Layton Lies to Boost Ego
- Thread starter FiveParadox
- Start date
Either way it wouldn't be the first time he's managed to put his foot in his mouth, not like that makes him an exception. I like the guy and all but every once in a while he forgets to watch where he's going when he's leading a charge.
I've seen worse. Recently, I've seen worse.
I've seen worse. Recently, I've seen worse.
I'm thinking its rather odd that two days after the Chronicle article the Federal Liberals are the only outlet to pick up on the story. I'm also thinking that since there's an election campaign SOMEONE over there would have bothered to make political hay over it.
granted there's only so much that can be done using Google, but I find that curious.
anyways, I checked the NS Liberal site to see what they thought but they don't maintain a media page. something tells me they outsourced the work. :lol:
granted there's only so much that can be done using Google, but I find that curious.
anyways, I checked the NS Liberal site to see what they thought but they don't maintain a media page. something tells me they outsourced the work. :lol:
Re: RE: Layton Lies to Boost Ego
so far it looks to me Jack got careless talking over the phone with a writer for what could very well be a NDP friendly newspaper and the whole thing has turned sour. he played his politics straight-up enough on the wharf the day before that.
wonder if he's just going to let the whole thing blow over.
FiveParadox said:
so far it looks to me Jack got careless talking over the phone with a writer for what could very well be a NDP friendly newspaper and the whole thing has turned sour. he played his politics straight-up enough on the wharf the day before that.
wonder if he's just going to let the whole thing blow over.
Parts of this thread could be x rated.
Here is the article.
http://www.herald.ns.ca/Search/508606.html
The problem is that we don't know if Layton said what the article has him saying or if it is just the reporter erring about what was said. If you look at the sentence if you change one word--start--it alters the entire meaning.
This is the only quote attributed to Layton.
What is of concern is that Layton lays out the chronlogy. He says the conservatives stopped the debate. Opposition parties kept the debate going. Then Layton got up to speak about the wharf. Had Layton actually started the debate he would have spoken about his visit then and not later after the stops and starts.
Note that the quote above that the liberals are quibbling about has Layton using the Fall Point wharf to start the debate. Layton was very specific that he said it later.
My conclusion: This is a hatchet job and liberals should be severely reprimanded for this stunt.
Here is the article.
http://www.herald.ns.ca/Search/508606.html
The problem is that we don't know if Layton said what the article has him saying or if it is just the reporter erring about what was said. If you look at the sentence if you change one word--start--it alters the entire meaning.
This is the only quote attributed to Layton.
What is of concern is that Layton lays out the chronlogy. He says the conservatives stopped the debate. Opposition parties kept the debate going. Then Layton got up to speak about the wharf. Had Layton actually started the debate he would have spoken about his visit then and not later after the stops and starts.
Note that the quote above that the liberals are quibbling about has Layton using the Fall Point wharf to start the debate. Layton was very specific that he said it later.
My conclusion: This is a hatchet job and liberals should be severely reprimanded for this stunt.
And it doesn't surprise me that Mr. Layton would lie to the media in Nova Scotia to garner support for his party during their election. Mr. Layton's suggestion that he started that debate, that he brought that issue to the attention to the House, or even that he made any major contribution to that debate is a lie. Review the Hansard — he contributed nothing to that discussion.
I would of course grant the fact that the Liberal Party of Canada has a horrendous track record when it comes to honesty, in particular when it comes to elections. However, that doesn't make it somehow right, or something to be encouraged, for Mr. Layton to do the same. Each and every Member of Parliament — and, in particular, party leaders — should be honest about their own business and contributions in the Commons, in particular when making such statement during an intervention in the election of a Province of Canada.Jersay said:
As for "poor Five", I would urge caution if you are intending to insult me.
Absolutely not. However, this happens. Plain and simple, it happens with the Liberals, it happens with the Cons and unless words were changed in the context of the article, it happens with the NDP party.
Now he did lie to a certain extent, he was there, he participated, maybe not to some standards. And he felt the Conservatives were stalling.
Now he did lie to a certain extent, he was there, he participated, maybe not to some standards. And he felt the Conservatives were stalling.
Jersay, perhaps you aren't aware of the degree to which Mr. Layton "stretched" his story of the events of that discussion in the Commons. Mr. Layton was absent for the first two hours of that debate — in fact, during the time he was not there, the Government of Canada had even attempted (though without success) to invoke a closure mechanism on that debate.
Now, of course, I understand that this happens, from time to time, notwithstanding whatever the party may be. However, any time that this is discovered, the member-in-question should be denounced, to ensure that they are quite aware that such behaviour is not appropriate for a representative of the Parliament of Canada. (Please not that I only wish for Mr. Layton to be "denounced" — no action should be taken against him, there should be no punishment, and there shouldn't be any sort of recorded reprimand; when I say "denounce", I mean that people should more-or-less say to him "Hey, don't do that.")
Now, of course, I understand that this happens, from time to time, notwithstanding whatever the party may be. However, any time that this is discovered, the member-in-question should be denounced, to ensure that they are quite aware that such behaviour is not appropriate for a representative of the Parliament of Canada. (Please not that I only wish for Mr. Layton to be "denounced" — no action should be taken against him, there should be no punishment, and there shouldn't be any sort of recorded reprimand; when I say "denounce", I mean that people should more-or-less say to him "Hey, don't do that.")
He said that the Cons were trying to close debate right. I believe that it is some kind of liberal fraud and if not and it is true he should apologize.
I am afraid the member above has confused me.
An effort by the Government to close debate is a fraud on the part of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
An effort by the Government to close debate is a fraud on the part of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
Re: RE: Layton Lies to Boost Ego
If you would like to accuse me of engaging in inappropriate conduct, then I would invite you, sanch, to elaborate on your "charge" on Wreck Beach, and I would be happy to entertain you. However, in the meantime, let's debate the topic at hand, and not throw accusations and insults at each other.sanch said:
No this started from a newspaper report right??
That supposedly stated about what Jack said right?
Well I believe that he mentioned about the Conservative trying to stop debate and such but I believe that the other stuff was taken out of context by someone seeking political gain for the federal liberals or the provincial liberals as it is headed for a close race.
That supposedly stated about what Jack said right?
Well I believe that he mentioned about the Conservative trying to stop debate and such but I believe that the other stuff was taken out of context by someone seeking political gain for the federal liberals or the provincial liberals as it is headed for a close race.
Jersay, I think you may have misunderstood me.
The events that did occur, as recorded by the Hansard, are that two hours of debate ensued, during which the Government attempted to invoke closer. Only after the attempt failed, and the debate continued, did Mr. Layton appear in the Commons, to deliver a one-minute-long statement on the issue of support for wharves.
However, he implied to the people of Nova Scotia that he had been "leading the charge", so to speak, on this issue, which he most certainly was not. He wasn't even in the House, until two laters after the debate had started, and he only contributed twelve sentences to that discussion.
The events that did occur, as recorded by the Hansard, are that two hours of debate ensued, during which the Government attempted to invoke closer. Only after the attempt failed, and the debate continued, did Mr. Layton appear in the Commons, to deliver a one-minute-long statement on the issue of support for wharves.
However, he implied to the people of Nova Scotia that he had been "leading the charge", so to speak, on this issue, which he most certainly was not. He wasn't even in the House, until two laters after the debate had started, and he only contributed twelve sentences to that discussion.
You are obviously upset over this Five for some reason. The issue is what was in the newspaper article and not in the hansard. You are claiming a politician lied to the public and what you are using as evidence is a sloppilly written article by a reporter who probably tried to put too many ideas into one sentence.
Try this fact on for size: You have dragged Layton over the coals over one word in a newpaper article and it is a word that was never attributed to Layton.
Added: Can you not see the way you are embellishing your point with phrases such as "leading the charge". Why don't you put him on a horse while you're at it.
Try this fact on for size: You have dragged Layton over the coals over one word in a newpaper article and it is a word that was never attributed to Layton.
Added: Can you not see the way you are embellishing your point with phrases such as "leading the charge". Why don't you put him on a horse while you're at it.