Tuesday, May 23, 2006

The Politics of Vetting

The Toronto Sun recently ran an editorial criticizing both the opposition for its attack on nominee Gwyn Morgan, and P.M. Stephen Harper for temporarily shutting down the newly-formed Public Appointments Commission.

From my POV, the opposition members of the committee were deliberately attempting to humiliate Mr. Morgan, and thereby show Prime Minister Harper who's boss. NDP M.P. Peggy Nash et al felt they had won some kind of bizarre victory.

Gwyn Morgan has impeccable qualifications, and was willing to work for a dollar a year. The opposition parties suggested that a person who is clearly partisan shouldn't be in charge of vetting patronage candidates. But that claim is suspect. The position would merely approve the process; not the selection. Also, Mr. Morgan with his token salary is obviously not financially motivated, so this is no patronage appointment on its own. The weak allegation of racist comments was obviously a desperate red herring.

The Prime Minister felt Gwyn Morgan was the best man for the job, so why settle for second best? Why not wait for such a time as the Canadian people have a chance to voice their opinion rather than be railroaded by a group of cranky, petulant opposition members that have their collective noses out of joint?

Let's see who throws the "snit fit" then!

* * * * *

Update: Check out Political Staples for more on the latest Ipsos Reid poll!


jdave34 said...

Better question Joanne:

Why hold an election if you have no intention of respecting the results unless your candidate wins?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

jdate34 - Having a little trouble understanding what you're getting at. Maybe I need another cup of coffee.

jdave34 said...

Wow. Seriously, wow.

Do you actually read about the subjects you write about???

Let's see if I can make this easy-to-follow:

Stephen Harper said he would submit candidates to the committee and that the committee would be able to vote on the whether the candidate gets the job.

Keeping up so far? Good.

Stephen Harper presented a candidate, and for whatever reason (the reason doesn't matter, it was an open vote, with presumably no conditions attached), the committee voted the nominee down. That was their right, and they followed Harper's process the whole way.

Still following me? Good. the good part's coming, I promise.

Then when his hand-picked candidate was turned down, Harper freaked. He could have submitted another candidate, in keeping with the process that he himself created. But he didn't. He simply said that if people aren't going to vote for his guy, he's not going to put anyone up for a vote again.

If Harper doesn't win the game he created and made the rules for, he picks up his toys and goes home.

Now, I'm hoping that it's a little easier for you to grasp, so I'll ask you again:

Why hold an election if you have no intention of respecting the results unless your candidate wins?

Anonymous said...

It's the political advantage of this that matters the most. Who do you think came out ahead--the Opposition nit-pickers or the champion of cleaning up Ottawa ?

Fast forward to the next election campaign. Harper stumping thru Quebec: I tried to clean up the mess left by those corrupt Liberals. Of course they would try to stop me, but what about the BLOC ? They showed their true colors, mes amis. Seperatists and Liberals need each other. But Canadians and Quebecers need a clean government.

The next campaign for Harper is writing itself !

Calgary Junkie

jdave34 said...

"I was for committee votes before I was against them"

"Vote Conservative. Or your vote doesn't count and we put a conservative in anyways"

Which campaign slogan will the Tories roll out first.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

jdave, is somebody there holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read this blog? You sound very angry.

"Why hold an election if you have no intention of respecting the results unless your candidate wins?"

So, by "election" you are referring to the committee vetting? It is my understanding that this is an opportunity for the opposition to give input, but the final decision rests with the PM. The Sun said as much:

"...Or, Harper could have appointed Morgan to head the commission anyway, although it would have been politically embarrassing since he had promised to let the opposition parties vet his nominee."

Does anyone know how these committees are drawn up?

If the opposition chooses to join forces and veto Harper's choice, there isn't much he can do about it, but in the next election anonymous is right - They will have to answer for it.

Sorry my intelligence isn't up to your standards, jdave. You'll either have to be patient, or find another blog to troll.

vicki said...

Why humiliate another excellent candidate in front of the vicious committee that has their own agenda('fight Harper no matter what')?.The libs don't want an accountability commission...obviously.The Libs don't even recognise democratic process.The Libs scream and holler in the House of Commons and because Harper has the backbone to make a firm, quick decision (after consulting with the other candidates BTW) he's criticized for having a 'hissy fit'?? The media and Libs are all shook up with this kind of leadership and backbone.

Anonymous said...

Hey Dave, I think you've stumbled on a campaign theme for the Liberano$:

Our Parliamentary Committees can't get no respect from from Harper.

It worked for Rodney Dangerfield, maybe it'll work for them.

Calgary Junkie

jdave34 said...

"So, by "election" you are referring to the committee vetting? It is my understanding that this is an opportunity for the opposition to give input, but the final decision rests with the PM."

--So tell me, in your opinion, what was the reason they were voting?

I'm sorry your intelligence isn't up to standards too. Do you always call people whose opinion differs from yours 'trolls'?

jdave34 said...

Vicki, Joanne, Anonymous:

Man, this subject sure has struck a nerve.

I guess I'd be touchy too if I'd just seen my hero throw a tantrum and change the rules just because he didn't get his way.

It must have been shocking for you to see/hear. Those hours before you were given your excuses and talking points to parrot must have been hell.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

jdave34 - "Do you always call people whose opinion differs from yours 'trolls'?"

No, but I do define rude, aggressive, partisan attacks as trolling.

Take a lesson from Zac and Riley.

vicki said...

Empty rhetoric also charactarizes the troll.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

lol! Vicki - Zing!!!

jdave34 said...

Empty rhetoric? Would Harper's promise of committee votes count as empty rhetoric?

Or is bullshit only bullshit when it's coming from your opponent?

jdave34 said...


For you to call anyone partisan is probably the most ironic thing I've ever read.

Some of you people are so convinced of your own brilliance that you sometimes can't see yourselves for the fools you really are.

vicki said...

getting a little touchy jdave? BTW your heroes throw hissy fits in the House of Commons on a regular basis when they are spewing out empty rhetoric.
joanne...new polls must be really upsetting some people.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

jdave - I make no claim to being non-partisan. When did I ever say that?

You have a perfect right to your opinion, as do I. The only mediating factor is respect. If you prefer not to respect the opinions of others, your are also allowed to do so; just not on this blog.

I'm sure Omar would welcome you with open arms.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Vicki - Yes; sublime torture.

Joe Calgary said...

I think Harper should have continue to recommend stellar candidates... it would have been funny to watch no name MPs, like Peggy Nash, voting down the cream of the Canadian crop.

Debi said...

jdave34, there is a way to voice your opinion without being rude and beligerant and it is much more effective if you want your points considered and are not just interested in getting people's backs up. You obviously haven't learned that yet.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Debi - Well said! Thank you.

Joe Calgary - Peggy Nash does seem to have an axe to grind. I think the only candidate she could be happy with is the person she looks at in the mirror each morning (IMHO).

Now Dave, don't go throwing a hissy-fit!

Steve said...

Before this committee hearing, Peggy Nash was a complete unknown outside of her Parkdale-High Park riding. They know who she is now. What an embarrassment to have her as my MP.

Mary said...

I have a post for you on Joanne's little used post call "Another dash of real life".
God bless!

Jeff said...

"Empty rhetoric? Would Harper's promise of committee votes count as empty rhetoric?

Or is bullshit only bullshit when it's coming from your opponent?"

jdave - Harper's candidate didn't get edorsed by the committee. Therefore he didn't get the job. Sounds like Harper followed his rules just fine to me.
If I were you I'd be more worried that the opposition keeps painting itself like the democrats in the US. "Obstruction at all costs" is not much of a record.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Steve, I can be very empathetic on that issue.

Joe Calgary said...

Hey... Peggy Nash was a secretary for Buzz Hargrove, she was a labor negotiator against Ford, she received two seperate awards from the Sierra Club... In other words, she's a nobody, no name, no one will ever remember type of person, who had the audacity to think it was okay to attack Morgan.

I mean what's Gwynn done lately, besides his philantrophic work, his amazing community leadership, his environmental position that people actually listen to... oh, and there's the little fact of creating the single largest independent gas company in the world... yep, he's pretty lame compared to Peggy.

I hope if I ever create a company with a GDP the size of several small nations, I don't feel too useless either.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Jeff - Exactly.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Joe Calgary - Yeah, that was pretty darn low of Gwyn to want to "give back" to Canada. I don't know how we could have afforded a dollar a year salary anyway.

It makes David Dingwall look like a bargain!

Mary said...

Iloved your comment " I'm sure Omar would welcome you with open arms"
Well said!

kelly said...

jdave34: Do you think you could get your point across without being condescending to others and their opinions? I agree with Joanne, you sound angry. It's so much nicer to have a dialogue and debate with people who are not trying to deliberatly fling arrows into others. Maybe you need to count to 10 before you press send.

TangoJuliette said...

"...jdave34 said... Better question Joanne:Why hold an election if you have no intention of respecting the results unless your candidate wins? Tue May 23, 06:37:45 AM CST..."

My guess is that jd34 has a short memory. Probably in keeping with his fuse length.

However, when it comes to a matter of respecting the vote, and the institutions of parliament, there is little, if anything, that any honest person would want to learn from the bankrupt LPC and the former government. Just have to take a look at Sailor-Boy Paullie's blatant patronage appointment of the late great Glenn Murray, and Whipper Redman's declaration in the House, that the then-government of Admiral Martin would not bow to any votes of non-confidence.

Belittling obfuscation is one of the first recognizable signs of the vapid and verbal diarreah of someone who thinks they've got a valid complaint but can't, in all INTELLECUAL HONESTY, give it voice, without exposing themselves for the hypocrital, thieving dorksters they really are.

They don't have a leg to stand on 'cause the organization they support or are a part of, is guilty, and has been, for the longest time, of similar offenses, and far worse.

jd34, your highest of liberal high horses, even if it were equipped with stilts, would still carry a tall, mounted rider under a flat-footed, pot-bellied snake in the grass, with tons of clearance, 'cause that's how low you and the heroes of your crooked, dishonest Liberal party have all sunk. And you're still going down, way down, baby.

Does the phrase "death-spiral" mean nothing at all to you gliberals?

L.H. & K.

and BTW: " I am LUV-IN this. "

Joanne (True Blue) said...

lol! Thanks, guys.

I think that jd34 has left the building...

TangoJuliette said...

No brains. Too much hypocricy. No guts--no glory.


L.H. & K.

I am loving it!!

Ronald McDonald said...

"I am loving it!!"

Stop stealing my tag line!

TangoJuliette said...

BTW: Should there be further debate on this thread, please note that, more than likely, for much of the next 48 hours, I shall not be able to participate, contribute, defend, attack nor parry and thrust in this arena, nor in any other, I regret.

Silence from this site, however, should not erroneously be misinterpreted as the silence of the vanquished lambs. That kind of exacerbation of bad judgement has, in the past, proven to be embarrasingly fatal for many yahoo dim-bulbs, astride what they think is their ' morally and intellectually superior high-horse.' Another judgemental error, that horsey thing, that is.

yuk yuk.

I AM luh-ving it.

p.s. RonMAC? I'm talking about the brain-dead carrion, not your tasty treats.

Lord Omar said...

I'm sure Omar would welcome you with open arms.

Iloved your comment " I'm sure Omar would welcome you with open arms"
Well said!

These comments are rather quite rich and certainly insulting. It was rather awhile ago I was banned[sic] from this blog and have since been back with the odd comment or two. I read this blog from time to time, but don't usually bother to comment as, like jdave, you end up being targeted, called angry and eventually a troll. I guess if blind partisan opinion is all that is desired then the tactic of fear then smear is the one the blue blogger employs.

jdave34 said...


Couldn't have said it better myself.


I'm not gone, but it seems that this blog is reserved for people to cheerlead their dear beloved leader. And if that's the case, I have nothing more to contribute.

You seem to be in the habit of twisting every reality into a glorious victory for Saint Stephen The Wise. For example: Stephen Harper throws a fit and goes back on his word when he doesn't get his way, but you turn it into "The evil Liberals screwed Stephen Harper." Never mind that the Liberals don't have the majority of seats on the committee. Never mind that the Tories 'ally', the Bloq Quebecois could have voted for Harper's nominee and didn't. It's all the Libs' fault. And if anyone decides to present a different point of view, they're called trolls. And then the cheerleaders come out and congratulate you for your ignorant, over-simplified statements. Allow me to join in: Congratulations on inventing events and facts to fit your point of view.

Your blog, your rules. Fire me an email if you ever decide to pay a visit to reality. It's pretty fun over here, even if Stephen Harper is somewhat less of a deity.

jdave34 said...

And I'll give 500 dollars cash to the first person who can find any evidence that I support the LPC (and no, criticizing Beloved Leader doesn't count).

500 bucks and my cat.

500 bucks, my cat, and my PS2.

I'll throw in my collection of Chicago Bears merchandise too.

Anyone? Anyone?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Let's see here.. Going over my comments.. Looking for where I specifically centered out the Liberals...

vicki said...

I centered out the Libs joanne...so did a few others. You've only asked jdave to contribute to the discussion without being insulting..and he's insulted by that.your blog, your rules.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

As one of my "cheerleaders" Vicki, I thank you for jumping in here.

Actually I find the whole thing amusing. You know you're doing something right when you draw out the opposing viewpoints with such emotion. Otherwise it would be a very dull blog indeed.

jdave34 said...

Where exactly was I insulting?

I merely agreed with Joanne that her intelligence is not always up to standards.

She said it, I merely offered up a "hallelujah!!"

I thought agreeing with the author was par for the course on Conservative blogs....

jdave34 said...

And where is this anger that you speak of?

I'm having a coffee and I'm quite relaxed and cheery today.

Is that another rule? If anyone disagrees or offers a different opinion, IM all your friends and get them to post about how 'angry' he seems.

Funny thing is, my original question in the very first comment STILL hasn't been answered. I guess people are too concerned with my mental health to actually look at the issue and offer an answer.

I appreciate the concern, but I'm fine. Really.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

jd34, I thought I answered that. IMO that wasn't an "election". It was a vetting committee. But of course you are the more intelligent of the two of us, so I'm sure you will explain how my perception is flawed.

Waiting to be enlightened.

Debi said...

jdave34, it seems that Jeff did answer your original question.
Jeff said..
jdave - Harper's candidate didn't get edorsed by the committee. Therefore he didn't get the job. Sounds like Harper followed his rules just fine to me.

jdave34 said...


So why were they voting? And if the vote was indeed above board, then Harper should have known that there was a chance his nominee wouldn't make it through.

Why has he given up on the process he fought so hard for? Wait, let me guess:

Jean Chretien and the ghost of Pierre Trudeau have conspired (with the help of Hedy Fry, Pierre Berton, and Ricky and Julian) to control the minds of MPs, but only opposition MPs, and only those in committee. This evil plot to have Stephen Harper revealed as a gay abortionist who puts his kids in daycare is being run by Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach. Once the plan is in place, we will see a new Canada where being Christian is illegal, and everyone will be forced to convert to islam, or homosexuality, whichever pisses the converts off more. Once this is accomplished, The Chretien-Casper the Friendly Trudeau coalition is in control, everyone will be put on welfare and it will be illegal to mow your lawn, lest you hurt a plant.

Have I missed anything? i'm not really in the loop.

jdave34 said...

debi: So why abandon the process, if it worked just fine?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Well, jd34, you do have a great imagination, I'll give you that! lol!

My take on this would be that Harper realized that the committee was set on destroying the credibility of any nominee, rather than putting partisanship aside and considering the actual integrity of the candidate.

However, this process does remind me a bit of the Supreme Court nomination process. Everyone gets some input, but ultimately it is up to the P.M. to make the decision. As it was for the Afghanistan extension.

If we want to create a Canada ruled by committees, then perhaps we should look at rewriting the Constitution. Last time I checked, we had a parliamentary system where the party with the most votes ran things. The Liberals were doing that for the past decade or so.

Riley Hennessey said...


Plain and simple, you're agrivating. Your second post read "wow. Seriously, wow. Do you actually read about the subjects you write about???" then went on a tirade of condescending jargon.

That puts you square in the crosshairs of my ire. Comments on this site are more than welcome but you just don't go on here and act like an all-knowing genius. "Keeping up so far? Good". Thats the insult bub... plain and simple.

Harper didn't introduce another candidate because the result would have been the same. Every editorialist in the country pretty much agrees the guy was grilled vociferously for no reason. Do I think Harper shouldn't have scrapped the committee? Yes. But I'm not going to get in a knat about it and go off on someone's blog about why would Harper have an election??

I disagree with Joanne on a lot of issues but never do I insult her intelligence. I merely state my side of the story and discuss it with her.

You on the other hand begin with an attack. How do you correlate ONE committee, with an entire election? You came on here to agrivate, not communicate or contribute to the discussion. It is for those reasons you are nothing more than a troll.

Debi said...

jdave, possible reasons for his decision have already been speculated about on here and its all a matter of personal opinion anyway as only the PM and his advisors knows for sure. I was just stating that your original question had been answered.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Debi - Good point.

Riley, again you remind me why you are one of my two favourite Liberals! Riley to the rescue on his shining steed! Sticking it to the trolls.

And I didn't even have to call out my Tory reserves.

TangoJuliette said...

Q: Why hold an election if you have no intention of respecting the results unless your candidate wins? ~ jdave34 Tue May 23, 06:37:45 AM CST

A: Because sometimes the PRIME MINISTER chooses to exercise the powers given him by the electorate. "Heavy lies the head that wears the crown" Dave. Martin did it, now Harper does it. Get accustomed to the phrase: The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada.

The people voted. The people have spoken. Their Choice is Harper Conservatives (Minority). NOT Liberals, (Opposition) The time will soon come to vote again.

Yes, yes. What's that you say? The Conservatives only ended up with about 36% of the overall votes? Tht's the knuckle ball of the deal, isn't it? The next largest number of votes went to the Libs, who garnered even far less, way less than Harpers votes.

So if 64% voted AGAINST Harper, and, while most opponents of Harper and the Conservatives may not like to examine BOTH sides of the results, the tragically unsavoury reality of the math is that an even larger, 70% + VOTED AGAINST MARTIN AND THE LIBERALS.

If your opinion has validity, why do you feel it necessary to resort to pejorative labelling of those whose opinions disagree with yours.

I, for one, have never worn a cheerleaders outfit.

Simple democrtatic reality is that your nag lost this derby. Expect more of the same, I would guess.

I think that I am fairly representative of Canadians who have paid taxes for the past fifty years, and I sure as hell hate seeing my hard earned cash getting blown on some dolt like Dingwell, the Gun Registry, half a billion dollars in penalties for cancelled military helicopters that actually stayed airborne. The list could go on.

$1 / year, for someone like Morgan, reputed Conservative bagman? Now THAT was a bargain. As for the Bagman label? $25,000 of his own money, to bankroll Paul Martin. Another large wad of coin of the realm for the National LPC.

As for the vetting thing being put to a "vote" as you so euphemistically phrase it? Thursday or Friday BEFORE the Committee hearing, NDP'er, Peggy Nash, had already filed notice that she was going to be turfing Morgan. based on the pretext of text out of context.

And yes. Bullshit is bullshit, regardless of which silver-tongued devils spout it.

But remeber this. Theft and embezzlement are also equally theft and embezzlement regardless of who commits the crime, be it the natural governing party, or the national burgling party. Wouldn't you agree?

L.H. & K.

Loving it more and MORE

Zac said...

Riley, excellent point. JD34 sounds like he's stirring the pot a bit too much.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Ah there's Zac, my other Gritty White Knight.

Zac said...

Yeah, I've probably stirred the pot a bit too much around here myself but at least I never insulted your intelligence.

Anonymous said...

Jdave: You are ignoring two important points.

1. The opposition was so petty and partisan that they torpedoed an extremely qualified individual who was willing to do the job for(essentially) free. He has dedicated his life to leading both in business and in the community at large. But, despite 40 years of service to his country and fellow man, the opposition decided to essentially call Mr. Morgan a racist and besmirch his good name simply out of partisan motivation.

2. Why, therefore, would Stephen Harper put another candidate through this circus of harassment? It is obvious that the opposition is neither mature enough or serious enough about the process of bringing accountability to the canadian people when it comes to eliminating patronage in government appointments.

If every Candidate Stephen Harper puts forth is going to be summarily accused of racism and torpedoed simply out of partisanship on the opposition's part, why should harper even try?

Perhaps it is time the opposition grows up and works FOR canadians instead of for themselves.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Anonymous, I wish I knew who you were. You just said everything I was thinking, and much more eloquently.

Zac - Exactly. Riley and I often disagree, and you and I even more so. However, we respect each other's opinions, and never resort to personal attacks (at least I hope not). I have learned a few things from you guys and I appreciate your input.

Zac said...

Frankly JDave, while I usually don't agree with these folks they are all genuinly nice people.

While I've had many, many debates (possibly a few too many) with the tories over here, it always ends up being enlightening. The key is to present your side then listening to opposing view points and refuting them if you wish.

Sometimes its hard to do it in a constructive way, as we all seem to be passionate about the issues, but it helps to be civil.

Joanne is a very nice lady and doesn't deserve being called stupid. In fact through our many coversations I've found her to be very intelligent.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

O.K. Now I'm blushing. {>)

Anonymous said...

Me again. I would also like to point out another omission (or misunderstanding) on jdave's part.

"So why were they voting? And if the vote was indeed above board, then Harper should have known that there was a chance his nominee wouldn't make it through.

Why has he given up on the process he fought so hard for?"

Let's make another clarification here: Why was Gwyn Morgan torpedoed by the opposition here?

Was it because of his (lack of?) qualifications?

40 years of community leadership and serice, the creation of the single largest independant gas company in the globe, years or philanthropy and volunteer work with youth and at risk kids, dedication to his community and his country, and a desire to do this job because of that dedication (a $1 a year salary shows he's not in it for the perks)?

Obvoiously not. The man was over-qualified, if anything.

The reason was pure partisanship by the opposition.

Mr. Morgan made a (true) statement about gang violence in toronto that the opposition centred on because it wasn't 'politically correct'. The opposition used this statement to imply that he wasn't fit for the job: despite:

40 years of community leadership and serice, the creation of the single largest independant gas company in the globe, years or philanthropy and volunteer work with youth and at risk kids, dedication to his community and his country, and a desire to do this job because of that dedication (a $1 a year salary shows he's not in it for the perks).

So, morgan wasn't torpedoed based upon his qualifications, which is what the board was SUPPOSED to be voting on. Instead, the board voted based on a 'let's-stop-harper' mentality.

With that in mind, would you say the process worked? Would you indeed call it 'above board'?

If the opposition more willing to judge Mr. Morgan based upon what was politically good for them instead of what was best for canadians, can you blame Mr. Harper for being fed up with 'the process he fought so hard for' being made a mockery of by the opposition?

Joe Edmonton said...

"Let's see who throws the "snit fit" then!"

Obviously Jdave34 threw the first snit fit.

Lets see if I can make this simple enough for everyone to understand...

Until PMSH appoints a candidate that was not vetted by committee, he cannot be accused of appointing a candidate that that was not vetted by committee.

jdave34 has given no facts to support his contention that the game has changed. I certainly expect the next candidate to be vetted through committee.

Like Jeff said "Harper's candidate didn't get endorsed by the committee. Therefore he didn't get the job. Sounds like Harper followed his rules just fine to me.

So this seems like much ado about nothing.

jdave34 said...

Why is everyone getting so angry? What is it with conservatives?

And why, anonymous, no mention of Morgan beng a long time tory fundraiser? Wouldn't that be the kind of partisan appointments conservatives railed against in the past? No moral outrage about a clear long-time partisan being put in charge of the appointment process? Oh of course, this is the same crowd that sees nothing at all wrong with a lobbyist for the defence industry being put in charge of....lemme see here...oh yeah, defence!!!! Funny that, just as the government is about to put money into upgrading our equipment too...that's cute.

Spare me the righteous indignation, and call a spade a spade. This whole affair is nothing but politics being played on both sides. Does anyone really think that Harper put the best possible candidate forward? The one EVERYONE could agree on? Does anyone really think that Harper didn't know that his guy would get turfed? Harper puts forward a candidate he knew wouldn't make it throught the vetting/vote, and now he gets to say "See? They won't PLAAAAAAAAY with me!!! Gimme me ball back!!!!" And the conservative blogosphere laps it all up.

Perhaps it is time the Prime Minister grows up and works FOR canadians instead of for himself and his ambitions.

jdave34 said...


Not your crosshairs!!!!!! My GOD!!!!
On here, that means you......call me a troll. Not particularly inventive, nor witty, but I guess we all do what we can with what we have. Right bub?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thank you, Joe E., for some clear-headed comments.

"What is it with conservatives?" Gee, I don't know what you're talking about, jd34. Half the people that have an issue with you here are not Conservatives.

Anonymous said...

Now if only Morgan had been caught on a Security tape stealing a $60'000.00 piece of jewellery and claimed he left his wife to become a Homosexual .

THEN Peggy Nash and the NDP would even left this convicted fellon run for them in a B.C. seat during a Federal Election.

Poor Jack Layton , sold his soul for SSM and a lie by the Liberals to spend 4.2 Billion on the NDP-Budget plans.

Jack and Gilles
went up Parliament Hill
to fetch a pail of Money,

I don't know what they did up there
but Gilles fell down
and Jack's now a clown
and Svend cab be their Honey.

Yawn said...

jDave34 said:
«Why is everyone getting so angry? What is it with conservatives?»

If I were you, people, I would ignore this provocateur. I guess s/he is bored and needs a little action in his/her life. Notice the attempts at victimization - «why is everyone so angry?» In other words, «I didn't do nuttin'.» I'm surprised s/he hasn't used «chill out!» yet.

And then of course, a feeble attempt at ridicule:
«Not your crosshairs!!!!!! My GOD!!!!»

Life's too short to squander it on meaningless trivia.

Gabby in QC said...

I have to laugh at some of jDave34's comments, such as "spare me the righteous indignation!"

Here's an example of Liberal righteous indignation. CPAC was running the Judicial Committee hearings questioning Justice Minister Toews on his "get tough on crime" bill.

Derek Lee (LIB) disputed the Minister's contention that there's been an increase in crime by accusing the Minister of engaging in the "politics of fear," interrupting the Minister as he tried to answer.

Derek Lee then proceeded to deride the inclusion of stiffer penalties against the unlawful use of computers and (this really gave him a chuckle) cattle-rustling. It had to be explained to Mr. Lee that "unlawful use of computers" was meant to curtail the activities of pedophiles surfing the net to lure young people AND that farmers depend on their cattle for their livelihood, so they consider the "cattle-rustling" part of the bill important.

When MP Warawa (CPC) prefaced his question with the statement that the Liberals had supported "get tough on crime" legislation during the election, but were now backing away from it, Mr. Lee, on a point of order, in RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION, said he would not put up with such comments, despite the fact he was a very "gentle person."

Derek Lee, Liberal poster boy for RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Yawn, thanks for bringing us back to reality.

Gabby - Too funny!! I wish I had seen that, but you described it very well! Thanks.

liberal supporter said...

Hey jdave34.

Liberals do a good enough job of making ourselves look like idiots.

How many people over here did you convince today, that maybe some liberals are not total cretins, and might have views worth at least listening to?

You're not helping.

Buzz off until you can change your attitude, or save it for the crackpot conservatives (I'm sure they exist someplace).

Zac said...

Hey Joanne, I thought this piece over at Steel City Grit fits nicely into our brief discussion about the Caledonia stand off this morning. It's really well written. Thought you might find it interesting.


Debi said...

Liberal supporter:
yeah!! Good comment.
We need to be respecful of everyone's opinion. We are allowed to have different views...its healthy in this country.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Zac I read Steel City's post. Very good suggestions. Thanks for the tip.