Previous  1  2  3  Next

Agreed. Good riddance to the both of them, and what happened recently probably won't be Jaffer's last brush with the law if he is indeed actively living the dangerous lifestyle that he right now appears to be. In about six months time, or at least after the next election, Guergis will be about as historically significant and memorable as Belinda Stronach turned out to be.

   

Come on now...Guergis wasn't even around in the Mulroney days, she was a Mike Harris provincial Conserative, who was tapped to run federally. Her husband Jaffer was an actual Reform party member. Nice try though.

   

Her replacements no better... if she had a brain she would be dangerous.. but then we can say that about harper can't we

   

If this was "the Good 'o' US of A", there would be a "reality show" in their future.

   

He's an idiot. She's a entitled buffoon. Good on Harper for (despite the partisan calls to the contrary regarding his motives) making the right decision.

   

Oh me thinks there will be more come to light about harper and his dealings with Rahim Jaffer ....

   

What are those partisan calls and who's making them?

   

Really? Opposition parties, leaders, pundits - it appears that instead of acknowledging Harper's actions on face value, they're angling it based solely on ideology.

   

Can you give a quote or something where somebody is questioning Harper's motives for firing her? I'm not really clear on what you mean? Of course there will be partisan attacks trying to make something out of Harper's refusal to tell why he fired her - gotta fill that vaccuum. And people will question his judgement for hiring her in the first place and for standing by her just the day before he fired her. Harper would do the same if the situation was reversed. But who's questioning his motives, and exactly what motives besides getting rid of an embarrassment could he have? Is he trying to get her to blow him to get back in cabinet? He just likes firing people for no reason? What are these questionable motives?

   

Are you kidding? I was merely praising Harper's actions regarding the matter. The calls questioning his actions have been on this very thread and in the media. This really isn't an esoteric matter.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le1529100/

   

Questioning his actions, or his motives? You said the latter in your other post. Even in regard to his actions, people are certainly not questioning, as in disagreeing with, his firing Guergis. They are questioning why he won't say why she was fired, they feel he owes Canadians an explanation. And they question why so recently he was still defending her, when the stink was already rising. They question his judgement. But I'm sure everybody agrees that his motives are political, to cause the least damage to him and his party. Once he realized he couldn't sweep it under the rug anymore, he acted. I don't know a politician that would do it differently.

   

Now, if we can just get them both to renounce their Canadian citizenship...

   

Actually, my first post mentioned "motives" whereas two follow-up ones expanded to include "actions".

   

"You have reached the Turkish Office of Ethnic Return. Please hold while we consider your request to repatriate Helena Guergis. While you are waiting, please consider that we already have a good supply of douche bags in this country. We are a poor country, where high flying hosebags with an overblown sense of entitlement are not appreciated.....Are you still holding?.....Our office is now closed. Please call again at some future date, when we have finished laughing."

"You have reached the Ugandan Office of Ethnic Return. Our former dear leader, Idi Amin, already kicked out the Ismailies once. You seriously think we're going to take them back? Please call us back when we have finished laughing."

   

In the article you cite, Iggy questions Harper's judgement. I think that's a pretty good question.

   

Previous  1  2  3  Next