babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Khan to Cross Floor Tomorrow?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Khan to Cross Floor Tomorrow?
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 January 2007 12:19 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stephen Taylor is reporting on his Blog that Wajid Khan will be announcing tomorrow that he will be crossing the floor from the LIberals to sit as a back bench CPC MP.

Apparently, tonight The Liberals are lobbying hard for Khan to stay.

What shall the outcome be?

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000764.html


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 05 January 2007 07:15 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Harper's making the announcement as I type.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 05 January 2007 07:19 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
...and Khan is making me throw up a little bit in my mouth. What a grovelling brown-nose bootlicker. Harper is a god on earth according to this simp.

I hope he goes down like a rock in the next election.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bernie F.
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13440

posted 05 January 2007 07:23 AM      Profile for Bernie F.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, Khan has been basically a Tory spy for all these months. I'm glad Dion made him make a choice, and it's better for the Liberals to have people like that out of their party. Put all the evil where the evil lives.
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 05 January 2007 07:24 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
...and the first question taken comes from a right-wing talk radio station, CFRB. A soft-pitch of course, allowing Khan to spew on about what a genius Harper is to have him for a Middle East advisor, and how comfortable he is to have Canada in bed with Bush and Israel.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 05 January 2007 07:49 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How's Dion's Shatner impression?


KHAN! KHHHHHAAAAAAAN!


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 05 January 2007 07:50 AM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Fuck him. He was a bigoted, anti-gay and anti-woman and an apologist for our government's complicity in American and Israeli terrorism.
From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 05 January 2007 07:54 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:
Fuck him. He was a bigoted, anti-gay and anti-woman and an apologist for our government's complicity in American and Israeli terrorism.

In other words, a perfect fit for the Cons!


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 05 January 2007 07:56 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Or the Liberals.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 05 January 2007 08:05 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:
Fuck him. He was a bigoted, anti-gay and anti-woman and an apologist for our government's complicity in American and Israeli terrorism.

He sounds like a supporter of Iggy for Leader of the Libs


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 January 2007 08:11 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:...and the first question taken comes from a right-wing talk radio station, CFRB. A soft-pitch of course, allowing Khan to spew on about what a genius Harper is to have him for a Middle East advisor, and how comfortable he is to have Canada in bed with Bush and Israel.

Oh, Harper's own version of Condi Rice, expert on the Middle East but by way of Pakistan not Russia?

Perhaps Harper can get him to tell him where the Taliban are hiding in his home country?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 05 January 2007 08:15 AM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 05 January 2007 08:22 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
It did not take long for Dion's first political blunder to appear. He played right into Harper's hands. Publicly forcing Khan to eschew contributing to the national agenda in favour of partisan politics will not sit well with Canadians who want parliament to work together.

Very smart to accept Khan onto the backbench to allay any talk of enticement. Dion get to wear the jacket for this debacle all by himself. At the very best,he is labelled a schnook.

Any bets as to how many votes the selfless Mr. Khan will generate when he is elevated to cabinet just prior to the next election?


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 05 January 2007 08:32 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ye'd think this easy flitting of members to an fro betwixt Harpers tories and Dion's tory lites would tip the game to everyone.

But then, I am forgetting my P.T. Barnum.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Centerfield
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13025

posted 05 January 2007 08:33 AM      Profile for Centerfield        Edit/Delete Post
With Kahn in the fold, the minority government now has 125 members of Parliament, which means they only need to bring 29 New Democrats on side in order to pass legislation.
And the Dion implosion begins.

From: Ontario | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 05 January 2007 08:34 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:


Perhaps Harper can get him to tell him where the Taliban are hiding in his home country?


Perhaps Harper can get him to tell him where the immigrant voters are hiding in his own country.

Why would any immigrant POC vote for the party of choice of a POC who was a successful fighter pilot in his country of birth and became a successful businessman in Canada? A man who holds Asian cultural and family values dear and is not afraid to say so?

Why would any of these voters choose Khan's party over the Liberal party of entrenched privilege and entitlement? A party whose leader has just restated that party solidarity trumps the national interest.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 05 January 2007 08:40 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Ye'd think this easy flitting of members to an fro betwixt Harpers tories and Dion's tory lites would tip the game to everyone.

But then, I am forgetting my P.T. Barnum.


Just what I was thinking. Khan didn't even feel the need to address any supposed philosophical difference between the two parties of the ruling class.

It was like watching an american player being traded from one CFL team to another. All he cares about is whether his new team has a better chance of winning - 'cause it's all about the payoff, of course.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 05 January 2007 09:30 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Shouldn't there be a by-election every time a politician wants to cross the floor? This is undemocratic, by crumb!

Oh sorry, that was a Conservative issue two years ago. My bad. Back to the memory hole with you!


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 January 2007 09:39 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Ye'd think this easy flitting of members to an fro betwixt Harpers tories and Dion's tory lites would tip the game to everyone.

But then, I am forgetting my P.T. Barnum.


Yes, it is quite obvious CPC = Liberal = CPC

When will those on the right ever get it?

Just a bit of house keeping on the P.T. Barnum point, and it is very interesting housekeeping at that, ALIMO:

quote:
By R. J. Brown
Editor-in-Chief

P. T. Barnum is most often associated with the circus sideshow and the display of freaks. While this is true, he is also the founding force behind one of America's most famous circuses: Barnum & Bailey Circus. Barnum is also affiliated with the famous quote "There's a sucker born every minute." History, unfortunately, has misdirected this quotation. Barnum never did say it. Actually, it was said by his competitor. Here's the incredible story.


A Sucker Born Every Minute


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 05 January 2007 10:24 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I sit corrected.

Fascinating stoy, and oddly on topic as it discusses hoaxes, sideshows, freaks, and other parliamentary goings on.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 05 January 2007 10:27 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The question no one yet has asked about Khan is the most important is the hair real or a toupee?


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090

posted 05 January 2007 10:31 AM      Profile for Sharon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Shouldn't there be a by-election every time a politician wants to cross the floor? This is undemocratic, by crumb!

Just arrived:

quote:
NDP MP PETER STOFFER CONDEMNS WAJID KHAN FLOOR CROSSING

HALIFAX - NDP MP Peter Stoffer Martin strongly criticised former Liberal MP Wajid Khan’s decision to cross the floor and join Stephen Harper’s Conservative caucus.

“I am calling on Mr. Khan to sit as an independent until the next election, when he can run in the nomination process for his new party,” said Stoffer. “The other federal parties would not support the NDP’s proposal for an anti-floor crossing ban to be incorporated into the Federal Accountability Act. The result of that decision not to cooperate on this issue is another undemocratic act in the House of Commons.”

-30-



From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 05 January 2007 10:35 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The idea of the byelection is a good one. i agree with it.

But I do have a question. what if a Liberal crossed to sit with the NDP. Would he/she be accepted or forced to sit as an independant?

I would hope that they would be made to sit as an independant but am not that sure.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 05 January 2007 10:35 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Excellent point by Stoffer, even if it does spin things a bit by associating the House of Commons with Democracy.

(edited to correct Stoffer's marital status )

[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
gadar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13436

posted 05 January 2007 10:38 AM      Profile for gadar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did anyone notice that Harper thought it is important to point out that Khan has been in Canada for 30 years.
To me it sounded like,he is brown but see he is not that brown that we can not tolerate him.

From: BC | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 05 January 2007 10:44 AM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:

But I do have a question. what if a Liberal crossed to sit with the NDP. Would he/she be accepted or forced to sit as an independant?


Presumably either that or a byelection. Since the NDP hasn't been the recipient of a potential defector since taking this position, it's hard to say. (In fact, the NDP has only been on the receiving side of one Commons defection: ex-Tory MP Robert Toupin in 1987. He left the NDP some months later claiming the party had been infiltrated by communists.)

In Saskatchewan, ex-Liberal MLA Buckley Belanger resigned his seat and ran in a byelection. He received something aproaching 100% of the popular vote. (My memory says 97%, but I'm not certain - more than 90% certainly.)

When new Sask Liberal leader ended the NDP-Liberal coalition in 2002(?), Liberal MLAs Jim Melenchuk and Ron Osika, both ex-Liberal leaders, continued to sit with the government and retained their Cabinet portfolios. However, they sat as Independents. At the next election, both ran (and lost) as New Democrats.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 05 January 2007 10:49 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by gadar:
Did anyone notice that Harper thought it is important to point out that Khan has been in Canada for 30 years.
To me it sounded like,he is brown but see he is not that brown that we can not tolerate him.

No, that was code to the new RCMP Commissioner to let him or her know not to have this particular brown Canadian sent off for torture.

[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 05 January 2007 11:09 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is weird that it was it was a travesty with Emerson, Stronach and maybe now with Khan but when Scott Brison, Inky mark, Keith Martin or those the left to create the Bloc their was not the same angst and anger.

I wonder why it is different in the last 3 years to today.

Canadians across party lines did not like the fact that Belinda jumped for a Cabinet Position, Emerson jumped for a Cabinet position etc.

Yet other floor crossers went unscathed.

Jack Horner crossed the floor to the Liberals for a Cabinet position after he lost to Joe Clark in the '76 leadership election. Horner was still a pall bearer at Diefenbaker's funeral.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 January 2007 11:18 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do we need more evidence that the two old line parties are interchangeable ?. Tories and Whigs, Whigs and Tories. Canadians have selected both choices on a consistent basis for over a hundred years.

At some point, 60 to 64.9 percent of Canadian voters should decide to throw out the provolone from the back of the fridge. The report card on democracy in Canada is a "C" grade at best.

[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 05 January 2007 11:32 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
HALIFAX - NDP MP Peter Stoffer Martin strongly criticised former Liberal MP Wajid Khan’s decision to cross the floor and join Stephen Harper’s Conservative caucus.

(emphasis mine)

Is that a typo or did Peter Stoffer get married recently?


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090

posted 05 January 2007 11:41 AM      Profile for Sharon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is that a typo or did Peter Stoffer get married recently?

That's too funny. I didn't even read it -- just the headline, which told the whole story.

As far as I know, Peter's marital status is unchanged. (And I can't think of anything witty and clever to say that might involve Pat Martin, Keith Martin, Paul Martin... etc. )


From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 05 January 2007 11:45 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Is that a typo or did Peter Stoffer get married recently?

As long as he didn't marry Pat Martin.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 05 January 2007 12:05 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Do we need more evidence that the two old line parties are interchangeable ?. Tories and Whigs, Whigs and Tories. Canadians have selected both choices on a consistent basis for over a hundred years.

At some point, 60 to 64.9 percent of Canadian voters should decide to throw out the provolone from the back of the fridge. The report card on democracy in Canada is a "C" grade at best.

[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]


Well, the bait and switch politics of the liberals and tories are one thing, and taken on it's own, the deffection of the odd MP from one party to another isn't enough to bring Parliament into contempt.

But, taken with all the other goings on, the cronyism, the neglect of the citezenry, the sometimes viscious buerocracy, it paints a picture.

And it isn't gutter snipes like you and I that bring Parliament into disrepute, but Parliament itself.

But, I will say no more. The last time people tried to do what needs to be done-- on these very same issues-- they were hunted down like dogs for thier efforts, and either inprisoned, hung or exported to Australia.

Horrifying endings, even today.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 05 January 2007 12:12 PM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
heh

guess who just got the balance of power


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 05 January 2007 12:35 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Cons can ignore the NDP completely and pander to the BQ or even some of the Libs.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 05 January 2007 12:39 PM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course its second fiddle but...

Tell me the Bloc isn't ready to pounce and that Harper can give them what they want to appease them without giving them what they want.


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 05 January 2007 02:27 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fix the fiscal imbalance, for starters.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 05 January 2007 02:40 PM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Fix the fiscal imbalance, for starters.

no chance. Harper is pooched on that one. He's already downgraded his promise to work with the provinces on the issue to making them an offer. I very seriously down that's a verbal gambit.

besides, if Quebec DOES get what it wants the Bloc will take just as many bows on it as the CPC and Harper will undoubtedly piss somebody else off in the process. He can't win that one for trying.

[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: BitWhys ]


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
-=+=-
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7072

posted 05 January 2007 03:45 PM      Profile for -=+=-   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
From Tweedledee to Tweedledum.

The NDP should be quoting Douglas with all its breath.


From: Turtle Island | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 05 January 2007 03:48 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Did anyone notice that Harper thought it is important to point out that Khan has been in Canada for 30 years.
To me it sounded like,he is brown but see he is not that brown that we can not tolerate him. -gadar

Very good observation. I agree with your interpretation of Harper's comment.

As for Wajeed Khan, he just said good bye to any hope of being re-elected in his riding. As I was informed, his -initially- flirtation with the Conservatives and his appointment as advisor on the ME did not sit well with the community that propelled him to the House of Commons. Now to top it all, a defection to the CP.

But I am sure Harper will find a safe riding for him elsewhere where his colour will not sit well with the majority of the electorate.

The guy is toast.


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
cooper3339
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13236

posted 05 January 2007 04:46 PM      Profile for cooper3339        Edit/Delete Post
I appologize for not being able to link to previous replys, but, Gadar made reference to Mr.Kahn being brown but not that brown. After viewing posts from this forum for over a year I find that the lack of condemnation for these comments to be quite telling. If "we" say it it's OK, but if "they" say it...racist neo-con bastards. There is enough blame to go around for our current political situation, minority Gov'ts need to work together to achieve at least some level of trust with the voting public. With the behavior of the opposition ( NDP Environment excluded) how do we progress as a country?
From: Winnipeg | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
adma
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11856

posted 05 January 2007 04:49 PM      Profile for adma     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wouldn't be so harsh--unlike Emerson's Vanc-Kingsway, Miss-Streetsville actually *could* be within Tory-target range, esp. with a sitting incumbent. (They cracked 30% last couple of elections...last time with ex-MPP Raminder Gill...)
From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 05 January 2007 04:49 PM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by -=+=-:
From Tweedledee to Tweedledum.

The NDP should be quoting Douglas with all its breath.


bingo

and woodsworth

social justice is the only goal, not an ancient pipedream.

[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: BitWhys ]


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 05 January 2007 05:28 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I appologize for not being able to link to previous replys, but, Gadar made reference to Mr.Kahn being brown but not that brown. After viewing posts from this forum for over a year I find that the lack of condemnation for these comments to be quite telling. If "we" say it it's OK, but if "they" say it...racist neo-con bastards. There is enough blame to go around for our current political situation, minority Gov'ts need to work together to achieve at least some level of trust with the voting public. With the behavior of the opposition ( NDP Environment excluded) how do we progress as a country? -cooper3339

What is puzzling is the reason Haper mentioned that Khan has been in Canada for 30 years. What does Harper's comment mean, exactly ?

Gadar simply interpreted Harper's comment, accurately in my view.

If anyone is to be asked to account for his comment, it is surely Stephen Harper.

By curiosity, copper3339, what is your interpretation of Harper's "30 years" comment ? Has he ever mentioned where were his white CPC folks born or How long they have been in Canada ?

[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 05 January 2007 05:37 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Seriously. Lame, cooperx7whatever.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
cooper3339
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13236

posted 05 January 2007 05:51 PM      Profile for cooper3339        Edit/Delete Post
I think that the comment can be construed in different ways. Sorry if you thimk it is lame, but, Was he referring to the time that Mr.Kahn has spent in Canada and that he understands our collective view of world issues, as well as the time he spent in Pakistan and how he can interpret thier views?
From: Winnipeg | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
cooper3339
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13236

posted 05 January 2007 05:57 PM      Profile for cooper3339        Edit/Delete Post
If it is not OK to reference how long a person has been in Canada, who is running for public office, why is Ok to refer to "ethnic votes" as a matter of course without offending?
From: Winnipeg | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 05 January 2007 06:20 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think that the comment can be construed in different ways. Sorry if you thimk it is lame, but, Was he referring to the time that Mr.Kahn has spent in Canada and that he understands our collective view of world issues, as well as the time he spent in Pakistan and how he can interpret thier views? -cooper3339

You are assuming that when he was nominated as candidate for political office in the first place, his (mis)understanding of our collective view of world issues must have somehow slipped the radar.

Do you know How many non-Canadian-born white folks are in the House of Commons ? How many times have you heard issues about How many years they have been in Canada ?

It takes Stephen Harper and his ilk to raise such bigoted, ethno-centrist point.

As Coyote put it, lame, copper3339.

quote:
If it is not OK to reference how long a person has been in Canada, who is running for public office, why is Ok to refer to "ethnic votes" as a matter of course without offending? -cooper3339

A big difference between the uttering of a bigoted ethno-centrist (i.e, MPs are usually white and in case you wonder, this guy has been in Canada for 30 years!) and an examination of voting tendancies in multi-ethnic ridings and electorate mood.

[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
DavidMR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13478

posted 05 January 2007 06:29 PM      Profile for DavidMR        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sidra:
A big difference between the uttering of a bigoted ethno-centrist (i.e, MPs are usually white and in case you wonder, this guy has been in Canada for 30 years!) and an examination of voting tendancies in multi-ethnic ridings and electorate mood.


Sidra, I haven't actually seen the press conference. But from what's here, don't you think you're stretching things a bit? It certainly looks to me like you're determined to find something, that in your world there's a bigot hiding under every bed, and if Khan didn't think the remarks demeaning, that's only because he's too stupid to know when he's being upended and you'll have to help everyone see that.


From: Greater Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 05 January 2007 07:59 PM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Khan is Harper's new Uncle Muhammad.
From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 05 January 2007 08:06 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sidra, I haven't actually seen the press conference. But from what's here, don't you think you're stretching things a bit? It certainly looks to me like you're determined to find something, that in your world there's a bigot hiding under every bed, and if Khan didn't think the remarks demeaning, that's only because he's too stupid to know when he's being upended and you'll have to help everyone see that. -BavidMR

You never know, they may show upp anytime, any minute. Don't you think it is better to be alert than to be complacent or even maybe an apologist for them and their upended tokens and pawns ?

ETA:

BTW I never counted on the davidMRs of Canada -of the world- to expose or condemn bigots.

As for "Sidra, I haven't actually seen the press conference", there are also things you do not WANT to see.

[ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 05 January 2007 08:14 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You may remember Michael Watkin's De-Elect David Emerson campaign.

Now, he's stated a petition calling for Wajid Khan to resign and run in a by-election. Please click, sign and comment.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 05 January 2007 08:17 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Khan is Harper's new Uncle Muhammad. -scooter

Actually this name is not even common, let alone the most common. If you knew what you are talking about, that would have given your comment the punch you are seeking.


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 05 January 2007 08:18 PM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
in your world there's a bigot hiding under every bed

you hardly need to go looking under beds when there are so many racists in plain view.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 05 January 2007 09:01 PM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sidra:

Actually this name is not even common, let alone the most common. If you knew what you are talking about, that would have given your comment the punch you are seeking.


Gessh... Uncle Tom. The guy is a sell out.


From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 January 2007 09:09 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
You may remember Michael Watkin's De-Elect David Emerson campaign.

Now, he's stated a petition calling for Wajid Khan to resign and run in a by-election. Please click, sign and comment.


Can I ask a question? Why are we more concerned about a creep like Khan switching between two parties that have virtually indistinguishable policies on foreign affairs, than we are about the actual offensive views that he (and Harper and Dion) espouses?

I never "got it" about David Emerson - that is, how terrible party-switching is.

If a person runs for office saying, "I call for Canada to withdraw from Afghanistan", then gets elected and says, "I now support the mission", I want that person to resign - whether she switches parties or not.

I don't get it.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
pebbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6400

posted 05 January 2007 09:23 PM      Profile for pebbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Fix the fiscal imbalance, for starters.

What is this "fiscal imbalance" I keep hearing about?


From: Canada | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
DavidMR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13478

posted 05 January 2007 10:34 PM      Profile for DavidMR        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
I never "got it" about David Emerson - that is, how terrible party-switching is.
...

I don't get it.


For perhaps the first time, Unionist, we are in near total agreement.

I do think MPs who switch parties should be required to face the voters in a byelection, since not all Canadian voters agree that the two larger parties are so similar.

But for me personally, I thought we should have thanked Emerson for proving our basic point, that the Grit and Tory parties share the same basic pro-business orientation in economic, fiscal, and monetary policy areas. The NDP caucus should have chipped in and bought him a bottle of good scotch or something. The accompanying note should have said that what Emerson did was to expose the fundamental deceit that lies at the heart of the entire Liberal "vote strategic" scam. No wonder the Liberals are so furious with him.


From: Greater Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 05 January 2007 10:39 PM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pebbles:

What is this "fiscal imbalance" I keep hearing about?


More of a national pastime than anything else. A rousing game of "I don't wanna tax 'em, you tax 'em" that's been going on forever but had the volume turned up with Martin's antics.


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 05 January 2007 10:44 PM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DavidMR:

For perhaps the first time, Unionist, we are in near total agreement.

I do think MPs who switch parties should be required to face the voters in a byelection, since not all Canadian voters agree that the two larger parties are so similar.

But for me personally, I thought we should have thanked Emerson for proving our basic point, that the Grit and Tory parties share the same basic pro-business orientation in economic, fiscal, and monetary policy areas. The NDP caucus should have chipped in and bought him a bottle of good scotch or something. The accompanying note should have said that what Emerson did was to expose the fundamental deceit that lies at the heart of the entire Liberal "vote strategic" scam. No wonder the Liberals are so furious with him.


A guy I caught on the CBC man-on-the-street segment about Khan today had a good point. He said that with the Canadian political system most people vote for the party, not the person. In a lot of ways that's true. I know I'd have a cow if Judy crossed.


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
DavidMR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13478

posted 05 January 2007 10:57 PM      Profile for DavidMR        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BitWhys:
A guy I caught on the CBC man-on-the-street segment about Khan today had a good point. He said that with the Canadian political system most people vote for the party, not the person.

Gore Vidal once said of the US system that the two great parties are really one party representing five percent of the population. If that's true, how important is it when Legislator X switchs from Brand A to Brand B? The voters may perceive it to be a major insult and a breach of promise, and to respect their wishes I think we should require byelections for MPs and MLAs/MPPs/MNAs who change parties.

But in reality, if the member is switching as between Liberal and Conservative are the voters really correct in perceiving this as a shift of policy and programme, or are they just being successfully deceived by the advertising and marketing scams of the two major parties?


From: Greater Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 05 January 2007 11:32 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
The question no one yet has asked about Khan is the most important is the hair real or a toupee?


Good question. If it's not a rug, it's an embarassing dye job and a bad cut to boot.

From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 January 2007 11:39 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's an astute observation. They are being deceived. And the Yanks need a political party that is anti-war, anti military industrial complex, anti prison industrial complex and pro-social democracy. It could save American taxpayers billions of dollars a year in ideologically movitated economic Darwinism.

I think the Yanks have been envied around the world for their constitution and most advanced governmental structure by both the left and right. Their system of government was at least an attempt to limit the concentration of power into one person's hands. The American system was an attempt to serve the interests of the people and not a cabal of bankers and financiers. Of course, it failed to achieve that, but I think it's something that could be built upon. Both our countries need advanced democracy. With the NDP and civil support groups leading the way, Canada could pull ahead of the U.S. as a leading democracy in years to come.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Maxx
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4819

posted 06 January 2007 04:18 AM      Profile for Maxx     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm happy to see another right-wing so-con leaving the Liberal Party. A real Liberal should take his place.
From: Don't blame me... I voted Liberal. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 January 2007 05:24 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But is there such a thing as a "real" Liberal. Isn't that kind of like saying extremely mediocre?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 06 January 2007 05:54 AM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Gessh... Uncle Tom. The guy is a sell out. -scooter

I apologize, scooter for my slight outburst. I was reeling after the comment of another Babber that I see bigots under beds or something like that.

Pakistani-Canadians already called Khan a "lota" yesterday. Pakistanis use this term to describe politicians who have no ideas, and affiliation, except for the willingness to present their services to the highest bidder, as a friend of mine explained it.

[ 06 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 06 January 2007 06:47 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I went looking for some history of floor crossing, just to see if I could find a numerical breakdown of how often Members cross to the opposition from the government vs the other way.

Of course, I suspect that the majority of floor crossers move from opposition to the government side, indicating that such moves are based on personal gain, and not some great underlying philisophical issue.

But I can't find an easy to tally list, at least not one that dates back to 1867.

In times of genuine personal philosphy differences with the party, or in reaction to a national crisis, M.P.s seem to do the right thing, that is leave to form a new party, or sit as an independant.

I am not so sure that the kind of floor crossing we have seen with Emerson, Stronach and now Khan, (for recent examples) do not constitute some breach of criminal or civil law.

Surely, this is fraud, or a breach of an implied contract.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 January 2007 08:16 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DavidMR:

For perhaps the first time, Unionist, we are in near total agreement.


Oh my, this won't do... Will you change your position, or should I change mine?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 January 2007 08:19 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

I am not so sure that the kind of floor crossing we have seen with Emerson, Stronach and now Khan, (for recent examples) do not constitute some breach of criminal or civil law.

Surely, this is fraud, or a breach of an implied contract.


Why is it worse - or how is it different - than breaking any other significant election promise?

If someone is elected as a Liberal based on the Red Book promises of 1993 (for example), and the Liberal government immediately and flagrantly betrays those promises, and the person crosses the floor to the NDP - you'd call this fraud??


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
gadar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13436

posted 06 January 2007 09:23 AM      Profile for gadar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sidra:

Pakistani-Canadians already called Khan a "lota" yesterday. Pakistanis use this term to describe politicians who have no ideas, and affiliation, except for the willingness to present their services to the highest bidder, as a friend of mine explained it.

[ 06 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]


Lota indeed.I look forward to Khan explaining the Afghan mission to pakistani-canadians. Who by and large are against it.I agree with somebody who said that people mostly vote for the parties and not the candidates.


From: BC | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 06 January 2007 09:33 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Is that a typo or did Peter Stoffer get married recently?

Hah... reminiscint of Jean Chretien Pinochet.

From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 06 January 2007 11:11 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DavidMR:
...
But in reality, if the member is switching as between Liberal and Conservative are the voters really correct in perceiving this as a shift of policy and programme, or are they just being successfully deceived by the advertising and marketing scams of the two major parties?

I know what you mean.

The consumer is never more in touch with his feelings than when he is shopping.

Galbraith. can't remember which book.

something like that, anyways.

ON EDIT: he may well have said "she" but you'd have to read his material to know he wasn't being sexist.

[ 06 January 2007: Message edited by: BitWhys ]


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 January 2007 01:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
I am not so sure that the kind of floor crossing we have seen with Emerson, Stronach and now Khan, (for recent examples) do not constitute some breach of criminal or civil law.

Surely, this is fraud, or a breach of an implied contract.


A completely unacceptable view of the relationship between government and parties. The more one attaches the electoral process to the party and not the individual, the more one institutionalizes the parties as extensions of government, as opposed to civil entities seperate from it.

This in my view undemines the point of having a multi-party system, since all parties begin operating as established factions within a pre-established government system, of which the parties are merely and extension.

This system is already substantially compromised favouring the interests of the entrenched parties, there is no reason to do so further.

[ 06 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 06 January 2007 01:28 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Cueball: The more one attaches the electoral process to the party and not the individual, the more one institutionalizes the parties as extensions of government, as opposed to civil entities seperate from it.

And yet, if we went the other way and prohibited/restricted parties (from identifying themselves in elections) , as in municipal elections in Winnipeg and many other Canadian cities, we would still have the domination by vested political interests without, however, the truthful naming of the "factions" as you've called them. Isn't it better and more democratic to call a spade a spade, a Conservative a Conservative, and so on? Winnipeg civic politics has been a history, since the general strike of 1919, of a Conservative/Liberal alliance the purpose of which is to keep the "rabble" out of office. Except for one Mayor in the 1930's, the strategy has been marvelously successful. There is a useful educational aspect to this that our friends in the USA completely lack, for example. I'd rather have political processes dominated by political parties with clearly differentiated ideological points of view than some idiotic popularity contest that turns the electorate into trained seals. But perhaps you have something else in mind.

quote:
Cueball: This in my view undemines the point of having a multi-party system, since all parties begin operating as established factions within a pre-established government system, of which the parties are merely and extension.

The Canadian BQ and separatist parties in other countries would beg to differ. Furthermore, small parties that are not currently represented in our Parliament have far too much difficultly getting their views into public debate through the media.

quote:
Cueball: This system is already substantially compromised favouring the entrenched interests of the parties, there is no reason to do so further.

I would support more regulation of the internal workings of political parties in Canada - especially if some form of proportional representation is introduced in this country.

[ 06 January 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
DavidMR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13478

posted 06 January 2007 01:31 PM      Profile for DavidMR        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Maxx:
I'm happy to see another right-wing so-con leaving the Liberal Party. A real Liberal should take his place.

I agree that this is a preferable political alignment, more explicit, easier for the casual, low information voter to understand.

What I would like to see is for all six Scarborough Liberal MPs go to the Conservatives, one by one, about six weeks apart. Dan McTeague, Jim Karygiannis, John Cannis, John MacKay, Derek Lee, and finally, Tom Wappel. It would become a kind of theatrical march of dwarf Toronto politicians to the Conservative Party.


From: Greater Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 January 2007 01:32 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:

And yet, if we went the other way and prohibited/restricted parties (from identifying themselves in elections) , as in municipal elections in Winnipeg and many other Canadian cities, we would still have the domination by vested political interests without, however, the truthful naming of the "factions" as you've called them. Isn't it better and more democratic to call a spade a spade, a Conservative a Conservative, and so on? There is a useful educational aspect to this that our friends in the USA completely lack, for example. I'd rather have political processes dominated by political parties with clearly differentiated ideological points of view than some idiotic popularity contest that turns the electorate into trained seals. But perhaps you have something else in mind.


We are certainly stepping off into the realm, of very abstracted theory here I can see. What you are saying might be more practical in the Canadian context were it evident that the "political processes {was} dominated by political parties with clearly differentiated ideological points of view.'

That said identifying party alliegiances in no way contravenes what I am saying about entrenching them in governing process.

[ 06 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 06 January 2007 02:01 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I understood Tommy Paine's remarks about "breach of an implied contract" and so on to be about the relationship between the elector and the candidate rather than between the elector and the political party. False advertising and all that. I like the idea of punishing lying politicians in more ways than simply at the next election. For example, make them run again under their new colours. Liberal Sheila Copps did so (voluntarily) simply for the flip-flop of her party on the GST or some issue like that.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
DavidMR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13478

posted 06 January 2007 05:45 PM      Profile for DavidMR        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:
Fuck him. He was a bigoted, anti-gay and anti-woman and an apologist for our government's complicity in American and Israeli terrorism.


Given what you say, Kevin, why did Liberal Leader Stephane Dion ask Khan to leave the Harper advisory gig and instead remain solidly in the Liberal Caucus?

Would you like to see all the other Liberals social conservatives, such as the entire Scarborough delegation, marching over to the Tory bench, one at a time, ... Karygiannis, McTeague, Cannis, Wappel, Lee, MacKay? Don't you think that would be neat seeming them all gravitate one by one to their natural home?


From: Greater Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 January 2007 08:01 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
I understood Tommy Paine's remarks about "breach of an implied contract" and so on to be about the relationship between the elector and the candidate rather than between the elector and the political party. False advertising and all that. I like the idea of punishing lying politicians in more ways than simply at the next election. For example, make them run again under their new colours. Liberal Sheila Copps did so (voluntarily) simply for the flip-flop of her party on the GST or some issue like that.

Among other things. you are essentially trying to whip people to support their party even if they dissent. Being able to protest you party stand by resigning is a very important and valuable thing to be able to do.

Would you feel the same way were a tory to quit the CPC and join some other party because he no longer supports thier position on Afghanistan?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 January 2007 08:09 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
I understood Tommy Paine's remarks about "breach of an implied contract" and so on to be about the relationship between the elector and the candidate rather than between the elector and the political party.

His thesis apparently is that if you run for a party and are elected, then you are contractually bound to the electors to stay with that party. I would suggest you are contractually bound, rather, to uphold the principles that you proclaimed to your electors. Loyalty to a party over principle is treachery, not integrity.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
DavidMR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13478

posted 06 January 2007 08:42 PM      Profile for DavidMR        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
... What a grovelling brown-nose bootlicker. Harper is a god on earth according to this simp.

I hope he goes down like a rock in the next election.


Khan may only recently have revealed himself to be, as you put it, a brown-nosed bootlicker. (I am sure that for you the reference to "brown" has nothing to do with Khan's racial identity, even though others in this thread have insisted that Harper was refering to that when he said Khan had been in Canada for thirty years.)

But really LTJ, did you want to see this guy go down to defeat in his riding last time, or the time before that? Or only now?


From: Greater Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
DavidMR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13478

posted 06 January 2007 08:45 PM      Profile for DavidMR        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bernie F.:
Well, Khan has been basically a Tory spy for all these months. I'm glad Dion made him make a choice, and it's better for the Liberals to have people like that out of their party. Put all the evil where the evil lives.

As you say, Stephane Dion insisted that Khan choose either to give up his advisory gig with the Conservative Govt or else leave the Liberal Caucus. I can understand what you mean about spying, since much strategic and tactical information is discussed in a party caucus meeting.

However, suppose Khan had chosen to go the other way, to renounce the advisory position with the Tory Govt. Then what? Would he be welcome to stay as a Liberal even though, as you say, he has been actively spying for all these months?


From: Greater Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dana Larsen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10033

posted 07 January 2007 12:38 AM      Profile for Dana Larsen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is weird that it was it was a travesty with Emerson, Stronach and maybe now with Khan but when Scott Brison, Inky mark, Keith Martin or those the left to create the Bloc their was not the same angst and anger.

What makes Emerson's action worse than any of the others was that he switched parties immediately after the election.

Emerson was elected as a Liberal, the Conservatives came a distant third in his riding, and then he switched parties within a month to take the same cabinet minister position in the Conservative government.

In the other cases of switching, they generally switched closer to an impending election call, so there would be a chance for the voters to decide on their switch.

And in the other cases there was usually some kind of political shift or change which the party-switcher could claim was the philosophical reason for their switching. But with Emerson his switch came most obviously not for any philosophical disagreement with the Liberals, but just because he just wanted to be on the government side and in the same cabinet position.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 07 January 2007 12:50 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dana Larsen:
What makes Emerson's action worse than any of the others was that he switched parties immediately after the election.

He didn't switch parties at all. Unlike some places in Canada, there are only two parties in BC, as you can clearly see in their provincial legislature: the NDP and the right. Since the ROCER (Rest Of Canada East of the Rockies) voted out the Liberal brand and voted in the Conservative brand, Emerson did the logical thing for any BC businessman, and changed his brand name.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 07 January 2007 08:12 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
unionist: His [Tommy Paine's - N.Beltov] thesis apparently is that if you run for a party and are elected, then you are contractually bound to the electors to stay with that party. I would suggest you are contractually bound, rather, to uphold the principles that you proclaimed to your electors. Loyalty to a party over principle is treachery, not integrity.

Huh? What person can run for higher office without the assistance of a political party, or some kind of political organization, to assist them in making a coherent range of policy approaches? Have you actually RUN for office at the Provincial or Federal level in Canada? No one individual can realistically elaborate their "principles" to cover all the bases. Your comments just seem naiive to me.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 07 January 2007 08:28 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A completely unacceptable view of the relationship between government and parties. The more one attaches the electoral process to the party and not the individual, the more one institutionalizes the parties as extensions of government, as opposed to civil entities seperate from it.

In a perfect world, I'd like to see the end of party politics. A more honest democracy would be independant members from all riddings in the House of Commons. But that's utopian, and I'm trying to address the game as it is played.

Candidates rarely, if ever, denouce particular party policies during an election campaign. This is already entrenched, and candidates are already as whipped as they can be.

quote:
Why is it worse - or how is it different - than breaking any other significant election promise?

If someone is elected as a Liberal based on the Red Book promises of 1993 (for example), and the Liberal government immediately and flagrantly betrays those promises, and the person crosses the floor to the NDP - you'd call this fraud??


Probably, yes. I don't recall the NDP making the same promise on the GST, so crossing to the NDP would be fraudulant-- although, absent is the smoking gun of personal gain that doesn't come with crossing the floor to the NDP.

Which, funny now that you mention tories or liberals crossing to the NDP, never happens.

There are always grey areas. From time to time, substantive issues arise after an election, or new information come to light, and minds and policies should change accordingly. That's not a breach of contract with the elctorate.

Because these kinds of things are sometimes tricky to discern, we should at times, give it to a judge and jury to examine.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 07 January 2007 08:31 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
I agree with unionist.

Party positions and policies are never constant or monolithic. When the party shift or is influenced too far away from the MP's position, the MP's responsibility is to the constituency, not the party.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 07 January 2007 09:37 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:

Huh? What person can run for higher office without the assistance of a political party, or some kind of political organization, to assist them in making a coherent range of policy approaches?


You're critiquing a view I never presented.

If a person can only get elected via a party - and if a party expects unquestioning allegiance from its representatives (elected by the people, not by the party) for 4-5 years no matter what - then our current non-alliance-friendly monolithic multiple political party system doesn't facilitate true democracy.

In fact, PR would likely make it worse, by de-emphasizing the individual representative and highlighting the party.

You may call me naive, and perhaps you're right. But frankly, the most dangerous and (to me) the most disgusting phenomenon in our political system is unquestioning party allegiance. It is dehumanizing, anti-democratic, and the enemy of any kind of progressive politics. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have parties. It means the parties we have must either uphold certain principles or face desertion.

Before deserting a party, a responsible representative of integrity must fight to correct her/his party's stand. But to condemn the deserter, and not to condemn the organization which betrayed principle and triggered the desertion, is hypocrisy and cynicism at its worst.

Of course I'm not talking about Wajid Khan - a selfish anti-people creep who bolted from one party to another where both parties' stands on the issue on which he bolted are virtually indistinguishable.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
DavidMR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13478

posted 07 January 2007 10:36 AM      Profile for DavidMR        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dana Larsen:
What makes Emerson's action worse than any of the others was that he switched parties immediately after the election.

Emerson was elected as a Liberal, the Conservatives came a distant third in his riding, ...

In the other cases of switching, they generally switched closer to an impending election call, ...

And in the other cases there was usually some kind of political shift or change which the party-switcher could claim was the philosophical reason for their switching. ...


I cannot agree with any of this. It was just after an election, that's true. It's also irrelevant, except insofar as the surprise factor goes. What's the appropriate length of time after an election, according to the Liberal play book? And what does the third place Conservative finish have to do with it? Nothing, as everyone knows.

The other supposed facts about other switchers are pure invention. Stronach's switch came at a time when an election was indeed thought to be imminent, and without her switch would have been called. Now that is truly delicate timing. I for one was relieved that she and the late Chuck Cadman avoided an election at that time, but to say that she switched for some philosophical reasons is the exact opposite of the observable reality and everyone knows that, including all those Liberals who insincerely claim otherwise. She immediately got a Cabinet post, just like Emerson.

Wilf Day's comments on Emerson are absolutely bang on.


From: Greater Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 07 January 2007 01:17 PM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by gadar:
Lota indeed.I look forward to Khan explaining the Afghan mission to pakistani-canadians. Who by and large are against it.

Of course they are against it. The Afghan mission has/is ending Pakistans imperialist control of Afghanistan.

From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Oppo-Guy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4159

posted 07 January 2007 02:26 PM      Profile for Oppo-Guy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He hasn't been on the job for 30 days and not only did Dion lose an MP, he lost another chunk of his credibility in the process.

On Friday morning Dion showed up on CBC Newsworld to say he didn’t think Khan was going anywhere: "I assume that Mr. Khan is a recommitted Liberal and I have no indication that it's not the case. And so I don't think that it's a big issue, but we'll see."

The leader of the opposition has to “assume” his MPs are loyal? "We'll see"?? Wow. This guy has all the hallmarks of leadership of a Joe Clark.

Scott Reid (of "popcorn and beer" fame) is fond of saying: "the name of the game is don't screw up." Fair to say that Dion is losing that game, and the Scott Reid wanna-bes around him right now must be hating every moment of it.


From: here | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
DavidMR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13478

posted 14 January 2007 08:58 PM      Profile for DavidMR        Edit/Delete Post
Just to put this whole Wajid Khan affair into the appropriate perspective, one of the better known Liberal bloggers compared it all to a harmless children's game:

Red Rover, Red Rover, we call Wajid over


From: Greater Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 16 January 2007 11:53 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps the Liberals are well rid of him and are laughing he is now Harper's problem?

quote:
Khan's riding association delisted
Registration revoked for not filing financial returns on time
Tim Naumetz, CanWest News Service
Published: Monday, January 15, 2007
OTTAWA - Elections Canada revoked the legal registration of new Conservative MP Wajid Khan's former Liberal riding association in December because it failed to file financial returns for 2004 and 2005, the Ottawa Citizen has learned.

The returns, now available at Elections Canada, show that Mr. Khan, whose defection to the Conservative party was announced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper only 10 days ago, lent his old riding association a total of $179,946 through his Toronto car dealership during the two years covered by the late returns.

The riding association transferred $32,000 to Mr. Khan's campaign for the 2004 election and a further $50,000 to his campaign for the January, 2006, election, the returns show.


National Post

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 January 2007 12:33 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This has not been a particularly kind month for Mississauga MP Wajid Khan. But the political dogfight in which he finds himself pales when compared to the day his MiG 19 was shot down over India in 1971. Mr. Khan parachuted to safety, only to end up in an Indian PoW camp for the next year.

Can Wajid Khan the MP replicate the surviving skills of Wajid Khan the fighter pilot? I caught up with Mr. Khan and asked him whether he was going to quit. "You must be kidding," he quipped.

When I suggested that now that his own Muslim communities, especially Arab leaders, are attacking his credibility, he interrupted: "Listen to me very carefully, my community is the Canadian community; I am not the ambassador of some country to Canada; I am an MP representing Canadians and my primary interest is Canada's welfare. I am not in politics to represent some overseas group or government. Yes, I am a Muslim, but I cannot be held hostage by self-appointed community leaders who have their own hidden agendas."

Mr. Khan was reacting to a joint statement by Khaled Mouammar, president of the Canadian Arab Federation, and Mohamed Elmasry, president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, who not only demanded Mr. Khan publish his elusive Middle East report to the Prime Minister but also attacked Mr. Khan's credibility while mocking his competence.


I must be a glutton for punishment for posting this, but here goes.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 22 January 2007 01:15 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good for him.
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 January 2007 01:36 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Huh. That's weird. I posted the URL I clicked on from google news and the whole article showed up. But then when I clicked on my link here, it's behind a subscription firewall.

Okay, well, click here and then click on the first (at the moment) link to the Fatah article.

Oh. Or you could just read the whole thing here.

[ 22 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 22 January 2007 03:19 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Huh. That's weird. I posted the URL I clicked on from google news and the whole article showed up. But then when I clicked on my link here, it's behind a subscription firewall.
As another babbler once explained to me, Google sends a secret code called a referrer that is not part of the URL for the article, but tells the Globe and Mail to let you in past the subscription wall. If you try to get in from somewhere other than Google (e.g. through babble) just by using the URL, you will be shut out.

That's why I usually avoid problems by using URLs from a mirror site that carries the Globe's articles. Here's the link for that article.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 22 January 2007 08:15 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is this Tarek Fatah inching his way to the halls of power... now ? NDP - Liberal - Conservative ?


Apparently either he cannot wait for the Liberals to get in power or he feels that the Conservatives are to be re-elected.

Well, a cue to Stephen Harper wouldn't hurt.

Anyway, Tarek Fatah has been totally discredited long ago, if you ask me.

[ 22 January 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
jrose
babble intern
Babbler # 13401

posted 22 January 2007 09:32 PM      Profile for jrose     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long post...sorry guys!
From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca