Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

Based on silly ideological rationale like that, Fortier is nothing more than an unelected Con appointee...

Who cares who appointed Shapiro? He was approved by Parliament. Should I take Judge Rothstein's appointment at less than face value because he was appointed by Harper? Even though an all-party committee agreed he was a good choice?

Ridiculous rationale...come back when you can come up with a decent argument. Silly rabbit, politics aren't for kids!





Ethics commissioner to investigate Belinda too



Are you that naive that you think Harper is that altruistic? He couldn't care about representation in Vancouver. He wanted to fire a shot back across the Libs bow after they burned him with the Stronach defection last year. This had nothing to do with altruism, it was entirely about gathering more power for his minority government.

   

Anyone who knows me knows that I have zero time for the NDP. I consider them just a hair from their communist brothers, but Ed Broadbent I do admire. The man has never acted any way but with the utmost of professionalism and integrity. I may not ever support his political views but I would have liked to see him as ethics czar. I honestly don't think he would take any shit from either of the main parties!

I also hope the best for his wife and himself!

   

Ok this is something I like to hear. Ethics probe should include Stronach, NDP says. I think this is perfectly fair. You can't investigate just the Conservatives when the liberals have just done the same thing.

   

He was also found in contempt of parliament.

But I am satisfied that Ms Stronach is being looked into as well. Nothing will be found on either. It's a ridiculous inquiry, anyways.

   

[quote="RUEZ"]Now I'm just curious as to when they're going to start a probe into Belinda's defection. If I'm not mistaken she did the same thing. [url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060303/wl_canada_nm/canada_politics_emerson_col]Trade minister's defection to be probed: CBC[/url] Perhaps only in Canada can one person be scrutinized for doing exactly the same thing as his coleague.[/quote]

I beg to differ RUEZ. She at least sat as a representitive for her party after being elected to parliament. After being cut out of any decision on the direction for the future of the party. She did what she had to. She showed the the leadership of the party was flawed.

Emerson on the other hand turned after posing with fire & fury against the conservative durring the election. Got elected as a Liberal and then jumped ship to be with the party in power for his own personal gain. This without sitting a day as a representive for the seat for which he was elected. Is this not the same low morals that the conservative railed against? It shows a disrespect to the election prossess and canadians that cast a ballot for a Liberal seat in parliament

   

Unless you look at his past political past and discover that he, like Emerson, has experience with the issues that will be dealt with in his portfolio, and that his provincial counterparts have praised his appointment because of his experience and qualifications. In which case, he is a Con political appointee who is qualified for the post he has been assigned, and thus is better suited to it than Liberal appointees like Shapiro and Stronach who were given ethics-related posts even though they couldn't find ethics in a large-print dictionary.



And found in contempt of Parliament. And censured by Parliament. And criticized by members of every party in our Parliament. And had his dismissal/resignation called for by leaders of every political party except the one that appointed him. And of course we know how little regard that party and it's leaders have for Parliamentary procedure or ethics.


Or you could take it at more than face value and realize that even though Paul Martin nominated Rothstein for the SCC before the Parliamentary committee approved him, Harper put aside partisan rivalries to make sure the best qualified candidate was appointed to the high court. Amazing what can happen when you have an ethical bone in your body, Eh?!?!


And your viewpoint is too clouded by blind-subservience to ideology to counter his lack of argument. How sad for you.


"Ethics commissioner to investigate Belinda too "



If this article is correct, then Shapiro has clearly overstepped his authority. He is mandated to investigate MP's when their conduct might be in violation of Parliament's "Conflict of Interest Guidelines". However, if there are questions to the ethicality of an MP's conduct, then "The Members of Parliament Code of Conduct" takes precedence and he has no power to investigate or report on such matters. Possible violations of The MPCoC is investigated and enforced by an all-party committee composed of MP's and only of MP's. This dumbass has not only supplied more than enough cause to support his immediate dismissal, but has given Harper an unconflicted reason not to cooperate with his partisan politics.

Whatta Maroon!



I somehow doubt you have even the slightest familiarity with the meaning of altruism, and the context in which you mention it here backs-up that assumption. Harper was, and is, committed to forming the best possible government: to represent the widest cross-section of Canadians with the most qualified people. He's done a pretty good job of it, but it must really burn that he can convince a qualified Liberal to help him govern. Of course if you weren't a card carrying member of the Bitter Losers Party, you would have put aside partisan rhetoric to consider whether what you criticize isn't better than the pack of criminals for which you remain an apologist.

I'd thank you for making it so easy, but your lame attempt wasn't even worth a waking effort.

   

-Gun Plumber

How is it that Emerson is representing the people of Vancouver in Cabinet if the voice of the people of Vancouver is that of a Liberal, and the voice of Emerson has become that of a Conservative?

   

sometimes people elect the best person for the job, and the party he or she belongs to is secondary.

this is why stronach retained her seat even though she was elected from dif parties each time.

   

Police noticed 2 folks ine the process of emptying bags of manure and setting up signs infront of Emersons office, this morning.
I wonder of they remembered to leave their NDP membership cards behind. I aslo hope that they were phoned in by some concerned constituant who did not aprove of outsiders causing trouble in their neigborhood.

This is priceless.
The 2 arrested were brothers who live in New Westminister. They are not even constituants of Emerson.
We need them to talk and tell us who put them up to this. Maybe I'll make a complaint to Ethics poodle, Shapero.

   

I agree. If all he was going to to do was go to another party right off the bat, why did he not just run as a conservative? Is it possibly because he felt that a Con would not win a seat in that riding? So he took one of the parties that had the better chance of winning? So, instead of telling the people of his constituents what he really felt he made up what he thought they wanted to hear. That is bullshit, plain and simple. He says that if the libs would have won he wouldnt have shifted to a new party....of course he wouldnt have, he would have had the position of power where he wanted to be.

And that is the point of all this, he portrays himself one way to everyone and turns around and shows his true colors. Its shit that is bull. That is all. If truly he thinks he did the right thing and there wont be any problems, then what is the problem with having a byelection? Why are all the cons so opposed to it? I dont get it.

   

I guess you're right, Harper lacks any selflessness, but in case you Don't know what altrusim means, here's the definition...

Altruism

Personally, I don't care that Emerson switched parties.

But the total hypocrisy that Harper has shown is what rankles. He bitched and moaned last year (during the election too) about accountability then does some backroom deal and gets a prominent Lib to switch sides.




I am an apologist? At least I have the balls to criticize my leader not be a purple kool-aid drinker like most of the Cons on this site...if the Libs had won the election and gotten some prominent Tory to cross the floor, you whiners would still be bitching about it!




Then why did you even bother replying?

   

Then he should have no problem running in a by-election. A by-election would prove that the people of Vancouver still have confidence in him.

Nextly, if this were a system wherest everyone voted for individuals nothing would get done and many individuals would have problems advertising their platforms. People should vote for the party, since it is the party's platform by wich a candidate will represent the people.

   

Be so kind as to:

a. Establish the relevance of the question to the quote,
b. Pose a specific question that warrants a specific answer,
c. Pose the question in some commonly-used form of English, so that I can decipher what it is you are asking (the question mark at the end is the only reference I could see that might indicate you had posed a question).

   

i totally agree that he ought to run in a by-election.

i said "sometimes". i never said that everyone votes for the candidate only.
i don't think that nothing would get done in parliament, everyone has an opinion about whatever motions are put forth.
the biggest problem IMO with parties is being required by the party to vote a certain way. this is BS.

   

Ooooo, I got an idea, how about we get all people to not run with any affiliation, then once each person in each riding win, the party leaders pick each of the playe....err the candidates to thier party. They could draw straws to see who goes first and then go clockwise around the parliment! Its like being back in school again! That way no one has to switch sides, they would be CHOSEN by the parties! I think it would be great fun. Spice it up a little!

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next