Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Dion being held captive?

Breaking news from Ottawa....Stephane Dion is being held captive by extremist elements in his caucus...they've barricaded themselves in the Railroad Room...they're demanding Chicken Shawarmas from Maroush, $5 million and a plane ride to the socialist paradise of Cuba in exchange for his release...Send help!

OK, not really, but you'd think so reading this release on the Conservative Party's Web site (emphasis is Harper's):

Stéphane Dion supported the measures when he was in Cabinet during the Chrétien and Martin governments. However, since assuming the leadership of the Liberal Party, Mr. Dion has fallen captive to extreme elements in the Liberal Party and has flip-flopped by withdrawing his support for these anti-terrorism tools.

Stéphane Dion should ignore the extremist elements in his caucus, reverse his flip flop and allow his MPs to vote for the renewal of the ATA.
Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry, you know? Tell me Steve, who specifically are the “extremist” members of the Liberal caucus, would you be kind enough to name names? Next time I'm at a Liberal function, if there are any extremist elements there will someone please introduce me? I bet they're just misunderstood and really only need a friend.

Honestly, does anyone outside of the political bubble take this nonsense seriously? Disagree on renewing these anti-terror provisions, sure, there's plenty of room for disagreement among reasonable people. But soft on terror...insinuating links to terrorism...blathering about conspiracies and extremist elements?

I guess $100/month really isn't enough for child care because the Cons have their toddlers writing their talking points instead. How long will it be before we start hearing accusations of baby eating, or the capture of 101 dalmatians to make Dion a new coat?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers


Anonymous said...

This Harper is the same one who is supposed to have been influenced by Edmund Burke, and who is also supposed to be a disciple of the Jewish Natzi Leo Strauss. Burke was a completely ineffectual landlord's stooge whose untroubled 14 years in Parliament were based on the patronage of a landlord who owned the seat, so to speak. He fulminated against the French Revolution with sonorous, high sounding twaddle and was savaged by a man who marched with the volunteers of Washington, Thomas Paine. When he first won a seat in Parliament, Burke said he would vote as he pleased and would not be bound by the views of the electorate. Of course he lost the next election and then turned to a rich landlord patron. Strauss misread Plato so badly he began to preach the idea of a secret group who would dictate the character of society by causing constant war and feeding the population of the people, who were taken to be fools, with lies to keep them raging against shadows and so under the control of a tiny group of insiders. Plato did preach the rule of an aristocracy but he believed the superior men were to advance ideas that could be untrue on the surface but contained the pure gold of genuine essentials. Strauss was in favor of lies to cause trouble where only the inside group knew the "truth" whatever that was.

What did these two men have in common? They were both servants of the rich and powerful. Burke spouted a smogasbord of notions, but served the rulers by attacking the French Revolution and the Enlightenment like a smart ass elitist today . Strauss is a darker figure, and plainly hated democracy, and had in mind the adolescent wet dream of secret powers. What they had in common was a furious hatred of the common man, with Burke a rather confused talker, and Strauss a demonic organizer. He was a very bad man, and Harper walks in his tracks.
When you see Harper on TV looking at the MP he has just foully slandered, with a regard like watching the movements of a small animal with icy calm, you are seeing something very, very bad.

Dennis (Second Thoughts) said...

All humour aside, let's put some actual facts on the table, shall we?

- The Liberals not only supported the extension of these provisions until recently, they supported a longer extension than what the Tories eventually proposed.

- Jonathan Kay of the National Post clearly articulates who in the Liberal caucus is catering to certain elements in ethnic communities that want anti-terror provisions killed. And, yes, Navdeep Bains is one of them.

I can understand the desire of Liberals to distract from the issues involve and to make light of what's transpired. Better than actually finding out why the Liberal party has flip-flopped on this under Dion's leadership, I guess.

And it's Liberals who are leaking this stuff to the National Post. So, make your jokes. I suspect others will be laughing when all is said and done.

Dan McKenzie said...

I guess the word "extremist" is now being tossed around willy nilly by the Conservatives. Great fun!

I imagine we'll be hearing about this release tomorrow.

I'm not sure how the Liberals should address this whole thing but I just can't see how we can let this stand.

Gayle said...

dennis - Johnathon Kay does not "clearly" state anything at all. All he knows is that "someone highly placed" tells him stuff. Yeah, and I know a guy who knows a guy who knows someone who knows Harper is really a woman.

And this:

"- The Liberals not only supported the extension of these provisions until recently, they supported a longer extension than what the Tories eventually proposed."

is false. The liberals supported the extension with amendments, and the conservatives did not agree to add the amendments until about 3:00 pm today. Who was it who flip-flopped again?

sheilabee said...

read the article in the star re Pierre Poilievre's radio interview and where the Libs. are considering legal action

Anonymous said...

I have it on good authority that others will be coming forward about this unsavory deal.

Dion will go down as the most disgraced liberal leader in history.

I can't tell you how upset I am that we didn't vote in Rae (or even Iggy)!

L. emersonia said...

Oh Goddess help me! The next time I'm at a De-Elect Emerson function should I expect to be picked up, labelled a terrorist, slammed in jail without counsel, and subjected to... ionno
Oh! Right, those laws were smacked down. Whew!
Good grief, first it's locusts, now it's terrorists. In our streets. I'm not making this up.

Torian said...

well, hey...

if the LPC are going to sue the conservative MP for uttering those remarks, I hope they also follow thru on suing Jonathan Kay of the National Post and also tracking down the liberal source(s) who are spilling this info to the press.

I mean, you can't "cherry pick" who you are going to sue, right?

Anonymous said...

The guy who wants to get the facts straight is referring to the National Post - ah, Conservative, Conrad Black paper???? Now that's stupidity.

The problem is that most Canadians don't understand the Act, don't understand details and "amendments" and don't understand that debating and improving the Act is what puts us above terrorists.

That's why we are civilized and they aren't.

A BCer in Toronto said...

What flip-flop Dennis? The sunset clauses came up for discussion, Dion talked with caucus where everyone had their say, he made the decision to not support renewal and most of the caucus followed the leader. I put no stock in conspiracy theories floated by the National Post. As for jokes Dennis, the Conservative spin on this has been the real joke, and a tragic one at that.

And gee, so many anonymous "Liberal" commenters all of a sudden. Purely coincidental, I'm sure...

Dennis (Second Thoughts) said...

bcer, what flip-flop? The one where Dion gave absolutely no indication that he was going to change the party's decision on this until two weeks ago, when he started to hammer his caucus into voting with him as a matter crucial to his leadership. That flip-flop.

A BCer in Toronto said...

The bill came up for discussion and a decision was made. Going from not having stated an opinion to considering the issue and announcing a position isn't a flip-flop, it's called making a decision.

The Rat said...

I assume the Cons will name the "extremists" in the Liberal caucus at the same time the Liberals start naming the "extreme right-wingers" I the Conservative caucus.

It's getting tiring pointing out your hypocrisies, Jeff.