Mandatory Poilievre - the virtues of block letters.

Pirate Fish says: Good idea. Let Pierre be the front guy during the election.

Hon. Marlene Jennings: (Gerstein and Finley, facing jail time for election fraud) - ...How can Canadians trust a Prime Minister who holds our democratic elections in such contempt?

Poilievre: the Liberal Party is holding democratic elections in contempt. It ignored the results of the last election when voters spoke and gave this party increased seats and increased votes. It formed a coalition with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP.

Sort of like the older, dumber kid in the schoolyard, who having been held back several grades comes out with such brilliance as: “oh yeah? You’re the dummy!”

Hon. Marlene Jennings: ...Why do the Conservatives think that they are better than every other Canadian? Why do the Conservatives think they are above the law?

Poilievre: ...I do not know why that member thinks that her party is above the democratic process. After the last election, which the Liberals lost, they then tried to overturn the result by forming a coalition with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, a coalition that would dramatically raise job-killing taxes and destabilize our economy.

Wow. Coalition. Democratic process. Job-killing taxes. Economy. Destabilize.

Toss those words in a hat, add a few random pronouns and verbs, grab a few and form a sentence. Be sure that you have extra “coalition” and “economy” tokens, though.

Then even Pierre can pretend to be a politician.  Maybe we can design picture blocks so he can do away with words altogether.

Mandatory Poilievre

Pirate Fish says:  Listen to Dominic!

“They'll have to tear up their talking points because they've just been demolished,” Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc said Tuesday.

That would be these talking points:

Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, this is a five-year-old accounting dispute.  Fortunately, the Federal Court has ruled in favour of the Conservative Party and against Elections Canada.  (Hansard, Feb. 28, 2011)

and it would be due to this:

A civil court victory the Conservative Party has touted as vindication against charges of election wrongdoing has been unanimously overturned by the Federal Court of Appeal. The ruling confirms Elections Canada's interpretation of electoral spending laws and says it was reasonable for the electoral watchdog to reject the way the Conservative Party reported national advertising expenses for the 2006 election.

I predict the next CON approach to answering charges by not answering will be to shift their attack from Elections Canada and attack those damn, interfering courts Kenney is always going on about.  There they go doing their job again, damn legal eagles.  They are such sticklers for law and order, getting tough on illegal activities.

Poilievre does the chicken dance...again

The Minister of Harper’s chamber pot was once more sent to respond to questions from David McGuinty’s questions about CPC connections to Coulter. (Emphasis mine)

"The member has raised a very important question about an American commentator who has come to this country with some outrageous comments, comments supporting the Iraq war, comments supporting the use of torture and comments referring to Israel as a war criminal, but enough about the leader of the Liberal Party," Poilievre said.

Odd the feces carrier would criticize Ignatieff for supporting the Iraq war.

In an interview with the American TV network, Harper said he endorsed the (Iraq) war and said he was speaking "for the silent majority" of Canadians. Only in Quebec, with its "pacifist tradition," are most people opposed to the war, Harper said.

Guess Pierre should slap Stevie upside the head.

Or maybe he should just shut up and find another career.  I’m thinking gathering and spreading manure.

Pirate Fish says: Poilievre shivers me timbers!

And is completely chicken shit, as mentioned before.

After trying so hard to evade questions about Coulter, (because he secretly masturbates about her during debates - That was a joke. You know how I know it was a joke? I know Poilievre has no dick)

Poilievre, Parliamentary Secretary of Stephen Harper’s chamber pot was assigned to handle yet more right-wing feces yesterday during Oral Questions.

As usual, he ran around the question like a chicken with its head cut off and thought he scored some really smart Coulter-like points with his completely disconnected responses.

Hansard, March 25, 2010 (emphasis mine)

Mr. David McGuinty: ...Given (Coulter’s) views are completely out of step with mainstream Canadian values, will the Prime Minister stand here today and, without equivocation, publicly denounce her views while explaining to Canadians the link between his party and Ann Coulter?

(Enter Pierre, swilling the chamber pot)

Poilievre: ...apparently the member is obsessed about importing the views of an American political commentator. That makes sense given that he imported his leader from the same country. If he actually wants to engage in a broader debate about American politics, he has a leader who would be well qualified to do that. Speaking of views that are out of touch with mainstream Canadians, that member authored the Liberal carbon tax, which was rejected as a radical job-killing initiative by Canadians.

Now there’s a stretch, toilet man.  A question about denouncing racist views leads to a response about carbon tax proposed by a previous Liberal leader.

Being polite, McGuinty gives the chamber pot boy another chance to answer, and tries to help by providing actual facts that show why some could conclude that the CONs actually support Ms. Turkey Neck:

Mr. David McGuinty: ...Ezra Levant, who stepped aside for the Prime Minister and ran his last campaign's war room, sponsored her national tour.  The University of Ottawa Conservative club organized Tuesday's speech.  A former PMO and current Conservative assistant planned her reception at the Rideau Club.  Rainer Knopff, co-author of the Prime Minister's firewall letter and a repeat and generous Conservative donor, is organizing tonight's speech in Calgary.

It is simple. Either the Prime Minister endorses her views or he does not. Which is it?

Good questions.  Certainly shows some connected ideology.

And there goes the headless chicken...

Poilievre: ...the member raises a whole group of vitriolic accusations against a government whose fiscal plan many of his members rose to support just the other day. I wonder if he will berate them with the same vitriol as he blames himself for authoring an out-of-touch, radical, job-killing carbon tax, which led to his party's humiliating defeat in the last election.

Pirate Fish says: Poilievre is a cowardly, hypocritical, ineffectual little cur.

You know you’re deathly toxic if even Poilievre dodges the very mention of your name.

Some Conservative MPs refused to respond to questions about Coulter's views Tuesday. Heritage Minister James Moore and Nepean MP Pierre Poilievre breezed past reporters asking about Coulter.

However, little Pierre had no problem slinking around and nipping at the heels of a highly decorated, retired general (now Senator) or dodging in and out yapping and snapping at the ankles of a Canadian actor/activist. 

Maybe Coulter is just too man for Pierre.

Pirate Fish says Poilievre is awesomely doltish

Elections Canada “is using tax payers dollars to lose awesomely in two different court cases...” says little Pierre.  He was, of course, referring to Elections Canada’s investigation into the in-and-out cheating scam the Cons ran during an election.

The pudden-head Poilievre abused the Procedure and House Affairs Committee - doing what Steve pays him to do: attack like a rabid weasel - as Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand appeared to discuss Elections Canada's 2009 supplementary estimates,

And as with a rabid weasel attack, it was ludicrous, disproportionate, and unwarranted.  Elections Canada must not be threatened by budget cuts when such threats are so blatantly linked to a party seeking to shut it up or discredit it for their own partisan, ass-saving purposes.  It was doing what it was mandated to do: protect our democracy by investigating a bunch of cheaters and liars who would do anything to win despite what the electorate wants.

If spending money on a losing case is the criteria for whether or not funds should be available, maybe the Pompous Little Prick can explain why it is just perfectly fine to have spent 1.3 million dollars to date on fighting a legal battle to deny democratic rights to a Canadian.

Awesomely obvious Pierre is a fool.

Susan Riley has a question about Bob Rae

The more we see of Bob Rae -- and we seem to be seeing the Toronto MP a lot lately -- the larger the question looms: Why isn't he the Liberal leader?

No kidding.

I am not happy with Ignatieff, never wanted him as Liberal party leader, and care for him even less for his waffeling and soft stance on human rights issues.  Words are ok, but we need action.  Watching Rae over the past few weeks has given me some hope, though.

By contrast, Rae is funny, self-deprecating, knowledgeable and spontaneous. His criticisms of the Harper government tend not to be shrill, predictable or personal. But they can be heartfelt -- as when he recently denounced those infamous Conservative flyers that imply the Liberals are, at least, sanguine about anti-Semitism. Rae, whose wife and adult children are Jewish, called them "a new kind of gutter politics."

...Rae is also a better performer than Ignatieff in scrums and informal encounters -- more fluent, manifestly more at ease with a range of issues, sure of where he stands, able to acknowledge complexity without looking wishy-washy.

It isn't simply that I think Rae has greater voter appeal but rather that he embodies what a decent politician should be.  Smart, compassionate, honest, and courageous enough to question his own party and its actions.

The Liberal party doesn't tolerate one-person rule, not to the extend the Harper party does, at the very least.  What is often seen as in-fighting (and yes, true in-fighting does occur among the Grits), is sometimes healthy - if somewhat too-public debate.  This is why I find it very encouraging not only to see that the Liberal party has such people within it as Rae, but that he is being given such a high profile lately.  Must be a little scary for Ignatieff.

It is, however, good for the party and will likely draw back people who have been so turned off by the lack of honesty displayed by top politicians and their failure to connect with voters because they simply do not grasp that what most of us want is simply honest, transparent government where the concerns of those politicians are elected to represent are the real driving force behind shaping legislation.

We need to see more of this in practice.  MPs such as Rae and Kennedy not only speaking on behalf of the party, but clear assurances that the Liberal party is not a one man show and is truly made up of the many voices constituents elect.  Voices that are not muzzled, votes that are not forced.

Place these (and there are other good ones in the Liberal party as well) against Harper's usual suspects:

 - 'nuff said!

  - intelligent speaker, unflapable, ouzes integrity.






- intelligent, passionate, lots of integrity, too clean to be a target, calm

- still needs experience, especially in word-crafting to avoid statements that can easily be twisted, but he offers a fresh face representing renewal; intelligent, decent enough speaker, lots of appeal, plenty of well directed passion, oozes integrity


Intelligence opposing CON smirking, taunting, and childish diversions

Integrity opposing CON foot-in-mouth disease

Honesty opposing CON lies and channel changing

And let's not forget the cute factor:

Hiding behind our military: it’s what the Conservatives do...

...when they aren’t attempting to assassinate their character.

Several instances yesterday in the House (highlights mine throughout):

(Hansard, Dec. 1, 2009)
Peter MacKay: what again is so irresponsible, so inflammatory and so false is for the hon. member to try to parse her words and suggest somehow that the Canadian military was complicit in torture, suggesting that those hard-working, honest officials and military on the ground would deliberately transfer detainees, Taliban prisoners, to Afghan authorities knowing they would be tortured. That is a backhanded way to cast aspersions on the good work being done by our military and our professional public service. That is what those members are doing.

And what words was Jennings trying to parse?  This is the exact question that drew Baird’s response:

Hon. Marlene Jennings: this is yet another new version of events from the Minister of National Defence. His version changes every day.  The Conservatives deliberately hid the fact that, for 18 months, they regularly turned Afghan detainees over even though there was a real and serious risk that they would be tortured.

    How can the Prime Minister go to China and defend human rights, particularly with respect to Tibet, when his own government is guilty of violating those same human rights?

No mention of the military or public servants.

How dumb is John Baird?

No one really knows, but he showed us again yesterday how monumentally dishonest he is and how he also draws attention to the military in respect to torture as a means of dodging the real issue.

Baird: it is interesting that the leader of the Liberal Party stands in his place and characterizes remarks made by General Gauthier.  It was his own defence critic, the member for Vancouver South, who called General Gauthier's comments before the committee morally weak and legally flimsy.

    The general is a Canadian hero. He is a Canadian hero who spent 36 years in uniform, and that is the kind of respect he gets from the Liberal Party and the official spokesman for the Leader of the Opposition. It is shameful.

 Thus implying that Canadian military heroes should not be doubted since it is disrespectful.  Remember that for what comes later.

Meanwhile, what was really said, and by who:

This is what Mr. Dosanjh said on (CTV’s Question Period Sunday): “I believe the situation now is the issue is not about who knew what and when. I think they all admit that they knew and the generals’ defence, as someone said, was morally weak and legally flimsy.”

The “someone” Mr. Dosanjh is referring to is Toronto Star columnist James Travers, who wrote in a column on Saturday: “For all its sound and fury, the counter-attack that politicians, bureaucrats and generals mounted this week was morally weak and legally flimsy.”

Mr. Baird used the column by Mr. Travers, which Mr. Dosanjh quoted from, to accuse the Liberals of being anti-military, anti-soldier, anti-war hero and by extension, anti-Canadian.

Back in the House, Ignatieff tries to get Baird to focus on the issue.  Which is pointless, since in addition to Johnny being dumber than anyone can say, he’s a partisan hyena.

Mr. Michael Ignatieff: our side of the House did no such thing. We hold General Gauthier in the highest respect.  The issue here is that all of the evidence in this affair, including that handed over to the Military Police Complaints Commission, was so heavily redacted as to be useless....We need to get to the bottom of this. Why will the government not accept that we need a judge, an independent inquiry, and full access to the documents so that we can finally get to the bottom of this affair?

Not content with falsely accusing Dosanjh of making certain statements, Baird, in his very next comment, adjusts his wingnut, ignores the question and further distorts his first lies to imply a direct attack against Gauthier -

Baird:  the leader of the Liberal Party says one thing but the facts suggest something else.   His defence critic said that this general, this Canadian war hero, was weak and flimsy.    


 What does that remind me of?...Oh yeah...The 13th Warrior -
"You dig like a dog.
"You are calling me a dog?"
"No, I said you dig like one.  Like an animal."
"So now I'm an animal?"

Lets go back to May, 2008 and see how well Baird defended a “Canadian hero who spent (30+) years in uniform.”  One of Canada’s most decorated officers, at that.  

John Baird, the environment minister, tried to shout down Liberal MP Marlene Jennings who came to Dallaire's defence and loudly applauded when 29-year-old Tory MP Pierre Poilievre suggested that Dallaire sounded like a member of the Khadr family, an insult so stupid and infantile that Anders' slur against Nelson Mandela immediately came to mind.

Incidentally, Dallaire’s words in reference to international rights of child soldiers apply to this case as well:

"If you want black and white, and I'm only prepared to give it to you," (Dallaire) responded. "You're either with the law or not with the law. You are not allowed to go against (international) conventions and if you do, you're going down the same road as those who absolutely don't believe (in the law)."

So...what are you saying, guys?  Looking into allegations of wrongdoing is taboo if it can be in anyway connected to the military, even if they were not the ones covering things up?  And retired generals are god-like beings whose word must never, ever be questioned because to do so is un-Canadian?

Unless, of course, the retired general happens to be a Liberal Senator who is very much interested in uncovering the truth and applying international rights - even to those some Canadians may not like.  

In what has been an increasingly testy parliamentary debate season, Tory MPs Jason Kenney, Pierre Poilievre and John Baird spent last week attacking Liberal Senator Dallaire over his strongly worded criticism of the government's handling of Canadian child-soldier and Guantanamo-prisoner Omar Khadr.

...Kenney compared the most decorated Canadian soldier of his generation to a "mob of wacky protesters." A day later, John Baird, the environment minister, tried to shout down Liberal MP Marlene Jennings who came to Dallaire's defence and loudly applauded when 29-year-old Tory MP Pierre Poilievre suggested that Dallaire sounded like a member of the Khadr family, an insult so stupid and infantile that Anders' slur against Nelson Mandela immediately came to mind.

Harper's bunch are scum.  Every last one of them, even those who keep silent throughout this when they cannot help but be aware of the use of the troops as a diversion.  Hell, they all get the speaking notes.  Anyone of them could stand up, do what's right and support an inquiry, but cowardly and politically ambitious as they are, they sulk home to their families with their hyena slink and pretend they are virtuous people who care about honesty, transparency, and human rights.

Yeah, sure.  You just go ahead and tell your families that.