Canada's Opposition Parties Vow to Bring Down Government, 1 month into its term...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The Governor General is either about to increase her own power or decrease it.

If she decides to grant the request of the Tories it will say that she has made the judgment that the Tories are across some magic threshold where a government composed of the Liberals et al is insufficiently representative of the wishes of Canadians to allow it to form. She will have increased her competence to that of a final arbiter of the will of the people.

If she decides to refuse the Tory request it will further the argument that her only role is that of a mediator.

OK. That could be the basis of a discussion.

Now we can get into a discussion of what constitutes the wishes of Canadians.

What do you say about a poll where one side (A) has one answer, and the other (B) has four?

Is that a valid poll on the viability of A?

What does it say about B that it requires 4 options to gain a majority?

[KrazyHorse]

Invited by the opponent to try to govern.

King Byng. Duh.

Mix the two and you have the current situation

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Yes they are, you dolt.

No they aren't, moron.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Invited by the opponent to try to govern.

King Byng. Duh.

Mix the two and you have the current situation

And King invited Meighen to govern at exactly what point?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


No they aren't, moron.

Whatever, douche. You're either stupid or incredibly disingenuous.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


And King invited Meighen to govern at exactly what point?

And this would make me guess that it's the former.

[notyoueither]

Do you have a clue about the origins of the Peterson government? Idiot.

[notyoueither]

Let me help you out.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0543-e.htm#KeyA10

10. What happened in the Ontario provincial election in 1985?
What did the Lieutenant Governor do in that case?
In the Ontario election of May 1985, the incumbent Progressive Conservatives (led by Frank Miller) won 52 seats, the Liberals (David Peterson) won 48 seats, and the NDP (Bob Rae) 25 seats. The Progressive Conservative leader selected a Cabinet, which was sworn in. The other two parties then entered into a written agreement that, should the Liberals form a government, the NDP would not try to defeat them for two years, and the Liberals would not call an election for the same period.

The Miller government was defeated on 18 June 1985 after the debate on the Throne Speech. Although Mr. Miller threatened to ask for a dissolution, his letter of resignation suggested that Mr. Peterson would be able to gain the confidence of the House and that he should be asked to form a government. The Lieutenant Governor followed this advice, and the Peterson government took over on 26 June 1985. However, the Lieutenant Governor made clear in his official statement that the written agreement had no legal force or effect and did not affect the powers of the Lieutenant Governor or of Members of the Legislative Assembly.

Do you understand the difference now, ****?

[KrazyHorse]

For those of you whose ability to reason is apparently damaged:

1) The formation of King's original government in 1925 as well as the coalition government in Ontario of 1985 imply that there is noting special about holding a plurality other than the fact that in the absence of something like the letter of support from the Progressives in 1925 the first opportunity to govern is granted to the plurality party

2) The refusal of Byng to dissolve Parliament in 1925 upon King's request implies that the G-G is loath to initiate another election when there are other options

Those two precedents together add up to the current situation.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Do you understand the difference now, ****?

Again, pushing me toward the first option. I've never claimed that the coalition government in Ontario demonstrated the precedent of overriding the PM's (Premier's) request to dissolve Parliament (Provincial Legislature) to avoid a quick election. I used it as an example of the willingness to use coalition/non-plurality parties to form the government after the plurality party had failed.

You unbelievable moron.

[KrazyHorse]

Going to bed now. Feel free to keep sputtering away, tool.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Again, pushing me toward the first option. I've never claimed that the coalition government in Ontario demonstrated the precedent of overriding the PM's (Premier's) request to dissolve Parliament (Provincial Legislature) to avoid a quick election. I used it as an example of the willingness to use coalition/non-plurality parties to form the government after the plurality party had failed.

You unbelievable moron.

And you are completely ignoring the point of who originated the suggestion that Peterson get a chance to govern.

It was the defeated premier, not the would-be one, ****.

[notyoueither]

I'd ask if I have to spell it out for you, but I fear you are too busy saving funds to pay for your grandchildrens' taxes to pay any attention.

I have no idea where and why you went so seriously off the rails, KH. I will say it is not funny. I have little cause to laugh. It is rather sad.

In fact, I'd rather have the socialist kitten back. At least that person was on the ball enough to catch the drift without being smacked with a two-by-four.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I'll thank you the fvck the hell off and stop putting words in my mouth.



Where did I say it would be a good idea, aszhole?

You are a complete and utter ******* these days.

**** you. I'm done with you.

There must be something in the Alberta water that prevents civil discourse.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil



There must be something in the Alberta water that prevents civil discourse.

Excuse me-- AHEM--- AHEM I say