Previous  1  2  3  4

Great so we've established that you can look-up definitions, even if you have a problem reading and/or understanding them. There was nothing selfless or altruistic in Harper accepting Emerson's offer to join his government. Nor was it meant to appear selfless or altruistic; nor did I imply or state that it was, or appeared to be, selfless or altruistic. Harper accepted Emerson's offer to: bring benefit to himself, his party and his government. At least you can say of the Harper/Emerson debate that Harper didn't spend two and a half weeks wooing an unskilled, unqualified, inexperienced, cry-babying bimbo in order to have an extra hand to win an unpopular vote. And Emerson can brag that his loyalty did not come for the price of being assigned a portfolio which the Liberal Party had a habit of filling with ethically-clueless Bimbos.


Which, of course, is in no way contadicted by the fact that you continue to post on this subject and/or reply to other's posts on this subject.


Harper never said that he wouldn't accept an MP from another party switching to his party, but he did say he wouldn't encourage it. Since Emerson came to Harper with the offer to switch sides, I fail to see where your accusation of 'hypocrisy' is accurate. I think what really rankles you is that Harper got someone with real value for his government, whereas the kind of Conservatives who switch to the LPC are either of the bimbo variety or those who use their sexual-orientation to delay an appointment with insignificance. Want me to post a link for a definition of hypocrisy or do you want to look it up yourself?


Oh puhleeez! Are you so arrogant as to equate Emerson's defection with wanton lawbreaking and wormlike behavior which were the hallmarks of the federal Liberal party? Next you'll be telling us that your party's opposition status is a ballot error and has nothing to do with Canadians being fed-up with the way the LPC abused their power to pervert Parliamentary government, fill their pockets with stolen government funds, factionalize our society in ever smaller and more bitter pieces and in general hoist their middle finger at everything our government, our people and our country can, and do, stand for?



You are, as long as you try to make an issue out the Emerson or Fortier appointments (which are both legal and ethical) as a means of deflecting attention from the maldroit manner in which the former Liberal governments engaged in criminal malfeasance and arrogantly subverted the purpose of government at every opportunity.


And which leader would that be? The one that resigned but wants to remain co-leader (Martin), or the one who is co-leader but has stated he doesn't want to contest for sole leadership (Graham)? Let's face facts here buds, you can't criticize what doesn't exist (i.e., Liberal leadership). Truth is, being recognized as the leader of the LPC is nothing if not an invitation for indictment. Guess that explains why no-one wants to be THE leader of the Liberals.

Truth be told, we prefer the blue kool-aid. The purple kool-aid has too much of the bitter red mixed into it.


But the fact is the Lib's lost. And so we're treated to their bleating about the Tory's doing something the Lib's have done many times, and whining that when the Tory's do it, it suddenly becomes unethical and unacceptable. Have you found the definition of hypocrisy yet?




Because I was half-way between awakedness and sleep, and wanting for something to do I decided that replying to your inane drivel would require less mental involvement that picking lint from out my navel.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4