Free Advice to Peter MacKay

Ricki Bobbi · October 22, 2006

If you want to talk about sexism, this thread title is more sexist than Peter's remarks. Nobody seems too put out by it, and the only reason certain people are crying foul over,"You have her", is because of politics, plain and simple.

Because those of us responding to the cries of foul by the anti-harperistas aren't whiny little biotches. :lol:

gerryhatrick · October 22, 2006

If you want to talk about sexism, this thread title is more sexist than Peter's remarks. Nobody seems too put out by it, and the only reason certain people are crying foul over,"You have her", is because of politics, plain and simple.

Because those of us responding to the cries of foul by the anti-harperistas aren't whiny little biotches.

How about just admitting that he called her a dog....admitting the truth that is as plain as the nose on your face and we can all move on and forget the whole thing!

Or are we to anti-harper and pro-harper to ever allow you to agree on something as plain and simple as that?

Ricki Bobbi · October 22, 2006

How about just admitting that he called her a dog....admitting the truth that is as plain as the nose on your face and we can all move on and forget the whole thing!
Or are we to anti-harper and pro-harper to ever allow you to agree on something as plain and simple as that?

Because he didn't call her that. Even you had to propose some misappropriate analogy to try and make the case.

You sir, are far too anti-Harper to admit how weak your analogy is.

betsy · October 22, 2006

Anyway, talk about hypocrisy.

If Belinda is so critical of Mckay....and calling him and the Conservative Party, "sexist"....

...what I want to know is.....

What the heck is Belinda doing, letting herself become the mistress of a married man?

Why is she pandering to this married guy's sexist attitude towards women?

Nice role model she is for women and girls eh?

Figleaf · October 22, 2006

...
What the heck is Belinda doing, letting herself become the mistress of a married man?

Why is she pandering to this married guy's sexist attitude towards women?

Nice role model she is for women and girls eh?

Now THAT is a valid criticism. Well put.'

belinda emerson · October 22, 2006

I can't get worked up about MacKay calling Stronach a dog. His betrayal of David Orchard revealed far more about his ethics and integrity.

Ricki Bobbi · October 22, 2006

I can't get worked up about MacKay calling Stronach a dog. His betrayal of David Orchard revealed far more about his ethics and integrity.

Fair enough....

RB · October 23, 2006

This "dog" comment is rather embarrassing

- first you put those in power thinking they are aware of something called diplomacy, respect, being articulate and tactful in thinking and speaking, and spilling out aloud

- anyway Pete must still be a politician to some extent, the common phase used for the women regularly are "bitch" or "ex-bitches" but Pete tried to calm the usage to "dog" what diplomacy!!

what finesse!

Ladyjen · October 23, 2006

A man who cannot handle the end of a relationship without this kind of nastiness is not fit for office.
That is a silly thing to say. It is no better than saying a man who does not hounour his marriage vows (i.e. cheats) is not fit for office.

A politician who cheats on his wife will cheat on you (the taxpayer) without batting an eyelash. Dishonesty is dishonesty no matter what form it takes or who is being betrayed.

gerryhatrick · October 23, 2006

How about just admitting that he called her a dog....admitting the truth that is as plain as the nose on your face and we can all move on and forget the whole thing!
Or are we to anti-harper and pro-harper to ever allow you to agree on something as plain and simple as that?

Because he didn't call her that. Even you had to propose some misappropriate analogy to try and make the case.

You sir, are far too anti-Harper to admit how weak your analogy is.

I'm putting out analogies because I thought you seriously didn't understand the situation.

Your refusal to acknowledge or answer to them has demonstrated to me that you're just supporting Mackay and playing dumb on the issue for partisan reasons.

Calling me anti-Harper is ironic. You won't admit the simple truth of Mackays words that all of Canada realizes for reasons of partisan bias. Be warned, an inability to embrace reality is the downfall of many governments. What Mackey and you are denying is accepted in this nation as reality. Nobody doubts that what it is reported he said.

The media puts the word "alledged" in front of it becuase they're afraid of this government!

betsy · October 23, 2006

A man who cannot handle the end of a relationship without this kind of nastiness is not fit for office.
That is a silly thing to say. It is no better than saying a man who does not hounour his marriage vows (i.e. cheats) is not fit for office.

A politician who cheats on his wife will cheat on you (the taxpayer) without batting an eyelash. Dishonesty is dishonesty no matter what form it takes or who is being betrayed.

What about a woman politician committing adultery with another woman's husband? Isn't she a party to cheating too? What someone would call..."morally-bereft individual?"

And what if this said woman politician is using the fight for women's rights as a convenient tool? Isn't she only hurting the movement....by trying to cover her own a**? In other words, she's damning the credibility of the movement! For what? Self-interest! For the moment! Just to get to McKay! An EX-LOVER!

To smear the Conservative government!

Gee...this self-absorption and opportunistic sleaziness is getting out of hand, don't you think so?

betsy · October 23, 2006

Do we want a hollywood bimbo sitting in parliament?

As a citizen I am appalled at the way our Commons had turn into a soap opera box. Competeing with "As The World Turns!" Yeah....my head is turning alright!

Time and taxpayers money being squandered over an ex-couple's sordid love affair that went sour...

As a woman, I am incensed as to how an important issue related to womens' rights is being used...calously cheapened...by this woman MP!

For her to drag this on....over what she now is insisting as sexist attitude of a whole political party....well isn't that just ridiculous?

What is she on about? She's been an avid supporter and an enthusiastic participant of sexism anyway, isn't she?

Shakeyhands · October 23, 2006

I'll remind everyone that it wasn't Ms Stronach that started all of this, her personal life is really non of any of our business and we wouldn't even be discussing this without Petey boy shooting off his mouth and saying something so outrageous.

Figleaf · October 23, 2006

I can't get worked up about MacKay calling Stronach a dog. His betrayal of David Orchard revealed far more about his ethics and integrity.

And now by pretending that he didn't make a silly almost-meaningless comment that everyone knows he did make has further undermined his credibility. It shows a disregard for truth far more troubling that mere ungentlemanliness toward his ex g/f.

M.Dancer · October 23, 2006

Do we want a hollywood bimbo sitting in parliament?

No but why bring Rona into this>

scribblet · October 23, 2006

Sheez, you'd think there would be more important things to discuss in Parliament, and BTW, did Alexa M. ever apologize to Stockwell Day for calling him a cockroach ?

jefferiah · October 23, 2006

We wouldnt be discussing this if Stronach never made such a big deal over an insult and dragged all women into it by saying it was insulting to women. Correction=it was an insult to one woman, Miss Stronach. I dont think it was right of him to say. I think he should apoloigize. But I also think Stronach may have proved herself to be a little canine by turning it into a smear campaign against the Tories and saying that it reflects their view of women. That's preposterous. My assertion....Stronach is not in the least offended, but rather delighted (as are the whole liberal party) with something they can exploit to libel the Tories with.

Figleaf · October 23, 2006

The 'dog' issue would have sunk quickly into obscurity if Mackay hadn't tried to weasel out of it.

Think how much better off he'd have been to say 'I guess i'm still a little raw over how that relationship ended, and I let Mr. McGuinty's shot bother me more than it should have. I apologize to Belinda for my implication.'

He'd have come out looking like a great guy. Instead, his real instincts led him to weasel.

M.Dancer · October 23, 2006

We wouldnt be discussing this if Stronach never made such a big deal over an insult and dragged all women into it by saying it was insulting to women. Correction=it was an insult to one woman, Miss Stronach. I dont think it was right of him to say. I think he should apoloigize. But I also think Stronach may have proved herself to be a little canine by turning it into a smear campaign against the Tories and saying that it reflects their view of women. That's preposterous. My assertion....Stronach is not in the least offended, but rather delighted (as are the whole liberal party) with something they can exploit to libel the Tories with.

I suppose if the ....ahem....."tories" weren't running like trained lap dogs to Mackay's heel to protect him....people would think so......

betsy · October 23, 2006

I'll remind everyone that it wasn't Ms Stronach that started all of this, her personal life is really non of any of our business and we wouldn't even be discussing this without Petey boy shooting off his mouth and saying something so outrageous.

I know.

It would've been simpler if Stronach had not grabbed this opportunity to shoot down the whole Conservative Party...trying to paint everyone in that party as "sexist."

We could've just said that McKay acted irresponsibly...or even sexist....

But to smear everyone? C'mon. Why would she get off that easily. I guess some could look the other way, being transparent that she is with her motive here.

She is raking the ground...so she better expect to get dusted.

betsy · October 23, 2006

I can't get worked up about MacKay calling Stronach a dog. His betrayal of David Orchard revealed far more about his ethics and integrity.

And now by pretending that he didn't make a silly almost-meaningless comment that everyone knows he did make has further undermined his credibility. It shows a disregard for truth far more troubling that mere ungentlemanliness toward his ex g/f.

Belinda is showing a disregard for truth...by twisting this incident...to smear a whole party.

betsy · October 23, 2006

We wouldnt be discussing this if Stronach never made such a big deal over an insult and dragged all women into it by saying it was insulting to women. Correction=it was an insult to one woman, Miss Stronach. I dont think it was right of him to say. I think he should apoloigize. But I also think Stronach may have proved herself to be a little canine by turning it into a smear campaign against the Tories and saying that it reflects their view of women. That's preposterous. My assertion....Stronach is not in the least offended, but rather delighted (as are the whole liberal party) with something they can exploit to libel the Tories with.

Oh yes.

If what her biographer said was true...she is in her glory now with all this attention!

betsy · October 23, 2006

The 'dog' issue would have sunk quickly into obscurity if Mackay hadn't tried to weasel out of it.
Think how much better off he'd have been to say 'I guess i'm still a little raw over how that relationship ended, and I let Mr. McGuinty's shot bother me more than it should have. I apologize to Belinda for my implication.'

He'd have come out looking like a great guy. Instead, his real instincts led him to weasel.

What politician did not try to weasel out of errors, stupidity, negligence...or crime?

The "dog" issue would not have sunk into obscurity...even if McKay had apologised. It will come up again...resurrected....sometime around election time.

It would've been better off if Belinda opted for the classy act...and instead gave a snide comment at the Commons, along the line of, "Okay Pete, I have no wish to pry an insincere apology from you...no matter how hurt I am with your ungentlemanly and below-the belt insult. I refuse to stoop to your level and would rather we all move on to more important issues. "

Imagine how beautifully that would've played to the public? The media will not let that go to obscurity! She'll be the feminists poster girl!

But oh no...she just had to use this opportunity to ridiculously paint the whole Tory as a one big sexist bunch.

She voluntarily traded a dignified stance for a cheap shot. Should I then assume that her natural instinct had led her to the cheap shot ...considering the other scandal with a married man?

Shakeyhands · October 23, 2006

I'll remind everyone that it wasn't Ms Stronach that started all of this, her personal life is really non of any of our business and we wouldn't even be discussing this without Petey boy shooting off his mouth and saying something so outrageous.

I know.

It would've been simpler if Stronach had not grabbed this opportunity to shoot down the whole Conservative Party...trying to paint everyone in that party as "sexist."

We could've just said that McKay acted irresponsibly...or even sexist....

But to smear everyone? C'mon. Why would she get off that easily. I guess some could look the other way, being transparent that she is with her motive here.

She is raking the ground...so she better expect to get dusted.

But Betsy, in your blind rush to defame Belinda you are forgetting that by refusing to make McKay apologize and put this to bed, and basically supporting him with inaction and silence, it DOES reflect on the party as a whole. This is a Minister with one of the most senior portfolio's. I suppose this kind of thing would fly in say Afghanistan... but come on.

betsy · October 23, 2006

I'll remind everyone that it wasn't Ms Stronach that started all of this, her personal life is really non of any of our business and we wouldn't even be discussing this without Petey boy shooting off his mouth and saying something so outrageous.

I know.

It would've been simpler if Stronach had not grabbed this opportunity to shoot down the whole Conservative Party...trying to paint everyone in that party as "sexist."

We could've just said that McKay acted irresponsibly...or even sexist....

But to smear everyone? C'mon. Why would she get off that easily. I guess some could look the other way, being transparent that she is with her motive here.

She is raking the ground...so she better expect to get dusted.

But Betsy, in your blind rush to defame Belinda you are forgetting that by refusing to make McKay apologize and put this to bed, and basically supporting him with inaction and silence, it DOES reflect on the party as a whole. This is a Minister with one of the most senior portfolio's. I suppose this kind of thing would fly in say Afghanistan... but come on.

First of all, an apology should be sincere in order for it to count.

Simply prying an apology from anyone by putting a gun to his head or by threats...is not an apology. For all you know, he's got his fingers crossed while mouthing off what seems like an apology. :lol:

Miliken said it was not in the transcript. And although it may've been implied when he answered "you have her," the implication is as you can see...open to debate. Just check out the debates here!

If McKay refuses to admit to any wrongdoing and refuses to give an apology...then that's up to him. Belinda and McKay have had a personal relationship, which obviously spilled over to the debate in Commons. That soured personal relationship goes into equation, although it badly reflected on McKay.

Harper should just admonish him not to let personal matters get the better of him. Who can say that that did not happen between Harper and McKay behind closed doors?