Canada's coup d'etat: Opposition parties join to overthrow gov't (Part 2)

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
It's sadly better than an ultra-conservative whose basis is 20$ donations from religious families who think that Jesus gave them oil.

I'm not a religious family nor do I believe in Jesus. Nor do the vast majority of Conservative donors I know.

And he's not an ultra-conservative. You really need a reality check. May I suggest leaving academia and leaving Quebec? May open your eyes.

[notyoueither]

Why do you think it's funny, OBoris?

Do you think Asher is the only other person who will read this thread?

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Asher


Yeah, that's what I thought.

It's very clear that the public does not want this coalition and wants to be able to vote for it.

There's a reason you and the Liberals are terrified at the possibility of an election, and that's precisely why you refuse to acknowledge it as an option.

No, I'm terrified of an election because we haven't replaced Dion yet.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


No, I'm terrified of an election because we haven't replaced Dion yet.

Why not?

Holy ****, just get the Liberals into a room and vote. Why is this so difficult?

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Asher


Why not?

Holy ****, just get the Liberals into a room and vote. Why is this so difficult?

I have no idea why he hasn't stepped down and appointed an interim leader. I can see why you'd want to wait for a convention with delegates from all over the country rather than some back-room deal.

I can defend the idea of a Bloc-supported Libs and NDP coalition in a theoretical sense. I'm not sure I can in practice with the current people.

[Asher]

If they used the delegate system last time to pick Dion, might I suggest they change up their method?

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Asher
If they used the delegate system last time to pick Dion, might I suggest they change up their method?

The US used voting to re-elect George Bush, would you suggest they change that too?

Best we can hope for is that next time the anyone but Ignatieff crowd (mind you I supported that view last time) not pick someone totally unsuitable for the role of leader.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
The US used voting to re-elect George Bush, would you suggest they change that too?

Yes, too much emphasis is given to the hick states.

Best we can hope for is that next time the anyone but Ignatieff crowd (mind you I supported that view last time) not pick someone totally unsuitable for the role of leader.

Ignatieff is their best leadership candidate.

But on the premise that the Liberal Party is fundamentally stupid, I predict they're going to pick Bob Rae on the basis of his impressive credentials running Ontario into the ground in epic style.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher
And he's not an ultra-conservative. You really need a reality check. May I suggest leaving academia and leaving Quebec? May open your eyes.

Huh?

Iraq War
Fan of Friedrich Hayek
Criticized Mulroney for failing to take Thatcher's route
President of National Citizen Coalition

Get a clue. Seriously.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Obviously, you have nothing to counter that argument. Thank you for conceding the point.

No Ben. Any argument that a government that meets once a year is acceptable is silly. I've conceded nothing, I'm just not going on a trip to the Benaverse today.

1. I don't think asking the GG for prorogation is a bad thing, nor does it qualify, 'by any means'.

Harper is the legitimate prime minister. He won the election fair and square. He has only delayed the confidence vote, not denied the vote.

Now, why don't we give him a chance to act on his mandate, which he has earned?

You are a rabid partisan with absolutely no credibility on the issue.


Let's play Name the Author shall we? Who said this?

Yep. Definition of fascism right there. We are no longer a democracy, if we cannot force a non-confidence motion on the government.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Huh?

Iraq War
Fan of Friedrich Hayek
Criticized Mulroney for failing to take Thatcher's route
President of National Citizen Coalition

Get a clue. Seriously.

I'm not sure you know what ultra-conservative means.

How an ultra-conservative can support public health care, and even increase its funding, is beyond me -- but apparently not beyond you.

Supporting the Iraq War (as a member of the opposition, whose job is to oppose what the primary party is doing ) is not an inherently conservative viewpoint, you seem to be very confused as to what conservatism is. You seem to be equating "conservatism" with "anything you disagree with", which is cute, but wrong.

Friedrich Hayek? You mean the man who wrote Why I am not a Conservative but believes in free market capitalism? Why, if that isn't an indictment that anyone who is a fan of his work as an "ultra-conservative" I don't know what is.

Re: Thatcher, I haven't seen any stories about that but I wouldn't be surprised, but again it does not define "ultra conservative".

The National Citizens Coalition is also not ultra-conservative, it is more Libertarian than anything else.

Why don't you do us all a favour and provide us your cute definition of "ultra-conservative". I'm willing to bet it resembles anyone who is right of center, which you seem to be confusing with the term "conservative".

An "ultra conservative" would never stand for universal healthcare, arts tax credits/incentives, supporting a "free vote" for issues like gay marriage. There is nothing extremely conservative with Harper's positions, they're all typical conservative viewpoints or, in some cases, more "liberal" than some conservatives would like (especially in the USA). Hell, Ben didn't even vote for Harper because he wasn't conservative enough and he probably wasn't alone. You need to recalibrate your political spectrum to reflect reality.

[Sharpe]

Frankly I think the Conservatives now probably regret having the election in October - if they hadn't, this situation would have led to a much better excuse to call an election and more possibly could have led to their much desired majority.

I also think the Liberals now probably regret that Martin resigned after being defeated by Harper in 2006, or wish he was still a MP right now as he would be a much better choice as an interim leader, because he was a respected finance minister - which would resonate well right now with this major recession. Yeah I know the Chretien-Martin civil war in the Liberals would be a problem admittedly.

I really think they should put into law (or the Constitution - though ouch that would be a pain to do), that Parliament should be required to sit at least one day during every month instead of this once a year.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sharpe
Frankly I think the Conservatives now probably regret having the election in October - if they hadn't, this situation would have led to a much better excuse to call an election and more possibly could have led to their much desired majority.

This situation would not have happened unless the election occurred.

The Liberals were too scared to even call an election, let alone form a coalition. It wasn't until they realized they lost the respect and confidence from the general Canadian public as much as they had that they decided to steal power through the back door.

They wouldn't have had to ally themselves with the Bloc if we didn't have the election as well, which means they'd get far more public support.

So I don't see how any person who follows politics could see how the CPC can regret the election, as a result of it the Conservative party is now looking at record levels of support. I'm beginning to suspect you were lying about what you did earlier, or you work for the Liberal party.

[Sharpe]

I don't work for the Liberal Party - do you work for the Conservatives? (just kidding)

Let's say that the Conservatives hadn't called an election. When they did their economic update, the reaction of the opposition would have been a similar outrage - because of the lack of stimulus and the proposed loss of party subsidies.

Except instead of trying to form a coalition, they would be trying to force an election because they would think that the lack of stimulus would be a possible winning issue for them (except it likely wouldn't as the Conservatives would likely point to their tax cuts as a stimulus and probably would propose additional spending during any campaign to counter them).

In the last election, there wasn't a focal reason for it - most people saw through Harper's exageration that Parliament was disfunctional (though admittedly now it is disfunctional). This economic crisis however, would have been regarded by the public as an extremely valid reason for an election.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sharpe
I don't work for the Liberal Party - do you work for the Conservatives? (just kidding)

Let's say that the Conservatives hadn't called an election. When they did their economic update, the reaction of the opposition would have been a similar outrage - because of the lack of stimulus and the proposed loss of party subsidies.

They wouldn't have proposed the subsidy thing unless they had their strong showing in the election. Otherwise they would have done it long ago.

And let's snap back to reality here, it's not the subsidies and it's not the lack of stimulus which triggered this -- this was in the works beforehand. This was the parties deciding after they lost the election that they all had something to gain by working together and powersharing.

Except instead of trying to form a coalition, they would be trying to force an election because they would think that the lack of stimulus would be a possible winning issue for them (except it likely wouldn't as the Conservatives would likely point to their tax cuts as a stimulus and probably would propose additional spending during any campaign to counter them).

Yes, and if they had called the election on the grounds that Harper was not trying to help the economy, they'd have done better than they did.

Again, this scenario would've helped the Liberals more than the Tories.

Once again, your understanding of the current political situation suggests your qualifications must be impressive indeed. I think you are the Liberal's chief strategist....

As a result of the election, the Tories legitimately increased their seat count and share of the vote.

As a result of this naked power grab by the Liberals, the Conservatives have never had higher support from Canadians.

So to say they must regret the election is completely baffling.