bluealberta said:
By albertans? What are you talking about! The Oil is owned by foreign compagnies. With oil, you need do nothing, and they shall come. So stfu.
Liberals and NDP In Bed with the Bloc
- Thread starter bluealberta
- Start date
By albertans? What are you talking about! The Oil is owned by foreign compagnies. With oil, you need do nothing, and they shall come. So stfu.
Reverend Blair said:
I'm finding some problems with your grammar here. It is ambiguous to make it mean whatever you want it to mean. What pray tell is a "steno pool." From my ancient Greek lessons I know steno is a prefix for "narrow" and pool refers to a group of some sort. So what does steno pool mean? Does it mean small group? If it means small group then by your allegations Harper should be in a steno pool. But if by "steno" it means worth, then it stands. I have found no reference of this term in my life.
Unless by steno it means "stenographer" as in a person who transcribes. If this is what you mean by it then yes, that is exactly what Stephen Harper was. Jim Hawkes did not miss a single parliamentary session since being elected. A parliamentary secretary sits in when the cabinet minister cannot.
All Harper did was take notes on what the policies were for Hawkes' department and explain them to anyone who asked.
Your interpretation is indeed a revisionist one. You make accusations about how things were different and yet you show no sourcing for what you are saying. In academia we refer to you as a waste of paper.
RE: Liberals and NDP In B
No revisionism at all. If you believe that parliamentary secretaries sit around taking notes and doing nothing else, then you should have another long think. It is traditionally a position given to one of the party faithful to give them a voice in policy etc. while grooming them for a higher office within the party. To claim otherwise is to be far less than honest.
BTW, I realize that my reference to the steno pool was a bit of an anachronism, but since Harper's solcial policies are based on a 1950s tv series, it seemed to fit.
No revisionism at all. If you believe that parliamentary secretaries sit around taking notes and doing nothing else, then you should have another long think. It is traditionally a position given to one of the party faithful to give them a voice in policy etc. while grooming them for a higher office within the party. To claim otherwise is to be far less than honest.
BTW, I realize that my reference to the steno pool was a bit of an anachronism, but since Harper's solcial policies are based on a 1950s tv series, it seemed to fit.
RE: Liberals and NDP In B
No revisionism at all. If you believe that parliamentary secretaries sit around taking notes and doing nothing else, then you should have another long think. It is traditionally a position given to one of the party faithful to give them a voice in policy etc. while grooming them for a higher office within the party. To claim otherwise is to be far less than honest.
BTW, I realize that my reference to the steno pool was a bit of an anachronism, but since Harper's solcial policies are based on a 1950s tv series, it seemed to fit.
No revisionism at all. If you believe that parliamentary secretaries sit around taking notes and doing nothing else, then you should have another long think. It is traditionally a position given to one of the party faithful to give them a voice in policy etc. while grooming them for a higher office within the party. To claim otherwise is to be far less than honest.
BTW, I realize that my reference to the steno pool was a bit of an anachronism, but since Harper's solcial policies are based on a 1950s tv series, it seemed to fit.
Re: RE: Liberals and NDP In Bed with the Bloc
I will not deny that parliamentary secretaries are being groomed for office. What I will deny is that they have a voice in policy. If Jim Hawkes said A is B, and then Stephen Harper came out and said, NO, A is C, the government takes A is C to be true. All they have is the power to influence a decision, not actually make it.
NOW, a Parliamentary Secretary to the PM is something different. A lot of times these are elected representitives or very high powering people.
Stephen Harper's connection to the PCs is a limited one. As this shows:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/195_2002-05-30/han195_1420-e.htm
Stephen Harper was not a parliamentary secretary for long. Not only that but he also started campaigning specifically against Jim Hawkes. He joined the NCC against Hawkes, as well as the Reform Party as a policy advisor to Preston Manning.
I've actually been trying to find out exactly what department Jim Hawkes was a part of, the answer was none. He was the Tory whip. The job of the whip is not to form policy, it is to enforce it. The whip moves between all departments and makes sure everyone knows how they are voting on certain days. He also forms committees. The biggest bill was C-14, electoral reform. He chaired a committee for that. He also apparently meddled with a gun control bill:
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheGunControlStory.html
Mulroney even ended up firing Hawkes as whip and sending him to being a backbencher again because he was doing such a horrible job. If you were to tell me that Stephen Harper was the parliamentary sectretary to Brian Mulroney or Joe Clark the connection may be more believable, but right now it is about party stability. Jean Chretien and Paul Martin hated each other and yet they both supported the party.
Mulroney knows if he is to get ONE of his children into politics he has to support the party.Pretty boy Benedict Muloney is always talking about politics. It's not because Mulroney was so influenced by Harper, it is toeing the party line. Liberals know more about toeing the party line than anyone else. That's why O'Brien crossed the floor right?
Reverend Blair said:
I will not deny that parliamentary secretaries are being groomed for office. What I will deny is that they have a voice in policy. If Jim Hawkes said A is B, and then Stephen Harper came out and said, NO, A is C, the government takes A is C to be true. All they have is the power to influence a decision, not actually make it.
NOW, a Parliamentary Secretary to the PM is something different. A lot of times these are elected representitives or very high powering people.
Stephen Harper's connection to the PCs is a limited one. As this shows:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/195_2002-05-30/han195_1420-e.htm
Stephen Harper was not a parliamentary secretary for long. Not only that but he also started campaigning specifically against Jim Hawkes. He joined the NCC against Hawkes, as well as the Reform Party as a policy advisor to Preston Manning.
I've actually been trying to find out exactly what department Jim Hawkes was a part of, the answer was none. He was the Tory whip. The job of the whip is not to form policy, it is to enforce it. The whip moves between all departments and makes sure everyone knows how they are voting on certain days. He also forms committees. The biggest bill was C-14, electoral reform. He chaired a committee for that. He also apparently meddled with a gun control bill:
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheGunControlStory.html
Mulroney even ended up firing Hawkes as whip and sending him to being a backbencher again because he was doing such a horrible job. If you were to tell me that Stephen Harper was the parliamentary sectretary to Brian Mulroney or Joe Clark the connection may be more believable, but right now it is about party stability. Jean Chretien and Paul Martin hated each other and yet they both supported the party.
Mulroney knows if he is to get ONE of his children into politics he has to support the party.Pretty boy Benedict Muloney is always talking about politics. It's not because Mulroney was so influenced by Harper, it is toeing the party line. Liberals know more about toeing the party line than anyone else. That's why O'Brien crossed the floor right?
Numure wrote:
"By albertans? What are you talking about! The Oil is owned by foreign compagnies. With oil, you need do nothing, and they shall come. So stfu."
May I suggest you look at the history of the oil devlopment in Alberta before you embarass yourself again. Look up the Seaman brothers who came to Alberta from Sask in the mid 50's (even back then they were leaving Sask for Alberta
)to develop the oilpatch. Harold Siebens and his son, from Alberta, became one of the first Canadian oil companies to dril in the North Sea. These are just two examples of the many Canadian Junior companies and a whole pile of Alberta independents that developed the oilpatch, at the time of very few multinationals. If you want to criticize Alberta, you had better get it right, until then, how about you STFU. :evil:
"
"By albertans? What are you talking about! The Oil is owned by foreign compagnies. With oil, you need do nothing, and they shall come. So stfu."
May I suggest you look at the history of the oil devlopment in Alberta before you embarass yourself again. Look up the Seaman brothers who came to Alberta from Sask in the mid 50's (even back then they were leaving Sask for Alberta
)to develop the oilpatch. Harold Siebens and his son, from Alberta, became one of the first Canadian oil companies to dril in the North Sea. These are just two examples of the many Canadian Junior companies and a whole pile of Alberta independents that developed the oilpatch, at the time of very few multinationals. If you want to criticize Alberta, you had better get it right, until then, how about you STFU. :evil: "
Re: RE: Liberals and NDP In B
Because God knows no one on the left understands the basic princicple of low taxes and less government. :evil: :roll:
Reverend Blair said:
Because God knows no one on the left understands the basic princicple of low taxes and less government. :evil: :roll: