[Gunnair]

Macguyver Macguyver:

I had a few thoughts on this still.

1) What is you ran your own business, or were the CEO of a corporation and one of your VP’s was spending an abnormal amount of time with someone inside a competing corporation. Does common sense dictate that in the interests of the shareholders and your own ass that you should remove that person from access to privileged information, corporate secrets and so forth? I’m pretty sure 99 times out of 100 a smart CEO does something about possible breaches of the company’s best interests.

2) Humour me and pretend that the worst has happened, this married man had sexual relations with the Chinese reporter (spy). Now he has been compromised and they have him by the balls, and to prove they are serious about blackmailing him they have already embarrassed him with the emails. Revelations of the sexual relationship will ruin his marriage, ruin his career and destroy his family. Yet he is still working in his former job with access to information that is sensitive (foreign affairs = maybe he knows when our PM is going to pop in on the troops in Afghanistan). Don't you think there is the smallest possibility that this top member of our government is compromised and that the security of our country trumps his assertions that “nothing happened”?

You can tell yourself that “nothing happened” but you can’t be sure, can you? Are you willing to put your head on the chopping block on the good word of Bob Dechert? What kind of damage can a compromised MP do to a country? Even if the risk is only 1%, is it worth it when firing and replacing him really causes no issues at all?

Prepare for the worst and hope for the best, isn’t that how the saying goes. In my opinion, I don't think keeping this guy around serves any purpose other than to save his face. The conservatives would be much better off without him. Throw him under the bus and move on.

I'm not sure what compels you to push this particular issue from reality into fantasy. You propose a series of hypotheticals that didn't happen in order to see if the response is different. of course it is. Most people who are disagreeing with you here aren't hacks that give the current government a by on every little thing. However, the guy engaged in nothing more than flirty emails with a Chinese reporter - that's it (so far). There is no evidence presented yet to pillory the guy. I will readily concede that he has not shown the best judgment and should be chastised for it. Extra training, some time in the political doghouse - whatever.

Frankly, the reason I suspect a political agenda with you is your inability to accept the facts as presented and to engage in these hypotheticals in order to present the situation as so much more worse than what the reported reality is. (I continue to say 'as reported' because of course, more might come of it) Again, flirty emails - that's it. No shady hotel room, no states secrets being whispered as pillow talk - flirty emails.

Moreover, you agenda to pillory the guy also smacks of a political agenda. He is innocent until proven guilty of doing what you suggest - full stop. That's the democracy we live in.

[Macguyver]

Brenda Brenda:

You want to fire your "VP" over "what if's"?
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply here, I guess?

The first year of business school you'd learn that one of the keys to building a solid business is minimizing risk.

You’re telling me “what if he isn’t compromised?” and I’m saying “why take the risk?”.

What obligation should we have to this person who was put in a position of trust and now he’s shown really poor judgement? Worst case scenario he is in deep and therefore our government’s security is compromised.

If he’s compromised then we’ve done due diligence to limit the risk if we get rid of him. If he is not compromised the only one who got hurt is the man who made bad judgements.

What do we owe to him? Why would we assume the risk for his poor judgement?

And yes, throw the VP under the bus. Business is business, I’m not a business man to take risks like that.

[Macguyver]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

With that said, for a VP or any senior management to take such a risk would put his career and the future of his family in serious jeopardy.

Exactly. And this guy has shown poor judgement.

So why are you willing to take the risk for him and let him keep his job?

You options are:
1) Keep him and assume the risk (maybe 1% or less even) that he is ok - the consequenses of that 1% is the future of your business (or your country in this case).

2) Fire him, assume no risk, and be done with it.

I don't get it, why is everyone so willing to take a bullet for this guy?

[Brenda]

Just a question for you. Since when is politics business?

I am pretty sure he has sign various contracts, breaching them would lead to his resignation. You cannot just fire someone because you assume something. Unless of course you want to pay. False accusations usually do not work out well.

All there is, for now, are flirty emails with another woman. To me, that is more a personal matter than that it is leaking State Secrets.

[Macguyver]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Moreover, you agenda to pillory the guy also smacks of a political agenda. He is innocent until proven guilty of doing what you suggest - full stop. That's the democracy we live in.

Again, why are you so willing to take that risk?

We have no obligation to prove him guilty of anything. He is already guilty of poor judgement, and you cannot say for certain that that is the end of it.

You are willing to take the risk for no real reward, when you can get rid of the risk and the only one paying for the error in judgement is the guy who made the error in judgement.

If you can tell me 100% that he is all on the up and up then I am happy to shut up about it.

But until then why are we assuming the risk in return for absolutely nothing?

[Macguyver]

Brenda Brenda:

Just a question for you. Since when is politics business?

I am pretty sure he has sign various contracts, breaching them would lead to his resignation. You cannot just fire someone because you assume something. Unless of course you want to pay. False accusations usually do not work out well.

All there is, for now, are flirty emails with another woman. To me, that is more a personal matter than that it is leaking State Secrets.

Like I said, why are you willing to assume that risk? We do not owe him anything for his poor judgement. He does however have access to alot of information that others would like to see.

And if you think politics is not business, take a look at the billions that are already being spent on the next US presidential race. It is all business.

If you're willing to tell me that you know 100% that this guy is ok, and assume the risk yourself, then maybe I'll shut up. But why would you do that? What do you owe this guy?

[Brenda]

If politics was business, the country would not be in the state it is. Politics is politics.

You elected the guy, didn't you?

[Macguyver]

Brenda Brenda:

If politics was business, the country would not be in the state it is. Politics is politics.

You elected the guy, didn't you?

Exactly, the country is in the state it is in because we do not do the right thing at moments like this. We assume the risk for no apparent reason and when the shit hits the fan we as taxpayers and citizens of this country pay for it.

What does it cost us to replace him? Nothing

What are the risks if he is being blackmailed? Huge

Are you 100% sure that he is clean? No

Seems like a no brainer to me.

[Brenda]

Are you 100% sure ANYONE is clean? No.

I guess the discussion ends here.

[andyt]

He can't be fired as an MP - that's up the the voters in the next election. He should be fired from his cabinet post because he's shown himself to have poor judgement.

[bootlegga]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

Thinking with your dick is rarely a good idea ask Bill Clinton.

[mentalfloss]

Well even though I didn't vote for him, at least he likes Asians.

[ShepherdsDog]

On page 2

Brenda Brenda:

I don't care about peoples personal lives. As long as they can separate business from pleasure, then no, I do not give a crap and I think this is a waste of paper, bandwidth and my time, actually.

But on page 9.....

Brenda Brenda:

Are you 100% sure ANYONE is clean? No.

I guess the discussion ends here.

Kronk no unnerstan wommun talk.

[Macguyver]

Brenda Brenda:

Are you 100% sure ANYONE is clean? No.

I guess the discussion ends here.

Take a stand and vouch for him then. If you're comfortable publically stating that you are willing to assume the risk that he has created and put your name to it then ya, lets end the debate.

Given that:
1) He is a high ranking MP

2) “It’s pretty well established that Xinhua correspondents are working for Chinese security ministries,” - Mr. Burton, a Brock University professor who served as a political and economic counsellor in Beijing from 1998 to 2000

3) “You are so beautiful. I really like the picture of you by the water with your cheeks puffed. That look is so cute, I love it when you do that. Now, I miss you even more.” - is one of his statements.

Go ahead, assume the risk in exchange for nothing. That is what you are asking us Canadians to do.

[Brenda]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

On page 2

Brenda Brenda:

I don't care about peoples personal lives. As long as they can separate business from pleasure, then no, I do not give a crap and I think this is a waste of paper, bandwidth and my time, actually.

But on page 9.....

Brenda Brenda:

Are you 100% sure ANYONE is clean? No.

I guess the discussion ends here.

Kronk no unnerstan wommun talk.

I like wasting my time when I'm bored