 |
| |
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fve Crathva
The most extreme thing he's done was bribe whatshername to cross the floor. That was a dirty, slimy trick. Other than that, the Liberals have been pretty much rosy when it comes to defending their government--because they didn't have anything solid to defend against. I find their internal politicking to be less antagonising than the bullshit the Tories are advertising about Paul Martin grasping for power as if he was Emperor Palpatine. |
Of course you feel burying the budget (no timetable for bringing it to the House) and denying the opposition any periods where they can introduce motions of their own, and using patronage to launch a recruiting drive among the opposition is all fair play.
Of course you feel that ads that take Martin to task are outrageous, but anything the Liberals have to say about the federal Tories... hidden agenda blah blah... will destroy healthcare blah blah... Tories want to help the seperatists blah blah... sexist comments about Stronach blah blah (oops, those were provincial Tories!)... are completely accurate and helpful to the national political discourse.
I'm not sure what to say, since there seems to be a wide gulf between our perceptions of events there doesn't seem to be a lot of point to it.
quote:
Personally, I think the government is right to hold off on an election until after Gomery says his piece. It seems kind of stupid to have an election where the primary issue is a corruption scandal, before the corruption scandal has been investigated fully. It's kind of like putting a person to death before they've been sentenced with the death penalty. I'm sure it's exactly what the Tories want. I think that starting the campaign at all, let alone with scummy, disingenuous attack ads, while the government is still in session is obnoxious and appalling.
In any case, it's really not up to the opposition to decide when to go to the polls. They're within their rights to try for a vote of non-confidence if they feel it's appropriate, but they can't just start shrieking abuse when decades-old parliamentary procedure inconveniences them and fails to give them an unfair advantage. They made a stupid mistake with their fake confidence vote, and for some reason they've latched onto it and started shrilly proclaiming that the government has ignored a vote of non-confidence. I say, suck it up, Harper, you failed to incite an election illegitimately, and now you've failed to convince the House on a real confidence issue. Can we get on with governing the country until an election can be called on the rest of Canada's timetable?
SP |
Decades-old parliamentary procedure? Gosh, King resigned before just such a motion as is under discussiion. Or, did you want your decades to start in the '40s and not the 30's?
The only reason that there was a budget vote yesterday to begin with, and that there will be opposition days starting on the 31st is because of the, what was it? Oh yeah, 'shrieking abuse' that it took to get Martin to come back and face the Commons.
So yes, now we can get back to governing the country since the Liberals have been forced to treat the Commons as more than a convenient place for the storage of potted plants. I'm sure Mr. Harper would tell you you're welcome.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fve Crathva
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither Of course you feel burying the budget (no timetable for bringing it to the House) and denying the opposition any periods where they can introduce motions of their own, and using patronage to launch a recruiting drive among the opposition is all fair play.
Of course you feel that ads that take Martin to task are outrageous, but anything the Liberals have to say about the federal Tories... hidden agenda blah blah... will destroy healthcare blah blah... Tories want to help the seperatists blah blah... sexist comments about Stronach blah blah (oops, those were provincial Tories!)... are completely accurate and helpful to the national political discourse.
I'm not sure what to say, since there seems to be a wide gulf between our perceptions of events there doesn't seem to be a lot of point to it.
|
This post is unbelievably presumptive. You seem to think I'm a Liberal supporter. I do not support any party. I'm not interested in the politicking that goes on in Ottawa. I'm talking about a single commercial on the radio, paid for by the Conservative Party, that accuses Paul Martin of spending taxpayer money to bribe the NDP, grasping for power, and everything else short of holding an illegal government. I'm talking about Harper loudly demanding that the government resign and accusing them of ignoring Parliament when he had no legal basis to do so, so publicly that it filtered down to me. Your petty political bickering bores me. I'm talking about an affront to my enjoyment of life, in the form of the Conservative party taking out attack ads at all, let alone before a campaign date is set. I'm talking about them repeating their same disingenuous arguments, trying their best to avoid getting anything productive done. I don't care what the Liberals have said or done, although I'm sure they have been just as dirty as you say, because I haven't heard them harping on the same whine day after day.
Having said that, I don't care to sift through the rest of your argumentative, snarky bullshit. I'm happy to listen to you educate me about Parliamentary procedure though. At least, if you're willing to discuss it in a courteous voice, with me and not with some imaginary Liberal you've invented to take my place. I hope that addressing people who are not partisan stereotypes doesn't distress you (I understand if it does though, since that's about all you get on Poly). Those are my conditions for continuing this discussion, and if you can't handle them, I thank you for responding, and I thank you in advance for not wasting our time with further responses. 
SP
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:19
|
|
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec119.html
quote:
Criminal Code
PART IV OFFENCES AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION OF LAW AND JUSTICE
Corruption and Disobedience
119. (1) Every one who
(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, corruptly
(i) accepts or obtains,
(ii) agrees to accept, or
(iii) attempts to obtain,
any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or another person in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity, or
(b) gives or offers, corruptly, to a person mentioned in paragraph (a) any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity for himself or another person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. |
Does this apply to either the Grewal or Stronach situation? I wonder if Inky will talk to the RCMP.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:19
|
|
But maybe our MPs should be free to accept envelopes stuffed with cash for a vote this way or that on some bill or other.
Maybe when your corporation is involved in litigation, you should be free to offer the judge a position on the board of directors if the case turns out to your satisfaction.
Now, take the small leap to the government using its powers of patronage to influence individual MPs in the opposition benches in individual votes on specific bills. You do not see a problem?
Last edited by notyoueither on 26-05-2005 at 09:24
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Cabinet minister is a political position. Offering a political position for a political favour is not corruption.
If Martin were to have made Stronach head of Canada Post in return for her vote in Parliament then you would have a case. |
re Stronach, nobody can prove that she was put in cabinet in return for crossing the floor (that would be illegal; an appointment for an act in her 'official capacity' as an MP). It is always possible that Martin feels that Belinda, after less than 12 months in Parliament, is more qualified that any Liberal back bencher to fill the seat in cabinet. Or, it is possible that he simply enjoys her conversation style and therefore brought her to the table. The possibilities abound, but then so do the suspicions. Since neither of the kissers can be expected to tell, we are all left to marvel at the meteoric rise of a founder of the Conservative Party of Canada in Liberal estimations.
But then there is Grewal and 'the tapes'. That's a fish of a decidedly more public stench. The PMO is caught with its hand in the cookie jar, so to speak, and having failed to seal the evidence it is being spilled all over the dock in the broad daylight, all the better to stink the place up.
The fact that politicians have done these things and gotten away with it in the past is besides the point. The fact is that influencing a public official with inducements is illegal, it always has been, and now the Liberals have been caught in the act. Boo hoo.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-05-2005 06:21
|