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

[Fake Boris]

Did anyone see the footage of Harper asking the GG to consider a Tory-Bloc-NDP coaliton instead of granting Martin's request for a dissolution of Parliament?

I would really love to see a campaign with the opposition airing this video unedited.

[Fake Boris]

Stockwell day was also astounding, when Duceppe brandished a letter from him containing a formal proposal for a coalition between the Bloc and the Canadian Alliance.

He claimed the letter was a forgery.

[Wezil]

Oncle - Do you think this coalition will hold together until the end of January?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher


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.

Hint: compromise in order to get elected in Canada.

The NCC campaigned against universal healthcare, and he was their ****ing president.

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.

Harper has always been a stauch supporter of neoconservatism, from the 90s onwards. You really can't say he was a poor victim of party politics.

"The foreign policy of Canada must rest upon the moral values of good against evil".

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.

a) Hayek as reinterpreted in the 80s is not the same as Hayek himself.
b) Hayek proclaimed himself a "libertarian".
c) Hayek had good words for Pinochet's dictatorship (saw it as a "necessary but temporary step" in order to eradicate socialism).
d) You also know the traditional holy alliance between libertarian economists and social conservatives. Pass a neoliberal agenda and hide it behind social issues, like gay marriage, gun laws, or drug prohibition. You do know that Harper tried to shut down clinics commited to providing free care and clean syringes to drug addicts? He's a perfect byproduct of this tendency.

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

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Stockwell day was also astounding, when Duceppe brandished a letter from him containing a formal proposal for a coalition between the Bloc and the Canadian Alliance.

He claimed the letter was a forgery.

For all you know it could be. Typewritten document raised at a suspicious time with no signatures.

I don't know if I believe him, but I also don't know if I trust the Bloc leader. In any case it's a non-event as nothing happened from it. The only people obsessing over it are people like you, which makes sense...I take it you'd like a distraction from the reality of the current situation.

[Victor Galis]

I suspect the parties had considered this before, but been reluctant/afraid to try it. When Harper tried to cut off their funding, they knew they had to at least try to make the coalition a credible bluff. Once they announced the plan, there's really no going back, and now here we are.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Wezil
Oncle - Do you think this coalition will hold together until the end of January?

More likely no than yes.

I'm sure the Libs can have the material for a decent campaign against Harper. But they need time, a leader, and money.

If Harper comes with a moderate proposal in January, the coalition can honorably dissolve itself. If he comes back as arrogant as he's been, then they should charge and see what happens.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Hint: compromise in order to get elected in Canada.

An ultra-conservative doesn't compromise. By definition, they're extreme.

The NCC campaigned against universal healthcare, and he was their ****ing president.

Hint: compromise in order to get elected in NCC. Wait, what did I do there? Did I blow your mind?

Harper has always been a stauch supporter of neoconservatism, from the 90s onwards. You really can't say he was a poor victim of party politics.

"The foreign policy of Canada must rest upon the moral values of good against evil".

So now you are asserting holding past views some construe as neoconservative is an example of being an ultraconservative? Are you confusing the terms neo and ultra?

a) Hayek as reinterpreted in the 80s is not the same as Hayek himself.
b) Hayek proclaimed himself a "libertarian".
c) Hayek had good words for Pinochet's dictatorship (saw it as a "necessary but temporary step" in order to eradicate socialism).

This is a whole lot of words of you skirting around the issues that none of this makes him an "ultra-conservative".

d) You also know the traditional holy alliance between libertarian economists and social conservatives. Pass a neoliberal agenda and hide it behind social issues, like gay marriage, gun laws, or drug prohibition. You do know that Harper tried to shut down clinics commited to providing free care and clean syringes to drug addicts? He's a perfect byproduct of this tendency.

So shutting down clinics that privde syringes to drug addicts = ultra-conservative?

I'm still waiting for you to actually back up your assertion that Harper is an ultra-conservative. Additionally, I'm waiting for you to whip out the tweezers and locate your balls so you can define what the word means to you.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


More likely no than yes.

I'm sure the Libs can have the material for a decent campaign against Harper. But they need time, a leader, and money.

If Harper comes with a moderate proposal in January, the coalition can honorably dissolve itself. If he comes back as arrogant as he's been, then they should charge and see what happens.

Again, you are completely delusional if you think they can "honourable dissolve itself". They've burned their bridges, even if they back down now they've got to pay for their allegiance with the Bloc and their overly aggressive motions for a long time. Every single Liberal leadership candidate put pen to paper and agreed to work with the NDP and the Bloc. That terrifies a lot of the moderate Liberals to death, something I'm not convinced you understand yet.

My prediction: On Jan 27th the coalition will dissolve on the basis that Harper is now being "reasonable" since he withdrew the parts that supposedly set them off even before the coalition formed. They'll say he's finally providing stimulus like they wanted (but on the day and date Harper said he would provide it), and try to spin it like their coalition had tamed Harper...in reality it's given him a stronger mandate and more public support.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher


For all you know it could be. Typewritten document raised at a suspicious time with no signatures.

I don't know if I believe him, but I also don't know if I trust the Bloc leader. In any case it's a non-event as nothing happened from it. The only people obsessing over it are people like you, which makes sense...I take it you'd like a distraction from the reality of the current situation.

Bull****.

Day specifically campaigned in Quebec by promising "decentralization" - he would transfer powers to provinces and cut federal taxes, allowing Quebec to do what it pleases with the money.

Also according to the sources I've seen, the letter was signed by one of his top advisors (not unsigned).

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Bull****.

Day specifically campaigned in Quebec by promising "decentralization" - he would transfer powers to provinces and cut federal taxes, allowing Quebec to do what it pleases with the money.

Also according to the sources I've seen, the letter was signed by one of his top advisors (not unsigned).

Your sources are bull****. Cite proof or shut up.

All of the mainstream news reported the document was unsigned. The fact that Day campaigned on decentralization has no bearing on this discussion at all. Are you seriously this stupid, Ben FakeBoris?

This is not even to discuss the fact that what a previous leader's advisors for a different party may or may not have drawn up has no bearing on Harper's government today.

Am I surrounded by mental midgets or am I truly a genius, I have not yet decided...

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher

An ultra-conservative doesn't compromise. By definition, they're extreme.

And that's why he distanced himself from Mulroney, blaming him for not following Thatcher/Reagan.

Hint: compromise in order to get elected in NCC. Wait, what did I do there? Did I blow your mind?

So he left his position as MP for the Canadian Alliance - blaming it for not being right-wing enough, but at the same time he compromised his centrist views to become president of a libertarian think-thank?

Marvelous

So now you are asserting holding past views some construe as neoconservative is an example of being an ultraconservative? Are you confusing the terms neo and ultra?

A neocon agenda is definitely a huge symptom of one being an ultra-conservative.

So shutting down clinics that privde syringes to drug addicts = ultra-conservative?

Read the beginning and the end of the point...

I'm still waiting for you to actually back up your assertion that Harper is an ultra-conservative. Additionally, I'm waiting for you to whip out the tweezers and locate your balls so you can define what the word means to you.

You can't comprehend the most basic facts, I certainly wouldn't engage with you in a political philosophy debate.

[Asher]

Wake me up when you decide to try to have an honest debate. You can't even define the ****ing term you're using as the central point of your debate.

An ultra-conservative funding universal healthcare and not pushing the issue of gay marriage

I can see why you're avoiding defining the word, because it clearly does not apply. Do you want to be a man and admit it, or a Quebecois and squirm?

I certainly wouldn't engage with you in a political philosophy debate.

What exactly do you call this?

You're so ****ing oblivious to everything. You're the Ben Kenobi on the Left.

[Fake Boris]

Look at what he's done with a minority government... Imagine what he would with a majority.

Wake me up when you understand that Harper's wet dream is a Thatcherian reform.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Look at what he's done with a minority government... Imagine what he would with a majority.

Reform the Senate?
Cut political subsidies to incompetent parties?
Reduce ridiculous arts subsidies?

Sign me up for that. this minority government, specifically the opposition parties, are currently hamstringing this country from making real change for the better.

I find it genuinely pathetic that you're buying into the fearmongering of the Left. We have put up with decades of rule from the Left, you can deal with a few from the Right. Stop whining, stop cowering, and start manning up. The first step would be to begin being honest in your debates.

You've made a ton of unsubstantiated claims in this thread, and when I confront you to back them up you simply ignore them. I'm quite serious when I compare you to Ben Kenobi, and if you are serious about being taken seriously, you'd try to correct that.

Here's something else for you to learn after you figure out what "ultra-conservative" means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity