Belinda is now a Liberal Cabinet Minister - what a patriot!

:)

Yay! I also did respect Belinda. She'll be a good cabinet minister.

Hehehe this ought to hurt the conservatives.

I can't help but laugh. Harper must be pulling out his hair.

Here's the story so far:

Tory MP Belinda Stronach defects to Liberals; named to cabinet


OTTAWA (CP) - In a stunning political move, high-profile Tory MP Belinda Stronach has defected to the Liberals.


Prime Minister Paul Martin announced the surprise development today, naming Stronach as human resources minister.

The move appears to give the Liberals a better chance of passing a crucial confidence motion scheduled for Thursday.

Two weeks ago, Stronach warned that defeating the federal budget in the confidence vote might be a bad move that could backfire on the Conservatives.

She said critical portions of the budget - particularly the billions promised for municipal infrastructure - were extremely important to individuals in her riding north of Toronto and other constituencies in the area.

Copyright © 2005 Canadian Press
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Two interesting things we have to wait for before rendering judgement:

1. What are the details of her move? Surely the problems she sees in the Conservative party must be institutional if she's going to jump ship to the Liberals now. Remember people, she's one of the FOUNDERS of the merged Conservatives. Maybe she feels that in hindsight it was a mistake and an Alliance takeover (just a guess)?

2. What is Harper going to say/do now that the voice of moderation in the party that Canadians (and specifically Ontarians) trusted is now gone.

If there is an election in the near future, I guarantee that Ontario will go Liberal. Belinda made quite the speech about why she made the change.

The Conservatives need to dump Harper.

I understand that Harper will be on TV at 11:40 am eastern.

You won't be seeing an election until 30 days after the Gomery report now.

Actually it's now up to the Independants. The Liberals need at least 2 out of 3 of them to vote with the Government, and that would result in a tie. However, in a tie, then the Speaker can vote - and he is a Liberal.

Harper is now on TV claiming that Belinda jumped ship because it didn't look to her that she would ever become the leader of the Conservatives, and all this is bad for Federalism in Quebec - like he gives a shit.

Too bad the Conservatives don't have the brains to a choose a leader who at least appears to be sincere on TV. This guy comes across as nothing more than a mealy-mouthed, lying politician.

So now she's the savior of the Liberals, great opportunity for an opportunist I guess. :cheers:

Harper is now on TV claiming that Belinda jumped ship because it didn't look to her that she would ever become the leader of the Conservatives, and all this is bad for Federalism in Quebec - like he gives a shit.


He brought Quebec into an unrelated issue AGAIN?!? Looks like Harper is using Bush-style tactics. Although instead of saying everything the other side does is a blow against freedom, in his case he says it's a blow agains federalism and Quebec. However, I think most Canadians are able to see through this ploy.

However, I think most Canadians are able to see through this ploy.

It would be nice to think so, but then, Carolyn Parrish keeps winning elections, so it's not a safe assumption by any means...

Sweet, now the Liberals have two hotties on their side (Belinda & that one out in Mississauga).

Yeah! :banana::pepper:

This should force the Conservatives to rethink their party lines and boot Harper far far away... then Belinda can defect back to the Conservatives and save the party's fortunes. A bit idealistic, but could happen.

It would be nice to think so, but then, Carolyn Parrish keeps winning elections, so it's not a safe assumption by any means...

Ploys imply lies. Carolyn Parish doesn't do that. She speaks what on her mind and that's why she got kicked out of the Liberal party.

But anyways,

Conservatives = owned
Stephen Harper = owned

At the press conference, Stephen Harper was saying he saw this coming and he is glad Belinda is gone, but I don't believe it of course.

Carolyn Parish doesn't do that. She speaks what on her mind and that's why she got kicked out of the Liberal party.



If speaking her mind is against the rules of Liberal Party, wouldn't that imply that the Liberal Party instead endorses duplicity?

If speaking her mind is against the rules of Liberal Party, wouldn't that imply that the Liberal Party instead endorses duplicity?

We do it because we must please our American overlords, else they'll send their tanks to crush our tin-can army. :D

Harper is now on TV claiming that Belinda jumped ship because it didn't look to her that she would ever become the leader of the Conservatives, and all this is bad for Federalism in Quebec - like he gives a shit.

Too bad the Conservatives don't have the brains to a choose a leader who at least appears to be sincere on TV. This guy comes across as nothing more than a mealy-mouthed, lying politician.


Ouch, that's going to hurt him. Even if it were obvious and true (which nobody can know), you DON'T say negative things like that when you lose something so obviously important. Now he looks like he doesn't care to lose a moderate element of his party.

We do it because we must please our American overlords, else they'll send their tanks to crush our tin-can army. :D

All that I can say for Parrish is that she makes even Tom DeLay look good by comparison. No small feat, IMHO!

my prediction:

Paul Martin will resign in november when the Gomery inquiry reveals his involvment. The Liberals will elect Belinda Stronach as the leader of thier party....

http://www.canadianwomenvoterscongress.org/Belinda%20Stronach.jpg
Belinda Stronach, 22nd Prime Minister of Canada
2006-????

what a fox!

from the CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/17/stronach-liberals050517.html)

"She also said Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is not sensitive to the needs of all parts of the country, and is jeopardizing national unity by allying himself with the Bloc Québécois.

"The country must come first," she said.

Stronach said that someday, the Conservatives will grow and strengthen to become a worthy challenger to the Liberals. In the meantime, she thinks her place is with a party that is more responsive to the needs of cities, women and young people. "

ouch!

There is actually hope for Canada! After crushing the Conservatives, it is time to set our sites on the brainwashed separatists!!
I live in Montreal and let me tell you, even my federalist friends whom are francophone are saying they would vote to separate! The whole country needs to unify and show a united front in Quebec, rather than a country of divided regions. A country of divided regions will only serve to exacerbate the federalist cause in La Belle Provence.
Belinda for PM!

If speaking her mind is against the rules of Liberal Party, wouldn't that imply that the Liberal Party instead endorses duplicity?

No, it means being circumspect about personal opinions when before the media.

Hmm......... normaly I would be suspicous of bribary in a case like this, but how do you bribe a multi-millionare?

Only the Cabnet posting comes to my mind as being the only possible leverage the Liberals could use on her.

This only goes to show that the fine line between the Liberal and Conservative parties is blurring with every passing day. Thesedays it seems the only difference between the two is different colours on the bristol boards.




PS: Carolyn Parrish was small potatos, and what she did is far less offensive than what American media has said about Canada.

There is actually hope for Canada! After crushing the Conservatives, it is time to set our sites on the brainwashed separatists!!
I live in Montreal and let me tell you, even my federalist friends whom are francophone are saying they would vote to separate!

Why, because Quebec is chock full of corrupt politicians? We even get the blame for that? Sorry, but they are all from Quebec.

Why, because Quebec is chock full of corrupt politicians? We even get the blame for that? Sorry, but they are all from Quebec.

:applause: Well said.

Hmm......... normaly I would be suspicous of bribary in a case like this, but how do you bribe a multi-millionare?

Only the Cabnet posting comes to my mind as being the only possible leverage the Liberals could use on her.

This only goes to show that the fine line between the Liberal and Conservative parties is blurring with every passing day. Thesedays it seems the only difference between the two is different colours on the bristol boards.




PS: Carolyn Parrish was small potatos, and what she did is far less offensive than what American media has said about Canada.

Right on!

Belinda is actually a billionaire who had 72,000 employees working under her. For anyone who doesn't know, her father controls Magna International, etc.

^Glad you agree. I personnally can't see anything but pretiges political postings as motivation.

Why, because Quebec is chock full of corrupt politicians? We even get the blame for that? Sorry, but they are all from Quebec.

We can't say they are all from Quebec, but it does seem that a disproportionate amount of them do come from Quebec.

The conservatives really have to stay far away from the slimy bloc.
I believe many people get turned off seeing the conservatives and
the bloc with their arms around each other.

PS: Carolyn Parrish was small potatos, and what she did is far less offensive than what American media has said about Canada.

The thing the American media has done that could be interpreted as offenseive to Canada is overlook it altether. I don't really hear anything said about Canada except that it's there.

Contrary to what the Conservatives are now saying, Belinda has been dropping hints that perhaps it would be best not to have an election for the time being - that was several weeks ago. Now the Conservatives pretend that Belinda was fully in support of Harper's efforts to bring down the Government.

:applause: Well said.

Why not just take the initiative and expel Quebec before they can secede? Keep the federal lands though...

The thing the American media has done that could be interpreted as offenseive to Canada is overlook it altether. I don't really hear anything said about Canada except that it's there.

At least one American has the decency to tune out the biased Fox News.

http://blog.mutatron.com/CanuckArms.gif

We can't say they are all from Quebec, but it does seem that a disproportionate amount of them do come from Quebec.

Which corrupt officials (involved with Adscam) are not from Quebec?

Why not just take the initiative and expel Quebec before they can secede? Keep the federal lands though...

The federal government could end up being the biggest liability to English Canada, lol. The national debt alone is :eek2:

The thing the American media has done that could be interpreted as offenseive to Canada is overlook it altether. I don't really hear anything said about Canada except that it's there.

Obviously, you don't spend a lot of time watching FOXnews, MSNBC, CNN...

The thing the American media has done that could be interpreted as offenseive to Canada is overlook it altether. I don't really hear anything said about Canada except that it's there.

Read this article, I would make the areas of interest bold but there are so many anti-Canada comments that it would not make any sense.

McKenna survives trip to Fox's den
New envoy takes on Canada-basher
Fights allegations we're soft on security


TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - In an encounter more game show than great debate, Frank McKenna fended off Fox News allegations yesterday that Canada is soft on security and welcoming to terrorists.

The show was The Big Story with John Gibson, but the new Canadian ambassador, his on-air time squeezed by reports on a double murder and a police shooting, took on the host as if he were on Final Jeopardy.

"Mr. Ambassador, the big question: Are Islamic radicals inside Canada a threat to both your side of the border and ours?" asked Gibson, a well-known critic of Canada — or Canada-baiter, depending on one's point of view.

Hard on the heels of that question, Gibson asked McKenna: "Explain to me something — I hear there are a certain number of Americans who were mad that President Bush was re-elected. They want to move to Canada."

It takes them a long time to get in, he added.

"But you get the impression that if you get off the plane from Afghanistan and say, `I'm here claiming political asylum,' you're welcome to Canada," Gibson asserted.

McKenna, who has vowed to more aggressively counter misinformation about Canada in this country, offered a rapid-fire denial of the asylum question and took the opportunity about Islamic radicals to take on the biggest urban myth in this country — that some of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists entered the U.S. from Canada.

It was such an inaccuracy, uttered by former U.S. House speaker Newt Gingrich and unchallenged by his interlocutors on Fox, that led McKenna to demand and receive an apology from the Georgia politician April 20.

After Gibson spoke over his words when he tried to answer, McKenna decided to take on the role of interviewer and interviewee.

"Is there the potential for terrorism coming from Canada? Yes," he said.

"Is there the potential for terrorism from the United States going into Canada? Of course, yes.

"Were any of the Sept. 11 terrorists from Canada? The answer is no.

"Do we care about protecting the border? The answer is, emphatically, both countries care a great deal about protecting the border and I think are doing a very good job of it."

McKenna said Canadians respect the re-election of George W. Bush and he said Canadian authorities overseas have already stopped 40,000 people from boarding planes destined for Canada, so the Afghanistan asylum charge is "categorically not true."

The Fox interview wrapped up McKenna's day in New York, his second "outreach" day outside Washington, whereby he is taking his message to major centres.

At a luncheon speech, he tried to counter perceptions that Canada is "a bit soft on immigration." He said Canada has passed its own antiterrorism laws — the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Public Safety Act.

McKenna said Canada accepts 40 per cent of its refugee applicants, while the United States accepts 36 per cent. And while there are close to 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., Canada has about 60,000, he said.

At the end of their brief encounter, Gibson was a relative pussycat with the Canadian envoy.

Earlier this month he told his viewers that it looked like Canada was "opening its arms wide to most anyone," and becoming "a nest of terrorists plotting to go south of the border and do us harm."

In a March 23 interview with a former aide to Mexican President Vicente Fox, Gibson said, "Al Qaeda isn't attacking Mexico or Toronto. We know that for a fact.

"But we do know that Al Qaeda can get across the Mexican border very easily. And we do know there's a bunch of Al Qaeda wandering around Canada."

He has mocked Canada for suggesting it could have a say on continental defence without joining Bush's missile defence plan.

"Bush invaded a country without your permission," he said. "Do you think he's going to be worried about your sovereign airspace?

"The Canadians better hope that if the Nokos (North Koreans) do fire a missile at the U.S., that they gas it up so it doesn't fall short, if you get my drift."

He has said Canadians "think and lecture and scold like the Euros," and saved some of his best rhetoric in response to charges that young Canadian Omar Khadr, captured after fighting the Americans in Afghanistan, was being mistreated at Guantanamo Bay.

"Poor baby," he said. "You can throw grenades at Americans, but can't take tinkling on yourself? Oh, booby, we feel so bad. Actually, we don't. This is another incident where we're going to have to tell Canada to forget it."

His message to Americans thinking heading north of the border?

"You like sneering Canadians so much? Fine. Stay forever."


That is only one article okay man, and it has nothing by O'Rielly and Coulter. If you can't see how shamefully your own media and politicians are when it comes to insulting other nations, then I suggest you pay more attention to them than one lousy Liberal backbencher.

Which corrupt officials (involved with Adscam) are not from Quebec?

You know me OceanMdx, I was just trying to keep the peace and make it sound as if not all politicians from Quebec are corrupt.

Obviously, you don't spend a lot of time watching FOXnews, MSNBC, CNN...

Actually I watch a lot of CNN.

As for FOX...a minute is too much...

Actually I watch a lot of CNN.

As for FOX...a minute is too much...

Then you must have missed the interview between Tucker (aka Fucker in these parts) Carlson and Carolyn Parish?

From Carolyn Parrish's website (is this the one you're talking about oceanmdx?) :

CNN Interview with Wolf Blitzer - Complete Transcript
Tuesday, November 30th, 2004

President Bush is making his first official visit to Canada trying to thaw a relationship that's turned frosty over issues ranging from Iraq to timber. Our White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux is traveling with the president in Ottawa. She's joining us now live -- Suzanne.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Despite the efforts to mend fences between these two countries, these two leaders, this visit attracted thousands of protesters, essentially demonstrators protesting Iraq policy, the Iraq war. Also a number of other issues as well, including a U.S. ban on Canadian beef as well as the U.S. tariff imposed on softwood Canadian lumber. Now all of these disagreements, of course, the two leaders addressing them. They personally have a good relationship, but realize there are quite a few disagreements, but the two of them side by side decided to emphasize the positive. The president, instead of talking about the disagreement over Iraq, emphasized Canada's cooperation and its peacekeeping role in Afghanistan, its humanitarian aid that it has provided in Iraq and also its willingness to forgive some $450 million in Iraqi debt.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Canada and United States share a history, a continent and a border. We also share a commitment to freedom and a willingness to defend it in times of peril. The United States and Canada fought side by side in two world wars, in Korea and the Persian Gulf and throughout the Cold War. Today, we're standing together against the forces of terror.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Now while the leaders disagree on Iraq policy, both of them coming out very strongly, agreeing on Ukraine's elections, calling for the fact that they need -- it needs a peaceful resolution on the disputed election result, calling for both sides to come together. President Bush also acknowledging the Polish president, Kwasniewski, for his initiative in those negotiations -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Suzanne Malveaux in Ottawa, thank you, Suzanne, very much. The president will continue his talks in Canada tomorrow.

She made it clear she has opposed President Bush on the issue of missile defense.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CAROLYN PARRISH, CANADIAN PARLIAMENT MEMBER: We are not joining the coalition of the idiots.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Now this Canadian lawmaker is raising eyebrows again. She will join us live. Also, one of the deadliest months yet for U.S. forces in Iraq. Why the cost of American lives is surging.

And a life or death decision process beginning in the final phase of the Scott Peterson murder trial. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Will President Bush mend that long fence along the 49th Parallel?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: I want to thank the Canadian people who came out to wave with all five fingers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: He has his work cut out for him. Joining us now from Ottawa is the Canadian parliament member, Carolyn Paris. She was expelled from the Liberal Party for what Prime Minister Martin called "unacceptable behavior," which included a recent stomping of the George W. Bush doll. And here in Washington, Tucker Carlson, he is the Canada-baiting co-host of CNN's "CROSSFIRE." He has suggested that our northern neighbor, in his words, is a third-rate country. We'll get to Tucker in a moment. Let's begin with Carolyn Parrish.

Thanks very much for joining us. We're going to show our viewers that picture of you stomping that George W. Bush doll. What were you trying to prove?

PARRISH: Actually, I was making fun of myself. We have a program up here called "This Hour Has 22 Minutes." And they love to get politicians to do bizarre things, like put rollers in their hair and jump into bed with strange people. And they kept giving me direction and I kept following it.

BLITZER: So, you apologize for that?

PARRISH: Nope.

BLITZER: Why not?

PARRISH: Because I was making fun of myself. It was a parody on me and my anti-Bush position. And if you can't make fun of yourself in this business, then it's time to get out of it.

BLITZER: What about the sound bite that -- we'll play it right now. I want you to listen to what you said about this coalition the president has been trying to put together.

PARRISH: I've heard it before.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PARRISH: We are not joining the coalition of the idiots.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. Give us the context of that.

PARRISH: Well, I was speaking to a large crowd on the steps of the House of Commons. There were a lot of people there protesting against Canada's joining missile defense and I happened to agree with them. General Gard (ph) came up from the States, representing 48 former military people, and I had spoken with him about it. We also had Professor Postal (ph) from MIT telling us this isn't going to work. And I think it is an increase to weaponization of space. I think it's a very bad idea. And the coalition of idiots I was referring to I think were mostly the politicians in my own government.

BLITZER: All right. So you don't consider President Bush an idiot?

PARRISH: No. How could he rise to the top job in the country by being an idiot?

BLITZER: Tucker Carlson, what do you think of this latest twist in the U.S.-Canadian relationship?

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": Oh, well, I mean, it's part of an ongoing sort of battle that the U.S. doesn't really participate in. I think you get the sense that Canadians think much more about the United States than the United States thinks about Canada.

I think, you know, Canadians are nice people, it's a nice country, but it's a country in the grip of a national insecurity complex. Canada needs the United States for trade, for a lot of reasons. Without the U.S., Canada is essentially Honduras, but colder and much less interesting. And I think that that makes Canadians -- the dependence that Canada has on the United States makes Canadians understandably resentful.

BLITZER: Carolyn Parrish, those are fighting words.

PARRISH: Oh Tucker, you're way out to lunch on this one, my friend. Most of the top six things you buy from us are raw materials: hydro, gas, oil. You need us more than we need you.

CARLSON: We exploit your natural resources, that's true. But in the end, Canadians with ambition move to the United States. That has been sort of the trend for decades. It says something not very good about Canada. And I think it makes Canadians feel bad about themselves and I understand that. PARRISH: No. I don't agree with you, Tucker. I think Canadians who have a good social conscience and are more European in their outlook live here quite happily.

CARLSON: I bet.

PARRISH: Those who want to make huge bucks and not worry about where they're coming from go to the States. And we're glad to be rid of them.

CARLSON: Well, with that attitude, no wonder they leave. I concede that.

PARRISH: No wonder.

BLITZER: What is the attitude now, Carolyn Parrish, in Canada, President Bush has been re-elected, there's a bigger Republican majority in the House as well as in the Senate, has there been an accommodation, if you will? Are Canadians ready to accept this American president?

PARRISH: Listen. We accept the democratic process. And that was why I was interviewed the day after the election. And I said the people of the United States have clearly spoken. I think this was a non-controverted result and I think as good neighbors, we will wait patiently for another four years.

BLITZER: I was in Ottawa 10 years ago or so, then-President Clinton spoke before the parliament.

PARRISH: Yes, he did.

BLITZER: He was pretty warmly received. You noticed this time, Tucker and Carolyn, the president of the United States is not speaking before the parliament in Ottawa. Carolyn Parrish, why is that?

PARRISH: I think Mr. Clinton shared a lot of our values. He talked about Medicare and he talked about banning weapons. He said that he envied us our gun laws. So he was more simpatico with the Canadian people. And he was very warmly received. He's a very terrific guy?

BLITZER: Would you have heckled President Bush had he come into the parliament?

PARRISH: Absolutely -- no, no, no. I'm not a heckler. I don't heckle anybody.

BLITZER: Would your colleagues have heckled him?

PARRISH: I don't think so either. I think the reason Mr. Bush didn't address the parliament is was they were having a hard time finding common ground that he could talk about. We do not support the war in Iraq. We are not impressed with 100,000 dead Iraqis. We're not impressed with 1,000 dead American soldiers. So, what would be the basis of the conversation? We couldn't solve softwood lumber in a speech in the House of Commons. We couldn't solve the beef problem. So there was no common ground for a speech.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: What about -- Tucker, I was going to say to you, what does it say that the president of the United States on an official state visit to Canada, the first time in a decade, doesn't address the parliament?

CARLSON: Well, you know, he doesn't want to get heckled. That's right. I'm glad to hear Ms. Parrish is not a heckler, merely a person who stomps on dolls. You've got to have standards. And I appreciate yours. No, look. Just simply because the United States and Canada disagree about the war in Iraq and they do doesn't mean they can't have productive conversations. I mean, the United States and China talk about all sorts of things. We're major trading partners. And I think in the end, it only hurts Canada, these attacks on the United States. Again, just to restate a pretty obvious point that I know is foremost on your mind, Ms. Parrish, Canada needs the United States. The United States does not need Canada. But you need us. And so to alienate our administration is probably not such a good idea.

PARRISH: Tucker, that's a really bad attitude, my friend...

CARLSON: It's true.

PARRISH: I think we need each other. I think we have got a long-term trade partnership. I think both countries benefit from that partnership. And when you say to us, we don't need you, that's not a way to make friends...

CARLSON: In fact, it's not even a value judgment, it's simply a recognition of economic reality. Of course it's good for the United States to trade with Canada, but it's vital for Canada to trade with the United States. So you gain nothing by alienating the administration.

PARRISH: It's pretty vital for California to take our hydro-oil (ph). I think it would be dark the next day. I think this is not a productive conversation. I think we're long-term friends, we are long-term trade partners. And we will weather this recent storm. We are fundamentally opposed to might is right and brute force and preemptive attacks on other countries. That's fundamental in Canada.

CARLSON: Well, you have the benefit of being protected by the United States and you can say that. But I think if Canada were responsible for its own security -- you would be invaded by Norway if it weren't for the United States and so you...

PARRISH: We're a very secure nation because we haven't ticked off the rest of the world. We march with the world. We're not out of step.

BLITZER: Tucker, don't you believe that this 3,000-mile border that the United States shares with Canada that it's imperative that the U.S. has a friendly ally on the other side?

CARLSON: Oh, of course. In the end, the countries are friendly. There are some French politicians who get something out of...

BLITZER: But when you say the United States doesn't need Canada, the United States has a 3,000-mile border with Canada.

CARLSON: My only point is as a matter of trade, Canada is far more dependent on the U.S. than the U.S. is on Canada. That's simply a fact, again, not even a value judgment. But of course the United States needs a good relationship with Canada and I suspect it will always have one unless some separatist government comes to power and the country splits into two, which is always possible. But short of that, no, absolutely the countries will remain allies and there will always be politicians who see it to their benefit to stomp on Bush dolls. But no, I don't think the average Canadian feels -- the average Canadian is busy dogsledding. You know that.

PARRISH: That is such -- that's such a caricature and you have to understand from this lowly backbencher that shouldn't even be on your show, I am of total insignificance within my own party and within the country, you're sure putting up a lot of fuss and putting a lot of attention on this. It shows a very weak ego, in my opinion. I think if you're as strong as you say you are, anything I have got to say can't hurt you.

BLITZER: I will point out to our viewers as well as to Carolyn Parrish that Tucker Carlson often speaks with tongue in cheek. Is that a fair assessment, Tucker? Just want to make sure our viewers don't literally believe that every word that you're saying.

CARLSON: I don't think every Canadian is dogsledding at all times but I do think there's a lot of dogsledding in Canada. Yes, I do think that's true.

PARRISH: Very little, my friend.

CARLSON: You know that's true, Carolyn. (UNINTELLIGIBLE). But there's a lot of dogsledding.

PARRISH: No, there's not a lot of dogsledding. There's a lot of dog walking, my friend. Not a lot of dogsledding.

CARLSON: Welcome to our century.

BLITZER: There's some dogsledding in the United States as well, including the beautiful state of Alaska. Tucker Carlson speaking tongue in cheek sometimes, not always. Sometimes.

Carolyn Parrish, you're an important guest. All of our guests are important. Thanks very much for joining us.

PARRISH: Thank you, Wolf. I've enjoyed it. Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Thanks. Thanks a lot, Carolyn. See you in Canada.

PARRISH: Yep.

BLITZER: U.S.-Canadian relations, a very, very important subject to all of our viewers, both south and north of the U.S. border.

- from CNN

Then you must have missed the interview between Tucker (aka Fucker in these parts) Carlson and Carolyn Parish?

You're judging all media by Tucker Carlson? I think I've pinpointed your faux pas...

Funny that we talk about Carolyn Parrish in a thread about Belinda Stronach. Both women and both chose the interests of their constituents over the interests of their party.

Read this article, I would make the areas of interest bold but there are so many anti-Canada comments that it would not make any sense.

McKenna survives trip to Fox's den
New envoy takes on Canada-basher
Fights allegations we're soft on security


TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - In an encounter more game show than great debate, Frank McKenna fended off Fox News allegations yesterday that Canada is soft on security and welcoming to terrorists.

The show was The Big Story with John Gibson, but the new Canadian ambassador, his on-air time squeezed by reports on a double murder and a police shooting, took on the host as if he were on Final Jeopardy.

"Mr. Ambassador, the big question: Are Islamic radicals inside Canada a threat to both your side of the border and ours?" asked Gibson, a well-known critic of Canada — or Canada-baiter, depending on one's point of view.

Hard on the heels of that question, Gibson asked McKenna: "Explain to me something — I hear there are a certain number of Americans who were mad that President Bush was re-elected. They want to move to Canada."

It takes them a long time to get in, he added.

"But you get the impression that if you get off the plane from Afghanistan and say, `I'm here claiming political asylum,' you're welcome to Canada," Gibson asserted.

McKenna, who has vowed to more aggressively counter misinformation about Canada in this country, offered a rapid-fire denial of the asylum question and took the opportunity about Islamic radicals to take on the biggest urban myth in this country — that some of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists entered the U.S. from Canada.

It was such an inaccuracy, uttered by former U.S. House speaker Newt Gingrich and unchallenged by his interlocutors on Fox, that led McKenna to demand and receive an apology from the Georgia politician April 20.

After Gibson spoke over his words when he tried to answer, McKenna decided to take on the role of interviewer and interviewee.

"Is there the potential for terrorism coming from Canada? Yes," he said.

"Is there the potential for terrorism from the United States going into Canada? Of course, yes.

"Were any of the Sept. 11 terrorists from Canada? The answer is no.

"Do we care about protecting the border? The answer is, emphatically, both countries care a great deal about protecting the border and I think are doing a very good job of it."

McKenna said Canadians respect the re-election of George W. Bush and he said Canadian authorities overseas have already stopped 40,000 people from boarding planes destined for Canada, so the Afghanistan asylum charge is "categorically not true."

The Fox interview wrapped up McKenna's day in New York, his second "outreach" day outside Washington, whereby he is taking his message to major centres.

At a luncheon speech, he tried to counter perceptions that Canada is "a bit soft on immigration." He said Canada has passed its own antiterrorism laws — the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Public Safety Act.

McKenna said Canada accepts 40 per cent of its refugee applicants, while the United States accepts 36 per cent. And while there are close to 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., Canada has about 60,000, he said.

At the end of their brief encounter, Gibson was a relative pussycat with the Canadian envoy.

Earlier this month he told his viewers that it looked like Canada was "opening its arms wide to most anyone," and becoming "a nest of terrorists plotting to go south of the border and do us harm."

In a March 23 interview with a former aide to Mexican President Vicente Fox, Gibson said, "Al Qaeda isn't attacking Mexico or Toronto. We know that for a fact.

"But we do know that Al Qaeda can get across the Mexican border very easily. And we do know there's a bunch of Al Qaeda wandering around Canada."

He has mocked Canada for suggesting it could have a say on continental defence without joining Bush's missile defence plan.

"Bush invaded a country without your permission," he said. "Do you think he's going to be worried about your sovereign airspace?

"The Canadians better hope that if the Nokos (North Koreans) do fire a missile at the U.S., that they gas it up so it doesn't fall short, if you get my drift."

He has said Canadians "think and lecture and scold like the Euros," and saved some of his best rhetoric in response to charges that young Canadian Omar Khadr, captured after fighting the Americans in Afghanistan, was being mistreated at Guantanamo Bay.

"Poor baby," he said. "You can throw grenades at Americans, but can't take tinkling on yourself? Oh, booby, we feel so bad. Actually, we don't. This is another incident where we're going to have to tell Canada to forget it."

His message to Americans thinking heading north of the border?

"You like sneering Canadians so much? Fine. Stay forever."




:ohno: x10,000

^Alot of Americans listen to anything on TV without thinking whether it's right or wrong.

When somebody says on Fox News that the 911 terrorists entered the US through Canada, people believe that despite the fact it is not true.

When somebody says on Fox News that the 911 terrorists entered the US through Canada, people believe that despite the fact it is not true.

Tell us where they really came from.

It's your big chance to set the record straight!

Tell us where they really came from.

It's your big chance to set the record straight!

They definately didn't come from Iraq!

They definately didn't come from Iraq!

Who claimed this?

McKenna said Canada accepts 40 per cent of its refugee applicants, while the United States accepts 36 per cent. And while there are close to 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., Canada has about 60,000, he said.

Tell us where they really came from.

It's your big chance to set the record straight!

Most of them came from your good buddy Saudi Arabia. They all came directly to America from their C of O.

Tell us where they really came from.

It's your big chance to set the record straight!

the US, where they received excellent flight training. Before that, they lived in Saudi Arabia.

When a plane hijacked by Saudis attacks your country, you think you'd be concerned with Saudi Arabia.. not Iraq.

:ohno: x10,000

Ditto.

Most of them came from your good buddy Saudi Arabia. They all came directly to America from their C of O.

Saudi Arabia and the US don't share a border. How could they cross over the border from Saudi Arabia?

^No but the entered the US through an American port of entry and not Canada.

the US, where they received excellent flight training. Before that, they lived in Saudi Arabia.

They crossed over the US border from the US? Howz that work?


When a plane hijacked by Saudis attacks your country, you think you'd be concerned with Saudi Arabia.. not Iraq.

Well, two things on that. One, I don't group all Americans as neo-cons. Two, I don't group all Saudis as terrorists.

^No but the entered the US through an American port of entry and not Canada.

Which port? It's your chance to reveal the truth!

^Your a fool, you havent even read what I just wrote.

Marathon, all the hijackers entered US ports of entry from their countries of origin, they did not sneak into the US from Canada. I don't know how you don't understand that.

^Your a fool, you havent even read what I just wrote.

I quoted what you just wrote, and asked a question regarding it.

Marathon, all the hijackers entered US ports of entry from their countries of origin, they did not sneak into the US from Canada. I don't know how you don't understand that.

I didn't realize that the airport in Bangor, Maine was an international hub ;)

I didn't realize that the airport in Bangor, Maine was an international hub ;)

Marathon, I seriously don't understand you. I've agreed with you on several subjects, but I remember arguing this with you probably a good year ago. Forumers posted sources and you still hide behind this veil of misunderstanding and you fail to accept the FACTS.

Post some source which says that the hijackers entered from Canada.

Here's my source countering your 'claim':

"In the weeks after the attacks, investigators established that all of the hijackers entered the United States from countries other than Canada, a finding that got the official stamp last summer with the release of the Sept. 11 commission report. But that has not stopped the story from spreading."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38816-2005Apr8.html


I could look for the official documents from the US Government, but I don't feel like wasting any more of my time, since you will probably respond with ignorance anyways.

Well, two things on that. One, I don't group all Americans as neo-cons. Two, I don't group all Saudis as terrorists.

You know exactly what I meant. Your either teasing us or you're drunk.

"Funny that we talk about Carolyn Parrish in a thread about Belinda Stronach. Both women and both chose the interests of their constituents over the interests of their party."


And I'm not unhappy to see the odd MP speak their convictions, or the convictions of their constituents, when it threatens their jobs...cowtowing politicians are a bore. Although I would label Stronach as nothing more than an oportunist.

Hey, of course people will say on the outside they didn't like the way Parrish behaved...but it's not like most people also didn't applaud her for "what" she said. Her main problem is she simply isn't an elequent speaker....someone like Trudeau would be 10 times worse, but of course he had few matches....you either didn't even realize you were being insulted, or you didn't have the balls to engage him.








"Saudi Arabia and the US don't share a border."

In terms of flights...you do actually.

Either present your case that Canada sent the terrorists to the US...or knock it off.







KGB

Either present your case that Canada sent the terrorists to the US...or knock it off.


Why would I present a case I never made?

Here's my source countering your 'claim':

"In the weeks after the attacks, investigators established that all of the hijackers entered the United States from countries other than Canada, a finding that got the official stamp last summer with the release of the Sept. 11 commission report. But that has not stopped the story from spreading."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38816-2005Apr8.html



Spectacular! That's how you go about convincing people.

Why would I present a case I never made?

Yes you did. Homer made a claim that is backed up by dozens of articles and even the American Ambassador to Canada, and you jumped on him and told him in a condescending manned that this was his "big opportunity" to set the record straight. When he did and said that they came from Saudi Arabia, you disputed the claim and made jokes showing your inablility to accept the truth.

to get back to the topic at hand...

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/9254/Stronach.jpg

this guy is pretty fresh..
http://www.conservative.ca/english/enews/images/20041126-stronach.jpg

Belinda with KGB
http://www.campusconservatives.ca/photos/Stronach%20and%20Jaworski.jpg

ambitious
http://www.oneworld.ca/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/8320-100x150.jpg

from left to right
Belinda, Marathon, whats-his-face
http://www.grafiksismik.net/dery/belinda_stronach.jpg

http://retrofibber.quitpaxil.info/volume1/Current%20Issue/nicht-Belinda-Stronach.jpghttp://www.canadianwild.ca/belinda_slayer.jpg

^ :hilarious Thats so funny!

Welcome to the Liberal party Babreasts..... I mean Belinda. :eek:

Yes you did. Homer made a claim that is backed up by dozens of articles and even the American Ambassador to Canada, and you jumped on him and told him in a condescending manned that this was his "big opportunity" to set the record straight. When he did and said that they came from Saudi Arabia, you disputed the claim and made jokes showing your inablility to accept the truth.

No I didn't. I was a passive party here.

Consider me not as the person who reported that they came from Canada, but rather as the person who heard the news story being reported. So now I've heard on the news that they came from Canada...I haven't actively asserted it, I've passively heard it. Now, you say it isn't true. I'm asking you to make me believe it over what I've previously heard.

Then, a few posts ago, you posted a source to contradict what I'd heard. In other words, you made me believe it, or at least made me doubt what I'd been told previously.

That's all I've ever asked for around here. It's nice to occasionally get it.

Good show!

Belinda Stronach stands up for her beliefs.
She has never been leftwing.

I don’t care what the US thinks of Canada.
We kept them from invading Canada during the war of 1812.
The Mohawks caused the Americans to shit their pants.
We would have taken a lot of territory if the British weren’t at war with French.

from left to right
Belinda, Marathon, whats-his-face
http://www.grafiksismik.net/dery/belinda_stronach.jpg


You care enough to make fun of me! :cheers1:

I don’t care what the US thinks of Canada.
We kept them from invading Canada during the war of 1812.
The Mohawks caused the Americans to shit their pants.
We would have taken a lot of territory if the British weren’t at war with French.

Yeah, but we'd have just taken it back later :)

Enough talk about the terrorism stuff. It's old news!

More Belinda please. :yes:

I know Belinda ain't in politics to be a back-bencher...she's going for the big chair...or nothing. But I really think the federal Liberals or Conservatives is a bad choice for her. To me, she represents old fashioned Red Tories, and as such, should have set her sights for the Ontario Liberal Party....I think that's something realistic...and needed...she would probably be far more successful...and usefull in a role like that.





KGB

Here's something to get you guys talking while I'm out:

http://media.canada.com/idl/ntnp/20040117/301197-78993.jpg

(No, it's not doctored.)

You care enough to make fun of me! :cheers1:

I do what I can.

Here's something to get you guys talking while I'm out:

http://media.canada.com/idl/ntnp/20040117/301197-78993.jpg

(No, it's not doctored.)


yeah.. I've seen that before! funny stuff

imagine.. Clinton as prez and Stronach as PM. I guarantee US/Canada relations would have been at their best!

Belinda Stronach stands up for her beliefs.
She has never been leftwing.

I meant to say rightwing. I was looking at the pictures of her
when I was writing it.

Belinda is definitely not doing this because she feels in her heart that Mr. Harper et at are wrong. I don't really think she gives a crap one way or the other. She's obviously doing it because she weighed her chances of ever getting to the big chair and figured this was the best way to do it. She pays attention to the polls too and she knows that the Liberals were already in a position to win. With her on board those chances just shot way up. With the C.'s she knew the odds weren't as good. Now, I have to give her credit for her political strategy here, she's done her homework and added a little bit of intuition to the formula for her own success. As for her core beliefs....lol, I'm not too sure she really has any anymore. In a lot of ways this will be her make or break moment. If the Libs get in again they'll have her to thank for it in many ways. If the C's get in she'll be pretty much done for as her credibility will be shot. The only possibility of her political career being resurected in that case would be if she was elected to head the Libs in the event of an election loss.

Either way, I've never been too big a fan of hers but I do admire her brains. She probably would have made a better leader for the C's and I would have voted for her then but with this I don't exactly find myself enamoured of her belief system. I think it's about Belinda and has always been about Belinda. Still, she probably would have gotten the Cs the win they want if she was at the helm.

imagine.. Clinton as prez and Stronach as PM. I guarantee US/Canada relations would have been at their best!


Yeah but it would all fall apart if a stain was ever found on her dress.

yeah.. I've seen that before! funny stuff

imagine.. Clinton as prez and Stronach as PM. I guarantee US/Canada relations would have been at their best!
Free stogies to celebrate !

You're judging all media by Tucker Carlson? I think I've pinpointed your faux pas...

Of course not (don't be so foolish), but I have spent too much time watching so many other commentators in the US media, and the vast majority of them are full of it when it comes to Canada - or any other country in the world for that matter.

Tell us where they really came from.

It's your big chance to set the record straight!


The US of A invited them in with open arms! Didn't you even know that much?

Of course not (don't be so foolish), but I have spent too much time watching so many other commentators in the US media, and the vast majority of them are full of it when it comes to Canada - or any other country in the world for that matter.

"Full of it"? Do me a favor, and please be even more vague next time...

Who claimed this?

Jesus man, you need to get in touch with your own media.

The US of A invited them in with open arms!

So you suppport the minutemen efforts to prevent that in the future, right?

Jesus man, you need to get in touch with your own media.

What should I tell them?

Most of them came from your good buddy Saudi Arabia. They all came directly to America from their C of O.

Yes, 15 out of 19 came from Saudi Arabia - a close US ally. [/SARCASM]

A country the Bushs like to kiss up to - what a joke.

The average Saudi would like to behead the average 'merican.

What should I tell them?

to go fuck themselves

to go fuck themselves

They probably won't get that right either...

to go fuck themselves
Such eloquence !

They crossed over the US border from the US? Howz that work?

They take off in a jet in Saudi and land in the US. Even after 9/11 your consulates were handing your visas left and right to whoever wanted one in Saudi Arabia.

Well, two things on that. One, I don't group all Americans as neo-cons. Two, I don't group all Saudis as terrorists.

Your naivete is way over the top here. The average Saudi would like to see the US destroyed.

Such eloquence !

[Carolyn Parrish]I'm just speaking my mind[/Carolyn Parrish]

Seriously though, it's fascinating to see people criticize Bush for speaking his mind saying things like "Bring it on", but then turn around and play apologist for Carolyn Parrish.

Your naivete is way over the top here. The average Saudi would like to see the US destroyed.

But are they terrorists? Are you even reading these posts before you reply to them? Or are you just eager for the Crusades to begin?

I think Mrs. Stronach would make a fine leader

now do the LOCK dance, bitches!


:lock: :lock: :lock: :lock: :lock: :lock: :lock: :lock: :lock:

marathon - It's your responsibility to educate yourself when you're so out of the loop that you did not realize none of the 9/11 hijackers crossed the Canadian border.

That myth was debunked long ago.

Spectacular! That's how you go about convincing people.

So in your mind, Canada was involved until otherwise proven. Okay, prove that US didn't hijack those jets itself in order to make Muslims around the world look bad and to gain sympathy for itself.

That myth was debunked long ago.

It's not debunked if anyone anywhere still believes it.

This has so many implications:

The Liberals are desperate. They wooed Stronach with all their might in hopes that a high-profile defection (as if there could be one higher!) would bolster their chances at a non-confidence vote, or if it came that far, an election.

Belinda Stronach, cynically, wants to play for a winning team. No, be the leader of a winning team someday. She's probably already one of the closest to becoming the next PM.

Conservatives are working so hard at toppling the government that they are causing some fractures. Putting federalism in Québec on the back burner to win the alliance of the Bloc Quebeçois is one of the most divisive issues that Stronach has blamed for making her defect.

Fiscal conservatives/social moderates are bound to follow Stronach.

Yeah, but we'd have just taken it back later :)

You mean like Mexico is taking back much of the US? :)

So in your mind, Canada was involved until otherwise proven.

You're getting warmer, but still not quite there. It's not about proof so much as reasonable doubt.

Okay, prove that US didn't hijack those jets itself in order to make Muslims around the world look bad and to gain sympathy for itself.

Wow, where'd you get this chestnut? And you're actually presuming to criticize American media as propaganda?

You mean like Mexico is taking back much of the US? :)

Yes! :mad2:

Minutemen are effectively putting the skids on that though :)

Fiscal conservatives/social moderates are bound to follow Stronach.

My kind of people!

So you suppport the minutemen efforts to prevent that in the future, right?

You know the answer to that one. Please get back on topic or leave.

You know the answer to that one. Please get back on topic or leave.

Your post that I quoted opened the door :)

Do you even know who Belinda is, or are you just here to flame?

I'm well aware of who Belinda is.

Point out the flame.

I'm well aware of who Belinda is.



Then prove it by saying something intelligent - for a change.

^ I found the flame ;)

Should the Government still lose the vote of confidence, and an election is called, I wonder how Belinda's switch will affect the Ontario voter. It will be interesting to see what the polls show in a few days.

Should the Government still lose the vote of confidence, and an election is called, I wonder how Belinda's switch will affect the Ontario voter. It will be interesting to see what the polls show in a few days.

She’ll probably help the liberals in Quebec. During her leadership race Quebec voted for her overwhelming, mostly to due with the young Quebecer voters. Which most young Quebec voters lean towards the Bloc.

She’ll probably help the liberals in Quebec. During her leadership race Quebec voted for her overwhelming, mostly to due with the young Quebecer voters. Which most young Quebec voters lean towards the Bloc.

Very interesting, I didn't know about that.

I really couldn't care less what Belinda's reason was for crossing the floor, although she always seemed to left-of-centre compared to the rest of the conservatives, in fact politically similar to Paul Martin. She'd also be 100 times better as prime ministre than Harper would (and admittedly Layton as well) and the fact that her hands are completely clean of the sponsorship scandal would make her an excellent candidate to lead the Liberal Party and the government.

Now get this, the Conservatives are going to support the budget! They didn't have the guts to defeat a popular budget.

Tories will support budget, Harper says
Last Updated Tue, 17 May 2005 22:13:08 EDT
CBC News

OTTAWA - The Conservatives will vote in support of the federal budget, Tory Leader Stephen Harper announced hours after MP Belinda Stronach defected to the Liberals.

The party will still try to topple the Liberals on a budget amendment that directs $4.6 billion to housing and the environment, Harper said on Tuesday night.

His abrupt reversal on the budget vote came after Stronach crossed the floor earlier in the day and joined Paul Martin's Liberal minority government.

The defection shifted the razor-thin margin of seats that the Conservatives and their ally, the Bloc Québécois, were counting on to oust the Liberals.

Both bills are scheduled for a parliamentary vote on Thursday.

Harper blames MP's defection on 'ambition'

Stronach's personal leadership ambitions, not any concern for the good of the country, led her to defect, Harper said earlier in the day.

Meeting with reporters less than an hour after Prime Minister Paul Martin announced Stronach was joining his cabinet, Harper acknowledged that losing the MP could foil his bid to bring down the Liberal government on Thursday.

"I could see this coming," Harper said, adding that he felt "a sense of relief" that Stronach had left before the beginning of a general election campaign and not during one.

"There's no grand principle involved in this decision, just ambition," Harper said.

He said he recently told his wife that he "thought it had become obvious to Belinda that her leadership ambitions would not be reached in this party regardless of whether or not we won the next election."

Harper added that as a result of expressing that belief to Stronach, "I expected to have problems."

But he said it is Stronach who will now have problems – when she faces the voters in her riding of Newmarket-Aurora.

"This will ultimately negatively affect Belinda Stronach's chances of being re-elected," he said.

Harper said Stronach had given no sign of disagreeing with her caucus colleagues on the Conservatives' decision to try to bring down the government this week.

And he said her decision does not affect his belief that defeating Martin's team is the right thing to do.

"The governing party is corrupt," he said, repeating an argument he has been making for weeks.

"It is in the process of ruining the nation's finances with the biggest vote-buying spree in Canadian history ... and it's doing tremendous damage to the cause of federalism in Quebec."

Harper said Stronach's fellow MPs "are feeling quite devastated, quite betrayed by this" – especially Peter MacKay, who has been romantically involved with Stronach for about six months.

"I think Peter's taken this pretty badly, as you can imagine."

The Conservative leader dismissed Stronach's suggestion that he is not sensitive to the needs of all parts of the country, singling out her home province of Ontario as a region he doesn't understand.

"Everyone knows that I was born in Toronto," he said. "I lived in Toronto for the first 19 years of my life, I still have relatives all across the province and I don't think that's the real issue here."

Reaction from political leaders to Stronach's defection:

* Saskatchewan NDP Premier Lorne Calvert: "I believe Belinda Stronach has done the right thing. I believe she has done the right thing for Canada."

* New Brunswick Conservative Premier Bernard Lord: "This is just another action, another moment, that breeds cynicism of electors."

* Ontario Conservative Leader John Tory: "I can confirm for you that I will no longer be campaigning for Miss Stronach."

* Ontario Conservative Bob Runciman: "She sort of defined herself as something of a dipstick, an attractive one, but still a dipstick, with what she's done here today. She is, at the end of the day, going to paint herself as something of a joke."

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh my god! Wow!

I'm sure the Conservatives poll numbers are going to tumble now. Nice way of sticking to your convictions there Harper. One person jumps ship and you do a u-turn! LMAO!

This is a good move for the Conservatives. If they would have voted against the budget then you got a chance for more Conservatives switching to the Liberals or the Conservatives will get a beating in the election.

Here's an example, Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn both Conservative MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador. Premier Danny Williams have been warning he will do whatever he can do to get them booted out if they vote against this budget since the budget contains the Atlantic deal.

So Harper was facing a dilemma. Definitely the momentum has shifted.

Exactly right sk8 and Steeltown.

LOL this whole thing is so hilarious. I especially liked the comments of conservatives forming at the mouth with anger over her move, and the "whore" comments. Man if Paul Martin pulls this off he is the greatest politians ever. Two months ago he was looking at his party being devistated, to now where all the balls are in his court (The polls and the number of MP's). Even if the budget is defeated the liberal party would win th election. It now seems like the only thing that will harm the liberal party more is if the final report from gomery is very bad for them and the election happens 30 days after like Paul Marin promised.

I have never seen a politician work so hard (giving money away quicker than than a virgins first time) in my life, and i have never seen so many things i have been wanting the government to do actual being done.

Kills me to say this, especially as a Tory myself..the party simply isn't fit to govern as is. They need to drop their bibles and try to pretend at least to be a viable alternative party to govern Canada. Once its seems the party has entered the 21st century, well then and only then would I feel safe about voting for them. Belinda did the right thing and hopefully it won't cost her. Anyway, I suppose I shouldn't worry too much about my vote counting for much anyway. In Kitchener Centre they'd vote a pig in if it was Liberal. Oddly racism doesn't go down well in the former Berlin. Its not like the Tories stand a chance in hell .. in this riding anyway.

You know your old when you still say Tory...ok Conservative or New Conservative...whatever it is this year. Its just a shame the word "progressive" doesn't seem to apply anymore. Thats where the party has lost the plot and needs to regain trust with many. If it was socially more moderate I've vote them in. As it is they frighten me off and probably many others who'd otherwise vote Conservative. Anyway, that my opinion - you don't have to share! Its the great thing about being Canadian. Nobody imposing their beliefs on others, especially on things that don't concern them.

Wow, my respect for Belinda is dropping like a brick right now. It is quite clear she is nothing but an opportunist, and her defection places her on my hate list just short of that asshole Scott Brison.

You can't blame the CPC for taking a U-turn like that. One high-profile MP leaves like that and it would be suicide to bring on a vote of non-confidence. Better to sit it out right now and wait for the inquiry.

If you would like me to give the Conservatives a new leader, just send my riding a new MP. After Preston and Stephen, we're sure to provide the party with another leader (thankfully, since Quebec politicians suck).

I wouldn't mind seeing Peter as leader of the party though...

This goes to show the complete ineptitude of the Conservative Party of Canada. Regardless of how ridiculous their policy objectives are, how can they expect to get any support when all they have been concerned about in the past weeks is to tumbble the democratically elected government? This is starting to look like a Banana Republic! The Official Opposition cannot behave in such an incoherent manner, it is absolutely laughable! Hopefully they will be punished for their unstable policies in the January elections.

I have never seen Canada as divided, I wasn't here during the 1995 referendum, but that was only a "provincial" issue. Today Canada continues to be fragmented along Quebec vs. ROC lines, East vs. West, but also the rift betwen the left and the right has taken gigantic proportions... when all civility is lost in Parliament, there is reason for concern!

A francophone friend of mine here in Montreal who is a staunch federalist put this whole issue in a very simple way: When budgeting for our homes, we don't take into account the ten cents we got back at the grocery store, usually our budget would see no real change if we were to lose those ten cents... usually they get lost somewhere in our wallet, or we put them in some pot or whatever. In the federal budget, the money stolen through the sponsorships ammounts to nothing more than ten cents in our homes' budgets. We are DESTROYING our country over cents!!! Of course it is a matter of principle, but if you look at the US federal budget, there are some 100 million lost every year, no one knows to whom or how, they are considered "administrative losses," an error, lost somewhere in the gigantic wallet of teh US federal budget... NO ONE gives a shit about that, it's a part of the process.

The Dollar is hitting record lows, there is huge uncertainty over Quebec, which creates low investor confidence, our politicians are worried about destroying or surviving and not pursuing their respective agendas in an attempt to make our lives better. The country is slowly going to shit over cents!!! Everyone knows that a Conservative victory would launch a third and perhaps successful separatist campaign in Quebec.

This goes to show the complete ineptitude of the Conservative Party of Canada. Regardless of how ridiculous their policy objectives are, how can they expect to get any support when all they have been concerned about in the past weeks is to tumbble the democratically elected government? This is starting to look like a Banana Republic! The Official Opposition cannot behave in such an incoherent manner, it is absolutely laughable! Hopefully they will be punished for their unstable policies in the January elections.

Wrong. this shows the complete bimboness of Belinda Stronach, ake the paris hilton of canada. It's amazing what daddy's visa card can do....


The Dollar is hitting record lows, there is huge uncertainty over Quebec, which creates low investor confidence, our politicians are worried about destroying or surviving and not pursuing their respective agendas in an attempt to make our lives better. The country is slowly going to shit over cents!!! Everyone knows that a Conservative victory would launch a third and perhaps successful separatist campaign in Quebec.


wrong again... everyone knows that another liberal victory WILL lead to a successful separation campaign in Quebec, and maybe gains by the Western Canada Concept party aka the Bloc BC..

too many comments for one night...

Now who ever said that Candian politics is boring is definately wrong. Wow, i've never seen anything like this. A few days ago it looked like for sure disaster, now it looks like we'll be ok for the spring. So Stephen Harper is backing down? How the tides have turned. I guess they'll have to throw out all of those ready made election campaign videos.

Belinda Stronach is a selfish bitch! She couldn't lead the conservatives so she joins the Liberal's so she can become a minister. I hope her constituents throw her out like a sack of shit. A slime ball like she obviously is belongs in the Liberal Party.

Boy, are the Conservatives ever butt hurt over Belinda. I didn't know that she dumped her boyfriend when she crossed the floor.

Wrong. this shows the complete bimboness of Belinda Stronach, ake the paris hilton of canada. It's amazing what daddy's visa card can do....




wrong again... everyone knows that another liberal victory WILL lead to a successful separation campaign in Quebec, and maybe gains by the Western Canada Concept party aka the Bloc BC..

too many comments for one night...

Wrong?!

I guess you're an unquestionable authority in politics; especially given the inherently subjective nature of all speculation.

Wrong?! What a fu*king idiot... :|

It is quite clear she is nothing but an opportunist

You've just described every politician on the face of the planet. :)

You've just described every politician on the face of the planet. :)

HAH! So true... :lol:

A francophone friend of mine here in Montreal who is a staunch federalist put this whole issue in a very simple way: When budgeting for our homes, we don't take into account the ten cents we got back at the grocery store, usually our budget would see no real change if we were to lose those ten cents... usually they get lost somewhere in our wallet, or we put them in some pot or whatever. In the federal budget, the money stolen through the sponsorships ammounts to nothing more than ten cents in our homes' budgets. We are DESTROYING our country over cents!!! Of course it is a matter of principle, but if you look at the US federal budget, there are some 100 million lost every year, no one knows to whom or how, they are considered "administrative losses," an error, lost somewhere in the gigantic wallet of teh US federal budget... NO ONE gives a shit about that, it's a part of the process.
You're half right. The sponsorship deal is mostly about the principle of theft but there are plenty of other examples of the Liberals' mismanagement of taxpayers dollars. The gun registry is a prime example of pure waste. What the sponsorship scandal is is basically the straw that broke the camel's back. However, the Liberals know that they've always got tons of idiots out there who will support them no matter what they do. So please, go ahead and give them the green light to fuck us over even more. I'm sure that's what you plan to vote for when the next election rolls around after all.
The Dollar is hitting record lows, there is huge uncertainty over Quebec, which creates low investor confidence, our politicians are worried about destroying or surviving and not pursuing their respective agendas in an attempt to make our lives better. The country is slowly going to shit over cents!!! Everyone knows that a Conservative victory would launch a third and perhaps successful separatist campaign in Quebec.
First of all, the dollar is hardly anywhere near hitting record lows. In fact, you've got that ass backwards. It hasn't been this strong for almost fifteen years but obviously you haven't been paying attention.
Secondly, there is no major uncertainty over Quebec independance yet. Certainly it looks like a storm might be brewing but it's hardly a crisis.
Thirdly, the country isn't going to shit over cents. It's going to shit over two things : the lack of accountability of the Liberal government and the fact that we're talking about millions, actually billions of dollars worth of mismanaged funds. You want to write them off as the cost of modern politics that's fine. I can't stop you from being an idiot and supporting the Liberal thieves just because you sincerely believe that you can't vote for anybody but them. Most people however have a sense of values that you clearly don't posess. You don't like the Conservatives ? DON'T VOTE FOR THEM THEN ! They aren't the only party on the ballot you know.

I was quite shocked when she crossed the floor but I am still more surprised that she was a card carrying Conservative in the place.
Being from the GTA she has often made the need to assist the cities a neccessity and more so, she is a classic RedTory. Very liberal and progressive in her social views especially same-sex marriage and abortion........real touch button issues with the old Reform guys.
This is like a gift from the gods for Martin and ,of cource,a real opportunity to take over the party reins when he retires.
I read in the paper today that 4 more Conservitive Atlantic MPs are being bombarded by their constituents and the PREMIERS to vote for the budget or atleast abstain in order to get the budget passed and get the Atlantic Accord thru which is much needed hard-core money for those terminally impoverished provinces.
Interesting development............ah, life on the hill.

why is everyone so pissed about her being an opportunist? Of course she is, she's a politician. What good would she be as a conservative backbencher who leans to the left? As a Liberal, especially now, she has far more ability to affect change. The timing was absolutely brilliant.. as Bluenoser pointed out, she's got a clean slate. She will represent a new Liberal party once the Gomery trial is over. Don't be suprised to see a second woman PM fairly soon.

And the cherry on top... Harper has backed off the budget. He should realize it rubs voters the wrong way to have an opposition party that is hell-bent on fucking up the current government... thats not the oppositions purpose. We'll support the Conservative party when we're bloody well ready to.

You're half right. The sponsorship deal is mostly about the principle of theft but there are plenty of other examples of the Liberals' mismanagement of taxpayers dollars. The gun registry is a prime example of pure waste. What the sponsorship scandal is is basically the straw that broke the camel's back. However, the Liberals know that they've always got tons of idiots out there who will support them no matter what they do. So please, go ahead and give them the green light to fuck us over even more. I'm sure that's what you plan to vote for when the next election rolls around after all.

The Liberals are the only viable option for Canada, unless the Conservatives become more progressive and forego their medieval policies that only appeal to hicks like yourself, the Liberals really are the only party out there worthy of my and most Canadians' vote.

It's funny how oblivious hicks from backwater provinces always bring out the infamous "gun registry." That initiatie makes ALL sense given the danger of firearms, but then again, it's only rural, ignorant, asses that don't realize the danger arms pose to all... if not, have a look down south.

First of all, the dollar is hardly anywhere near hitting record lows. In fact, you've got that ass backwards. It hasn't been this strong for almost fifteen years but obviously you haven't been paying attention.
Secondly, there is no major uncertainty over Quebec independance yet. Certainly it looks like a storm might be brewing but it's hardly a crisis.
Thirdly, the country isn't going to shit over cents. It's going to shit over two things : the lack of accountability of the Liberal government and the fact that we're talking about millions, actually billions of dollars worth of mismanaged funds. You want to write them off as the cost of modern politics that's fine. I can't stop you from being an idiot and supporting the Liberal thieves just because you sincerely believe that you can't vote for anybody but them. Most people however have a sense of values that you clearly don't posess. You don't like the Conservatives ? DON'T VOTE FOR THEM THEN ! They aren't the only party on the ballot you know.

First of all, the dollar has hit a seven month record low, hardly worrisome, but it speaks nonetheless to the instability of the country right now. THe dollar has dropped continuously since the scandal got out of proportion. It seems like you're the one who's not been paying attention, perhaps you don't get the news so easily out there in 'toba... ;)

http://img283.echo.cx/img283/8702/1y5oh.png

Like I said, once the Conservatives move to the left, once they speak to the concerns of Ontario and Quebec, once they support gay marriage, once they stop meddling with abortion, once they speak to urban Canada, once they accept distinct society, once they become more tolerant, they will be worthy of my vote; until then I'll stick to the Liberals or the NDP... but yes, I know, I'm an idiot. You, on the other hand, with your backwards conservative bullshit, are the epitome of all enlightenment.

It's now clear (media reports) that Harper was being very hard on Belinda, by giving her several dresssings down over the last year. They didn't like how she was trying to influence policy at their policy convention! Like where else should she do it? So they leaked out the monetary debt she owes the Conservative Party - which really pissed her off. Harper kept the fight with her alive ever since the leadership convention.

Bottom line? Harper is an incompetent leader. Under the circumstances, he should have bent backwards to keep Belinda happy.

I wouldn't be so sure of her future as potential PM. First Martin has to step down or lose an election, which at this point doesn't seem to be that certain. Second, let's not forget about the fact that yesterday Stronach was still a conservative, a red tory, but a tory nontheless... Canadians know that. Her social policy might not be in tune with most Canadians'. She obviously supports higher corporate welfare and less social welfare; Canadians will realize that when the time to vote comes along. Let's not forget about the fact that she would also have to win the leadership convention, which requires almost as much work as winning a general election. We'll see, but I for one, wouldn't mind seeing her as future PM.

One thing she definatly has going for her is that she is not smeared with Chretien or Martin and the Gomery crap.
She will be shown as the "new Liberal" with a fresh face and new ideas. On her part it is a true stroke of genius. Can't happen...o yes it can.
Look at the Alberta provincial Tories.
They were nearly dead in the water after Lougheed but then came Ralph..a new party and a new face, the Tories again got in again and the rest as they say is history.

There is another important thing to remember....she is from Ontario. Quebecer's and Ontarians will NEVER elect a party whose leader is from the West, and more so from ANY province, Alberta.
Fair or not, Quebecers, Ontarians, and BCers see Albertans as nothing more than a bunch of redneck yahoos. Canada's Texas and therefore they will never get a majority government. They are also, especially in the west, a rural part. They swept Calgary, of cource, but lost some seats in Edmonton and Victoria and got pounded in Vancouver and Winnipeg.

It's now clear (media reports) that Harper was being very hard on Belinda, by giving her several dresssings down over the last year.
I'd give her a dressing down anyday :)

What a 180 degree turnr this has turned out to be, the dollar starts to rise, Harper is now going to support the budget, and the federal election might be put off for a while.Sounds good to me.

The Liberals are the only viable option for Canada, unless the Conservatives become more progressive and forego their medieval policies that only appeal to hicks like yourself, the Liberals really are the only party out there worthy of my and most Canadians' vote.

It's funny how oblivious hicks from backwater provinces always bring out the infamous "gun registry." That initiatie makes ALL sense given the danger of firearms, but then again, it's only rural, ignorant, asses that don't realize the danger arms pose to all... if not, have a look down south.

First of all, you're as much of a hick as I am. Secondly I never said you had to vote for the Conservatives. I said you are an idiot for supporting the Liberals.
As far as the gun registry goes, it is a completely useless measure. How many criminals has it brought to justice ? Are there less firearms on the streets ? Have any criminals registered their guns ? But you know what ? I don't actually give a shit about the gun registry itself. If the Liberals want to have themselves a gun registry, fine go for it. What I DO care about is the fact that it went from a cost of a few million dollars to over a billion. But you still think it's a great way to ..... well come to think of it, it hasn't done a damned thing except cost us a fortune and make law abiding citizens into criminals. Stick that in your elitist snob pipe and smoke it, unless you have some proof that it's actually done something worth it's cost. Worth any cost for that matter.
As far as this "Liberals are the only viable option" bullshit goes ; Why do you think the Liberals are the only viable option? Because you've bought into their scare-tactics. You seriously think the Conservatives are going to dismantle health care? You're pretty naive then. You consider Harper extreme right wing ? Have you ever heard of groups like the KKK ? They would be extreme right wing. Harper has offered everything the current Lib gov't has but you don't like it when it comes from him.



First of all, the dollar has hit a seven month record low, hardly worrisome, but it speaks nonetheless to the instability of the country right now. THe dollar has dropped continuously since the scandal got out of proportion. It seems like you're the one who's not been paying attention, perhaps you don't get the news so easily out there in 'toba... ;)

http://img283.echo.cx/img283/8702/1y5oh.png

Now for this moronic little piece of misunderstanding. The dollar actually closed up a little higher yesterday but that's not really the point. The point is that we actually need the dollar to descend in value because it's hurting our export trade to the US. As the greenback gains in value, our dollar will fall (contrary to your theory of it being tied to our political instability only) But what YOU said was that the dollar was at record lows. Well, your records don't seem to go any further than seven months it appears so you're hardly the guy to get this sort of information from. What, you just get television and newspapers out there in Bumblefuck ? The dollar may be sliding a little over the last seven months but considering that only a little while ago it was getting to be worth about sixty cents US this is hardly catastrophic. Besides, as I already mentioned, this is a good thing and we should hope to some extent that it slides even more if we want to keep jobs in Canada.

Nevertheless, if you want to know why this country is so divided between East, West, and Quebec you need only look at your own ingorant little stereotypical comments about how only hicks and ruralites live west of North Bay. Maybe if you didn't hammer home the stereotypes of how the ROC views the East you wouldn't have brought that up to begin with. Whatever though, you think we all till fields for a living and sit on our porches talking about them vile homeosecsuals and immeeegrints roonin our country.....go ahead. We don't want your elitism here anyway.

^ Thank you looselog, for saying what I could not, and responding properly back to his elitism and bigotry... :master:

Looselog, please no more name calling. All it creates is more name calling right back at you, and then we have a bigger problem.