"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1139918715.173959.242620@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Chom Noamsky wrote:

Harper's controversial appointments have put "Team Tory" into full
disaster
recovery mode. They simply will not admit to Harper's breach of ethics
and
party principle!

There's no reason to accept that Harper has breached either ethics or
party principle in the Emerson case, until such a breach has been
shown. Just accusing him of such a thing, and accusing those who don't
believe you of being in 'denial' doesn't cut it.

Harper definitely breached his own accountability standards soliciting
Emerson.

The people of Vancouver-Kingsway did not elect a Conservative,

it's that simple. Fortier's appointment also breached Harper's commitment
to an elected Senate.

Total denial, like a child with chocolate all over it's
fingers stating, "No momma, I did not take those cookies!"

See above.

Witness the "philosophy of ethics" argument, a wild exaggeration of
situational ethics from one of Harper's most useless idiots.

My, my, now you're not only evading my arguments, but you won't even
use my name. (Perhaps because you know that I'm not even a
Conservative.)

I most definitely was not referring to you.

So the
rationale goes, a situation involving a hitman, a contract, and someone
you
don't like is somehow relevant to Stephen Harper's cabinet appointments.

No one said it was 'relevant' to the Emerson case. There are clear
differences: For one thing, it dealt with the ethics of lying, while
there's no evidence that either Emerson or Harper lied about anything.

You must have missed T-*****'s follow-up to the "ethics of philosophy"
thread:

"Pretty well most of the posters on this thread would agree that sometimes
you have to lie to what's right. In Harpers case he promised David Emerson a
Cabinet post. What he did was do what was morally right for Canada as a
whole, where as Stronach crossed the floor in order to benefit the liberals
in a crucial non confidence vote."

Apparent, it's moral for Stephen Harper to "lie" (T-***** indirectly
acknowledges Harper lie in the above) and violate his own standards if "he"
thinks it's in the best interests of Canada.

Those two appointments are the
ultimate in political expediency, they were made for the sole purpose of
getting Harper re-elected!

My gosh, give Quebec some more pork in an area
devoid of Conservatives! Like that has never been done before to buy votes!

For B.C. this is a new thing.

The point is, the Harper apologists are going
to some ridiculous lengths to rationalize what cannot be ethically
rationalized, and meanwhile dancing around the obviousness of the hypocrisy.
It's blind partisan zealotry!

Can you you believe, it was actually intended as a rationalization for
it!

Just think about it. Stephen Harper will be investigated by the ethics
commission over David Emerson.

Oh, I'm sure; it's too convenient for the Liberals to have a Martin
appointee that Harper can't fire 'investigating' whichever of Harper's
MPs they want him to.

I hope Harper's cabinet is revising the proposed Accountability Act at
this moment, to create an office of Ethics Commissioner appointed by
Parliament. That would be his only way to get rid of this baggage that
Martin has left him.

I would agree somewhat with that. It would remove some potential for bias
but not eliminate it.

Will Stephen pull out a hardcopy of the
"philosophy of ethics" post and start making the "hitman" case to explain
himself? (queue the hysterics) I can already see Shapiro rolling on the
floor pissing himself silly.

Considering Shapiro's record, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he
rolls on the floor and pisses himself silly at regular intervals.

So why was Harper afraid to meet with him over Grewal?

And that is absolutely the best defense "Team Tory" has had to offer so
far!

"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1139918715.173959.242620@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Chom Noamsky wrote:

Harper's controversial appointments have put "Team Tory" into full
disaster
recovery mode. They simply will not admit to Harper's breach of ethics
and
party principle!

There's no reason to accept that Harper has breached either ethics or
party principle in the Emerson case, until such a breach has been
shown. Just accusing him of such a thing, and accusing those who don't
believe you of being in 'denial' doesn't cut it.

Harper definitely breached his own accountability standards soliciting
Emerson. The people of Vancouver-Kingsway did not elect a Conservative,
it's that simple. Fortier's appointment also breached Harper's commitment
to an elected Senate.

Total denial, like a child with chocolate all over it's
fingers stating, "No momma, I did not take those cookies!"

See above.

Witness the "philosophy of ethics" argument, a wild exaggeration of
situational ethics from one of Harper's most useless idiots.

My, my, now you're not only evading my arguments, but you won't even
use my name. (Perhaps because you know that I'm not even a
Conservative.)

I most definitely was not referring to you.

So the
rationale goes, a situation involving a hitman, a contract, and someone
you
don't like is somehow relevant to Stephen Harper's cabinet appointments.

No one said it was 'relevant' to the Emerson case. There are clear
differences: For one thing, it dealt with the ethics of lying, while
there's no evidence that either Emerson or Harper lied about anything.

You must have missed T-*****'s follow-up to the "ethics of philosophy"
thread:

"Pretty well most of the posters on this thread would agree that sometimes
you have to lie to what's right. In Harpers case he promised David Emerson a
Cabinet post. What he did was do what was morally right for Canada as a
whole, where as Stronach crossed the floor in order to benefit the liberals
in a crucial non confidence vote."

Apparent, it's moral for Stephen Harper to "lie" (T-***** indirectly
acknowledges Harper lie in the above) and violate his own standards if "he"
thinks it's in the best interests of Canada. Those two appointments are the
ultimate in political expediency, they were made for the sole purpose of
getting Harper re-elected! My gosh, give Quebec some more pork in an area
devoid of Conservatives! Like that has never been done before to buy votes!
For B.C. this is a new thing. The point is, the Harper apologists are going
to some ridiculous lengths to rationalize what cannot be ethically
rationalized, and meanwhile dancing around the obviousness of the hypocrisy.
It's blind partisan zealotry!

Can you you believe, it was actually intended as a rationalization for
it!

Just think about it. Stephen Harper will be investigated by the ethics
commission over David Emerson.

Oh, I'm sure; it's too convenient for the Liberals to have a Martin
appointee that Harper can't fire 'investigating' whichever of Harper's
MPs they want him to.

I hope Harper's cabinet is revising the proposed Accountability Act at
this moment, to create an office of Ethics Commissioner appointed by
Parliament. That would be his only way to get rid of this baggage that
Martin has left him.

I would agree somewhat with that. It would remove some potential for bias
but not eliminate it.

Will Stephen pull out a hardcopy of the
"philosophy of ethics" post and start making the "hitman" case to explain
himself? (queue the hysterics) I can already see Shapiro rolling on the
floor pissing himself silly.

Considering Shapiro's record, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he
rolls on the floor and pisses himself silly at regular intervals.

So why was Harper afraid to meet with him over Grewal?

And that is absolutely the best defense "Team Tory" has had to offer so
far!