Monday, December 22, 2008

That was then ... this is now.


1984: "You had a choice, sir."

2008: "Harper was given no choice."

IOKIYAC. It always is.

14 comments:

roblaw said...

..sounds oddly familiar.. to a post someone else made last week..

Cherniak_WTF said...

National journalist being appointed to the senate? I thought the msm was all liberal...

Wayne said...

"msm was all liberal" They are, this shows PM Harpers non-partisanship.

CC said...

I'm curious, Wayne ... is this your attempt at something resembling wit? Or humour? Because, just between us, you are seriously unfunny. Really.

Painfully unfunny.

Wayne said...

It was a reaction to Cherniak, like getting a sudden rash or hives, nothing more.

Do you seriously think Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin are right wing?

Harper made some partisan appointments. But, Duffy and Wallin no way.

Wayne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
liberal supporter said...

It was a reaction to Cherniak, like getting a sudden rash or hives, nothing more.
You do know that is not Jason, right?

Do you seriously think Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin are right wing?
Mike Duffy aired the outtakes from a Dion interview, likely costing Dion the election. The numbers were steadily growing, then the blooper reel was aired during Thanksgiving weekend and and our October surprise was complete. No time to counter it before polling day. Steve says "Thanks Mike!"


Harper made some partisan appointments. But, Duffy and Wallin no way.
Duffy was a reward for campaign assistance. Wallin, to give the Duffy appointment more credibility. At least she has some honourary degrees, though not in law.

Wayne said...

"You do know that is not Jason, right?" Sorry.

I could see it your way liberal supporter, good explanation.

I guess I’m more in the unintentionally funny category CC.

Can't tell one Cherniak from another and posted an e-mail to one of my customers that I can't delete.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Wayne, black, white - all the same to you... as long as your are sucking Harper's dick I see....

Duffy is a partisan joke - let's hope he gorges on the parliamentary buffet food, chokes and dies...

The problem that I have with Duffy and his ilk is that they call themselves neutral when they are propagandist of the lowest order....

nt said...

Well how 'bout that...it was Stephen Harper of all people who actually named a separatist to the Senate.

Heckuva job you're doing there buddy...heckuva job...

Noni Mausa said...

So let me see if I have this right:

It's a horrible awful thing to have avowed separatists, who want to destroy Canada, in the federal government, BUT

It's a great idea to have a whole gang of new senators in the Senate who have vowed to dissolve the Senate.

Noni

Wayne said...

Cherniak_WTF:"The problem that I have with Duffy and his ilk is that they call themselves neutral when they are propagandist of the lowest order...."

You have put into words exactly how I feel about the CBC ilk. Thanks.

Duffy was not a propagandist, he seemed very fair. I will miss his show. Maybe Ben Mulroney would do it.

Noni Mausa:"It's a great idea to have a whole gang of new senators in the Senate who have vowed to dissolve the Senate."

That is what the NDP want to do, abolish the senate. Harper wants senate reform.

I would like a EEE senate. My political birth was with the founding of the Reform Party.

nt said...

Ya know what no EEE supporter has ever been able to explain to me? How an Elected, Effective, and Equal Senate would address the two guiding principles for the upper chamber (a voice for regional representation and the much discussed "sober second thought")

Granted, the 2nd principle is an anachronism - we don't think the landed gentry are inherently better than the rabble...but the first one is still vitally important.

How exactly does a Triple E Senate address regional concerns? Do you really expect an elected Senator to buck his/her party (remember party line voting?) in order to address his/her regional concerns? I don't.

Furthermore, wouldn't a codified Council of Premiers (I believe that's what they called it) who initially came together for the CHA 2004 be a much better vehicle for regional issues (ya know, that whole "subsidiarity" thing?).

And let's not even get into the problems that arise when you have the Prime Minister sitting in the lower house being over-ruled by those in the upper chamber (I mean, how will confidence be kept? Will the PM need the confidence of both houses? What if the majorities differ in each house? Will anything get passed?)

Triple E sounds nice, but it does nothing to address the deficiencies of the Upper Chamber, and in fact it creates more issues than it solves.

Metro said...

Triple-E is a bad idea, plain and simple.

It would just give us another set of elections after we'd already chosen the party we felt was best fit to govern (or, in the current case, selected by default the worst of a bad lot).

It would create senators who were nothing more than the whores we see in the US equivalent, posturing, preening, pimps whose sole consideration was not "sober second thought" but rather "how may this help us get elected.

Schadenfreude aside, Harper's continuing abandonment of his "principles" has yielded at least one benefit.

WV = "proper". The gods of Google are showing their approval.