h/t - Impolitical
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Just my thoughts
Changing stations
http://resources.bravenet.com/audio_clips/sound_effects/sound_effect_-_adjusting_the_radio_dial/listen/
Twitter Updates
LINKS:
- A BCer in Toronto
- B. G. Rice
- Bowie's Blog
- Calgary Grit
- Canadian Rosebud
- Dred Tory
- Far and Wide
- liberal catnip
- Politics for the People
- Red Tory
- Saundrie
- Scott's Diatribes
- Stageleft
- Stratosphear
- Susan Delacourt
- Take off, eh?
- The Disaffected Lib
- The Conscious Earth
- where'd that bug go?
- woman at mile 0
- Andrew Coyne
- Kady O'Malley
- Paul Wells
- Chantal Hébert
- Sierra Club of Canada
- Suzuki Foundation
- Google News
MP's and Senators
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(267)
-
▼
September
(23)
- The Truth According to the CPC
- Really?
- Just Because...It's Saturday
- Conservatives Breach PublicTrust - Even CPC Candid...
- Pander de Jour
- Gerry Nicholls Calls Harper Out on Ads
- Where Is Your Money Going?
- Michael Ignatieff/Liberal - Rally at WLU
- The Week that Was
- Mr. Big Stuff
- Ignatieff Speech at the Canadian Club
- Jack's Joke
- New Ads
- Divisive, Dishonest and Disrepectful
- Credibility? Zero
- The Taped Crusader and Other Thoughts
- But...But...But!
- Now and Then...
- Fighting Lunacy
- Let the Contrast Begin
- New Liberal Ads
- Fiction Coming to the Airwaves Near You
- Mr. Harper, You Failed
-
▼
September
(23)
About Me
- Karen
- I'm an artist with an interest in politics. I'm also Charles A. Brown's granddaughter. He served WW1 - 73rd Battalion CEF, then later in the RAF. I'm afraid he kept his battles with the Red Baron a secret.
16 comments:
This is a good one! It is too bad the Public has not seen what he is really like, as in what he really said in 2004 and 2008. There is so much on You Tube, about him....it is a crying shame, because many people do not have computers, and some that do, pay little attention to politics.
It was crystal clear last November that Canadian's had punished the Liberal's with their votes (26%). Yet, were the Liberal's humbled? Not at all, they were more than happy to ignore the will of the people less than two months after the election to go diving into a coalition with the BQ on the joint concern that their ability to dip into the taxpayer's pockets to fund their private party expenses were going to be blocked by the newly re-elected government.
Wow! That's a reason for a coalition with the BQ if I have ever heard one! Filthy luchre. The language of the just, right and noble.
If you wish to vomit up recent history, don't forget all of it. Or would you prefer to just re-write history?
Tomm
When you have to lie to make your point, it usually means you do not have one.
Lie#1 The Bloc were not part of the coalition government. Time for you to finally get that one through your head.
Lie#2 The coalition was not formed in response to the end of party subsidies. Remember when Harper rescinded that measure? Remember when the coalition ploughed ahead anyway, with their demands for a stimulus? Remember when the LPC supported the CPC and rejected the coalition once that stimulus was in place?
Gee Gayle, 77 + 37 = 114
Cons won 143, 114 does not beat 143.
So the Libs and Dippers could have a coalition,
but to have a coalition GOVERNMENT they needed at least 30 of the 49 BLOC seats,
in writing, to offer up a stable 'majority' to the GG.
So the BLOC were offered Senate seats instead of cabinet seats when they signed on the dotted line to form coalition government.
'The coalition was not formed in response to the end of party subsidies'
You are absolutely correct Gayle, the coalition of losers was being negotiated 'long before' the Economic Update,
as your leader Jack explains on an audio tape.
The 3 Stooges were waiting to pounce on the first opportunity to launch their coup.
Amazingly, Dimm and Wilnut seem to forget Harper's role in the whole winter night of reckoning. It was Harper who seemed to be miffed at the public's decision of another minority parliament -- afterall, he only governs with the confidence of the House. He quickly shredded that, first by showing complete ambivalence towards the economic collapse, and then attempting to unilaterally slice all opposition parties' fundraising. Had he ran on that issue, or laid out a realistic plan, or even led by example through a smaller cabinet, cuts to parliamentary perks, reduction of his own office budget etc, then he may have been able to raise these stakes. But instead, true to his anti-social nature, he tried an unscripted move and ended up scurrying to Michelle for cover. There's no revisionist history here -- Harper himself had said making a deal with the Bloc in a minority parliament was a useful and acceptable act (in 2005). But the CONs and their core continue to rewrite history. Surprise. When the comeuppance comes, and it will come, it will be sweet. Just as Harper salts the political landscape with cynicism and lies, so too will his party end up tainted by it.
Gayle said...
Remember when the coalition ploughed ahead anyway, with their demands for a stimulus? Remember when the LPC supported the CPC and rejected the coalition once that stimulus was in place?
------------------
Wow. You'd think that a hardcore Liberal would be smarter than to make *any* comment on The Coalition at all. Oh well...
Yes Gayle, we remember The Coalition well. We remember Ignatieff seeing the poll numbers of the Conservatives jump up to 50% and his own party plummet to 20%. We then recall (with considerable amusement) him backstabbing Layton and running as fast and far from The Coalition as he could.
The fact that the whole sorry plot was concocted BEFORE the election itself is just icing on the cake. Don't like the inevitable election result? Can't beat your opponents in a fair contest? Well then, just HIJACK control of the government instead. Perfectly legal, even!
(too bad the Canadian public was so outraged by it, eh?...)
Oh yes, Gayle. We remember. And we're not gonna let the public forget it, either...
yeah FredfromBC you also confuse that with having a plan. Where is the Conservative plan btw? Bueller? Beuller?
"So the Libs and Dippers could have a coalition,
but to have a coalition GOVERNMENT they needed at least 30 of the 49 BLOC seats,
in writing, to offer up a atable 'majority' to the GG."
wilson - here is some advice. If you really want to be seen as some great political strategist, it would help if you demonstrated some basic understanding of our system of government.
One does not have to lead the party with the most seats to form government, one merely requires the confidence of the majority of the house. The coalition agreement between the NDP and the LPC formed the government. The agreement with the Bloc provided proof that government had the confidence of the majority of the House. The Bloc gave up their right to oppose that coalition government by signing that agreement.
Now, as for the rest, as I said to Tomm, if you have to lie to make your point, then you probably do not have one.
Unless you have suddenly come up with evidence the LPC were part of a pre-existing agreement to form a coalition (and I know you haven't), or some evidence that the Bloc would receive Senate seats.
But thank you for your "coalition of losers" and "three stooges" comments. It is good for the majority of Canadians to see the contempt Harper's little minions hold them in.
oh rockfish...
Like any politician, the LPC were well aware those poll numbers, based as they were by the complete and utter lies coming from the CPC, would not hold once the coalition began to govern, and govern well. Why, I assume that is the exact reason why Harper proposed doing the same thing a few years earlier. Or did you think it was only bad to govern with the support of the Bloc when it is the LPC and NDP doing that????
But I guess you need something to hand on to, what with the facts not being on your side and all.
Um, that last comment was directed to Fred of course. Sorry rockfish...
Tomm, I can supply you with a copy of Harpers coalition letter to the GG in 2004 so give that story up and look at what your lying leader has done in the past.and Btw, that letter is crystal clear. The Bloc wer okay for the Reforms then so what has happened now? That history is 5 years old not like Adscam you Con supporters keep bring up, Vomiting up was your words.
Gayle and Anon,
I have made my point. That is that there is considerable latitude of things that occurrred last November. So for someonee to parse out the Harper comments and direct them as a one to one against something he had uttered 3 years earlier, although factual, does not engage in a complete and full picture of the circumstances.
A lot happened and a lot of people had egg on their face. Let's be honeest about that particular part of our recent political history.
Tomm
Tomm- I suggest you stop lecturing people on honesty.
Blogger Gayle said...
oh rockfish...
Like any politician, the LPC were well aware those poll numbers, based as they were by the complete and utter lies coming from the CPC, would not hold once the coalition began to govern, and govern well. Why, I assume that is the exact reason why Harper proposed doing the same thing a few years earlier. Or did you think it was only bad to govern with the support of the Bloc when it is the LPC and NDP doing that????
But I guess you need something to hand on to, what with the facts not being on your side and all.
---------------------
Writing a letter to the Governor General asking her about the possibility of forming a coalition government if the Liberals should lose the confidence of the house is a far cry from actually *forming* such a coalition. It's called strategy, Gayle. Real leaders know when to give their opponents that extra little nudge that sends them over the edge...
And as I pointed out (and you so cowardly DODGED) Stephen Harper did all of this out in the open; he didn't plot the overthrow of the Paul Martin government behind closed doors as Dion and Layton so shamefully did before the election itself was even fought (indicating that they had NO INTENTION of respecting the wishes of the Canadian public if the Conservatives were chosen to govern again).
Don't quit your day job, Gayle. You suck as a spin doctor...
I did not respond to that allegation because it is false. As in, you are lying.
Unless you have evidence that the LPC and the NDP agreed to a coalition prior to the election. And you and I both know you don't.
If you want me to take you seriously, you have to stop lying.
As for your argument that Harper's attempt to govern with the support of the Bloc was simply "strategy", well, that is a nice historical rewrite, but I am afraid your tendancy to lie about things makes your reinterpretation of these events somewhat suspect.
There is no doubt that Harper recognized governing with the support of the Bloc was legitimate when he was the one doing that.
I did not respond to that allegation because it is false. As in, you are lying.
Unless you have evidence that the LPC and the NDP agreed to a coalition prior to the election. And you and I both know you don't.
------------
I guess the fact that they TAPED the conversation doesn't mean much to you (or the fact that it was reported in the Red Star, the official Voice of The Liberals). It means something to most normal people, though...as does the fact that sure enough, right after the election the Liberals, NDP and Bloc decided to form the infamous Coalition that you've been running away from ever since.
(...nice try, though. And don't even bother trying to claim Liberal innocence; it doesn't matter *when* they got involved in the plot, only that they *did*...)
--------------
If you want me to take you seriously, you have to stop lying.
--------------
I honestly don't care how you take me, Gayle. What a lying scumbag like you thinks of me means little or nothing to me (why should it?)...
---------------
As for your argument that Harper's attempt to govern with the support of the Bloc was simply "strategy", well, that is a nice historical rewrite, but I am afraid your tendancy to lie about things makes your reinterpretation of these events somewhat suspect.
----------------
MY tend(e)ncy to lie? (sic)
Too funny. :)
But you seem to have forgotten a couple of things: first, that governing with the cooperation of a couple of other political parties on an 'issue by issue' basis is nowhere near the same as a formal coalition (you know...in writing, with signatures, for a certain time period, etc?) otherwise Paul Martin would have been in a coalition with the NDP (or are you now claiming that as well?).
And second, that there was a very good reason for the opposition parties to get together and remind the GG of her options. You might remember it: it was called ADSCAM, and involved the theft of millions of dollars of public money by the Liberal Party.
(oh Gayle...if only you were half as clever as you think you are...;)
Post a Comment