[PublicAnimalNo9]

We could always slip some Ritalin into their water coolers

[peck420]

Andyt,

You can get there on a whim, no problem.

A couple thousand no-name environmentalists do it every time.

The problem is you don't get to take part in the government discussions, which wouldn't occur for the opposition parties any ways.

This is simply free airtime for all parties involved...too bad it makes them all look like children.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I'd like to see some style in politics, starting with a sense of humor. Unfortunately most politicians have average personalities and, I swear this is true, think that they personally should be heard.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

I'd like to see some style in politics, starting with a sense of humor. Unfortunately most politicians have average personalities and, I swear this is true, think that they personally should be heard.

Well c'mon Bruce. One doesn't aspire to reach the higher levels of the political spectrum without having an ego

[Strutz]

$1:

Here, we take a look at some notably rude moments of House of Commons past, possibly fuelled by Parliamentary privilege, which means comments made in the House are protected from libel laws.

1849: Family Compact members burned down the Province of Canada's then-rotating Parliament buildings in Montreal, destroying more than 20,000 books and all of Canada's public records. Eggs thrown at Governor General Lord Elgin.

1971: Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau allegedly tells Tory MP Lincoln Alexander to "f--- off."

1985: In what would begin a long line of sexist remarks against outspoken Liberal MP Sheila Copps, Conservative John Crosbie tells her to "quiet down, baby." Copps famously responded: "I'm not his baby. I'm nobody's baby and I'd like him to withdraw those remarks."

1991: Tory MP William Kempling calls Copps a "slut."

1991: Tory MP Jack Shields allegedly says "shut up, Sambo," a racist slur, to NDP MP Howard McCurdy, the only black member in the House. Shields later denies it.

1997: Liberal minister Doug Young seemingly refers to Reform MP Deborah Grey as "more than a slab of bacon."

1997: Reform MP Darrel Stinson calls Progressive Conservative Leader Jean Charest a "fat little, chubby little sucker."

1997: Another slag at Copps, this time by Reform MP Ian McClelland. "Sheila, that was a sh---y thing to do and confirms you are one bitch," he said.

2003: After Progressive Conservative Elsie Wayne asked Liberal Defence Minister John McCallum if military vehicles would get markings to help avoid friendly fire, McCallum responded by making fun of Wayne's sweater, which was black and criss-crossed with a sparkling pattern. "It has been suggested that if our soldiers were to wear the dress of the honorable member, that they would be very well identified."

2005: Tory MP John Reynolds calls Liberal MP Joe Volpe a "sleazebag" after the former criticized his spending habits

2006: Conservative Peter MacKay seemed to swing way below the belt at former girlfriend/former Tory Belinda Stronach when answering this question on the environment from Liberal David McGuinty: "What about your dog?" "You already have her," McKay replied, later denying the statement referred to Stronach.

Link: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111215/parliamentary-rudeness-long-tradition-111215/

[GreenTiger]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Potty mouthed twit should understand that language like that is only effective if you have the testicular fortitude to back it up, which, given his lame apology he obviously doesn't.

Otherwise, it's just another ineffective slur that shows a definate lack of respect for the office he holds.

I think it is more that he realizes he was out of line and used language that he shouldn't use in Commons and apologized for it which is the right thing to do.

[eureka]

Megan Leslie, the MP that Kent tried to browbeat, is NDP, not Liberal. Trudeaus' outburst was not politically inspired but a reaction to another piece of Tory excrement lying to Parliament.

Interesting how Leslie is getting under Tory skin. She is much too bright for Kent.

The Toronto Star this morning had a rundown of Unparliamentary episodes in recent years.

All but one involved a Tory MP. Mouths are all they have.

[RUEZ]

eureka eureka:

Mouths are all they have.

Plus that little majority government.

[eureka]

peck420 peck420:

Andyt,

You can get there on a whim, no problem.

A couple thousand no-name environmentalists do it every time.

The problem is you don't get to take part in the government discussions, which wouldn't occur for the opposition parties any ways.

This is simply free airtime for all parties involved...too bad it makes them all look like children.

It would have occurred for the opposition. This conference should have been for an all Party delegation.

Kyoto was, if I recall correctly. Partisanship has no place in deliberations about how to stop the 300,000 annual deaths from climate change (and growing), or to stop the 50 million climate refugees that we have now from growing to the billion or more expected within this century.

[EyeBrock]

300,000 annual deaths? Prove it.

[PluggyRug]

eureka eureka:

Kyoto was, if I recall correctly. Partisanship has no place in deliberations about how to stop the 300,000 annual deaths from climate change (and growing), or to stop the 50 million climate refugees that we have now from growing to the billion or more expected within this century.

Please prove the above assertions.

[2Cdo]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

300,000 annual deaths? Prove it.

I'm not holding my breath for anything remotely resembling the truth from the pathological liar.

[Gunnair]

$1:

Climatic changes already are estimated to cause over 150,000 deaths annually

http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/

$1:

The findings of the report indicate that every year climate change leaves over 300,000 people dead, 325 million people seriously affected, and economic losses of US$125 billion. Four billion people are vulnerable, and 500 million people are at extreme risk. These figures represent averages
based on projected trends over many years and carry a significant margin of error. The real numbers could be lower or higher

http://www.ghf-ge.org/human-impact-report.pdf

Forgot to mention the caveat, Eureka.

$1:

Application of this proportion projects that more than 300,000 die due to climate change every year—roughly equivalent to having an Indian Ocean tsunami annually.13 The number of deaths from weather-related disasters and gradual environmental degradation due to climate change — about 315,000 deaths per year — is based on a similar calculation, (i.e. an attribution of 40 percent from
weather-related disasters that translates into 40 percent of the death burden from weather disasters due to climate change and 4 percent of current death burden from disease14). Over 90 percent of the death toll relates to gradual onset of climate change which means deterioration in environmental quality, such as reduction in arable land, desertification and sea level rise, associated with climate change. As for the number of seriously affected, the basis for the estimations of deaths is negative health outcomes.

http://www.ghf-ge.org/human-impact-report.pdf

Not a lot to back up these assumptions and the net was cast pretty damned wide, too.

[gonavy47]

He's probably referring to the 300,000 who keeled over while shoveling snow in Britain last year, because of the coming ice age.

[gonavy47]

The whole Kent thing was a misunderstanding. Trudeau was referring to his father, and what a lot of other Canadians refer to him as.