Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte member of parliament Gerry Byrne’s letter to the editor of the Western Star appeared today.
In it, Byrne outlines events of the past couple of weeks and states – on behalf of his caucus colleagues presumably– their commitment to the province and the interests of the people it represents.
Byrne’s political experience shows:
Joined by our leader, my fellow caucus members and I announced our commitment to fight Mr. Harper last Tuesday together.
That commitment is inflexible; it is our tactics that will change. While we are different in many ways, the premier of my province is regarded as an ally in this fight. Our ally was told of our intentions and he has called it reasoned and just. Unlike Mr. Harper, my leader and Mr. Williams have already opened a dialogue with each other as equals under a relationship of mutual respect. Both men, I believe, are smart enough to know that playing into Harper’s hands is to let him win.
-srbp-
17 comments:
Byrne need to take the salad bowl off of hes head next time hes at the barber on west street.
But, at least he's not beholden to the nickel companies like you Eddie.
Excuse me Mr. Byrne while I puke. You and your other five liberal colleagues really showed gumption.
Thanks guys for sticking to your script.
You don't really add anything to the conversation. You just show up right on cue to recite the lines you've been handed.
Well Mr. Hollett, I am sorry my handed script does not conform to your wishes or thinking. However, politicians trying to cover their political asses is nothing short of nauseating. Maybe that's why there is nothing to add to the conversation
Perhaps, Steve you like to explain your comments a bit more as to what - specifically - you find mauseating or has a 'cover your ass' feel to it.
Perhaps if you actually had some comment with substance - and not a stereotypically blank profile as well - that would read more like an actual comment as opposed to a knee-jerk response or maybe even a planted partisan jab like the anonyslagger there.
Beholden to nickel companies?
Yes, I suppose I am. Just like every other Canadian who enjoys steel and ... well ... nickels.
''Together, we sent a clear message to the prime minister that his obvious vendetta against Premier Danny Williams and his vindictive treatment of our province would not go unchallenged.''
The message the ROC got was that Danny was at it again, and another Liberal leader,
Ignatieff,
proved too weak to stand up to the little tyrant of the East.
So far, PM Harper is the only leader to stand up to Danny, regardless of the consequences.
So someone please tell me just what it is that Danny's 6 accomplished, other then stroking Danny's ego.
Well, Mr. Hollett, I guess comments that don't jive with your postings or Liberal colours get deleted leaving only your comments to deride an individual.
Have a nice day.
Well, Steve, since no comments were deleted you'll have to come up with another dodge.
Afraid not Mr. Hollett but my comment regarding my explanation
Perhaps, Steve you like to explain your comments a bit more as to what - specifically - you find mauseating or has a 'cover your ass' feel to it.
was never posted. It did say my comment was sent. It was not spam nor defamatory. I need no other dodge. I guess you, like your friend WJM, are very selective with your published comments.
Have a nice selective day Mr. Hollett.
Steve, unlike some of the other blogs you likely visit regularly, this one doesn't censor comments.
As such, if you posted a comment, it would be here. Since the comment isn't there, you didn't post it.
It's that simple.
On top of that, I retain a copy of all comments (since I get them by e-mail as well). I don't have a comment from you other than the ones that appear here already.
Blogger does have a quirk in that it's word verification thingy is time sensitive. If you take a while to write a comment, it may require you to enter a second letter jumble thing. It has happened to me several times. The comment comes back on the screen and you are simply given another blank to enter the new set of letters.
My guess is that if you did try and make a comment, it fell victim to that blogger quirk.
"It did say my comment was sent."
Here's what leads me to believe you are mistaken. That's a feature of the blogs that censor comments. Your words get sent off via e-mail but the rest of the universe can't see them until that blog owner approves of them and let's them through. Your words get sent somewhere.
Well, around Bond Papers, if your comment is posted, you'll see it appear immediately in the comment thread. You words won't get "sent"; they get posted.
Again, Steve, nice try.
"you didn't post it." Obviously I am also a liar . Maybe my terminology wasn't correct but it did say something to the effect: my post had been saved and would be reviewed. In fact the very first word of the post was mauseating followed by several ??? because I was trying to determine whether this was a typo(which I assumed it to be) or if it was one of your big words that I wasn't familiar with. That said, I was attempting to rationalise your explanation regarding the loss of the post until your arrogance blossomed: "Again, Steve, nice try." I did post the comment. I have always found your blog to be very well researched and very well presented. However, what I have noticed is if one is not in agreement with your thinking then sarcasm and cynicism surfaces.
Steve:
If you made a comment and received this response - "my post had been saved and would be reviewed" - then you didn't make the comment here.
In fact, Steve, after I typed that first sentence at 1726 I posted it just to see what does appear.
Here it is:
"Your comment has been saved. It may take a moment for your comment to appear on the site."
As long as there have been comments here, that "moment" is really nanoseconds. If it's posted, it appears instantaneously.
As I said before, there was no comment by you here that was deleted. That can't be said any more plainly.
Now with all that said, do you have anything to add to flesh out your original comment? That's really what I was driving at in the beginning.
If you feel the comments were "nauseating", then maybe others would share the opinion if you actually explained why you reacted to Byrne's comment that way.
And that is exactly what I tried to do was substantiate my take on the spineless Liberal MPs who failed to vote against the implementation of the budget. I also mentioned how Mr. Russell, initially, stated he would vote for the budget as support for the party. But lo and behold after Iggy had okayed the nay vote, Mr. Russell finally had rounded up enough info to vote against the budget. That I find nauseating and spineless. Mr. Byrne was one of the last to come on side to say he would vote against the budget; same scenario as Mr. Russell, sickening. To a person all Liberals voted in favour of implementation. I mentioned they were out to save their political asses, meaning they have to put their best front on things for the next election; i.e. to get themselves elected. It is obvious where their allegiances lie-- to themselves and not the injustice bestowed upon the province by Steve and his cronies. Now Mr. Byrne is out beating his gums about ALL the Liberals under Iggy are going to fight Steve. Yeah, I do find that nauseating. Saving their political hides with jellyfish like spunk in taking a stand for the province. With Messrs Byrne and Russell given shadow cabinet posts, I am willing to bet they will do everything required to become ministers should the Liberals win the next election. They are looking out for Numero Uno and to hell with Newfoundland. Yeah, nauseating. There is just one other thing to add and that is this time it is the Liberals, next time it could very well be the Conservatives. All politicians are alike.
If you made a comment and received this response - "my post had been saved and would be reviewed" - then you didn't make the comment here.
Now Mr. Hollett if you had read my post you would have noticed that I did say I wasn't sure of the terminology or wording used etc.
Steve:
You'll forgive me if I don't quite follow the logic of your blanket condemnation of the federal Liberals.
If you want go on a partisan rant or a rant aimed only at federal politicans, then that's all fine and good.
As a cabinet minister, a federal politican can do much more for his or her province than as a lone independent MP or member of a gang of bloc-heads.
Likewise, as a member of a federal caucus, a member can do more for his or her constituents than as a lone voice.
If I recall correctly that was Russell's rationale. In Byrne's case, he waited until he had the details, the facts and confirmation before he made a decision.
I don't quite follow your logic in attacking people personally - accusing them of being spineless, self-interested etc - when they did what they believe is in the best interests of their constituents. it merely doesn't happen to be what you think is right.
Well, fair enough. People can disagree. But why rip into them personally?
Mr. Hollett, I just have difficulty with ALL politicians. I take everything they say with a grain of salt; I do not believe anything they tell me; and I do think they are only concerned for themselves; meaning, I think, they will do or say anything to save their political lives.
Fair enough, Steve.
At least slagging all equally ensures no one gets left out.
Post a Comment