Sunday, February 10, 2008

A Note to Elizabeth May

E: If you aren't allowed to compare Harper's inaction to Chamberlain's appeasement, then why can Van Loan call the Liberals, Taliban?


Concerning Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan:

He can only get away with it, if the public let's him get away with it. Maybe the National Post would like to set the record straight after making false aspersions about the comparison that you were drawing between Harper's inaction on the environment to Chamberlain, as the best modern day example of the enormous downside of blind appeasement, which you (and others around the world) are simply citing as it pertains to the environment.

One could easily speculate that the Post was only attacking your position on the environment in a displaced manner , as opposed to actually believing in the fanciful theory that you were somehow making the point that they ascribed to you which somehow involved Hitler (?) and the holocaust (?).

Maybe reporters think only they can draw analogies. Tortured ones at that.

I once made the “mistake” of comparing Flaherty’s utter incompetence and gross negligence to that of Stan Koebel of Walkerton water infamy, and some lame fools in the press actually thought I meant that Flaherty was responsible for Canada’s water quality. Not that I would ever drink water approved by Flaherty, I think it was clear to anyone that I was referring to Flaherty’s utter negligence and gross incompetence in public office and how even basic services like prudent financial management of the economy can’t be taken for granted.

I guess we'll know the definitive answer to that question about the National Post, after we read their editorial attacking Van Loan for calling the Liberals, the Taliban. Or not, as the case may be.

The absence of such editorial commentary, will only prove that the Post is applying double standards as it pertains to the point they were ostensibly making about your rhetoric, as opposed to your position per se.

As you and I both know, it isn’t the rhetoric or the analogies that matter. And it most certainly isn’t the utterly misleading spin like “tax fairness” and “leveling the playing field” that matter, it’s just the facts that matter.

How can any policy aspire to be good and just if it isn’t based on facts?

Never more so than for a policy where the facts are readily attainable and irrefutable in nature, like alleged tax leakage as the basis to inflict a $35 billion loss on Canadians and eliminate an essential investment choice from the 75% of Canadians without employer pensions. Not to mention the $300 million loss sustained by the CPP or the $1.4 billion a year by Canadian taxpayers at large.


On 2/9/08 10:17 PM, "Elizabeth May" wrote:

> I am not allowed to call anyone anything! I noticed that and
> wondered how he thinks he can get away with it!!
> Thanks for noticing the hypocrisy!!
> E
> At 11:43 AM 2/9/2008, Brent Fullard wrote:

E: If you aren't allowed to compare Harper's inaction to Chamberlain's appeasement, then why can Van Loan call the Liberals, Taliban?

1 comment:

Dr Mike said...

Peter Van Loonie was certainly having an "out of head' experience when he made that statement about the Liberal party of Canada--what next from a guy with a mouth bigger than a Mack truck & just about as subtle.

This guy has never been the voice of reason--I do suppose that is why he was made absolute grand pooba of yap for the Conservatives--the fit is perfect.


PS--any paper who defames Elizabeth May is no better than Pond Scum in my books -- she is one of the few politicians that I can honestly say that I would trust with my back--it certainly would not be Van Loooooon.