What do you think of this?

Just a small observation about recent NDP caucus appointments made by Thomas Mulcair and different reactions to them. What do you make of this?

Liberal “interim” leader Bob Rae,

Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre,



17 thoughts on “What do you think of this?”

  1. For starters, one deputy leader is more than enough for the Liberal rump, third in line from the throne. Appears Bob doesn’t really care for the NDP leader’s choices

    Pierre Poilievre shows some class, gets his dig in without being offensive.

  2. Maclean’s Mag’s Martin Patriquin had a different & interesting interpretation on Power and Politics: because Thomas Mulcair and Libby Davies can’t stand each other, Mulcair decided to dilute the prominence of the “Deputy Leader” role in order to diminish her importance.

    IMO, Mulcair hints he’s irreplaceable; it takes three to replace him. And talking about “irreplaceable” … the chorus of this http://ca.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?p=irreplaceable+beyonce shows Mulcair’s nod to a faction of the party.

  3. Good observation Gabby.   Is Mulcair showing a bit of ego,  taking  the heir and the spare to new heights?

    I understand he has moved into  Stornoway. Not that I blame him but would have thought that too opulent for the leader of a party that stumps for the common man. 

  4. I don’t begrudge Mulcair’s move into Stornoway, because that is a privilege accorded to the leader of the Official Opposition, a position he holds. But I do think that many on the left, who claim to speak for the “vulnerable”, certainly don’t forgo their own creature comforts. I bet some of those “kitchen tables” are laden with 
    thisand thisand this.

    (Trying to embed links. I hope it works. Past tries have been unsuccesful)

  5. OK … some progress … but why is there no space between the embedded links, when I wrote each one on a different line?

  6. probably because the links appeared long enough in the edit window so they appeared to be on separate lines. If a string of text is long enough (like a url without spaces), when you paste a few of them side by side (separated by spaces) they appear on separate lines but there’s no hard return between them.

    In short, it is the difference between a hard return and a soft return (try pressing Enter between links next time)


  7.  Congrats on mastering spacing and links.

    But I do think that many on the left, who claim to speak for the
    “vulnerable”, certainly don’t forgo their own creature comforts.

    What has that got to do with anything? Must any supporter of social responsibility live in a cave or a monastery and eat gruel?

    If that’s your point, then maybe  it was fair after all to expose Vic Toews as a philandering hypocrite on “family values”.  Same idea…

  8. Thanks for the info. … however, on my screen each link (rather short ones in comparison to some) appeared on a single line and I did click “enter” after each one.

    Again, thanks. It’s already an accomplishment of sorts that I was able to embed a link!   😉

    BTW, now that I have your attention … why do URLs appear here incomplete, so that if I copy the URL from your site onto my document and then click on the link, I don’t get to the webpage? Just curious.

  9. Because urls can appear long and unwieldy if presented in full form inline within comments so they get a … for display. You can try right clicking a url and selecting “copy link url” to make it work. Also, are you writing your comments in a word processor then pasting them over here? Because that could explain most of your formatting issues.

  10. Thanks again.
    I’ve found out that whenever I copy & “paste and match style” I don’t get to the original URL when I click on it. In previous attempts, I would often get the message “page not found” or something similar. Today, your “Hard Return” URL sent me 

    Instead, whenever I’ve copied & simply pasted a link as it appears here (even if abbreviated version) the link usually works.

    My formatting issues ;-D have happened whether written directly here or offline in my word processing app. & then copied & pasted here.

    OK, enough of the kvetching already …
    “”The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
    But in ourselves …”

  11. “… to expose Vic Toews …”
    Use the straw man fallacy much?

    “Congrats on mastering spacing and links.”
    I would say “thank you”  … if I didn’t sense that comment dripping with sarcasm.

  12. [unsarcastic] Congrats on mastering spacing and links. [/unsarcastic] Better?

    Absolutely no straw man.

    Did you not intend to suggest that if someone [on the left] treats themselves well, yet advocates for social justice, their advocacy is somehow less honest? I’ve simply compared that to someone who advocates “family values”  yet is living common-law with his mistress.

    I don’t think going to a person’s private life is usually fair game in either case. But if you’re OK with the former, you logically cannot be opposed to the latter, can you?

    It’s pretty common for commentators to go personal here when slamming their favourite lefty. I wouldn’t have bothered to bring it up here… except that the point of Stephen’s post was about who was being classy, and who wasn’t.

  13. Canadian values do not support the idea that exposing public figure’s personal lives is “fair game”.  That is called integrity.  But what would the NDP or Liberal’s (who keep this type of information on file) know about that.

  14. More than you, apparently.

    What you call “integrity” is actually more along the lines of etiquette, or mutual respect. The CPC themselves frequently play dirty, so there currently isn’t much of a regard for civil behaviour from any corner.

    Integrity is when a person follows the principles they espouse, so that there’s no inconsistency between what they say and what they do.  Like, for example, a person who speaks about upholding traditional family values, but is currently living common-law… is lacking integrity on that particular topic. Not saying this person is evil or bad, or that their situation is in any way wrong, just that their words and their actions contradict each other, and their moral authority to speak on that topic can rightly be questioned.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *