Harper & Mulroney
- Thread starter TQM
- Start date
Harper was wrong
for abandoning (again) his principles and befriending Mulroney (the man he so loathed) because it was temporarily politically advantageous to do so.
If he were a true friend of Mulroney, he would have called the inquiry and like McGuinty told the public that Mulroney remains a friend of his.
I don't know how to be more clear on this to you.
The inquiry was the right thing to do. Claiming it was a dangerous thing to do was intense stupidity. Threatening Liberals over it was intensely stupid too.
for abandoning (again) his principles and befriending Mulroney (the man he so loathed) because it was temporarily politically advantageous to do so.
If he were a true friend of Mulroney, he would have called the inquiry and like McGuinty told the public that Mulroney remains a friend of his.
I don't know how to be more clear on this to you.
The inquiry was the right thing to do. Claiming it was a dangerous thing to do was intense stupidity. Threatening Liberals over it was intensely stupid too.
TQM said:Liberals don't make friends with people they hate.
Wow....thanks for the chuckles.
There was already an RCMP inquiry and it cleared Mulroney of wrongdoing in the matter. The $2.1 million he received in compensation was for his legal fees, he never took a dime from taxpayers for his own personal use. Now he's happy to have another inquiry to clear his name once and for all and Harper has now obliged. WTF is your issue?TQM said:for abandoning (again) his principles and befriending Mulroney (the man he so loathed) because it was temporarily politically advantageous to do so.
If he were a true friend of Mulroney, he would have called the inquiry and like McGuinty told the public that Mulroney remains a friend of his.
I don't know how to be more clear on this to you.
The inquiry was the right thing to do. Claiming it was a dangerous thing to do was intense stupidity. Threatening Liberals over it was intensely stupid too.
Because he quit the Conservative Party back in the late 80's we assume it was because Harper loathed Mulroney. Show me some evidence of this. Can you not quit a party and speak out against the leader based purely on disagreement anymore? Its not a black and white or love and hate scenario. You Libs should know that more than anyone you're the poster child for shades of grey.
K Douglas
You are something of a numbskull.
First, you want some evidence that Harper left the PC's over Mulroney.
Easy. Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper#Political_beginnings
But recently, he's been praising Mulroney's term as Prime Minister and has been personally chummy with him. Why would he be praising Mulroney when at the time he was so disillusioned with him that he quit the party?
Last week Harper was claiming calling an inquiry was so "dangerous". Now he's called an inquiry. (Where was the danger?)
I've no beef with Mulroney. He was cleared of wrong doing. New information seems to indicate he lied. Wouldn't surprise me if he is found guilty of something - he brought a used car dealership salesperson's approach to Canadian politics, but my comments weren't about Mulroney. They were about Harper.
Harper is a big pontificator, but on a whole series of issues he's showing himself to be a manipulative, morally hollow person. This was just one example of it. He befriended Mulroney because it suited him at the time.
You are something of a numbskull.
First, you want some evidence that Harper left the PC's over Mulroney.
Easy. Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper#Political_beginnings
But recently, he's been praising Mulroney's term as Prime Minister and has been personally chummy with him. Why would he be praising Mulroney when at the time he was so disillusioned with him that he quit the party?
Last week Harper was claiming calling an inquiry was so "dangerous". Now he's called an inquiry. (Where was the danger?)
I've no beef with Mulroney. He was cleared of wrong doing. New information seems to indicate he lied. Wouldn't surprise me if he is found guilty of something - he brought a used car dealership salesperson's approach to Canadian politics, but my comments weren't about Mulroney. They were about Harper.
Harper is a big pontificator, but on a whole series of issues he's showing himself to be a manipulative, morally hollow person. This was just one example of it. He befriended Mulroney because it suited him at the time.
You know what,
This inquiry is going to be the biggest dog and pony show in Canadian history.
In the end, what will it resolve?
Farking nothing.
Do you really think that they are going to send Lying Brian to jail?
Not in my lifetime or his.
All this is going to do is drive me crazy for the next 2 years when every night it is one bullshit story on the news or the other. The lawyers (they will come out of the woodwork) will make off like the bandits that they are (sorry Don Q. it's farking true and you know it).
Gomery cost a fucking fortune and what came of it?
Nothing.
Did ONE (1) single politician get sent to jail?
Nope, not even that asshole Alphonso Galigano. Never mind Chretien and his henchmen. They just threw that idiot with the cowboy hat (Chuck Gite) in jail for a couple of weeks. And some fat old Quebec ad executives who TOOK the money (never mind the guys who GAVE the money)
(Well, it did succeed in getting the liberals turfed from power, so more than likely, the liberals are hoping for payback time. (Too bad we're talking 20 years ago and half of the players are dead or senile or both.))
Nope, I vote -LET IT GO.
Everyone knows that Lying Brian took the money (and probably more).
Who fucking cares, the guy is yesterday's scum bag and we all know it (though apparently not at his speech the other night in Toronto where for some reason he got a standing ovation from various business and government leaders)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071114.wschreiber14/BNStory/National
All this is going to do is waste about a 100 million tax payer dollars and distract the government.
Already I want to puke and it hasn't even started.
This inquiry is going to be the biggest dog and pony show in Canadian history.
In the end, what will it resolve?
Farking nothing.
Do you really think that they are going to send Lying Brian to jail?
Not in my lifetime or his.
All this is going to do is drive me crazy for the next 2 years when every night it is one bullshit story on the news or the other. The lawyers (they will come out of the woodwork) will make off like the bandits that they are (sorry Don Q. it's farking true and you know it).
Gomery cost a fucking fortune and what came of it?
Nothing.
Did ONE (1) single politician get sent to jail?
Nope, not even that asshole Alphonso Galigano. Never mind Chretien and his henchmen. They just threw that idiot with the cowboy hat (Chuck Gite) in jail for a couple of weeks. And some fat old Quebec ad executives who TOOK the money (never mind the guys who GAVE the money)
(Well, it did succeed in getting the liberals turfed from power, so more than likely, the liberals are hoping for payback time. (Too bad we're talking 20 years ago and half of the players are dead or senile or both.))
Nope, I vote -LET IT GO.
Everyone knows that Lying Brian took the money (and probably more).
Who fucking cares, the guy is yesterday's scum bag and we all know it (though apparently not at his speech the other night in Toronto where for some reason he got a standing ovation from various business and government leaders)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071114.wschreiber14/BNStory/National
All this is going to do is waste about a 100 million tax payer dollars and distract the government.
Already I want to puke and it hasn't even started.
I'm not arguing against the fact that Harper left the Conservative Party because he disagreed with the Mulroney gov't direction and policy. Particularly with their perceived policy of pandering to Quebec and ignoring the western provinces. What I challenged you on was that you assumed it was personal. It was political differences. So before pulling out the numbskull card maybe you should reread things more carefully next time. But overall Harper has always commended Mulroney on FTA, strong bi-lateral relations with the US and increased role in international affairs so I don't know where you're coming up with this love him hate him relationship. More Liberal bullshit as usual.TQM said:You are something of a numbskull.
First, you want some evidence that Harper left the PC's over Mulroney.
Easy. Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Harper#Political_beginnings
But recently, he's been praising Mulroney's term as Prime Minister and has been personally chummy with him. Why would he be praising Mulroney when at the time he was so disillusioned with him that he quit the party?
Last week Harper was claiming calling an inquiry was so "dangerous". Now he's called an inquiry. (Where was the danger?)
I've no beef with Mulroney. He was cleared of wrong doing. New information seems to indicate he lied. Wouldn't surprise me if he is found guilty of something - he brought a used car dealership salesperson's approach to Canadian politics, but my comments weren't about Mulroney. They were about Harper.
Harper is a big pontificator, but on a whole series of issues he's showing himself to be a manipulative, morally hollow person. This was just one example of it. He befriended Mulroney because it suited him at the time.
You ask where the danger was, I'll tell you. Would any sane leader call a public inquiry based on a few letters sent from an accused person facing extradition? To do so would have been a Pandora's box. Who would have been next - Chretien, Martin? There have been allegations against both those individuals while sitting as PM. Once the affadavit was sworn then its a different story. Harper in my mind has acted appropriately.
We (this includes TQM) don't know the first thing about Harper and Mulroney's relationship as it stands today. Did Harper play his relationship with Mulroney for political gain? Duh! Of course he did! Harper, for the most part, plays the game better than the Liberals and it drives them nuts.K Douglas said:I'm not arguing against the fact that Harper left the Conservative Party because he disagreed with the Mulroney gov't direction and policy. Particularly with their perceived policy of pandering to Quebec and ignoring the western provinces. What I challenged you on was that you assumed it was personal. It was political differences. So before pulling out the numbskull card maybe you should reread things more carefully next time. But overall Harper has always commended Mulroney on FTA, strong bi-lateral relations with the US and increased role in international affairs so I don't know where you're coming up with this love him hate him relationship. More Liberal bullshit as usual.
Calling an inguiry was the right move. So far the response from Mulroney has been bring it on bravado, so we'll see. At any rate, Canadians deserve to know.
looking
You on the one hand say know one knows the first thing about the Harper/Mulroney relationship, but with the next breath you tell us all about it - that Harper used it for political gain.
All I've said is that Harper befriended Mulroney, after having been one of his harshest critics ever, for political gain. I don't think I've commented on it beyond that.
Harper, and others too, quit the Tories in disgust, promising a "new" kind of politics - they loathed Mulroney more than the Liberals - Mulroney was the guy that pandered to Quebec nationalism and made Quebec separatists cabinet ministers.
In any party there are factions and individuals who don't agree with everything the party does. Rarely do they quit in acrimony.
You on the one hand say know one knows the first thing about the Harper/Mulroney relationship, but with the next breath you tell us all about it - that Harper used it for political gain.
All I've said is that Harper befriended Mulroney, after having been one of his harshest critics ever, for political gain. I don't think I've commented on it beyond that.
Harper, and others too, quit the Tories in disgust, promising a "new" kind of politics - they loathed Mulroney more than the Liberals - Mulroney was the guy that pandered to Quebec nationalism and made Quebec separatists cabinet ministers.
In any party there are factions and individuals who don't agree with everything the party does. Rarely do they quit in acrimony.
And it was the right thing to do. People, including politicians, grow and develop. Sometimes it is necessary to make peace with an old enemy (after all, one doesn't need to make peace with friends).TQM said:All I've said is that Harper befriended Mulroney, after having been one of his harshest critics ever, for political gain.
Had Paul Martin made peace with the old Chretien gang instead of waging all out war, Martin would probably still be PM. Had Harper not made peace with his old Progressive Conservative enemies, the Tories would still be on the outside looking in.
It's easy to pontificate from the peanut gallery or the opposition benches. The exercise of power requires the art of compromise. Mr Harper is learning this lesson that he didn't grasp in the late 1980s.
Today, it is Mr Dion doing the pontificating - after all that is the job of the leader of the opposition. Should Mr Dion attain high office, he too will compromise - that is the nature of democratic government - only an absolute dictator has no need to compromise.
No the two faced part of liberal is saying one thing and doing another. Talking out both sides of the mouth at the same time. This is different, we are talking a 20 year span here. Even if you loathed the man (Mulroney) you still respected him for his statesmanship, politcal experience and contacts. The loathing part you talk about was more played up by the media than anything. The split was due to philosophical differences and the fact that the Reform movement was a populist, grass roots way of thinking - completely different than the status quo of all parties at the time.TQM said:they are accused of being two-faced.
The second Harper shows he's two faced, he's being praised as compromising. He befriended a guy he upchucked on and is now having to duck for doing it.
Dion is merely gloating.
TQM said:they are accused of being two-faced.
The second Harper shows he's two faced, he's being praised as compromising. He befriended a guy he upchucked on and is now having to duck for doing it.
Dion is merely gloating.
Boy are you ever out to lunch on this. Dion is still keeping his head below his desk hoping no one notices he's there. He's enjoying the peace for awhile.
This has to be the one of the silliest threads ever. The notion that anyone, much less a politician, can never change their opinions, or is not justified in doing so, over a 20 year period is just plain childishly naive.
The Liberals are squaking for an inquiry, one is called and now you are whining because Harper is trying to appear independent and isn't supporting Mulroney the way that McSquint supported Sorbera ? The comparison is laughable.
McSquint had appointed Sorbarra and the investigation into Sorbara was a result of an RCMP probe into the fraudalent activities at Royal Plastics of which Sorbara was a former director. If Sorbara was had been guilty it would have reflected badly on McSquint. The AirBus affair occured some 15 years or more prior to Harper becoming Prime Minister. Not very comparable. Why would Harper stand behind Mulroney on this ? As Prime Minister he is supposed to be impartial.
Harper's been impartial??????????
One day he announces how dangerous it would be to call an inquiry and how awful the opposition is to dare demand one, and the next he's calling it.
Yeah, impartial.
k dougie - the split was philosophical? The split was philosophical and intense and personal. He loathed Mulroney, he loathed his "pandering" (in Harper's view) to Quebec, he loathed Mulroney's obsession with constitutional reform.
One day he announces how dangerous it would be to call an inquiry and how awful the opposition is to dare demand one, and the next he's calling it.
Yeah, impartial.
k dougie - the split was philosophical? The split was philosophical and intense and personal. He loathed Mulroney, he loathed his "pandering" (in Harper's view) to Quebec, he loathed Mulroney's obsession with constitutional reform.
You mean like making an election promise not to tax income trusts and then turning around and doing just that? Is that the talking out of both sides of you mouth you mean?K Douglas said:No the two faced part of liberal is saying one thing and doing another. Talking out both sides of the mouth at the same time.
