And now a word from Pat Martin

by Aaron Wherry

Via Twitter, the NDP MP reacts to the government’s latest move to limit debate in the House.

This is a fucking disgrace…closure again. And on the Budget! There’s not a democracy in the world that would tolerate this jackboot shit

For gods sake. In these uncertain economic times, don’t you think our parliament should be debating our federal budget? Some due diligence?




Browse

And now a word from Pat Martin

  1. Mr. “Potty-mouth” just can’t help himself.    Karma Pat, Karma.

    • Where does the karma apply? Or are you projecting a future NDP majority govt? :)

    • You poor dear delicate flower, you.

    • I’m sure that karma is a pretty universal rule so allow me to say, “Karma Steve, karma….”

  2. Wow, for his sake I hope it turns out someone just stole Pat Martin’s blackberry and is just pranking him… otherwise, he’s gone a little off the rails.

    Profanities aside, I do wonder, why are we increasing the # of MPs in the House when they won’t get the chance to debate anything?

    • How often do you want to talk this stuff to death? Anybody who watches the debates in the House has to be bored out of their skulls. There is no real debate. A bunch of talking points on all sides and in the end the legislation passes.

      How long do we need to talk about a budget that happened last spring?

      • I’m ambivalent on how much it gets debated, it’ll get passed regardless.  I’m saying why hire another 30 MPs if the idea is to not debate anything?

        Big cost to the taxpayer with no benefit in return.  A waste of money.

  3. Awesome. Tell it how it is Pat.

  4. You missed the ‘best’ one:

    PatMartinMP – Pat Martin MP @LettingSmokeOut fuck you #ndp #cdnpoli

    • Sometimes when people troll they get a response.  It’s not particularly surprising.  It’s like spitting on someone and being smug when they punch you.

  5. Considering the hour and the tenor, I suspect the honourable member may be somewhat tired and emotional.

    • Or drunk.

      • Or plain nuts.

  6. He’s just doing this to make Mulcair look calm cool and collected.

    • No kidding! He is just a grumpy old man!

      • Who has a missing screw.

  7. Pat Martin just told someone else: “eat my shorts”  The NDP should probably confiscate his iPhone before he gets carried away.

  8. I dislike ungentlemanly language immensely, but could we back up a moment to the bit about our federal government invoking closure to curtail debate on the national BUDGET?

    That didn’t really happen, did it?

    • Really! It might just be a reason for the profanity? But by all means lets just focus on the profanity

      …oops that sounded like a shot across your bows – entirely unintended sir.

      • The profanity has ensured that Martin’s actual concern will be ignored completely, in favour of watching him make a spectacle of himself. Enjoy the counterproductive red meat.

        • It would have been ignored completely if he had not used profanity, I don’t see your point?

          If anything the profanity and media exposure that comes with it may cause some to actually pay attention to what this pathetic excuse for a government is doing.

          • The point is that when red meat is thrown to the Conservative base, it is standing up for real Canadians. When anyone else even appears to do so, it’s evil and must be stamped out and whoever does it is an islamofacist-lefie-commie-idiot who does not support the military and is counter-productive.

            In other words, there is no point. It’s just the standard hypocrisy we have all come to expect from the Conservatives and their thralls.

            There’s no point in arguing, it’s simply the way of things. The sun rises and sets, Conservatives lie, cheat, and steal while making a mockery of rationality and logic (both of which have a liberal bias.)

          • No, it won’t.

            Turn it around. If a cabinet minister was caught on tape railing at length about how effing evil and stupid the opposition is, for doing (or not doing) whatever, is it more likely to a) Get more of the public on his side and genuinely interested in the policy issues involved, or b) Consider him a juvenile jackass? 

            Same thing. It’s not special and awesome and speaking truth to power just because you agree with the sentiments.

          • That entirely depends on which side of the fence you’re sitting on; whether you think it’s ok to shut down debate because there’s been enough already, or whether you think a NEW parliament has a duty to go through it yet again, It is after all the national budget, and process matters. Martin will have lots of sympathizers even if they do have to first genuflect to conventional views of public discourse.The comparison to a cabinet minister is overblown. Martin is after all a part of her maj’s loyal but occasionally foul mouthed opposition. People will be split on this. From a purely politcal pov it’s got him lots of attention, which is pretty well what passes nowadays for effective politicking. Indeed, at the rate this govt is going it may well be all that’s left for anyone in opposition to Harper’s law.

          • It already has so, yet again, you are wrong.

          • You go ahead and keep thinking that.

          • I will because I’m right. Already we have two journalist writing about it and that would not have happened had Mr. Martin not used profanity.

            So continue to live in your screwy little world where up is down and peace is war.

      • Not at all kcm2! I read your comment as agreement from the start, even before you added the oops. I did wonder a moment later if maybe you weren’t actually echoing my take, but not enough to write a reply to inquire.

  9. I’m rather fond of calling a spade a spade myself. It’s quite refreshing really.That’s if it’s called for[ they're really shutting down debate on the whole budget] and if it was spontaneous – he really was angry. Anger is good…when it’s called for…it is a bloody disgrace. But then so is the whole Harper traveling carnival far as i’m concerned.

  10. Unlike the typical politician, he admitted to it.  For some insight, have a look-see at the account of the troll who provoked it ( twitter.com/LettingSmokeOut).  A bigger wingnut, you are unlikely to ever come across.  Well, unless you too are a fundie Catholic!  Praise Glorious Fucking Satan!

    • Ah, so it’s okay for an MP to publicly curse someone out if it’s someone they really, really hate, and you agree?

      • Steve does it all the time — belittling people who have union membership, who have a viewpoint left of Attila the Hun, …. The language isn’t the same but it’s the intent that diminishes.  Do you cheer when he does it?

        • I must have missed the coverage of him ranting about “F*** those unions, I mean, really, come on, just f*** them and the horse they rode in on, I can’t believe how f***ing bad this opposition is,” etc. Belittling just doesn’t have the same rhetorical value, no matter how badly you strain for equivalence.

          • Another delicate flower, I see.

          • Not at all, and I have no substantive problem with the language. I do think it’s pretty hilariously ironic coming from an MP and from a party that claims to be all about civility and respect.

          • The right does set the tenor — they’ve used words like liberal, socialist, union, labour, etc. as if they were cuss words in their attempt to re-frame discourse. It’s all about context and in this sense Steve Harper and his minions are no different.

          • “As if they were.” Keep reaching; you’d be first in line to denounce a government MP for doing the same thing as Martin.

          • AVR, I’m not reaching. Words and their context have impact. I can spew “Fuck” for infinity but ultimately it’s meaningless without context. Nice attempt to deflect though. 

  11. Pat martin is the loud-mouthed jerk at the back of the union hall shouting obscenities at those trying to accomplish something worthwhile.
    He has made no significant contribution to the country in his time in Ottawa.
    His continued election wins are a testimony to the limitations those who vote for him put on their lives by assuming louder is better.
    His tiresome back-country vulgarity will assure the continued status of the NDP party as a simple protest party for those on the left with occasional blips from confused voters from Quebec.

    • Um let’s see, Rob Anders, Pierre Polliverre, Gazebos Clement, Dean Del Mastro …. Shall we continue on with a listing of Steve’s Trained Seals and Pom Pom Brigade?

      • You may be commenting on the wrong thread–I believe this one concerns the publicity antics of an NDP member.
        However, if you are patient, I`m sure Wherry will give you an opportunity to comment on the above Conservative MP`s.

        • Well, you wanted to discuss loud-mouthed jerks so limiting it to Pat Martin is, well so limiting, when the best loud-mouth jerks sit behind Steve. Corollary: Dmitri, Ezra, Tom, …   

          • Patience

    • back-country vulgarity

      What an odd way to characterize it.

      I assure you that we use the f-word in the big city too.  Also, Winnipeg has their NHL team back, so I’m not sure it’s fair to refer to them as “back-country” anymore.

  12. the real F**king disgrace is stephen F**king harper and his F**king totalitarian ways of F**king running things.

    the other F**king disgrace is the F**king media in this F**king c*unt-ree. they don’t F**king report that our F**king democracy is going into the F**king toilet, they huff and puff about stupid F**king crap like tweets.

    We need a F**king coup, and we need one now. a BIG one…..

    • Russell, shouldn’t you be busy taking down tents so Mayor Moonbeam can win his election???

    • Russell Barth = Pat Martin.

    • You’re right these darn Conservatives aren’t democratic at all! The only reasonable response is to overthrow this government that is less than a year old through force! Down with democracy that results in things we don’t like! Up with craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazy people!

  13. How eloquent. He has left us no choice but to raise him up to the ranks of MacDonald, Blake, Disraeli, Churchill, and other great parliamentarians. 

    The sad fact is that the NDP are just as accomplished at closure as any other party. He’s just ticked that HE’s not the one with the jack-boots on.

    • Ah come on Dave. That’s a bit of a cheap shot for you. I’m no fan of the NDP, but where is Martins prior form on closure? I thought his problem was more in the way of not knowing when to shut the f**k up. :)

       This govt is on track to break all time records for the use of closure. I never thought i’d see the day Chretien was made to look like a democrat.

    • The sad fact is that the NDP are just as accomplished at closure as any other party.

      Has the federal NDP ever invoked closure on any debate ever?  Have they even ever been in a POSITION to invoke closure?  I honestly don’t know, but I find it hard to believe that a party that has never been in government has a long history of invoking closure to limit debate.

      • My cynicism has indeed got the better part of me. I’m fairly confident that you can find examples of provincial NDP governments invoking closure. 

        Why the cynicism? The Conservatives promised they would be different and they bollixed that up on Day Freaking One. Why on earth would the Dippers be any different. Political parties and their operatives are in it for their own advancements and their own gain. They (Conservatives, Liberals, Dippers) consistently put Party before Country time and time again. Yes, even blessed Saint Jack Amongst The Fans shoved that woman out of the way during the gold medal game so he could be seen on camera. Sadly, our system is the best we have right now, and you wonder why only 50-60% of the country bothers to vote? 

        Thanks, I’ll shut up now. 

        • I certainly agree that an NDP majority government would use closure, and probably not even hesitate much. I kinda doubt they’d use closure to end debate EIGHT TIMES in their first 80 sitting days as a majority government (Chretien’s record was SIX times over a more than 200 sitting day time span, and after he’d been in office for almost a decade) but still, it’s true that the NDP undoubtedly would use closure too.

          Still though. EIGHT TIMES. The Tories are averaging cutting off debate once every ten sitting days. This last time on the BUDGET. And the House hasn’t even been sitting for the equivalent of three months yet! At one point I thought the Tories were just trying to break Chretien’s record, but now I think they’re going all Gretzky on us. They’re trying to set a record that no future government will ever be able to surpass! LOL

  14. I rarely, if ever, agree with Martin but I am glad he is around.

    J M Keynes ~ Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assaults of thoughts on the unthinking

  15. So he is upset our political system does not work ‘his way’? Sorry Pat, the conservatives have a majority, get used to it.

  16. First of all Pat Martin is an idiot. Anybody who takes anything that comes out of the man’s mouth is not living in reality. Martin’s only claim to fame is his outrageous rants which often don’t make sense.

    I honestly believe the man is not well!

    • “There is no real debate”

      According to you[so far] Martin is…”nuts”…”missing a screw”…noy living in reality and honestly not well.

      Way to raise the level of debate all on your little onesome hollinm.

      • This comment was deleted.

        • “Besides the NDP will vote against anything and everything that this government tries to do no matter whether it is in the best interest of what they call ‘ordinary Canadians’”

          That’s simply ludicrous. Not even worth rebutting.

          Why should i take a hike when you’re the one who can’t seem to string two logically consistent thoughts together? You want real debate and respect, yet you offer none.

           I’m not defending EVERYTHING Martin does…see the difference…Merv …buddy?

      • Instead of focusing on me why don’t you focus on the left wing potty mouth who is disgracing parliament while he tweets his vile rhetoric from the House of Commons. I can’t believe you would defend this type of behaviour.

        Anybody who talks like that to his followers or uses that kind of over the top rhetoric is not in control of all his facilities. This is not the first time. Look at his rantings and ravings in the House. Beavers biting off their own testicles? Give me a break.

        • I guess we just have different values. You’re outraged by Martin’s potty mouth and not remotely bothered by your teams vile behaviour toward any kind of dissent, and the CPC’s contempt for parliament. From my pov your outrage is entirely selective. But you’re right it isn’t reallly my job to go around pointing it out -  it is obvious you don’t pay any attention to what i write anyway.  

          • Talk about not paying attention to what is written. As I said previously these pieces of legislation have been debated for the past five years. The opposition is ideologically opposed to the legislation and so no amount of debate will change that. Quit ignoring this reality.

            Read John Ivison in the National Post a couple of days ago where he outlined how many hours of debate in the House and how many hours in committee have been devoted to discussing the crime bill.

            I know you would rather slag the government than to check the facts. The government is limiting debate and putting in closure because the opposition are no longer interested in debate they want to kill all the various pieces of legislation. So there is blame to go around.

          • Oh for lands sakes! Of course they’re opposed. It’s their job to be opposed if they think that’s not in the interests of the country. They’ve provided plenty of evidence the govt zilch, , nada, nothing at all – unless you consider unreprted crime evidence? The reason this stuff has died already once or twice on the order books is beacuse Harper has wanted it to – he called an election in other words. You and facts are total strangers, most of the time.

          • Yes they are the opposition and it is their job to oppose. However, may I point out that they did not win the election. The government has the right to pass its legislation. To obstruct simply to obstruct is not in the best interest of the country. Their job is to try and improve legislation.When they win the next election then they can introduce to their own ideological pure legislation. However, we both know that’s not going to happen.

            So you get what you get. The government introducing time allocation and closure. While the opposition and the media can rail about it the fact is this appears to be the only way the government can keep its agenda moving through the House.

            You can argue about the process and you can argue that the government has been  provided evidence that the crime legislation is flawed but that does not matter. The Conservatives were elected with a majority government and they have the right to pass their legislation.

            It is the people who will decide in four years if they agree with the direction of the country or not. Not the opposition parties.

  17. It’s spelled “thrall,” dear. And I like them a whole lot less than I just dislike you smug twerps.

  18. I must have missed the coverage of him ranting about “F*** those unions, I mean, really, come on, just f*** them and the horse they rode in on, I can’t believe how f***ing bad this opposition is,” etc.

  19. At least he didn’t say “treacherous”

  20. For ONCE could people pull their heads out of the sand and consider the substance more than the form?  Let’s debate his message, not his use of common vernacular.

    • Kudos. That’s exactly my point. The Cons think nothing of tarring and feathering anyone who disagrees with them but have a hissyfit when someone uses a blue word. It’s all about context and intent.

    • Too late; that’s now the story. Have fun.

    • OK, I’ll bite:  how much more debate over the first reading of a budget tabled 7 months ago and upon which the federal government campaigned and won a majority would you suggest there be?

      • Really? I thought the federal government campaigned on the threat of a Liberal/NDP coalition.

        • I thought I heard Steve campaigning on some sailing theme. Something about a rudder or a tiller or some other nautical implement.

        • And I thought it was the Liberal/NDP coalition rejecting the budget that brought about the election they then lost.  Pat Martin appears not to accept the adage about repeating forgotten history, but given his demeanor, I’ll leave it to others to inform him.

          • Nope. What brought about the election was a motion of non-confidence. Wasn’t a budget vote at all.

          • Not according to Saint Jack:

            (from an article appearing in our gracious host)

            Sometimes you guess wrong. “Mr. Harper had an opportunity to address the needs of hard-working middle-class Canadians and families, and he missed that opportunity. He just doesn’t get it,” Layton told reporters in the Commons foyer, minutes after Flaherty’s budget speech. “New Democrats will not support the budget as presented.”The “as presented” bit made everybody run around for a few hours trying to figure out whether Layton was hoping to be wooed with new concessions, but nothing came of it. Politically, the budget was dead. But the government had not yet been defeated. That happened on Friday, when the three opposition parties passed a Liberal motion of non-confidence over the contempt-of-Parliament finding.

          • What, was that paragraph too long for you?

            Hint: Try the last sentence.

          • Oh, dear Thwin, but that the forest ceased to blind you to the trees.  The non-confidence motion three days after Jack shiite upon the budget was just the blade he and Iggy chose to dispatch the cursed Harper for his budgetary sins.  It’s a little early to be rewriting history, doncha think?

            BTW, you never did answer the original question as to how much more debate on a 7 month old budget is warranted?  Perhaps you think at least another 4 or 5 months, so budget debates can start stack up in parliament like so many airplanes over JFK on a foggy day.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *