blueblood

That's what google is for!

:D :D Nothing brings the fear of god to a left idealist than the realization of bond vigilantes!

And they relate to rae days how?

Except that louis riel decided to murder people and declare independence from canada all while being an mp. His bout with megalomania didn't help out either.

That only works until the bond vultures start circling the carcass... Just ask bill clinton and james carville!!

That's not the issue, the issue is the stacked committee. The committee would have more credibility had there been independents on there. Unfortunately, having a stacked committee with the coalition running it fits right into the coalition advertising campaign. Why aren't canadians as outraged as you are? Its in the media that the opposition dotted their I's and crossed their t's, so why no controversy? Sponsorship created a controversy, why not this?

Cripes you forgot the grand poohbah of liberal leaders. Pierre trudeau, how many gems did he have that tarnished the liberal brand?

Stop the madness! Every sensible canadian knows that the cpc had as much chance in the contempt of parliament committee as a minority in the deep south had in court during jim crow. ---> Next to none! The coalition started the contempt business and now ignatieff gets to be brow beaten with his nonsensical economic policies and his coalition affiliation.

Yet that difference is big enough for harper to say "what coalition, exploring options isn't a coalition, I didn't offer any cabinet posts, etc" and the liberals will get beaten with this issue like baby seals unless ignatieff makes a grand gesture to deep six it. Which makes your condom analogy so appropriate.

Refer to toadbrother's romantic interlude comment. Its the liberals with the baby not the tories. Harpers letter on the ctv website (from the bloc website) says to explore options, not necessarily a coalition and why harper doesn't have to pay child support unlike ignatieff.

Exactly, if duceppe has concrete and irreffutable proof, then harper will be managing another minority govt for potentially five years.

But it is a problem if harper is wanting those swing votes from ontario that are wanting nothing to do with a coalition with sepratists and socialists. They would see harper as a hypocrite. But that is moot because there is no evidence of 04 coalition being as far down the rabit hole as 08.

Unless duceppe/layton have terms of the coalition ie cabinet positions, length of time etc. Ol' harper aint paying child support anytime soon

N

And its the liberals that are having to pay child support because of it! Safe sex=no baby!

It could be a problem for harper if duceppe provides some hard concrete evidence about terms of a coalition between the parties. However if duceppe keeps going "harper said this harper said that", its a non issue.

I get that you are all about following the rules right to the letter and ideally that's the way to go. However, it wouldn't put it past me that all parties break the rules from time to time. The question is how many canadians care about the supremacy of parliament versus how many canadians want to see their team in charge? The "crooked coalition" is legally right in their manoeuvers in 08. However there was a strong voter backlash, strong enough to deep six that idea. Imo parliament has control of the govt, but people have control of the parliament. The same could potentially occur in regards to the coalition stacking the committee to find the govt in contempt. Legally its all there, but it has the optics of the kangaroo court. to me it looks like a minority kid breaking into a liquor store, getting caught and having a trial with a racist judge/jury. The kid still commiTted the crime and was found guilty according to the law of the land and in its parameters, but there is the potential for backlash regarding judge/jury.

I know that, I was stating a hypothetical. My point is that even though the opposition dotted their I's and crossed their t's, at the end of the day they have the optics of a stacked committee; just like the coalition of 2008. It is so bad it repulses voters and at the end of the day that's rule 1 (don't cheese off voters).

The cpc will get to beat the grits with this coalition issue like a baby seal. There's the photo op, iggy's signature, iggy's "coalition if necessary but not necessarily a coalition" professor mumbo jumbo. Duceppe can piSs and moan all he wants about 2004 but if he can't bring up documentation, harper can call bs all he wants. And by documentation I mean the terms of the coalition involving cabinet appointments et. Al. Then there's "contempt of parliament". According to the book, the cpc was technically "in contempt". However when the majority of your jurors belong to organizations bent on removing you, there is a credibility issue that canadians will start to see. That's why jurors with bias are punted in courts of law. Had there been a way for ther to be independent non biased people making judgements in that regard, the cpc wouldn't have a leg to stand on, however due to the system, they have another plank in their crooked coalition marketing campaign. The opposition and the tories are using every trick in the book, unfortunately the opposition sucks at marketing.

Would you also be for individual workers wanting to opt out of said unions and negotiate on their own/not being forced to job action, and would you be also in favor of protecting their rights in the workpLace from union "attitude adjustments"?

And an incentive to commit crime...

Yet you're conveniently quiet about our msnbc north aka the cbc. What's wrong with unbiased news or another point of view.

The right amount of profit is unfortunately paying employees as little as possible to the point where they will go work for the other firm down the road. This works the other way in a hot economy where workers are scarce, hence the 18 dollar an hour tim hortons pay.

Out left of centre friends are conveniently ignoring your research into the in and out saga. Hence crickets.

Correct, ask some sask farmers how their dealings with the former big sky corporation has gone. Either way if the finances are in trouble there is a hierarchy of who gets paid when the ship goes down.