d_rawk Posted February 11, 2006 Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 well i think belinda's painting as a cheap sultry tramp has more to do with how she burned peter mackay than her switching to the liberals. Well, the thing with Belinda was that she had publicly expressed opposition to the policy direction that the party had taken, and a not-so-secret falling out with Harper. Before she crossed the floor, we had a general sense of her disgust with where the party was going and a sense that her and the leader of the party were constantly chaffing. The moment and circumstances under which she crossed were kinda surprising, but the general action wasn't, really. She was called a tramp, slut, and whore because she is a woman. Women who do things perceived as opportunistic (ie. floor crossing with a cabinet post reward) get called those things. Men do not. Emerson, for all the backlash he is taking, is a prime example. The only Hansard record of the word 'slut' (as far as I know) being uttered in the house was directed towards Copps. as for running campaigns based on the idea of integrity, isn't that everyone's main goal? the conservatives just spinned it in face of recent liberal shadiness. Perhaps, but the Conservatives made it central. They raised the accountability bar really high. This is why so many Conservative MPs are pissed, because now they have to try to explain to angry constituents why their party just did exactly what they individually campaigned against. Harper has made them look like assholes, and they don't like it one bit. I know you've been out of the country, so I don't know if you've seen the footage of the Conservative MPs scuttling away from questions from reporters on the hill just as quickly as they would scuttle away had they been asked "So ... any comment on the dead hooker they just found in your hotel room?". If they speak out against it, Harper will bust their balls the way he used to bust Belinda's (hmmmm .... I could have phrased that better). If they don't, their constituents call for their heads. Fun times, fun times. The thing with Emerson, is that only *one* condition has changed between the time that he was elected as a Liberal MP - in a historically NDP riding - and the time of his crossing the floor: his party lost. THAT is hard to successfully spin. The house hasn't even sat yet. No policy change, no animosity between him and the party leader, no nothing. To me, it isn't personally a big deal. He fits as well with the Conservatives as he does with the Liberals, the way that so many Liberals would. But that ain't gonna take the pain away from those who elected him, and it isn't going to make Harper's life any easier, either. He is, at the moment, caught wearing Liberal sleaze and seen to be cut from the same cloth as those 'corrupt Liberals' -- and he did it by inviting a Liberal into his inner circle. Did I say "fun times" already? Oh ya, I did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothedShredder Posted February 11, 2006 Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 Belinda By-Election: Belinda wins (based on her win in the last election)Emerson By-Election: He'll lose (IMO), becasue those Vancouverites don't want a Conservative. I'm not saying that it's not good that they have Cabinet representation and a 'local' overseaing the Pacific Gateway and Olympics (perhaps the two most dynamic portfolio's in cacus), but the people have to think that the party they are a part of is not evil. And I'd be willing to bet that most in his riding think the Conservatives are evil, or atleast distasteful, much like is the norm here on this board. This could be sticky enough to get Harper out in two years or less. Seems to be fitting into my plan nicely.Belinda vs. Pete 2011 - 2022... anyone want to bet? Janet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_rawk Posted February 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 Agreed. Emerson wouldn't stand a chance in hell. I also think he was the beneficiary of some 'strategic' voting, and if anything this may put the lie to the truth, and that riding will flip back towards the New Democrats.Janet? ... Ecker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted February 11, 2006 Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 (edited) Well, the thing with Belinda was that she had publicly expressed opposition to the policy direction that the party had taken, and a not-so-secret falling out with Harper. Before she crossed the floor, we had a general sense of her disgust with where the party was going and a sense that her and the leader of the party were constantly chaffing. The moment and circumstances under which she crossed were kinda surprising, but the general action wasn't, really.She was called a tramp, slut, and whore because she is a woman. Women who do things perceived as opportunistic (ie. floor crossing with a cabinet post reward) get called those things. Men do not. Emerson, for all the backlash he is taking, is a prime example. The only Hansard record of the word 'slut' (as far as I know) being uttered in the house was directed towards Copps. i agree with you d_rawk.. but in all of it, there was more interest in belinda's situation than straight up politics. as a peter mackay lover, and considering how passionate peter was about 'uniting the right', i'm sure what she did felt a little bit like a knife in the back.Perhaps, but the Conservatives made it central. They raised the accountability bar really high. This is why so many Conservative MPs are pissed, because now they have to try to explain to angry constituents why their party just did exactly what they individually campaigned against. Harper has made them look like assholes, and they don't like it one bit. I know you've been out of the country, so I don't know if you've seen the footage of the Conservative MPs scuttling away from questions from reporters on the hill just as quickly as they would scuttle away had they been asked "So ... any comment on the dead hooker they just found in your hotel room?". If they speak out against it, Harper will bust their balls the way he used to bust Belinda's (hmmmm .... I could have phrased that better). If they don't, their constituents call for their heads. Fun times, fun times.lol... belinda! yikes.. i won't be back around until next wednesday and by that time i'm expecting it should be blown over. i too don't really think it's a big deal, nor do i understand why people are so aghast at harper. i think his motives are entirely clear- he needs votes. hell, i'd do it.ahh well, c'est la vie.. no matter how many cries of outrage, nothing will change. Edited February 11, 2006 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_rawk Posted February 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 but in all of it, there was more interest in belinda's situation than straight up politics. as a peter mackay lover, and considering how passionate peter was about 'uniting the right', i'm sure what she did felt a little bit like a knife in the back. Heh Well, I agree with you too on this. Poor Peter in his PEI potato patch (how's that for alliteration?) with the dog borrowed from his neighbour. It sure did make for good soap opera. Not sure about more interest, though. The coverage and commentary on Emerson has been as non-stop as it was for Stronach. Maybe a *bit* more interest in the Stronach affair, but it is a tight call. nor do i understand why people are so aghast at harper. i think his motives are entirely clear- he needs votes. hell, i'd do it. I think that is exactly why they are so aghast. People really seemed to believe that Harper was ushering in a new era, and that 'more votes' wouldn't be justification enough to do something foul smelling. Certainly we can call it naive, but I think that is where the anger is coming from. Out of curiousity ... where are you at, presently? And is the weather nicer there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted February 11, 2006 Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 south florida.. it's 85 degrees and not a cloud in the sky. not that i really get to enjoy too much of it. we work 14/15 hour days under huge tents. you should see the damage from the hurricanes down here though.. it's absolutely insane! trees are down everywhere.. hydro poles, houses with no roofs, broken windows.. this place was torn apart! they're still cleaning up debris. when we flew in it, looking out it was nothing but a sea of blue tarps. so sad- they lost so much.this was a hard fought election in which traditional conservative/liberal hatred ran particularly high. that's probably where a lot of the anger is coming from and will continue to come from until things just fizzle over time.. fizzle.. is that a word? or is it sizzle. hmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_rawk Posted February 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 Fizzle is a word. And an appropriate one. Sizzle is a word too, but less appropriate.What kind of work are you doing? (This is getting dangerously close to PM territory, but I imagine that there is public interest) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted February 11, 2006 Report Share Posted February 11, 2006 i run the client services department for a classic car auction company. it's kinda hard to explain to people who aren't in the business, but basically i take care of all the crazy requests that super rich clientele make and trust me, there's some pretty crazy requests! couple this with an event planner - organizing all VIP parties and functions, and everything that goes along with putting on an auction. it's a fun job.. we're a pretty young staff who all like to party hard. makes living in chatham a little easier, that's for sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgnor Posted February 14, 2006 Report Share Posted February 14, 2006 In regards to the Stronach vs. Emerson debate...basic primate psychosis is that 1 + 1 = 0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothedShredder Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 In regards to the Stronach vs. Emerson debate...basic primate psychosis is that 1 + 1 = 0.In both of their defence, you don't sound like much of a bridge builder yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgnor Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 (edited) I hate love.BTW, what the hell does that have to do with anything? Perhaps you misunderstood what I was getting at. 1+1=0 is an eqaution explaining the human tendancy to add two wrongs together as one right. Also the idea that if two things have fallen through that the "right" outcome has occurred. Dig it? I'm trying to say that their collective deffections haven't equalled anything constructive... only less trustworthy. As an aside, shooting out insults does nothing for your own image as a peacemaker. I don't claim peace. Edited February 15, 2006 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmoothedShredder Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 I hate love.BTW, what the hell does that have to do with anything? Perhaps you misunderstood what I was getting at. 1+1=0 is an eqaution explaining the human tendancy to add two wrongs together as one right. Also the idea that if two things have fallen through that the "right" outcome has occurred. Dig it? I'm trying to say that their collective deffections haven't equalled anything constructive... only less trustworthy. As an aside, shooting out insults does nothing for your own image as a peacemaker. I don't claim peace.If you wanted your equation to be the same as what you said it was in words, it would be <(-1)+(-1)=1 is invalid), and not 1+1=0... I was OBVIOUSLY confused... I didn't get the memo on this hip new lingo, or ancient philosophy.I'm more into Aristotles virtue ethics, and balance, Ying-and-Yang, and all that crap. If it's not constructive, it certainly is interesting. And if it's interesting, its constructive... just look at all the HTML we've created alone!I'm not claiming I'm a bridge builder supreme... on the contrary, I'll admit my own failure in many cases, see: History of this thread... and a large lack of concencus with my opinions in this in this very community, broken ties with family members, a numbness towards the world in general... I could go on and on. I just had to say though, that unprovoked, the tone of your response was rude and irrational. Even though the mentioned polticians in the thread have committed contraversial moves, they still do want to work for the "good of Canada", whatever that may be in their own personal view, and that alone, no matter the party stripes is a (+1)... To me that's what democracy and politics are all about, people comming together and have rational, constructive thoughts... it might not be perfect, but it's definately far from evil, and the best we got.And sure there could be an element of distrust, but that's more a personal choice by yourself (and a healthy one with a solid dose of self reflection and self criticism)... one could also suggest that such deffection show how many common threads do exist between parties, and I worry that with your bleak outlook, your going to miss it... all the come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another we got comming up.But you hate love... so I'm not going to 'argue' till I'm blue in the face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexis Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 i hate love by the slip kicks ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgnor Posted February 17, 2006 Report Share Posted February 17, 2006 Finally somebody is getting me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts