because?

He denied calling her a dog. He never called her a dog.

Your misrepresenting what he denied is clearly 'weaseling dishonesty' if you are going to hold yourself to the same standard you are trying to hold Peter MacKay to.

[gerryhatrick]

I would agree with you, insulting Belinda is a very small transgression. What is much more problematic is Mackay's weaseling dishonesty in light of being caught. That demonstrates that his ethics are 'convenient' at best, and serves to re-inforce his already well-known truth-deficient conduct.

Weasling dishonesty?

He didn't call her a dog. Any attempts to draw the analogy are weak and strained.

Tempest in a teapot.

Coonservative majority in the spring!

Yeah, Coonservative.

Attempts to deny that MacKay called Stonach a dog are what's weak and strained. And deceitful.

Nobody can explain the position you hold. It's a lawyers position apparently....because his words are not on the Hansard they didn't happen.

I've heard the tape. This line of argument makes you look more than willing to ignore an obvious truth.

Figleaf is absolutely correct.....it was a small transgression. It was really nothing that a quick contrite apology wouldn't have ended on the spot. It's the weaseling dishonesty that's transpired since that really makes it so much worse. Doing it was bad enough, lying about it is worse.

edit:

This is quite insightful Ricki. You said:

He denied calling her a dog. He never called her a dog.

That reads as if you're saying he denied it, ERGO he didn't do it.