Liberal la-la land larceny

[karra]

Speaks volumes, eh wot. . . .

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2007/03/01/3680338.html

Dion's 'Top 10' Kyoto excuses

Lorrie Goldstein - Thu, March 1, 2007

Suppose a federal election is held this spring and Stephane Dion and the Liberals win. As I said, just suppose.

The Liberals will immediately be confronted by a horrendous problem -- how to keep their promise to implement the Kyoto accord.

After all, Dion and his party are still committed to enacting the international treaty on global warming they signed in 1998 and then forgot about until voters tossed them from power last year.

Despite their record of inaction while in government, last month they led the three Opposition parties in passing a private member's bill by Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, calling on the Conservatives to implement Kyoto. Indeed, the Liberals claim the legislation forces the Conservative government to act.

So that must mean the Liberals think the Kyoto accord is still doable, right?
After all, asking someone to do something you never did yourself and which you know can't be done, would be the height of hypocrisy, right? And the Liberals would never stoop so low, right?

Once you sort out all his verbal gymnastics on the subject, Dion's stated position is that if the Liberals are returned to power this year, they can still meet Kyoto's target of reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to an average of six per cent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.

Since, in the real world, as opposed to Liberal la-la land, many believe Dion's position is, how should I put this delicately-- oh, yeah -- INSANE, considering what it would do to our economy, Dion is clearly going to need some excuses at the ready, should the Liberals successfully claw their way back to power this year and then fail to implement Kyoto ... again.

Just like all the other post-election excuses the Liberals needed for not fulfilling all the other election promises they made, starting in 1993.

Here then, with the obligatory nod to David Letterman, are Prime Minister Stephane Dion's Top 10 excuses for why the Liberals will not be able to implement the Kyoto accord ... again.

Number 10: "Kyoto ate my protocols."

Number 9: "This is unfair. This is unfair. You don't know what you speak about. Do you think it's easy to make priorities?"

Number 8: "I firmly believe that as a good citizen, I have a moral obligation to implement the Kyoto accord on global warming. Meaning, of course, as a good citizen of France."

Number 7: "Yes, implementing the Kyoto accord is important, but right now our priority has to be reducing medical wait times."

Number 6: One year later: "Yes, implementing the Kyoto accord is important, but right now our priority has to be getting our soldiers out of Afghanistan."

Number 5: Two years later: "Yes, implementing the Kyoto accord is important, but right now our priority has to be reducing medical wait times."

Number 4: Three years later: "Yes, implementing the ... aw, to hell with it."
Number 3: "Define 'implement'."

Number 2: "I lost the Liberal plan to implement the Kyoto accord while I was looking for the Liberal plan to scrap the GST."

And Prime Minister Stephane Dion's number one excuse for not being able to implement the Kyoto accord?

"Ladies and gentlemen, Environment Minister Belinda Stronach." :lol:

Too funny - too true - too pathetic. . . .

 

[mabudon]

Maybe you should try "find and replace" Larceny with something more appropriate, this is the second time in less than a week you've made the same mistake- glad paid-for opinion pieces inform you, I understand why you never post any of your own thoughts besides insults

 

[hermanntrude]

these political threads are so confrontational. We get more fired up about this than we do over religion. I wonder how we'd behave if dion or harper showed up on the forum itself

 

[Tonington]

Heh, there would be plenty of ass kissing and plenty of heated rhetoric I imagine.

 

[mabudon]

I ain't too fired up at all, hermanntrude, I just feel the need to call stupid weasel words and baseless hit pieces what they are for the benefit of any who might be fooled into thinking they were reading "actual news" since the link goes to something of a genuine "news" paper

 

[hermanntrude]

I ain't too fired up at all, hermanntrude, I just feel the need to call stupid weasel words and baseless hit pieces what they are for the benefit of any who might be fooled into thinking they were reading "actual news" since the link goes to something of a genuine "news" paper

there are much more diplomatic ways to describe the words you refer to, which would aid debate rather than stir up resentment. I just don't see why you don't say what's wrong with the words rather than label them something like "stupid weasel words" and throw that at the poster in question.

Anyway it wasn't directed at you personally. I honestly think that we could discuss politics in a much less disorganised confrontational manner. It seems to me every post for weeks on politics has involved exaggeration and the use of inflammatory, emotional words, rather than saying exactly what it was that people found wrong with the person they were writing about.

 

[westmanguy]

I would die if Harper came on these forums!

I would be so excited, probably be ass kissing and defending him.

Yeah I am noticing the Liberal/Conservative divide is almost more contreversial than the atheist/Christian divide.

 

[mabudon]

I can't avoid calling weasel words what they are tho (and I DO appreciate the irony) but a particular poster has misused the term "Larceny" on the Liberal party with regards to totally unrelated hit pieces, which I see as totally unfair and silly... and I am a believer in the "big lie" too, where if something gets repeated enough it can be used as some "proof" of it's veracity

I think it's important to distinguish between fact and opinion, and when folks beging to blur the line, I think it's important to bring that to the fore

You think the very TITLE of this thread was not meant to inspire two camps "Oh yeah, it's true" with the accompanying eye-rolling, and folks coming out to discredit it?? You'd be wrong, the article at the top is baseless and bears NO discussion what it DOES beg for is dismissal for what it is, a piece of crap editorial that has been presented as some form of "truth", which it most certainly is NOT

 

[#juan]

I ain't too fired up at all, hermanntrude, I just feel the need to call stupid weasel words and baseless hit pieces what they are for the benefit of any who might be fooled into thinking they were reading "actual news" since the link goes to something of a genuine "news" paper

Exactly..You get the same gratuitous, slagging from both sides of the political spectrum. Although we see it more from the right, it does nothing to improve the argument of either side. News it ain't.

 

[L Gilbert]

Heh, there would be plenty of ass kissing and plenty of heated rhetoric I imagine.

Perhaps, but personally, I'd have a pile of questions to ask more than feel the need to spew or a$$kiss.

 

[Tonington]

I would have expected as much Les. I bet also the answers wouldn't be swallowed like the media does. Probably lots of second, third and so on for follow up questions.

I think it would be neat if the public somehow were able to have access like that.

 

[L Gilbert]

I can't avoid calling weasel words what they are tho (and I DO appreciate the irony) but a particular poster has misused the term "Larceny" on the Liberal party with regards to totally unrelated hit pieces, which I see as totally unfair and silly... and I am a believer in the "big lie" too, where if something gets repeated enough it can be used as some "proof" of it's veracity

All sides use the same tactics.

I think it's important to distinguish between fact and opinion, and when folks beging to blur the line, I think it's important to bring that to the fore

Good idea. But, I can't think anyone here wouldn't consider the article as anything other than an opinion column. Editorials, columns, etc. are just for that purpose; to express the author's opinion.

You think the very TITLE of this thread was not meant to inspire two camps "Oh yeah, it's true" with the accompanying eye-rolling, and folks coming out to discredit it?? You'd be wrong, the article at the top is baseless and bears NO discussion what it DOES beg for is dismissal for what it is, a piece of crap editorial that has been presented as some form of "truth", which it most certainly is NOT

Yeah, people on all sides of the political fence use the same tactics, though. Not a biggie.

 

[L Gilbert]

I would have expected as much Les. I bet also the answers wouldn't be swallowed like the media does. Probably lots of second, third and so on for follow up questions.

Right on the nail. Too many interviewers are too soft and won't press hard or for very long for answers.

I think it would be neat if the public somehow were able to have access like that.

Me, too. But I can't see it ever happening. Pols are scared stiff of having to provide direct and honest answers.