• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

What was your price Stronach??????

>I believe that her choice is a moral one

So her jumping the queue to a cabinet minister's appointment ahead of all the other long-term loyal sitting Liberal MPs was a reward for her moral stance and not the enticement that sealed a sordid deal, eh?  It's good to know that people permitted to vote are so wise in the ways of the world.
 
Ok people, I took the time to clean this one up - keep it clean and add something to the discussion; if you are here to basically slander a political figure, we're not interested.

If this thread continues to look like a washroom stall (and Whiskey keeps having to interject with legal advice), I'll take the whole thing down.

Infanteer, who could care less what Belinda does because he doesn't like parties anyways....
 
I heard Ms. Stronach explain herself on the radio today and I am quite satisfied with her explanation. I don't like parties either and I think it's great that she could be so non-partisan about the whole affair. I also believe her choice was a moral one, since I find the conservative anti-gay social agenda distasteful. Good on her for standing by her principles.
 
To expound upon what Britney has just shared, it would be hypocritical of me to argue that Belinda is a hoser for going to the Liberal Party while Kilgour was taking the moral high-road for abandoning ship - I am not a fan of any of the Parties - too much Groupthink involved.  For me to to scream murder because she left one crappy party for another one would be silly.

Although I still remain suspect that Ms Stronach's motives are not altruistic, she is a Member of Parliament and not an automaton of (insert your Party of the Day here) - she made her decision and the people of Newmarket-Aurora will decide at some point whether their representative was doing a good job of representing their interests.  Here it comes again, my favorite Edmund Burke quote; I'm sure you can stick "Conservative Party of Canada" somewhere in there with "advocates and agencies"....

"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole.  You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but is a member of Parliament."
 
Perhaps we could change the title to "What did Stronach cost the Conservatives?"

The plot thickens....

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30822.0.html
 
While I am all for someone who is sticking to their principals and keeping with thier own morals, what she did makes her look like she has no morals or principals. Most people like consistency, overall. What she did was kind of like being a scab, she crossed the picket line.... I don't disagree or agree with what she did, and she did have her own reasons apparently (and I agree on the same-sex issue) because I've never voted for the Conservatives or the Liberals, I think they're both... Well...  :-\ Poop for the most part...

Since the last major election I've been trying to find a particular party that mostly suits my fancy. I found one I *thought* was good, the Canadian Action Party... But I read, and read, through much of thier ideas and proposed changes and major issues... They're simply not realistic, and they'd get us into a whole heap of crap on the world stage and especially with the USA...  :( Can't have that can we...

I think I'll simply vote Green Party again!  ;D J/K, I'm honestly not yet sure who I'll vote for this time around...

PS> Iif you (whoever is reading this) isn't happy with the major parties, simply don't vote for them! Vote for someone new, or don't vote at all. You don't HAVE to vote for the major parties just because... If enough people start voting in other areas, they will seriously notice the loss and become more accountable for thier actions over time. I will not vote for anyone "just because", that most certainly screws us all over in the long run...
 
Voting Green would be a good choice, maybe they will actually get a seat or two this time around.  Although I will most likely have to vote conservative, because the lie-berals need to be booted out of vote.

As for belinda, it's all greed on her party.  Paul offered her something in turn her support on thursday and she took.  If she was really worried about Quebec nationalism, she would of stayed where she was.  The rise in Quebec nationalism is directly related to the Liberal party.
 
Fideo said:
EXACTLY why I vote red :-*
........... Now if the Conservatives and the Bloc win the election that will give major power to the Bloc . Ofcourse we know what the Bloc objective is on the matter of a referendum. Plus I believe that regardless on wether the new budget was written on a knapkin...I still believe it will better all provinces and Canadians as a whole.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you read what you wrote in the last couple posts of yours?  You seem to contradict yourself in your reasons for coming to Canada and a "free" vote if you only see the Liberals as the only alternative.  You have put yourself back into your "One Party Democracy" that you said you have left, and now made it Canada.  Thanks a whole bunch for that!   ???

I can't see your logic of the Bloc gaining much more power than they have now, as they are not a "National" Party, but only a "Regional" Party, with no hopes of ever gaining a majority in Parliament.  The Conservatives, on the other hand, are a National Party, with candidates in all Provinces and Territories, and could form a majority government if so elected.  The Liberals have no major power base in Quebec, so they face no real loses there, but perhaps the Conservatives can make some inroads there and work on change.  

At the looks of things, some people are accusing others of faults they themselves hold.  People acting like sheep and believing all the fearmongering of the corrupt Liberals are leading us down a very slippery slope.  Yes you can vote, or not vote, for whomever you choose in Canada, but if you truly want change, you may have to 'bit the bullet' and vote for change, not spoil a ballot, not vote for a 'Protest' Party, not vote for a "Regional' Party, nor vote for a "Fringe' Party, BUT VOTE for the OPPOSITION PARTY.  Your chance to step up to bat is coming..........
 
Just heard Harry Connick Junior sing the old Irving Berlin classic "Why Don't You Change Partners
and Dance With Me" - lady like Belinda is entitled to change partners, and dance with whomever
turns her on - Peter MacKay will become part of her historic past I would think (she would be
better off dancing with his father, the Honorable Elmer). MacLeod
 
what she did makes her look like she has no morals or principals. Most people like consistency, overall.
Click to expand...

This is one of those Karl Rove style talking points that pisses me off to no end. Why the hell is "Consistency" a good thing? Should I vote for a candidate to prepare us for a war with the Soviet Union? Completely ridiculous, but CONSISTENT for the last 15 years, which is apparently a great thing right? During the last US pres. campaign, every time I hear someone call John Kerry a "flip flopper" I feel the urge to double tap him. Yes, the man changes his opinion. anyone with half a brain would, because THE WORLD DOESN'T STAY THE SAME!.
 
BUT VOTE  for the OPPOSITION PARTY.  Your chance to step up to bat is coming..........
Click to expand...

That's the problem George, no one likes the opposition party, so why should we vote for a party we don't like? This is why I found news of Stronach's defection so encouraging. At last, We've finally got the socially progressive, fiscally conservative, good looking minister into the goverment, and all without a single cent wasted in another useless election.  This is a great thing folks.
 
Britney Spears said:
That's the problem George, no one likes the opposition party, so why should we vote for a party we don't like? This is why I found news of Stronach's defection so encouraging. At last, We've finally got the socially progressive, fiscally conservative, good looking minister into the goverment, and all without a single cent wasted in another useless election.   This is a great thing folks.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this attitude, right or wrong, will guarantee that the corrupt party that has been ruling this country for the past decade, will continue to do so for another decade, further entrenching themselves.  That is why I say "bit the bullet", bring about change, if it is good then we truly win.  If it is bad; well we have four years of crap and then vote them out again, as opposed to twenty plus years of Liberal crap.  The system needs to be 'shocked' back into shape.  We know Mr Dithers won't/can't do it.
 
A great thing? Like she'll be allowed to speak her mind?

I don't fault her with voting with her feet, but I do question the timing. If I were inclined to see hidden agenda's I'd suggest that she did it at a time when the maximum media benefit would accrue. I would say that's not as much an indication of principle as ambition.

I do agree with Britney Spears (another BS, what's up with that  ;D). Why does politics prevent one from changing one's mind?

Hell, I, a staunch Conservative voter (who once even voted Alliance), am thinking of voting Green, just because I'm so pissed off at the bovine excreta currently passing for Parliament. I'd vote Rino if they came back.

Actually, I have recently come to the conclusion that the best result for Canada would be a Conservative minority with an NDP balance of power.

Acorn
 
All of you saying she has the right to change her mind are missing one thing, she changed for her own power game.
Not long ago she wanted to be head of a party, this would make one think she so strongly believed in that party's policys that she wanted to run the ship. Well, what policys have changed so dramacticly since that day,....none.
If this was about what you believed in, then just actually get up on your hind legs and vote against your party, isn't that one of the Tories principles? More open voting? Because to be truthful, I really don't want an election right now, I wish all this money promising had never happened.

The whole thing smells and not because I'm more Conservative than Liberal but the reward for selling your principle, shouldn't just standing up for your principle have been enough?
 
I've been following the discussion on some other boards, and here's some points which have been brought up:

If Stronach were an oppurtunist, her best course of action would have been to stay conservative and win an easy re-election in her riding. With this defection she now faces a much more difficult campaign, and an election is still lickely to come within the next 6 month, even if it doesn't happen right now.

When Stronach joined the Conservative party, it was newly formed and without much of an agenda at all.In recent times it has become increasingly apparent that Stronach's liberal social platform was at odds with Harper's vision for the conservatives. It could be said that Stronach first signed up with the Conservatives in order to get her political career going, before she could make a serious stand on principles. Also, she believes that the new budget will be beneficial to her riding.

Apparently, her defection didn't suprise anyone who had actually been following her career more closely than I (I was too busy rolling around naked with glee in my retroactive pay raise.....).
 
That still does not answer my question.
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose there's a difference between standing up for the principle, and actually doing something useful.....

When she signed up, the Conservatives were still trying to recreate the glory of the old PC party, which apparently stood for everything we now hold dear., she didn't like the way the Conservative party was going, so she voted with her feet. Is that so hard to believe?
 
Oop's you missed it again.......[aww come on]...........I'm not ragging on her decision to bolt, I'm ragging on the decision to bolt " oh lookie what I got, I'm a minister"

.....are you trying to say that the Liberal party is so thin with quality that there is no one who has been a faithful member for years that shouldn't have got the job?
 
Oop's you missed it again.......[aww come on]...........I'm not ragging on her decision to bolt, I'm ragging on the decision to bolt " oh lookie what I got, I'm a minister"
Click to expand...

And my question, then, would be "Why not?"

.....are you trying to say that the Liberal party is so thin with quality that there is no one who has been a faithful member for years that shouldn't have got the job?
Click to expand...


HAHAHAHAHA....

I'm not intimately familiar with the inner workings of the liberal party (living out here in the west and all). You want me to do a search on  "the Liberals" "Quality" "Faithfulness" and "Should have gotten the job"? Apparently lots of folks on these very forums have a lot to say about that......
 
Britney Spears said:
If Stronach were an oppurtunist, her best course of action would have been to stay conservative and win an easy re-election in her riding. With this defection she now faces a much more difficult campaign, and an election is still lickely to come within the next 6 month, even if it doesn't happen right now.
Click to expand...

She barely won in a long time Liberal riding.   The Liberals there are dancing with glee tonight.   I'd say it was an opportunist move to keep her seat in the next election.   Not bad move at all.....First day in the new Party and already in Cabinet.... ::)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top