Why I love Mike Duffy

Oh, and as for your hero Mike Duffy, here's how he dealt with Stéphane Dion:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/ctv-broke-ethics-code-in-dion-interview-stan... broke ethics code in Dion interview: standards council[/url]

Quote:

The standards council also studied complaints lodged against CTV Newsnet's Mike Duffy Live program. The show rebroadcast Dion's false starts and discussed it with a panel of politicians and later with journalists.

During the discussion, Liberal MP Geoff Regan suggested Dion might not have understood the question because of a hearing impairment, but then said it was not a subject worth discussing.

Duffy then repeatedly said that Regan was accusing the network of ridiculing a handicap.

The CBSC's national specialty services panel said Duffy "went too far."

"He was not fair, balanced or even-handed," the panel said, also agreeing the rebroadcasts of the restarts were in breach of industry code.

CTV Newsnet will run a statement saying it violated the Canadian Association of Broadcasters code of ethics within the next three days at the same time as the Mike Duffy Live program used to air, and again within a week.

Unionist wrote:

Brachina wrote:

 Count the ways I love Mike Duffy.

[...]

2. Secondly he knee capped Stephen Dion during the 2008 election. Dion could have been a real threat to the NDP.

The "real threat to the NDP" is the NDP cheerleaders who have no clue, whatsoever, about anything.

Here's what Jack Layton - who had a clue - said about Stéphane (not "Stephen", FFS) Dion:

Jack Layton wrote:

I want to take this opportunity to thank Stephane Dion for a lifetime of service to Canada.

Mr. Dion has served his party with honesty and commitment.

Mr. Dion played an important role in making the environment central to the national discussion. As a champion of national unity, Mr. Dion worked tirelessly for Canada when that work was needed most.

While we have had differences in the past, I have never doubted the sincerity of Mr. Dion’s dedication to all Canadians. That dedication has been on display in recent days, with Mr. Dion and the Liberal caucus losing confidence in Stephen Harper’s government following its failure to act on the economy.

Mr. Dion and the entire Liberal caucus have shown courage and leadership by putting aside political differences with New Democrats to forge a majority coalition. They have made a commitment to the coalition to get the economy on the right track for Canadian families. Every Liberal and New Democrat Member of Parliament signed a letter to Her Excellency the Governor-General stating that they collectively and individually lost confidence in the government and were committed to governing together.

At this crucial moment in our nation’s history, the opposition parties have risen to the challenge. Canadians have been looking for cooperation in their Parliament.  I look forward to working closely in the coalition with the next leader of the Liberal Party.  Mr. Harper may have locked the doors of Parliament, but that will not prevent the Liberal-New Democrat coalition from speaking. Our priority remains giving Canada the stimulus needed to kick-start the economy, create jobs, and boost consumer confidence.

I wish all the best for Mr. Dion and his family.  We owe them all a debt of gratitude.

 

Read and learn.

Condescend much?

That was disgusting behavior towards Dion and as a Canadian I am ashamed of what was done to him by Duffy and the rest of the howling media pack.

pookie wrote:

thorin_bane wrote:

Condescend much?

Please.  The initial post barely deserves that much.  It's embarrassing.

He's a stalker. Ignore him. It doesn't stop him, but it's the right thing to do. Or, mock him. That works too.

Brachina wrote:

What evudence do you have that Thorin is a stalker, that's an extreme attack if you have nothing to back it up.

All the threads where he says nothing, then pops in to attack me personally. If I have a month, I'll make you a list. And it's not an "extreme attack", it's a simple true obvious statement.

Quote:

 For fuck sakes, this thread was meant for humour, Unionist you ruined my thread.

So sorry. I thought you were being serious. I'll try to tell some jokes now:

Quote:

Q: Why did the first chicken cross the road?

A: To boldly go where no chicken had gone before.

Your turn!

Duffy's Diaries mentions Swiss Chalet and the family dog more than the Prime Minister or Nigel Wright.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-duffy-diaries-reveal-frailties-foib...

Quote:

The records of take-out dinners from suburban Swiss Chalets, the care of the family dog, the purchase of a used Toyota Camry all speak to the plainness of the "Ol' Duff's" life, one that his fancy suits and flashy cuff links seemed designed to counter.

But the diaries do more than offer a peek behind the carefully constructed facade of Duffy's public persona, they reveal a man far more complicated, and perhaps tragic, than the gregarious broadcaster known to Canadians through television.

Duffy is Canada's Samuel Pepys.

The "I am voting NDP because I want us to abolish the Senate" reminds the other person of the Senate, and how the NDP are not the same as the Liberal-Conservatives. The NDP would not have a policy of abolishing the Senate if it were completely impossible. IIRC, McGuinty said that he would go along with Senate abolition if it came to that.

We can't look at Liberal-Conservative activities in the Senate as being external to the general Liberal-Conservative corruption. The Senate will remain an important focus in this part of the pre-writ period.

Pandering to ignorance is not a reasonable way to go. People do find out anyway. It is possible for the NDP to say they would like to abolish the senate while acknowledging how hard that is and providing a back-up plan in case that proves impossible. Or propose specific reforms in the meantime promising an eventual abolition if possible. I disagree that the majority of voters are unable to comprehend that abolition requires a constitutional resolution that may be very difficult to achieve. Most of us have lived through constitutional drama already or at least heard of it.

Presuming voters are unaware is a bad plan-- less than half the population votes (about 50-60% of eligible voters cast ballots). It is reasonable to presume that the proportion who vote are likely to be, in general at least, of the more aware half of the population.

The concept of provincial concerns about abolition and the need to get their approval is not beyond most people.

This is why I chose to support radical reform within the constitutional framework rather than abolition that requires application of an amending formula where smaller provinces would have to endorse a reduced profile at the centre. That is a hard sell and the NDP should not pretend this is not an issue as they are now.

In previous threads I have laid out details on how the composition and appointment of the Senate as well as its mandate can be changed to provide greater oversight of a PMO with runaway powers as well as bring voices to power that are too often under-represented. The chamber can provide formal opportunity for First Nations consultation on all legislation. Effectively the Senate is a body that provides automatic consultation on all legislation. If it is comprised of the right diverse reflection of our society it could be valuable. It does not need to be populated by PMO nominations or an election process that would see it in conflict with the House of Commons. It does not need binding powers over legislation -- it can merely delay legislation for a further examination. It can have the right to publish documents and reviews ensuring that legislation gets properly considered from a number of points of view before it is enacted.

There are ways of taking this chamber which is prewsently quite useless -- but a constitutional imposition -- and making it quite useful in serving the public. It can be turned into an incredible body of oversight with powers to inform the public. It could be turned into one of the best answers to PMO abuse through massive omnibus bills, secrecy and forced closure. And it can bring to the centre voices that are seldom heard and disadvantaged in the electoral process. It can as well ensure that we have experts in a number of fields in a formal process -- like scientists, health care professionals, representatives of the arts, even the voices of recent immigrants etc.

The NDP by only supporting absolute abolition has taken itself out of the discussion if it turns out abolition is impossible and reform the only possiblity. The NDP is the only federal party that I think would bring a real social justice perspective to reform in a way the Liberals and Conservatives would never do.

As a result we are likely to be stuck with the Senate and it will not be reformed to be the best it could be. In the end it will remain some kind of pawn of the PMO. That is a tragedy -- not worth the political benefits the NDP is claiming through calling (unrealistically in my view) for abolition only.

montrealer58 wrote:

Like the House of Lords in the UK, it is an abomination of democracy. Their trotters should not touch one bill that was passed by our duly-elected House of Commons.

Only because of how the chamber is comprised

montrealer58 wrote:

We have the "sober second thought" in the Courts, now we have the Charter. In addition, provinces can add regulations or take other ameliorative steps if the feds come up with something really shitty.

The Senate is not needed for oversight. Like the House of Lords in the UK, it is an abomination of democracy. Their trotters should not touch one bill that was passed by our duly-elected House of Commons.

Ironically I agree with Sean on this one. What "should" be and what is politically and legally doable are two different things. The NDP could take a two-pronged approach by acknowledging the difficulty of abolishing it while keeping it as the ultimate goal.

Even if negotiations started immediately and the government somehow managed to get all the provinces to consider it the negotiations would last years and there would be no guarantee of success. Quebec would have demands and they still haven't signed the constitution. In the meantime, there are many reforms that can be instituted without talking to the provinces at all. By not proposing reforms the NDP risks positioning Trudeau as the only "can do" guy with at least partial solutions ready to implement.

On the other hand, the NDP hasn't really released their platform either. It's possible the NDP does have interim solutions to propose and just hasn't released that information yet.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Separating a thread on a Senate scandal from Senate abolition requires a microscope to get the hair split just perfectly.

This is a joke thread.

The thread about the Duffy trial (if that's where you want to divert the discussion to Senate abolition - as if it's all about Mike Duffy) is [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/election-2015/mike-duffy-trial-begins-tuesday-ot....

It gets tiresome having to flip coins to guess where a specific discussion is going on.