Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SofaSpud who wrote (5253)	5/19/2005 2:27:42 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37569

Hey sofa, I played with my kids today... I feel much better :O) On the dispute I think Harper handled Stronach poorly. If he is a man of such strong principle (I think he is and I think he is honest FWIW) that he had to deliver Stronach an ultimatum as he apparently did then he should have been prepared for Stronachs's actions, even expected them ... that is my point. Anything less is naive. Telling her she had no future had no beneficial effect and sounded like a tantrum to me. If I ever had a boss tell me I had no future.. I'd be thinking fast... I do not respect Stronach at all and yes I think she is a whore (hence my initial more saccharine use of the Paris Hilton analogy...and per my dictionary link to fresc) as you may have assumed but I am frankly surprised at Harpers naivety after the revelation of the type of meeting they had.. As to the social issues I guess I agree.. I posted a free vote should be had for such things... The courts shouldn't decide these social issues, parliament should by free vote... My comment on Gay marriage was simply that I'm ambivalent on the issue... while I'm not ambivalent on abortion... and think some form of assisted suicide should be legal.. but I would accept a free vote ... after seeing how some folks think Harper is out to destroy Canada with his buddy Duceppe I'm reticent to accept referenda on these issues... His priorities are "good government" viz the BNA Act. That he's in opposition means he doesn't get to set the agenda. EXACTLY... and that should remain his focus and that of his MPs... until elected and people no they are not monsters... Then he can go for mandates on the other issues... it's reality.... he needs Ontario otherwise he's wasting his time... Harper has to realise job one was ending the corruption in Ottawa and giving the country a viable alternative... restore the checks an balances... There is time afterwards once you have an accepted party... It is a fine line but there are priorities... any good manager knows that.. Now off to bed for me.. I think I'm repeating myself.. g'night Kastel

To: SofaSpud who wrote (5253)	5/19/2005 9:04:34 AM
From: Ichy Smith	Respond to of 37569

Stronach is high profile, a leadership contender.. in the money community...... News reports say a shouting match erupted when he brought her in.. That takes two. reports are Harper told Stronach she had no future in the party.... that she was ambitious. I guess he must know he has important vote coming up... A good time to ensure alienation of a high profile MP that he knows is power hungry... What is this about? Is it about doing politics, about gaining power? If that, then Harper should suck up to Stronach. Actually it is about Steven Harper showing us that he is capable of being the diplomat, that he is able to lead his troops and negotiate so that we get the best possible outcome from things like trade agreements, and that he is able to lead by consensus not by decree as the Liberals have been doing. I was a member of the Conservatives, (my membership needs renewing) and I am appalled by the hysterical yammering he has allowed, only to end up in a screaming match with Mz Stronach because she liked part of the budget? A budget he has decreed they are going to vote for BTW...... Or, perish the thought, perhaps Harper might stand for some things other than merely the prospect of gaining power. There's no question that same-sex marriage is the arbiter in Toronto. But I would posit that, in the country at large, there is a significant body who think otherwise. Are they to have no spokesperson whatever? What do you think he is in this for? He is the leader of the opposition, of course he wants to gain power. There are all kinds of more important questions in this country, all kinds of more important needs, BUT for the reformers in the conservative party there are only two big items, the pro life movement and damning Homosexuals to whatever hell they can find, with their bibles in their hands, and the smarmy look of smug superiority on their faces. You might wanna attend a small town nomination meeting sometime. The media, the punditocracy, all pressure politicos toward one position. On same-sex marriage, on abortion, etc. Personally I think that's unfortunate, because there are many much more important and pressing issues. For Harper, if there are 1000 issues that he thinks important, "pelvic" issues are in the bottom ten percent, and wouldn't show up in his legislative agenda until his nth term. His priorities are "good government" viz the BNA Act. That he's in opposition means he doesn't get to set the agenda Once again, The HYSTERICS of the Conservative party have meant that we have yet to have a discussion on how equal rights should be devised. Not that the conservatives have mush of an appetite for anything but the status quo. Canada cannot simply give lip service to the idea of equal rights, so cutting away the religious hysteria, this is NOT a Christian Country anymore, it is now a multicultural country and we have to learn to deal with it. As for setting the Agenda, no he doesn't set it, BUT he can set the tone of the debate, and that tone has been full of hysterics on two subjects Abortion and Gay Marriage. That is his fault, he has allowed it and been part of it and he should get over it. Steven Harper has had an amazing chance to appear as a leader, he has now had a chance to show Canadians that he can in fact LEAD a country. You don't lead someone by telling them they have no chance at ever succeeding you, you don't lead by appearing to be a hysterical fool who cannot come up with convincing arguments to further your cause. You don't lead by going way overboard on what is going on. Harper has screwed this up very badly. Should he be successful in the vote tonight, we are liable to get a Liberal Majority, and it will be Harpers fault. Maybe he should resign and let Peter MacKay be the leader of the opposition, Harper obviously is not ready for prime time!!!!