# CAUTION- Windbag Alert!!!!



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Nov 2004)

So much for getting the muzzle on in time. :

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/US/2004/11/03/699370-cp.html


Parrish: U.S. voters 'out of step'


OTTAWA (CP) - The re-election of a war-mongering president shows Americans are "out of step" with the rest of the world, says a Liberal MP infamous for her blistering attacks on George W. Bush. 

Carolyn Parrish said Wednesday that she's "dumbfounded" by Bush's victory. "He has been reconfirmed as their commander-in-chief, and he is a war-like man." American voters showed that they are "completely out of step with most of the free world," Parrish said. "I guess it's a reflection of the profound psychological damage of 9-11." 

The comments came just hours after Prime Minister Paul Martin warned his MPs in a private caucus meeting not to make incendiary comments in the wake of the U.S. election. 

Parrish wasn't at the meeting and apparently didn't get the message. 

Earlier this fall, Parrish publicly expressed her disdain for what she called the "coalition of the idiots" who back the U.S. missile defence plan. 

Last year, she referred to the Bush administration as American "bastards."   


Now, Parrish is urging Bush to dump his ballistic missile program, suggesting his immediate concern should be getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. 

"I would hope that he'd concentrate on getting the U.S. out of those two problems they've got," she said. 

"I think his immediate concern should be where he has soldiers dying." 

New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton said with Bush remaining in power, Canada now has a tough choice to make. 

Layton calls missile defence one of the most important issues affecting Canada-U.S. relations. 

"Now the Canadian government has to sit down and say, all right, how are we going to move forward on the issues important to Canadians," he said. 

"This means that Canadians have to speak up against the missile defence system and say 'No'


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Nov 2004)

The majority is necessarily sane.  Right.


----------



## canuck101 (4 Nov 2004)

She needs to learn how to keep her mouth shut.  Yes you are allowed to have opinions but please not in-front of camera's.


----------



## Morgs (4 Nov 2004)

whether the quote be for or against your beliefs, you cant deny that its always good to have someone come and stir things up some, gets people thinking about issues on both sides.


----------



## 48Highlander (4 Nov 2004)

she's not stirring up any issues, she's just voicing personal beleifs without any facts or statistics to back them up.  any idiot can go in front of a camera and say that Bush is a bad leader, and that the missile defence initiative is a bad idea.  many idiots before her have done just that.  backing it up and making people reconsider their stance on those subjects is a different matter entirely, and something she has proven incapable of doing.


----------



## canadianblue (4 Nov 2004)

I think that MP is a dumbass.

"I guess it's a reflection of the profound psychological damage of 9-11." 

Yeah I guess seeing thousands of innocent people getting blown up for going to work each day would have some effect on your everyday life don't you think. If a person were to kill a member of my family, I would want that person to be put to justice. She should try shutting up for once :-X


----------



## JasonH (4 Nov 2004)

Where's that guy that pied Chretchen, she needs a pieing too  ;D


----------



## pbi (4 Nov 2004)

If our government is serious about rebuilding relations with the US (and there are some indications that this may be the case...) then incendiary, ill-considered comments like hers are not serving the national interest. Freedom of speech may, in some situations and circumstances, be limited by a person's posiition. I doubt that most Canadians support her foaming at the mouth, even if they do legitimately question the US in certain areas.As friends we can express concerns without indulging in this kind of moronic behaviour. She should go and join her soul-mates on the left wing of the NDP. Cheers.


----------



## Ty (4 Nov 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> she's not stirring up any issues, she's just voicing personal beliefs without any facts or statistics to back them up.   any idiot can go in front of a camera and say that Bush is a bad leader, and that the missile defence initiative is a bad idea.   many idiots before her have done just that.   backing it up and making people reconsider their stance on those subjects is a different matter entirely, and something she has proven incapable of doing.



Precisely!  In a dinner conversations, what she says (however insipid general) is simply that, what she says.  In front of the media, it becomes a view of Canadian politicians.  Last I checked we were not at war with the US and attacking one of our closest allies for what looks like more attention shows her true colours.  If she genuinely disagrees with Bush's policies, she should voice those concerns and keep her ill-contrived personal attacks for family and friends.  If you believe what she did was harmless, let me ask you this:  Would you feel the same way if an empolyee working for a corporation was told not to talk about an announced stratagy to the media but did so?  What do you think would be the repercussions if that employee publilcy voiced their disdane and disapproval of that strategy?  What if that employee was an executive for that company?  She needs to be reprimended for her remarks- however, in this increasingly PC world, doing so will be touted as a violation of her rights.  If I was the party leader and probably publicly "explain" to her her errors.


----------



## PARAMEDIC (4 Nov 2004)

I like carolynn Parrish because shes a no bs type of MP who tells it like it is but I also do agree that she needs to keep a lid on it when relations with americans are streched. (bet those cattle farmers aint too pleased with her)

She has the right to speak out against anyone she chooses but being a member of Parliment she needs to show some contraint sometime.

She's just saying what all us non bush supporters say while having a cup of timmys with our friends.

lol ;D the reason she hasnt got pied yet is prolly because the person doing the peing is a non Bush supporter too.

I will vote for her again.


----------



## bubba (4 Nov 2004)

to bad someone would't kick her in the overies,in front of a camera to shut her big arregant mouth.she's rioght out of'er.her constiuants must be real proud.evan the liberals must be real happy with her,considerin george said today he's comin for a visit.HOPE HE BRINGS SOME TAR AND FEATHERS WITH HIM,AND GIVE'S HER A TEXAS SHUT UP....... :


----------



## Bograt (4 Nov 2004)

PARAMEDIC said:
			
		

> I like carolynn Parrish because shes a no bs type of MP who tells it like it is but I also do agree that she needs to keep a lid on it when relations with americans are streched. (bet those cattle farmers aint too pleased with her)



Ohh Paramedic. I need a parmedic after reading your post. When she referred to the Iraq was as "the coallition of the idiots" she didn't realize she was being recorded. Then she begged and pleaded with the reporters not to report what she said. In near tears she continues to explain that anymore negative press about her would have negative impact on her mother who is suffering from Alzhiemers.

I don't have a problem with people who speak their minds. I have a problem when they are not willing to stand behind what they say and cower behind the sick. Parrish isn't a bright beakon of clearity, but rather a selfish coward that has seemed to find a niche selling her unique brand of hate. She is like a fart in an elevator. Unpleasant, without substance and temporary.


----------



## JBP (4 Nov 2004)

You can't ignore she does/did say what MANY people do believe about Bush alone though. He's a warmonger. He's publicly admitted it several and many times on national TV, news conferences etc. He's said "I'm a war president and I think that way"... No DAH! ................

It does say something for the American people that they re-voted the guy who made the "working man" class bend over and take it from behind. Either they're really scared for thier family over in Iraq (I would be too!!!) or they just think that since they're in the shit now, might as well stick with him and make it look like they meant to all along!

Hrmph. Not that Kerry would be a good president either. The US seems to be plauged by one of the same issues as Canada, look at that! A similarity! ---------> CRAPPY LEADERSHIP...

Ahem! 
Warning - free speech is in place - Warning!
I apologize ahead of time if I do upset anyone
This was an expression of my own personal opinions! If many of you folks on this site LIKE Bush, are any of you going to vote Conservative this next election? Or stick with the ankle grabber we currently have in place?

 ;D


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (4 Nov 2004)

I believe she stated "Americans...I hate those bastards" at one time. Everytime i see her name, it seems shes ranting about American Politics. I dont think the issue of Bush being resinstated is as much of an issue, as how does she keep getting reinstated (I believe shes on her 4th term now for the Western T.O. sector).

She really needs to bite her tounge..

Recruit Joe, you clearly took what President Bush said out of context. he stated he was a War President, because the U.S. had undertaken a war effort during his term, not that he's a "warmongerer"

Free speech yes, but calling them idiots and stating you "hate those bastards" is crossing the line. Im sure many people (including you) would get their backs up if I called gays "faggots" and liberals "pussies" now wouldnt you? (For lack of a better analogy at the moment).

Windbag it is..


----------



## rifleman (4 Nov 2004)

She doesn't like Americans apparently--Does everyone have to? Its not like Canada has ever been slagged by an American--Get over it


----------



## JBP (4 Nov 2004)

> Free speech yes, but calling them idiots and stating you "hate those bastards" is crossing the line. Im sure many people (including you) would get their backs up if I called gays "faggots" and liberals "pussies" now wouldnt you? (For lack of a better analogy at the moment).



Okay, fair enough. I do agree with you, very good point. I also agree with you about what you said about Liberals...   

What do you all think George Bush will do next? Try to clean up some of the overseas missions and start wrapping things up at home? Like getting American's more jobs (they clearly do want a stronger economy and are upset about some of Bush's tax changes)? Maybe he'll simply continue on his agenda and not change things for the first while? He is voted back in for another 4 years... Many of the Americans' I've talked to on a daily basis are quite upset that many of the jobs in thier country have been outsourced to places like India, CANADA and other much economical options for American companies. One of Kerry's big promises is that he would create more jobs in the US/retain more jobs in the US... Would do Bush a great deal to try and do the same although it could hurt said countries like Canada...

What will be next?
 ???


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Nov 2004)

She really should mind her business when it comes to American politics. Instead she should take a long, hard look in the mirror (shudder) and clean up the filth that's in her own *lie*beral party's back yard. There's enough backroom trash in our own dictatorship to take her into retirement without her ever opening her mouth in public again. People in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. Typical, self righteous, pompous lieberal politician.


----------



## Northern Touch (4 Nov 2004)

An MP is supposed to discuss and stress ther views and opinions of the Canadian Citizens.  To come out in public and somethign as ridiculous as that, especially when other Canadian's don't necessarily share her view points.


Being a spokesperson for the governement it is alright ot be outspoken, but to say the thigns she said reflects bad on all of us Canadians.


----------



## jrhume (4 Nov 2004)

Heh-heh.  I think Ms. Parrish is funny.  She'd be good on Saturday Night Live -- if that show is still around.

I know I suffered psychological damage on 9/11.  Ever since then I've supported our efforts to eradicate those responsible and bring change to the festering sores of the Middle East.

Crazy or not, I maintain a sunny outlook and a belief in Western Culture and America.  And I like Canadians.  Must be all that brain damage, eh?

JR


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Nov 2004)

bubba said:
			
		

> to bad someone would't kick her in the overies,in front of a camera to shut her big arregant mouth.she's rioght out of'er.her constiuants must be real proud.evan the liberals must be real happy with her,considerin george said today he's comin for a visit.HOPE HE BRINGS SOME TAR AND FEATHERS WITH HIM,AND GIVE'S HER A TEXAS SHUT UP....... :



That was a just a stupid, arrogant and sexist comment that has no place on this website. Clean up your language or take a hike.


----------



## THEARMYGUY (4 Nov 2004)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> That was a just a stupid, arrogant and sexist comment that has no place on this website. Clean up your language or take a hike.



I agree with you whiskey.  People are entitled to their opinion.  That doesn't mean that we are also entitled to it.  More so when it's sexist or deeply hurtful to others.  Watch your step bubba.  People will see your post and you will be dealt with accordingly if you don't clean it up.

Cheers!! 

The Army Guy


----------



## Infanteer (4 Nov 2004)

Yep.

Bubba, we can trash Carolyn Parrish - but clean up the potty mouth.

Consider yourself warned.


----------



## RCA (4 Nov 2004)

I think its unfair to lump Parrish to the NDP. She beats to her own drummer (or is that voices). The NDP is concerned (as is it's job) with American policies, she has a personal problem with them. Although all are have the right of free speech, Parrish's public musings are both tactless and inflammatory. 

 Although I have no problem with Bush personally, I have issues with his policies. But being Canadian, I can only be a bystander because I have no right to judge internal US policies. That right only comes to the fore when it impacts Canada directly - ie trade policies. They have made their choice and I think it is presumptuous for us to question it. Smacks of meddling in someone else's backyard.

As for Bubba - the title of this topic fits you also. At least Parrish is articulate and literate.


----------



## bubba (4 Nov 2004)

verbal warning,fair enough troops,i'll do my best to clean up my potty mouth ;D   it's just that the majority of americans voted for george,and i think that we,and especially our politicians should respect that.she just trying to make cheap publisity again.


----------



## Torlyn (4 Nov 2004)

bubba said:
			
		

> it's just that the majority of americans voted for george,and i think that we,and especially our politicians should respect that.she just trying to make cheap publisity again.



Um, a majority of Americans DIDN'T vote for George...  If you look at it, There are 205,000,000 eligible voters in America.  Bush received 59,000,000, thus he only actually received support from 28.7% of Americans.  Bush is the leader of the most powerful nation on earth because just over 1/4 of eligible voters voted for him.  How's that for scary?  Just a thought, but I wonder why the other 145,000,000 Americans were ineligible to vote?  Sure, under 18 can't, but that's not 1/3 of the country...

T


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Nov 2004)

:


----------



## Bograt (4 Nov 2004)

Toryn,

I was going to go in a long winded rebuttal of your post. Instead I'll just say  :

Cheers,

I am a little disappointed no one quoted my fart/Parrish comparison. I thought it was witty.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Nov 2004)

RCA said:
			
		

> I think its unfair to lump Parrish to the NDP. She beats to her own drummer (or is that voices). The NDP is concerned (as is it's job) with American policies, she has a personal problem with them. Although all are have the right of free speech, Parrish's public musings are both tactless and inflammatory.



The more I think about your statement, the more I agree with you. I don't think the NDP would touch her with a 10 foot pole at this point. Problem is, what to do with/about her? She is looking for engagement on the issue, perhaps a Parliamentarian might oblige her. I think Bill Blakie would be a good candidate to challenge her comments and expose the potential damage caused by her actions, while perhaps strengthening the NDP's own. A lot of Conservatives and Liberals have time to hear him out on issues, perhaps he will exercise some initiative on this one?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Nov 2004)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> Um, a majority of Americans DIDN'T vote for George... If you look at it, There are 205,000,000 eligible voters in America. Bush received 59,000,000, thus he only actually received support from 28.7% of Americans. Bush is the leader of the most powerful nation on earth because just over 1/4 of eligible voters voted for him. How's that for scary? Just a thought, but I wonder why the other 145,000,000 Americans were ineligible to vote? Sure, under 18 can't, but that's not 1/3 of the country...
> 
> T



That takes into account the people that didn't vote. As it stands, he won 51% of the popular vote and the Electoral College. As to numbers, he received the most votes of any President in US history. I'd say that gives him as much mandate as any President has ever had. I don't look at the apethetic that didn't vote. Like our own that refuse or don't participate, their voice is not eligible. We should only hope to garner the same percentage of voters next time around.


----------



## rw4th (4 Nov 2004)

She's like the liberal party court jester. As for the US being "out of step" with the rest of world: thank god they are. Personally I'd day they're "a step ahead".


----------



## Torlyn (4 Nov 2004)

recceguy said:
			
		

> As to numbers, he received the most votes of any President in US history.



I find it interesting that Kerry also received more votes as the defeated runner up than any president in history (prior to this election, of course).  

T


----------



## sigpig (4 Nov 2004)

rw4th said:
			
		

> As for the US being "out of step" with the rest of world: thank god they are. Personally I'd day they're "a step ahead".



No, they're about two steps behind. I live and work in Fort Lauderdale so I've been following this closely as it affects my family and I greatly. Recent polls have shown that the majority of Bush supporters still believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11, supported al-Quida, and had wmd's; all of which have been shown to be false. 

Further, the high turnout was helped by the religious wackos coming out to vote to enshrine bigotry and hatred in their state constitutions by voting for the anti-gay marriage initiatives in many states. 

So, many Bush supporters are uninformed and/or chose to ignore facts or simply voted for him because he is such a "good christian." I thought Iran and other countries had shown that theocracies are a bad thing?

Several of the americans in my office yesterday were wandering around in a daze mumbling "I can't believe there are that many stupid people in this country."

Bush acceptance speech:
http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2004/110304.asp


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (4 Nov 2004)

Simply put, Carolyn Parrish is the "Queen of the Useful Idiots" and should have no place in politics.



Matthew.


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Nov 2004)

> Several of the americans in my office yesterday were wandering around in a daze mumbling




Well, seeing as how you live in Florida, that part I can believe   


As to the rest of your post, when do you plan on moving back to Canada, where the political atmosphere is more to your liking, and your compatriots are better informed?


----------



## JBP (4 Nov 2004)

> No, they're about two steps behind. I live and work in Fort Lauderdale so I've been following this closely as it affects my family and I greatly. Recent polls have shown that the majority of Bush supporters still believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11, supported al-Quida, and had wmd's; all of which have been shown to be false.



sigpig,

Thanks for pointing that out. You show honesty and courage, although not everyone in the USA obviously is blindfolded...



> So, many Bush supporters are uninformed and/or chose to ignore facts or simply voted for him because he is such a "good christian." I thought Iran and other countries had shown that theocracies are a bad thing?



This furthers the idea that religion and politics should NEVER, EVER mix... Unfortunately, they're usually in "bed" together these days...



> Several of the americans in my office yesterday were wandering around in a daze mumbling "I can't believe there are that many stupid people in this country."



That is exactly what I said when I found out he won, and many people in my office said too!!!

I used to say stupid, I used to say I /hated/ Americans... I used to say they were retarded in fact. I do not anymore, although there may be a lot of stupid people in the country, I believe it's it's not stupid to point the finger at the media for the fact many people don't know Kerry from Bush or what each one is all about. I blame 55% on people's laziness and 45% on the media directly.

I talk to Americans, dozens upon dozens of them from all over the country each 5 days of my work week. I was poking around trying to get an early indication the day before the elections and day of to see who was voting for what. I didn't ask people who they were going to vote for, or encourage or discourage anyone what so ever. Just subtle questions. Interestingly enough, my little "head count" turned out to be almost exactly like the actual vote did. Almost even, except in any southern state. Bush seems to have a VERY firm hold there (Naturally). 

It seems many American's are old fashioned so to speak also, and the Republican party smacks of old-school red neck values. Most of the young people I spoke to (18-22) didn't really care and many of them said they weren't even going to bother voting.---->   :boring:

Wonder what would happen if we could get at least 1/2 of Canada's eligible voters to do thier part?!?!
 ??? -   :


----------



## Torlyn (4 Nov 2004)

Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> Wonder what would happen if we could get at least 1/2 of Canada's eligible voters to do thier part?!?!
> ??? -  :



We routinely get (federally) more than 60% turnout.  This last election was the lowest since confederation (sans prohibition) and it was 61.2% turnout of eligible voters...

T


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Nov 2004)

Can't stand Carolyn Parrish.

Wish she would shut up.

Dumb as the proverbial bag of hammers.

Glad to live in a place where she can say what she likes and people are allowed to make up their own minds about the extent of the idiocy.

Paul Martin couldn't shut her up if he wanted.  He needs her vote just to hang on to power.  Without her he is two down even with the NDP.


Cheers.


----------



## sigpig (4 Nov 2004)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> As to the rest of your post, when do you plan on moving back to Canada, where the political atmosphere is more to your liking, and your compatriots are better informed?



When I can get an equivalent job in the programming language I know and the wife forgets how much she hates the cold  

Actually, for once I'm not embarrased to live in south Florida:
Broward county     - 64% Kerry
Palm Beach county - 60% Kerry
Miami-Dade county - 54% Kerry


----------



## Torlyn (4 Nov 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Can't stand Carolyn Parrish.
> 
> Wish she would shut up.
> 
> Dumb as the proverbial bag of hammers.



To all, if you want, her parliamentary email is Parrish.C@parl.gc.ca.  If we don't voice our concerns to her, with a CC to Paul Martin (Martin.P@parl.gc.ca) and perhaps one to a "friendly" (Harper.S@parl.gc.ca) nothing will get done.  Request some form of answer from her as well.  It'll be from an assistant, but at least you know someone in her camp knows your displeasure...

T


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Nov 2004)

Likely won't even be from her assistant, but an auto remailer;

"The Hon C Parrish thanks you for your comments. If you would like to correspond further please contact......"


----------



## Torlyn (4 Nov 2004)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Likely won't even be from her assistant, but an auto remailer;
> 
> "The Hon C Parrish thanks you for your comments. If you would like to correspond further please contact......"



"...If you're an American Bastard, press 1.  If you are one of the idiots that voted for Bush, press 2.  If you want to tell me how much you love the liberals, press 3..."  

I haven't received a response yet, but usually when I get feedback from MP's, it takes a day or two and it's usually an assistant answering.  Either way, I figure if I don't write to complain to her, I shouldn't complain at all.  

T


----------



## winchable (4 Nov 2004)

I was reading in an article that the PM ripped her at some dinner.
Something about shooting her to mars.

I'll try and find it, I may have misread it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Nov 2004)

What I'm finding disturbing is the fact that some of you people are defending her" Americans, I hate those....."

Using your ethical "code" we could have MP's state,[sorry about the words but...]
Negro''s, God I hate those.....
Jew's, God I hate those....
I could go on but I think the picture [unfortunetly] has been made. I'm curious to hear how you would defend these statements.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (4 Nov 2004)

sigpig said:
			
		

> Further, the high turnout was helped by the religious wackos coming out to vote to enshrine bigotry and hatred in their state constitutions by voting for the anti-gay marriage initiatives in many states.
> 
> So, many Bush supporters are uninformed and/or chose to ignore facts or simply voted for him because he is such a "good christian." I thought Iran and other countries had shown that theocracies are a bad thing?



"Many"?  Perhaps, but if you really look into the numbers there was a very large contingent (45%) of "moderates" and "liberals" who supported him, too.  I think you are oversimplifying to the point of being misleading.

Invasion of the theo-cons    

It's only been 24 hours, and already the media line on the US election has been set: It's all due to George Bush's cult-like hold on the religious right, wound up into a frenzy over gay marriage and other "values" issues and marched off to the polls in record numbers. The National was pushing this theme particularly hard tonight, complete with scary shots of marauding gangs of evangelicals in choir formation.

This fits with an earlier media framing device, to the effect that Bush's strategy relied on "turning out the base" rather than attracting undecided and swing voters, as in this post-election analysis from CBS News: "President Bush's campaign won re-election through the strategic gamble that there was more to gain from galvanizing conservatives and stressing moral issues than from reaching out to centrist voters." Or, more hysterically, this piece from arch-partisan Sidney Blumenthal, in the Guardian:

    The evangelical churches became instruments of political organisation. Ideology was enforced as theology, turning nonconformity into sin, and the faithful, following voter guides with biblical literalism, were shepherded to the polls as though to the rapture. White Protestants, especially in the south, especially married men, gave their souls and votes for flag and cross. The campaign was one long revival. 

This, after Kerry campaigned from the pulpit in black churches on five straight Sundays.

All well in keeping with the prevailing Democratic/media view that only morons and blinkered zealots would vote for Bush. But not at all in keeping with the actual data on who voted and why, as revealed in the massive (13,660 respondents), comprehensive CNN exit poll.

True, it found the largest single block of voters identified "moral values" as the "most important election issue" -- a much cited factoid -- and that 80% of these respondents voted for Bush. But that hardly makes this election a triumph of theocracy. In the first place, "largest single block" turns out to mean 22%, meaning 78% of voters -- including two-thirds of Bush voters -- named some other issue. Second, the pollsters only managed to elevated "moral values" to number one by dividing up the other issues into subcategories. Thus "Iraq" and "Terrorism" are treated as separate issues, though grouped together as, say, "national security" they would have claimed the top spot, with 34% of the total. Likewise "taxes" and "economy" were named by a combined 25% of voters. Had "moral values" been split into "abortion" and "gay marriage," the spin would have been rather different.

Let's move on. 37% of voters identified themselves as Republicans, the same as the Democratic turnout: the first time that has happened for a long time, if ever. That fits with the "turn out the base" thesis (I'm not saying it's not true -- just that it's not the whole truth). But crunch the numbers a little further. Bush got roughly 90% of the Republican vote, plus 10% of the Democratic vote -- plus 50% of Independents. Add it up: that means fully one-third of Bush's vote came from non-Republicans -- the same proportion as the "moral values" voters.

Possibly there's some overlap -- or a lot -- between the two. That's the point. Even if it were true that Bush drew disproportionate support among moral-majority types, that's only one of many possible ways of slicing the data, and it's revealing that analysts would seize on it. (See Jacques Parizeau, "Money and the Ethnic Vote: A Study in Selective Interpretation.")

For example, we might also note that Bush's support increased significantly among women (at 48%, there was effectively no gender gap: indeed he led Kerry 55-44 among white women), among Hispanics (44%, a record for any Republican candidate), among blacks (okay, it was only 11%, up from 9% last time, but that's a one-fifth increase!), among Jews (at 25%, a one-third expansion), and among Catholics (where he beat Kerry, a Catholic, 52-47).

When a candidate draws increased numbers of votes from groups not traditionally identified with his party, we usually call that "broadening the base." So why the fascination with zombie hordes of theo-cons?

ADDENDA: More fascinating nuggets from the exit polls:

- About 45% of Bush's vote -- nearly half -- came from self-identified "moderates" or "liberals." (How do I get that figure? Jump about a fifth of the way down the page, where it breaks down the vote "by ideology." Liberals made up 21% of all voters, and Bush got 13% of their votes. Multiplying the two, that means 2.7% of voters were "liberals for Bush." Doing the same for moderates (45% of all voters, 45% of whom voted Bush) yields 20.3%: the number of moderate Bush voters. Adding these two tells us 23% of all voters were liberal or moderate Bushies. Those 23% represented 45% of all Bush voters, given these were 51% of the total vote.)

- Bush took 46% of first-time voters. He took 52% of college graduates. 48% of working women. 44% of those earning less than $50,000. 45% of those aged 18-29. Given these are conventionally supposed to be strongly Democratic demographic groups, it suggests the stereotype of Bush voters as middle-aged white guys is equally suspect.

- Bush, the AWOL Texas National Guard pilot, claimed 57% of the veterans vote, versus 41% for the "decorated war hero."

- Bush was the choice of 46% of those who said they made up their minds in the last week. The undecided split about evenly -- not 9 to 1 for the challenger, as was assumed in one pre-election poll.

- Bush was overwhelmingly favoured by those who said the most important quality in a president was either "religious faith," "honesty," "strong leader" or "clear stands on the issues." (The latter two were the most commonly cited criteria among Bush voters, religious faith the least.) Kerry enjoyed equally strong support among those who looked for "intelligence," "cares about people" or "will bring change."

- 80% of Bush voters said they voted for their candidate, rather than against the other one. Barely a third of Kerry voters said the same.

- 93% of voters said they were "very" or "somewhat" concerned about the cost and availability of health care. Yet despite making the issue one of the centrepieces of his campaign, Kerry could do no better than to split these voters with Bush.

- Though 52% of voters said the economy was "not good" or "poor," fewer voters trusted Kerry to handle the economy than Bush. Neither candidate was trusted by a majority.

- Only 56% said the Bin Laden videotape was important to their vote. Of these, the vote was split 50-50 between the candidates. The tape was not a factor.

The rest is more or less as you'd expect. http://andrewcoyne.com/archives/004035.php


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Nov 2004)

I wonder how many Canadians would be looking to the applicable party for a little discipline if this was a non-Quebec MLA doing his part to poison the discussion during a round of sovereignty associationitis.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Nov 2004)

Thank you John. My gut proved right again.  I wonder if there's anything on the Americans living in Canada and how they voted. Given the anti - Bush rhetoric put out in the last few weeks by the *C*ommunist *B*rainwashing *C*orporation and their ilk.


----------



## winchable (4 Nov 2004)

Forgive me if I'm being ignorant but I do read, watch and listen to CBC and, maybe I've missed it, I haven't seen or heard any anti-Bush/anti-American programming yet?
I mean I always hear about it, but I've yet to see any brainwashing attempts by the folks at CBC


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (4 Nov 2004)

Che said:
			
		

> Forgive me if I'm being ignorant but I do read, watch and listen to CBC and, maybe I've missed it, I haven't seen or heard any anti-Bush/anti-American programming yet?
> I mean I always hear about it, but I've yet to see any brainwashing attempts by the folks at CBC



  :blotto:???  BECAUSE IT'S WORKING!!!  ??? :blotto:

Seriously, there is major bias at the CBC: you note that the article I posted earlier is in response to "The National" ... there's a lot more here: http://www.cbcwatch.ca/?q=taxonomy/page/or/3 and here: http://www.cbcwatch.ca/?q=taxonomy/page/or/12 (just keep scrolling)!


----------



## winchable (4 Nov 2004)

After I thought about it a bit, I do remember there being an anti-Israeli bias in some coverage once.

To be honest I don't watch them for the news. Broadcasting specials sometimes Radio one on Sundays, and I rely on Google for news.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Nov 2004)

Che:  You were right about Martin's crack about sending Parrish to Mars.  It was during the annual Press Gallery dinner in Ottawa where the Media types invite the Pols to an "off the record" roast.  This time it was recorded by CPAC.  And as regards the CBC?  Stick to Google...less hazardous to your health.

Bruce: I am not defending Parrish on her specific cracks about Americans just about her right to be an idiot and to demonstrate it by make loud noises from the bottom of a very empty vessel.  I agree with you that hate-mongering is hate-mongering and rethinking her comments all of them were specifically derogatory of Americans in a way which no other group would be expected to put up with.

With the possible exception of Scots.....  ??? :-\


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Nov 2004)

>I've yet to see any brainwashing attempts by the folks at CBC

I'm not sure what should be included in "brainwashing", but I'd guess that the prerequisite for detecting things like gratuitous bias and ideology would be to have a different editorial point of view.


----------



## winchable (4 Nov 2004)

> I'm not sure what should be included in "brainwashing", but I'd guess that the prerequisite for detecting things like gratuitous bias and ideology would be to have a different editorial point of view.



Ah, I must not be enlightened enough to the correct ideology and point of view to pick it up.


----------



## spenco (4 Nov 2004)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I've yet to see any brainwashing attempts by the folks at CBC
> 
> I'm not sure what should be included in "brainwashing", but I'd guess that the prerequisite for detecting things like gratuitous bias and ideology would be to have a different editorial point of view.




Have you seen this site?

http://www.cbcwatch.ca/


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Nov 2004)

You don't have to have a "correct" ideology; you just have to be able to detect partisan bullshit when you hear it.


----------



## winchable (5 Nov 2004)

Both sides could stand to learn something from that I suppose.

Fair enough though, as stated I rethought my statement when I realised how very little I actually watch CBC.


----------



## clasper (5 Nov 2004)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Thank you John. My gut proved right again.  I wonder if there's anything on the Americans living in Canada and how they voted. Given the anti - Bush rhetoric put out in the last few weeks by the *C*ommunist *B*rainwashing *C*orporation and their ilk.



I can't comment about Americans living in Canada, but there is a pub here in Paris that conducts an informal exit poll of American voters in the area.  Kerry won the exit poll by about 55%-45% (i don't recall the numbers exactly, and there were about 500 respondants).  These results are comparable to the large urban areas in the US, even though the media here is WAY more anti-Bush than the CBC, the NY Times, or the Washington Post.  I would think that the CBC had a similar non-effect on voters in their broadcast range.


----------



## sigpig (5 Nov 2004)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> "Many"?   Perhaps, but if you really look into the numbers there was a very large contingent (45%) of "moderates" and "liberals" who supported him, too.   I think you are oversimplifying to the point of being misleading.



Wow, thanks for correcting me John. I feel so stupid just living in this country for six years and all and following things intently because they affect me personally.

And your source of info is such an unbiased and neutral observer of events that I must bow down to his genius:
"Andrew Coyne: Meaning (information, definition, explanation, facts)
Andrew Coyne is a Canadian journalist and columnist. 

He wrote for The Globe and Mail until 1998, when he joined the fledgling National Post. He is one of the more conservative columnists in the Canadian media."

Recceguy, I guess that feeling in your gut was last night burritos....


----------



## Guardian (5 Nov 2004)

Back to Parrish. Why on earth did the voters of her constituency send her back to Parliament?

Martin should throw her out of caucus until she learns to put a cork in it. The last thing we need, at a time when mad-cow and fishing and sovereignty disputes are the norm and the Americans are starting to view Canada as an unlocked back door, is a loose cannon who hasn't the intelligence to frame her opinions and objections in a civilized manner. This MP is dangerous.


----------



## rifleman (5 Nov 2004)

Guardian said:
			
		

> Back to Parrish. Why on earth did the voters of her constituency send her back to Parliament?



maybe her constituents are "completely out of step with most of the free world"


----------



## a_majoor (5 Nov 2004)

rifleman said:
			
		

> maybe her constituents are "completely out of step with most of the free world"



I wonder. 

The American Media have been relentlessly Anti Bush throughout his entire first administration, and subtly and not so subtly attempting to influence people by distorting the flow of information. To choose a relatively non controversial example, the US unemployment and economic growth rates have been presented as being very poor and examples of Bush's policies giving America a "weak economy". Going back in time, President Clinton was praised in glowing terms during his administration for overseeing a dynamic economy...with virtually the same rate of growth and unemployment that President Bush has!

I also notice that there is almost no analysis of how US economic policy affects Canada, even though 80% of our trade goes there. You would think a rapidly growing economy with low unemployment would be a good thing for us (more customers), and _maybe_ there are some lessons to learn from them as well so we can get to a 4% annual increase in GDP and reduce unemployment to @ 5%.

Unless people have the time, energy and inclination to do the basic research, they will tend to believe that the "news" is presenting an accurate picture of the world, and react accordingly. Parrish and her supporters don't care enough to take the time and effort, and we are seeing the results.


----------



## Marauder (5 Nov 2004)

Hey Carolyn, you should be happy! FOUR MORE YEARS to make an ass of yourself in front of videocameras and tape recorders!! (Becuase God knows if your constituents sent you back after your first two gaffs, they'll be dumb enough to do it again)


----------



## 48Highlander (5 Nov 2004)

sigpig said:
			
		

> And your source of info is such an unbiased and neutral observer of events that I must bow down to his genius:
> "Andrew Coyne: Meaning (information, definition, explanation, facts)
> Andrew Coyne is a Canadian journalist and columnist.
> He wrote for The Globe and Mail until 1998, when he joined the fledgling National Post. He is one of the more conservative columnists in the Canadian media."



The man totaly trashes your argument, and that's the best response you can come up with?  Wether his "source of info" is biased or not is irrelevant.  You're certainly just as biased as Mr. Coyne, yet you obviously expect us to listen to your opinions.  The article quotes facts and figures, whereas you're providing nothing but generalities.  Want to explain to me why I should listen to the baseless rantings of a Kerry supporter over statistics provided by a Bush supporter?  With this line of argument, you're making yourself seem just as much of a windbag as Parish.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (5 Nov 2004)

sigpig said:
			
		

> Wow, thanks for correcting me John. I feel so stupid just living in this country for six years and all and following things intently because they affect me personally.



Well, I thought that the point of the article was that the media frames information to present it's own ideological biases as fact.  Specifically, that Bush won because of gay-marriage-ban Christian homophobes ('voting to enshrine bigotry and hatred' was what you said and then implied that the US was a "theocracy").  The article demonstrates that the numbers don't bear that out.  Anecdotally, there are dozens (that I've seen, probably hundreds more) of websites from Atheists that voted for him.



> And your source of info is such an unbiased and neutral observer of events that I must bow down to his genius:
> "Andrew Coyne: Meaning (information, definition, explanation, facts)
> Andrew Coyne is a Canadian journalist and columnist.



Well, I don't actually think that because he's been 'accused' of being a _conservative_ that is analysis is automatically incorrect. Significantly, he uses CNN's own numbers to demonstrate how they do not support CNN's conclusions, but instead show that Bush won because he increased his vote across almost all demographic lines (if I recall, the only exception was gays with whom he didn't gain or lose any support).  I thought that was pretty clever, maybe not genius, but clever.   ;D

(P.S> Like 48th just wrote at the same time as me!)


----------



## muskrat89 (5 Nov 2004)

> Wow, thanks for correcting me John. I feel so stupid just living in this country for six years and all and following things intently because they affect me personally.



Big deal - that makes you an expert? I've been here fifteen years, and my views, and my opinion of the views of those around me are diametrically opposed to yours.. so what? Opinions are a dime a dozen - I'll think you'll have to do a little bit better than that, to sway me...


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (5 Nov 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> as much of a windbag as Parish.



Wooo, that's a bit of a low blow ...


----------



## armyrules (5 Nov 2004)

That Parrish lady makes me really mad :rage: I think that she should keep her opinions to herself because she makes Canadians look bad, she makes look ignorant.


----------



## 48Highlander (5 Nov 2004)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Wooo, that's a bit of a low blow ...



Ok, well maybe that's taking it a little far   I just get really annoyed by people who dismiss statistics or opposing opinions as "biased" while expounding their own beleifs as if they were the word of god.  That's why Parish is such an embarassment, because she insists on "gracing" the public with her drivel without making the slightest bit of effort to qualify any of the statements.  Commspig doesn't seem quite as bad, but then again, who knows what would happen if we made him an MP


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Nov 2004)

Guardian said:
			
		

> Back to Parrish. Why on earth did the voters of her constituency send her back to Parliament?
> The last thing we need, at a time when mad-cow and fishing and sovereignty disputes are the norm and the Americans are starting to view Canada as an unlocked back door,


None of those things are important to people who form the basis of the Liberal constituency in Canada. Cities, health care, day care, taxation, immigration and equality rights will always take precedence in the minds of most Liberals. Defence, rural concerns and issues of public morality will always be the objects of their scorn, unless it serves their purpose to take periodic interest in those issues.       



> is a loose cannon who hasn't the intelligence to frame her opinions and objections in a civilized manner. This MP is dangerous.



I can think of lots of MP's like that, not just Liberals either.


----------



## rifleman (5 Nov 2004)

So she won't become ambassador to the U.S. Hows that dangerous?


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (5 Nov 2004)

well, I just saw the issue on CBC, seems as if she's gotten quite the back drat on her choice of words. Hell, even the U.S. Ambassador was chewing her out...maybe its what she needs.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Nov 2004)

This thought dropped on me like a bomb: she is deliberatly courting controversy in order to get a Cabinet post. This is an updated version of Sheila Copps "rat pack" performance during the Mulrouney years (and look what a "great" cabinet minister she turned out to be...).

Imagine, Bill Grahm in Defense, Carolyn Parrish in Froeign Affairs...who should be the Minister of Finance?


----------



## Guardian (5 Nov 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> This thought dropped on me like a bomb: she is deliberatly courting controversy in order to get a Cabinet post. This is an updated version of Sheila Copps "rat pack" performance during the Mulrouney years (and look what a "great" cabinet minister she turned out to be...).
> 
> Imagine, Bill Grahm in Defense, Carolyn Parrish in Froeign Affairs...who should be the Minister of Finance?



I give you.....

The Return of Alfonso Gagliano!    :crybaby:


----------



## Andyboy (5 Nov 2004)

"Unless people have the time, energy and inclination to do the basic research, they will tend to believe that the "news" is presenting an accurate picture of the world, and react accordingly. Parrish and her supporters don't care enough to take the time and effort, and we are seeing the results."

Beautifully said. If those of you who are "wandering around in a daze" wondering how the US could be so stupid to re-elect him would get off of your frigging high horses for a minute and consider that they might have a point of view worth examining you might get a bit of an education.


----------



## dutchie (5 Nov 2004)

I said this in another thread on her, but here's my 2 cents .....

As an MP, she is a lawmaker, supposedly professional, and represents the Canadian Government/Canadians in general, and her constituents specifically. Her remarks were so innappropriate, it's hard to describe. There has to be a way she can be punished/muzzled. I know she can't be fired (until the next election), but there has to be a way to fine her, suspend her, or censure her. 

The PM should demand an apology. He should demand this in Parliment, not behind closed doors, and the applogy should be to these people, in this order:
1-the American people 
2-The Canadian people.
3-Gearge Bush
4-PM Martin.

If she refuses, Martin should publicly renounce her statements, and not in the way he has so far ('her comments don't represent the views of the government'). It should be something along these lines: "The Gov of Canada and myself wish to apologize to the people of the US, the Canadian public and   the President of the US George Bush for the innapropriate comments made by Ms. Parrish. Her views are her own, and do not reflect the views of this Gov, or of the vast majority of Canadians.   Her comments were totally innapropriate for a member of Parliment and completely unprofessional. I sincerely applogize to all who may have been offended, and offer the regrets of the Canadian Gov. I would have liked Ms. Parish to deliver this apology, but she has declined."

That would be a start.


----------



## Bograt (5 Nov 2004)

Okay, if my fart analogy didn't get anyone to bite here is another.

Parrish is like a zit. A blemish that if focused upon, diminishes the appearance of the whole body. However, if one choose to ignore it, it will disappear in a couple of days and soon will be forgotten.

Consider Parrish as either a fart in an elevator, or a zit. Either way she is what she is.


----------



## Blindspot (5 Nov 2004)

I think I have the perfect solution:

The Conservatives run Don Cherry then make him their political hitman. Since there is no hockey (and no Ron MacLean) I'm betting you there is a lot of pent up ranting ready to blow. Cherry would be the perfect counterpunch. Parish says something, Cherry is unleashed and the janitor can sweep up what's left of her. I love Mr Cherry but his windbaggery is mythic in proportion. Maybe instead of pie, Parish should have to dodge squid.


----------



## Recce41 (6 Nov 2004)

I like her, Not a55 kissing there. Why should she not say what most of us think and feel. I wish more MPs had it like her. Most of them would sell us off to the US, quicker than you could USA eh. We as Canadians have to remember through out our history, PMs and MPs have said what they think of the US.  OOOO  I feel my Loyalist roots coming out.
GOD, QUEEN and COUNTRY evil: :tank:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Nov 2004)

Quote,
Why should she not say what most of us think and feel.

For someone who has been here a long time, maybe you would like to go back to the forum guidelines concerning qualifing your information.
Maybe you should put up a statistic or at least a "in my opinion" here.

I wish more MPs had it like her

What, ones who say something but then whine like little babies when they get caught on tape?   Pleeeeeease

I feel my Loyalist roots coming out.

Those "roots" seem to like the Americans a lot more than you do right now....so much for your roots I guess.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (7 Nov 2004)

Bush, is without a doubt an idiot. Plain and simple. But so is Kerry and at least we know what we're gonna get with Bush. Regardless of whether not politicians have made smarta** comments about the US in the past, and forget the fact that Americans slag on us all the time, the Windbag we're referring to has a big yap. Plain and simple. Talk about engage the brain before the mouth. She should be called on the carpet by the PM........If one of us said something like that on camera..........Do the math.

I have an immense dislike for politicians.  :threat:


----------



## Recce41 (7 Nov 2004)

Monk
   Most maynot have to mean YOU. Check out the most Canadian polls!. On AOL one poll had 75% disliking Bush. So relax. Ye she whined, she shouldn't have. Ever since Canada was Canada, our leaders have been calling Americans everthing. John A called them The People of Death. Trudeau refused to greet Nixon and called him an a55hole. As for loyalist roots. I have family in Britian with serving members, they dislike Bush more than we do. Even more now, that British soldiers have moved north in Iraq. But thats your opinion. We are becoming to Americanized, we are even starting calling our Battle Groups to Task Forces. I would complain more about that MP from Quebec than her. 
 My 2 cents! :evil: :tank:


----------



## JBP (7 Nov 2004)

> Monk
> Most maynot have to mean YOU. Check out the most Canadian polls!. On AOL one poll had 75% disliking Bush. So relax. Ye she whined, she shouldn't have. Ever since Canada was Canada, our leaders have been calling Americans everthing. John A called them The People of Death. Trudeau refused to greet Nixon and called him an a55hole. As for loyalist roots. I have family in Britian with serving members, they dislike Bush more than we do. Even more now, that British soldiers have moved north in Iraq. But thats your opinion. We are becoming to Americanized, we are even starting calling our Battle Groups to Task Forces. I would complain more about that MP from Quebec than her.
> My 2 cents!



I agree with you also, but I just finished being in an arguement with people here about the American's on two different threads and was chewed out for telling my opinion. Although I do admit I didn't post properly with backup facts and I was letting my anger override my common sense. But in anycase, I agree.

Joe


----------



## armyrules (8 Nov 2004)

Caesar said:
			
		

> The PM should demand an apology. He should demand this in Parliment, not behind closed doors, and the applogy should be to these people, in this order:
> 1-the American people
> 2-The Canadian people.
> 3-Gearge Bush
> 4-PM Martin.



good idea caeser that is ehat should be done but u know that she wouldn't mean a word of it!!


----------



## a_majoor (8 Nov 2004)

Perhaps the only saving grace is Parrish can spout off all she wants without really affecting the way the US does business. I look forward to seeing her have an anurysm at some press conference when she realises despite all she has said and done the US has neither noticed her or acknowledged her in any way. 

My guess is when the US activates the missile defense shield...


----------



## armyrules (10 Nov 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I look forward to seeing her have an anurysm at some press conference when she realises despite all she has said and done the US has neither noticed her or acknowledged her in any way.
> 
> My guess is when the US activates the missile defense shield...



great post a_majoor  LOL


----------



## FastEddy (11 Nov 2004)

Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> > Monk
> >
> >
> > I agree with you also, but I just finished being in an arguement with people here about the American's on two different threads and was chewed out for telling my opinion. Although I do admit I didn't post properly with backup facts and I was letting my anger override my common sense. But in anycase, I agree.
> > ...


----------



## JBP (12 Nov 2004)

> Your quite correct on that presumsion and I would say off hand, you have'nt improved on this one.



Okay tough guy, first off I was agreeing with what he already had posted. Therefore I do not need to re-iterate exactly what he said. Waste of bandwidth obviously. And if your going to go trolling for a fight, at least find more cannon fodder than "You have'nt improved on this one"... And learn to spell it's HAVEN'T not have'nt. At least get the spelling write also when your going to try and point someone else's flaws out!

Other than that, good try pal!


PS> Shall we continue with the point of the thread? I was trying to be constructive and point out my own flaws thanks!


----------



## 48Highlander (12 Nov 2004)

Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> Okay tough guy, first off I was agreeing with what he already had posted. Therefore I do not need to re-iterate exactly what he said. Waste of bandwidth obviously. And if your


"you're" not "your"


			
				Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> going to go trolling for a fight, at least find more cannon fodder


incorrect usage of term "cannon fodder"


			
				Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> than "You have'nt improved on this one"... And learn to spell it's HAVEN'T not have'nt.


incorrect sentence structure:   mising punctuation (,) : misuse of apostrophe (should be "its" not "it's")


			
				Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> At least get the spelling write


"right" not "write"


			
				Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> also when your


"you're" not "your"


			
				Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> going to try and point someone else's flaws out!


bad sentence structure

Let's not play these silly games


----------



## JBP (12 Nov 2004)

```
Let's not play these silly games
```

That's exactly what I was saying. I wasn't trolling for any arguements. Nice use of the english language though 48Highlander. You've got to be a in college/university english or a teacher right now no???

Anyway, point being I wasn't trying to show myself as having an MA in English lit, I was pointing the fact out he's trolling.

Joe


----------



## 48Highlander (12 Nov 2004)

Actually, I only got as far as grade 12  ;D  And I'm an imigrant to boot!

Anyway, I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think he's trolling.  Or, at the very least, he's not doing it intentionaly.  I think both of you just need to take a nice deep breath and start over.


----------



## FastEddy (16 Nov 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Actually, I only got as far as grade 12   ;D   And I'm an imigrant to boot!
> 
> Anyway, I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think he's trolling.   Or, at the very least, he's not doing it intentionaly.   I think both of you just need to take a nice deep breath and start over.



You are quite correct, I am not Trolling, just snipping at his heels with one liners. If I were to express myself or opinions concerning his recent posts,  I would have been censured.

With regard to the incorrect contraction of "have not", its a bad habit I have got into. Also at times I error in the use of syllabication in spelling a word. Both faults are of no subsequence to a reader, unless you're Sh5t Disturbing.

And your grammatical review, boy!, if thats not the kettle calling the pot black, I don't know what is.

You are far too modest, I would say you have an excellent command of English.

Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Nov 2004)

Why snipe at each other when we have Ms Parrish and the other Liberal Party members as ripe, juicy targets! Get back on topic!


----------



## Bograt (18 Nov 2004)

This story made me smile. Its nice to see such disfunction. With Liberal members like this we don't need an opposition..... 

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/OttawaSun/News/2004/11/18/719205.html
Thu, November 18, 2004 


'He can't control me'

Carolyn Parrish isn't sorry for stomping a Dubya doll, and as for the PM and fellow MPs who are seeking to curb her: 'They can all go to hell'

By JOAN BRYDEN and DAN DUGAS, CP


  
MAVERICK Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish says she won't heckle George Bush when he addresses Canada's Parliament later this month, but she has no intention of toning down her criticism of the "warlike" U.S. president. 

Moreover, Parrish met with Prime Minister Paul Martin late yesterday to advise him that his repeated efforts to shut her up are doomed to failure and are only fuelling controversy and making him look weak. 

Parrish also refused to apologize for taking part in a skit for the CBC television comedy This Hour Has 22 Minutes, in which she stomps on a Bush doll. The skit was denounced by Conservative and Liberal MPs alike. 

Parrish accused her colleagues and the media of overreacting to her various pronouncements on Bush. 

"It's 'backbencher burps, world ends'. It's ridiculous," she said in an interview. 

Speaking shortly before her meeting with Martin, Parrish said she intended to tell him: "Every time he gets up and reprimands me, be it ever so gentle, it just feeds it and he looks like he can't control me, which he can't. 

"And if he wants to know why he can't control me, I have absolutely no loyalty to this team. None. 

"After what they've put me through and lots of my colleagues, they can all go to hell. But he's not going to control me so all he's going to do is end up looking weak." 

Parrish said she's "not out to get" Martin. Indeed, she said "I don't care what happens to him," having lost respect for him earlier this year when he refused to intervene to ensure a "clean race" for the Liberal nomination in the Ontario riding of Mississauga-Erindale. 

That ugly nomination battle, in which Parrish defeated former Liberal MP Steve Mahoney, was rife with allegations of dirty tricks on both sides. 

"If he loses the next election and he has to resign, I wouldn't shed a tear over it," Parrish said of Martin. 

Still, she said she sought the meeting with Martin in a bid to head off undue controversy over any anti-Bush comments she may make during the president's first state visit to Canada on Nov. 30 and Dec. 1. 

"I'm going to assure him when I walk through the door that there is absolutely nothing to worry about. I am not going to heckle the president of the United States, not because I have any respect for him (but because) I have respect for the office and I have respect for myself. I'd look like an idiot." 

Nevertheless, she said she plans to take notes when Bush speaks and will give her opinion if asked by reporters. 

"I have opinions. They're strongly held and colourfully expressed. They always have been ... I am not going to change the way I function. If I do that then (critics) have won, they've shut me down and ... there are thousands of people who agree with me." 

Parrish, who was adamantly opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, made headlines last year when she was overheard telling a reporter: "Damn Americans. I hate those bastards." 

While she regrets that outburst, she said she has no apologies to make for any of her subsequent remarks, including her reference to supporters of the U.S. ballistic missile defence scheme as the "coalition of the idiots" or her most recent jibe that Bush is "warlike." 

During the This Hour Has 22 Minutes skit, taped Tuesday in her office, Parrish said she simply followed the directions she was given by the 22 Minutes crew. She said she also kissed the Bush doll. 

"Come on guys, this is humour ... I am not a monster lady. I'm not an angry wet hen. I am actually a pretty funny person and humour is one of those tonics in life."


----------



## Slim (18 Nov 2004)

This individual is probably wearing a great big invisible target on her back as we speak!

Slim >


----------



## Guardian (18 Nov 2004)

What an embarrassment.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (18 Nov 2004)

I forsee her getting the boot in the near future.


----------



## JBP (18 Nov 2004)

Geez, with people like her running around in parliament and our government, the populace itself doesn't have to do anthing stupid to get made fun of.... The people of the south do seem to like Canada, for the most part that I can tell. Once they see crap like this it'll probably irk them at least abit!... Although I would laugh histarically if someone did it to a "Paul Martin" doll on TV...

 ;D


----------



## Goober (18 Nov 2004)

Someone should pie her.


----------



## dutchie (18 Nov 2004)

I am not going to heckle the president of the United States, not because I have any respect for him (but because) I have respect for the office and I have respect for myself. *I'd look like an idiot*."  

That's pretty scary - she doesn't see how idiotic she looks like now? She is a cancer. What positive thing does she bring to the table? She isn't well spoken, she doesn't make rational, balanced, well-thought out arguments, she doesn't back up her allegations with any facts or even conjecture, she has zero respect for our biggest trading partner, our closest ally, and the most important and powerful nation on earth. All she seems capable of is slander, school yard name-calling, and unwarranted and unprofessional verbal venom.

In my eyes, Paul Martin can show the US people and Bush how much he values relations with the US by doing everything in his power to refute, condemn, and muzzle this yappy dog. Here is a great opportunity for him to bridge the gap.

If there is a way to censure, sensor, fine, or fire her then that should be done. If there is not, I propose Bill 625, the "Embarrasing MP Bill" which proposes progressive 'corrective action' against MPs for behavior not fitting a representative of the Canadian people, or detrimental to Foreign Relations. 

What a disgrace.


----------



## Recce41 (18 Nov 2004)

Like I said before. Even PMs have done worse.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (18 Nov 2004)

I watched a spot on CBC news the other day where Reagan was addressing a crowd in Ottawa and the public was being quite rude......

I'm not a Trudeau fan really ( I was too young to know what was happening at the time) but Trudeau stepped up and addressed the crowd saying to them 'Even I don't get treated like this when I go to the US or other places." and generally told the crowd they should be ashamed of themselves for being so rude. 

Now all of you free speechers and freedom of assembly types, yeah yeah yeah, I know it's a right to do so, but where does one draw the line? It's one thing for the public to make silly remarks, I think it's fair to generalize and say that most 'people' don't have a clue when it comes to the world stage or politics in general. i'm guilty of bandwagon jumping once or twice on the political thought process...........I do think it's inappropriate for someone representing our country on a world stage to be ridiculing the leader of the most powerful contry in the world.........He might be an idiot, in fact he IS.....However, the game must be played and Paul Martin should get a grip of his 'troop' and sort her out.......She is a poor reflection on our country and Martin's government.

 :threat:


----------



## Guardian (18 Nov 2004)

It's interesting how people of that ilk are the first to claim "freedom of expression / free speech" as their right to heckle / pie / throw Molotov cocktails at those they disagree with....

Because in doing so, they fail to see / choose not to see that their chosen mode of exercising that "right" is actually denying the opportunity to express those same rights to those they dislike.

People like that prove Orwell's maxim: "all are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Personally, I don't feel inclined to die protecting that interpretation of their "rights." It should be remembered that those rights were bought at a price, and thus they should not be abused.


----------



## Eowyn (18 Nov 2004)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/11/18/parrish041118.html

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Paul Martin expelled renegade Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish from the party's caucus on Thursday, citing her "unacceptable" behaviour. 

Martin told reporters that while he has defended the controversial MP's right to speak in the past, he "cannot, as leader of our party and the government caucus, tolerate behaviour that demeans and disrespects others." 

Parrish, who represents the constituency of Mississauga-Erindale, is known for her outspoken remarks about Americans and U.S. President George W. Bush. 

Her ouster from caucus follows the release this week of footage from CBC-TV's This Hour Has 22 Minutes, in which she is shown stomping on a Bush action figure. 

The skit was filmed as Bush's office announced he would make a state visit to Ottawa later this month. 

Parrish followed that stunt with an interview with the Canadian Press Wednesday, in which the former school teacher said she had no regrets over her behaviour and wouldn't be silenced by Martin. 

"Every time he gets up and reprimands me, be it ever so gentle, it just feeds it and he looks like he can't control me, which he can't," she said. 

Parrish said she had "absolutely no loyalty to this team. None." 
   
Paul Martin outside cabinet room, Thursday.   
She added of Martin: "If he loses the next election and he has to resign, I wouldn't shed a tear over it." 

Parrish's ouster could cause problems for the Liberals, who hold a slim minority in the House of Commons where every vote counts. 

In the past, Parrish has called Americans "bastards" and mocked the U.S. plans for a missile defence shield by calling countries that sign on to the plan a "coalition of idiots." 




I didn't think Paul Martin would take this step, but I am glad that he did.


----------



## scm77 (18 Nov 2004)

I am also glad.  That is un-acceptable behavior.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (18 Nov 2004)

About bloody time. This woman is an embarassment to the entire nation. Further proof that many of those elected are not true representatives of the people who reside in their constituencies but the lesser of the other evils seeking public office. Scary!

All Martin has to do now is push a couple of billiion of that surplus to Defence and he may be onto something.........


----------



## stfx_monty (18 Nov 2004)

Another topic has already allowed people to vent their like/dislike for this woman. Personally I think it was a necessary move. As soon as she said she couldn't be controlled someone needed to take her to task. You can't thumb your nose at your boss like that in any profession. More importantly will this have a significant impact on the liberal minority? Also, could anyone see the NDP picking her up? Personally I think she is a little too hot for the NDP, but...

Don't know if anyone saw Rick Mercer's rant about new MPs waiting to prove they're idiots, but I think this would be a textbook case.


----------



## JasonH (18 Nov 2004)

He lost a valuabe seat but this was getting out of hand and was needed


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2004)

She had to have known that this was the eventual outcome.   There is no way that a minority government, where every vote counts, would expel a member without giving her so much rope to hang herself with.

She knew perfectly well what was going to happen and it probably played into her hand.   Watch and shoot....


----------



## beach_bum (18 Nov 2004)

After all of her little rants, I can't see any of the other parties picking her up.   She is just too controversial and I don't think anyone wants to have to deal with that.


----------



## dutchie (18 Nov 2004)

Way to go PM Martin. Good move. The Grits may have lost a valuable seat, but I don't think she would have voted for Liberal initiatives or against initiatives the PM wanted quashed anyway, so it's not that big of a loss.

Next stop for Parrish? Unkown obscurity, followed by defeat on re-election.
Good ridance. That'll learn ya.


----------



## Franko (18 Nov 2004)

just got done reading it on another site......

It's about time!

Regards


----------



## Torlyn (18 Nov 2004)

stfx_monty said:
			
		

> Another topic has already allowed people to vent their like/dislike for this woman. Personally I think it was a necessary move. As soon as she said she couldn't be controlled someone needed to take her to task. You can't thumb your nose at your boss like that in any profession. More importantly will this have a significant impact on the liberal minority? Also, could anyone see the NDP picking her up? Personally I think she is a little too hot for the NDP, but...



I don't think Layton would pick her up.  As for the liberal minority, the only way this could change anything is if the Alliance and the BQ created a political coalition, giving them 153 seats.  The librals would have to ask the NDP with their 19 seats giving that alliance 153 seats.  THere are two independents, one of them being Parrish, and given that a liberal coalition wouldn't have her, nor would she join, it would depend on where that other independent would side.  Come on, Clarkson.  Make it happen.  

T


----------



## Goober (18 Nov 2004)

She had to have wanted this to happen. Its a good move though, kicking her out of the party, even though they lose a seat.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (18 Nov 2004)

Does anyone now if her MP status could be revoked in any way?

This individual has no place in our government.




Matthew.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Nov 2004)

Bush re-elected, Arafat dead, US apparently not deciding to stay in and lose in Iraq, UN oil-for-food scandal apparently starting to gain traction in media, rumblings in N Korea unfavourable to "Dear Leader", Parrish booted...  I'm running down the stock of single malt rather quickly this month.


----------



## pbi (18 Nov 2004)

Ding Dong the Witch is gone, the Witch is gone.....!

Cheers


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (18 Nov 2004)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Bush re-elected, Arafat dead, US apparently not deciding to stay in and lose in Iraq, UN oil-for-food scandal apparently starting to gain traction in media, rumblings in N Korea unfavourable to "Dear Leader", Parrish booted...   I'm running down the stock of single malt rather quickly this month.



Geez, I hadn't thought about it, but you're right!   I'm going to go pour myself a Glendronach (15).




Matthew.      ;D


----------



## Acorn (18 Nov 2004)

Decent whisky choice, but I prefer a Lagavulin 16.

I can only think the Liberal minority is what held Martin back up to now, and what made that self-important idiot Parrish so confident that they can't do anything to her. I think it's telling that Martin felt the amount of damage she was doing was sufficient to resort to these measures, though I suspect it was the "I have no loyalty to this team" remarks that broke the camel's back.

Whatever the reason, she was certainly a loose cannon on the deck of the ship of state, in a period of very rough seas.

Acorn


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (18 Nov 2004)

I'm not complaining.  It was a gift....



Matthew.  ;D


----------



## Long in the tooth (19 Nov 2004)

Parrish could have at least explained her great dislike of Americans by discussing her reasons.  What talk show host would not have had her on?  Lost was a great chance to deal with trade matters and the diversion of the Great Lakes into the US and Devil's Lake into Manitoba.

She had her 15 minutes and blew it.


----------



## Storm (19 Nov 2004)

YES!!!    

I'd bet good money - no small claim for a broke student - that not even Layton would pick her up. Even he was telling the cameras how dumb she was being (you know you've gone too far into meaningless showboating when...)


----------



## Slim (19 Nov 2004)

Ladies and gents, I believe that it was a foregone conclusion.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




Slim


----------



## FastEddy (19 Nov 2004)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Next stop for Parrish? Unkown obscurity, followed by defeat on re-election.
> Good ridance. That'll learn ya.



Presuming she runs as a independent (and hopefully looses), is she entitled to a pension of any sort for past service as a MP.? If so how much ?


----------



## Slim (19 Nov 2004)

"â Å“And if he wants to know why he can't control me, I have absolutely no loyalty to this team â â€ none,â ? she said in an interview with The Canadian Press on Wednesday. â Å“After what they've put me through and lots of my colleagues, they can all go to hell. But he's not going to control me, so all he's going to do is end up looking weak.â ?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041118.wxparri1119/BNStory/Front/

For the life of me I cannot quite figure out why the PM got rid of her...Can anyone else? :

Slim
One for Canada


----------



## HollywoodHitman (19 Nov 2004)

Look at a picture of this miserable shrew. A picture of her is worth a thousand words.

good riddance. :threat:


----------



## Pugnacious (19 Nov 2004)

Notice that nobody fired anyone in the US Governement that said MUCH worse about our country the past few years.

Sure she went over the top, but then again feel sorry for Paul Martin, as having that kind of 'cold sore' makes it that much harder to kiss US A$$.  LOL!  ;D
Glad she is gone... one less Liberal.

Cheers!
P.


----------



## Recce41 (19 Nov 2004)

Pugnacious
 I always say we kiss alil too much American ass. Now look, their screwing us on Hardwood, Beef, etc. I remember when we stood up to the US. Our dollar was 1.25$, our trade was only 40%.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (19 Nov 2004)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> I remember when we stood up to the US. Our dollar was 1.25$, our trade was only 40%.



More accurately, that was when we _started_ to "stand up" to them (I would have used a different phrase myself).


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Nov 2004)

I think that was when we belonged to another perfectly good trading alliance - the Commonwealth.  The alliance is still there. We're still a member.  But preferential trading relations seem to have gone by the wayside.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (19 Nov 2004)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Pugnacious
> I always say we kiss alil too much American ***. Now look, their screwing us on Hardwood, Beef, etc. I remember when we stood up to the US. Our dollar was 1.25$, our trade was only 40%.



This was pre-Trudeau and his Degaullist tendencies, yes?



Matthew.     ;D

P.S.   The way you avoid all this Congressional BS over trade issues is you suck up your ego and play by their rules.   You set a budget and hire a professional lobby team (like just about every other country in the world).   Right now we've surrendered the field to entrenched interests in the USA because we're too arrogant to accept that's how things work down there, and because of it we're getting hammered at every point of contention.   Bottom Line:   The Liberal Government has screwed the pooch in its relations with both the Administration and Congress and need to pro-actively do things to fix it, otherwise we will continue to lose every single trade dispute that arises....


----------



## dutchie (19 Nov 2004)

otherwise we will continue to lose every single trade dispute that arises....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the other way around?

Soft-wood lumber: Canada won (US still contesting, but they're losing legs to stand on)
Salmon: Canada won
Greenhouse Tomatos: Canada won

I know we still have the mad cow fiasco, but it's not really a trade dispute, more of an excuse based on health and safety, pepetuated by US cattle lobbyists.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (19 Nov 2004)

Caesar said:
			
		

> otherwise we will continue to lose every single trade dispute that arises....
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the other way around?
> 
> ...



We're winning WTO and NAFTA panel decisions which means "we're right and they're frivolously persecuting our industries."

But just because we're right and winning those judgements doesn't mean dick because the appeals process is so long that the damage can be done before any enforcement clauses kick in.

The latest example is softwood.   We won the NAFTA panel decision.   That was supposed to be it.   US Congress appealled it again (because they are getting huge lobby $$$ from US producers) which will once again stall any resolution and keep the existing duties in place. Importantly, the decisions do not necessitate that judgements be retroactive. As such, duties collected and held in trust by the US government do not necessarily have to be returned.   Worse is that due to those same lobby $$$, Congress has also just introduced a bill that would allow the US Government give those collected duties to the US producers.

Bottom Line:   We may be winning decisions, but it doesn't mean anything in the real world.   We've got to start playing hardball the way it is played in Washington and if that means going against our idealistic sensibilities, then so be it.



Matthew.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Nov 2004)

Remember anti-Americanism is still alive and well in the Liberal Party. Carolyn Parrish wasn't kicked out for her offensive anti-Americanism, *but for being publicly disloyal to Paul Martin.* What practical effect this will have on our policies, how President Bush is treated during his State Visit and so on remains to be seen, but the Liberals believe anti-Americanism gains votes, and so keep to it.

As an aside, if the US really does get P/O'd by all this, we would lose about 10% of our economy right away (the companies and subsidiaries the US directly owns in Canada), and as the 80% of our exports get stopped at the border, well, you can imagine the rest. This will even play very well in domestic US politics; whipping those uppity Cannucks, "getting back" thousands of outsourced jobs, eliminating competition for domestic industries across the States...there is no down side for the Americans. People are playing with fire at all our peril.


----------



## Pugnacious (19 Nov 2004)

Yah come live in a Westcoast Logging town like I do, and you will see the neg' effects of the US on our softwood...etc.
It's  Hard living next to PAX Americana with a weak leader...it would be nice if we had one to tell them to pi$$ off once in a while. ;D
It's like the Westcoast is becoming a bedroom community for another country.

Cheers!
P.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Nov 2004)

If you think things are bad now, P, while the Americans mostly choose to ignore us, just think what will happen if they decide to actively oppose us. We can disagree with a lot of what America does or is doing, but that does not make us weak or strong. Spouting off about "bastards", "morons" and "idiots" IS weak, and acting like whiney, petty three year olds on the world stage is only going to get us ignored or held in contempt.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Nov 2004)

For those of you militants advocating that we "teach those Yankees a lesson", you can yak about it here:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/22628.0.html


----------



## JBP (19 Nov 2004)

Just imagine what kind of demonstration/riot will be in Ottawa when Mr. Bush makes his visit! I can bet you that'll be on TV!!!

I'm sure he'll feel one hell'ova warm welcome from Canada and the US citizens living in Canada at the moment...

 ;D


----------



## ArmyRick (19 Nov 2004)

CP got fire..Yeah..CP got fire..Yeah..right on...go Martin..CP got fire..Yeah..CP got fire..Yeah..right on...go Martin..CP got fire..Yeah..CP got fire..Yeah..right on...go Martin..


----------



## FastEddy (20 Nov 2004)

Pugnacious said:
			
		

> Notice that nobody fired anyone in the US Governement that said MUCH worse about our country the past few years.
> 
> I presum you can enlighten us with the 'WHO , WHAT and WHEN' that was said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Marauder (20 Nov 2004)

> Just imagine what kind of demonstration/riot will be in Ottawa when Mr. Bush makes his visit! I can bet you that'll be on TV!!!
> 
> I'm sure he'll feel one hell'ova warm welcome from Canada and the US citizens living in Canada at the moment...



Well, here's hoping the Ottawa/Carelton police have plenty of mace and water cannons, and have had the chance to beat some home-grown "protestors" as a nice warmup. And here's hoping some dipshit tries to take a shot at Bush or, even more stupidly, try to pie him. I want to watch the Secret Service guys in action with their pieces. They're supposed to be pretty good shots.


----------



## Recce41 (20 Nov 2004)

We do have a playing card. Our power from Churchill Falls. Also, our water, we could tax the Alaskia pipe line. We supply them with a lot of stuff they require. 
 It was Not Trudeau it was old Brian M that started to screw us. He still is very good friend with the Bushs. We as Canadians don't understand that we exported 50% to the old world until the 80s. Now 70% to the US 15% to Europe and 15% Asia. it costs the same to ship to there by sea as to the US by truck.
 REMEMBER TRUE NORTH STRONG and FREE. :evil: :tank:


----------



## RCA (20 Nov 2004)

Parrish has maneuvered her way into potentially holding the balance of power. Some idiot.

And personally I think its bullshit when it comes to the point of trying "not to offend the US". We a sovereign nation entitled to our own destiny. If the Americans are wrong, then we shouldn't shie away from letting them know it for fear of retribution.(Kyoto, World Court etc).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Nov 2004)

Agreed, let them know when we think they're wrong, however a little decorum from our elected officials would be a nice thing.  I said it before earlier in the thread if you substituted the word "American" in her outbursts with...say
Jew/Chinese/Negro/ etc, these same people who are jumping around to pat her on the back would be ranting off at the mouth. I, for one, don't see why it is OK for them to be a target when the others are not.


----------



## Pugnacious (21 Nov 2004)

Fast Eddy were were you the past few years, when members of the US senate where calling Canadians Wimps, and F-ing cowards etc over not wanting to support the Iraq BS.  I remember even a Magazine cover showing mounties saying "wimps" right accross the top.

I'd love to provide names of who said what, but I care not to spend my night trying to dig up old news articles that everyone in Canada read allready.  But trust me it happened.

Cheers!
P.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Nov 2004)

So were supposed to degenerate to school yard namecalling? I still EXPECT my elected reps to perform with a high standard of civility and decorum. I know they don't though, kinda like asking a pig to wear a tux and look good. :


----------



## Bograt (22 Nov 2004)

Guys,

She didn't get booted out of caucus because she said things about Bush and Americans. She got booted out because she said things about Martin and his machine.

I don't think anyone opposes her right to say anything. I think the problem is how she says it. I personally think she is something I stepped in while cleaning up after my Labrador retriever, however she does have the right to say and think what she does.

There is nothing wrong with being critical about issues. I would like to see a genuine discussion about missile defence and Canada's place in the world. I have a "lefty" friend at work and we have enjoyable talks about policy. Last week I asked him "What was wrong with the *concept* of missile defence- let not talk about technology, because neither one of us knows anything about it- instead let discuss why participating in this is a bad thing" Because we were being honest about the discussion the buzz words "weaponization of Space", "Star Wars" etc didn't come up. It was a good discussion- devoid of the rhetoric.

I noticed that Martin is now trying to build a new organization of "Middle powers" and have them rally behind a concept of "Responsibility to Act." In a somewhat related matter, my wife and I hired a handyman to install a new storm door this past weekend. I said to my wife, "See Honey, I could do that if I had all the tools."  :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Oct 2005)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/10/13/1260849-cp.html
Parrish won't seek re-election
    
TORONTO (CP) - Outspoken MP Carolyn Parrish won't run in the next federal election either as a Liberal or an Independent, telling her constituents that it's time for her to leave Ottawa. 
"In all careers there comes a logical time to move on - to make room for others who also have a strong desire to serve," she wrote in a letter mailed Friday to the 3,500 residents of her Mississauga, Ont., riding, west of Toronto. 
"For me that time will coincide with the next federal election in which I will not be running." 

Parrish, who declined to be interviewed, said she hopes Prime Minister Paul Martin and the Liberal party allow her constituents "to freely choose their next Liberal candidate without the political interference so many of us endured in the lead-up to the last election." 
Parrish, first elected in 1993, was expelled from the Liberal caucus last December following critical remarks about Martin and for stomping on a doll of U.S President George W. Bush to protest his ballistic missile defence scheme. 

Parrish then threw her support behind the government in the razor-thin May 19 confidence vote, helping to keep the Liberals at the helm. 
This led to speculation Parrish might be welcomed back into the Liberal fold, but that notion was stifled in late July. 

Martin aide Marc Roy said the prime minister was "not even entertaining the thought" of welcoming Parrish back to the caucus.


----------



## FastEddy (14 Oct 2005)

Pugnacious said:
			
		

> Fast Eddy were were you the past few years, when members of the US senate where calling Canadians Wimps, and F-ing cowards etc over not wanting to support the Iraq BS.   I remember even a Magazine cover showing mounties saying "wimps" right accross the top.
> 
> I'd love to provide names of who said what, but I care not to spend my night trying to dig up old news articles that everyone in Canada read allready.   But trust me it happened.
> 
> ...




I'd love to, but the last time I heard that (trust me) it was from a Used Car Salesman, whoops ! or was it from my Liberal Candidate for LaSalle Paul Martin.

Cheers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Oct 2005)

Do you ever wonder why Paul Martin Jr doesn't run in the riding he was born in? Or the riding his own dad held absolutley solidly for so many years? Cause he's no more from Windsor than Che Guevara is from Cuba. He's a poser and a charlatan.


----------



## the 48th regulator (14 Oct 2005)

I don't think Che was a Charlatan, he was Argentinian.

I don't even think he visited Prince Edward Island, let alone Charlatan.

jeez, Windsor natives.....

dileas

tess


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Oct 2005)

;D


----------



## Slim (15 Oct 2005)

No more Caroline Parrish.

Thats awful...NOT


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Oct 2005)

Well, for now, she has officially become a has been. No more influence or control. The waste of bandwith kicking her when she's down (whether she deserves it or not) is not warranted. If you have something concrete to add, get a Mod to reopen the thread.


----------

