Ricki Bobbi

No they wouldn't helpf force an eletion without a leader. That's why the Bloc threats are so empty. If the Bloc is smart they will move a motion that will make the Liberals look bad in the election.

This allows me the opportunity to say again: I applaud you on switching to the classic schoolyard "I know you are but what am I" defence. Bravo!

So your view of the truth is the only one that counts? Hmmm, by definition I guess my reasons for supporting the Conservatives *have* to come from ig'nance and/or my stupidness. Here they are: The Liberals stole money from Canadians and abused the trust the Canadians placed in them as proved in Justice Gomery's inquiry. The Liberal leader in January was so weak and indecisive that an internationally renowned magazine dubbed him Mr. Dithers. The NDP have never governed nationally and there are grave concerns about their ability to handle the economy. Prime Minister Harper governed on five priorities. Canadians appreciated a focused government. He has achieved three of the priorites and is working on the final two. So are my reasons ig'nant or stupid?

Do explain what a generalized attack is? And try and do so without utilizing an analogy of dubious value.

I applaud you on switching to the classic schoolyard "I know you are but what am I" defence. Bravo!

that's a very well-considered and positive contribution to the debate.

Classic faux-intellectual liberal. One can't be smart and be conservatives because "no-one (smart) ever said Cons were smart." (sic) It is so clearly obvious how wrong the Conservatives are that no 'smart' person could ever support them? There is a reason why personal attacks are against the rules of the forum. It limits debate and is childish. Please respect the rules.

The BLOC doesn't have the power. It will take the support of the Lbierals to bring down the Conservatives. The Liberals won't agree till they have a leader. Which means Spring which is Harper's preferred timeline anyways. Classic example of all talk no action.

Calling your interpretation the obvious truth is indeed weak and deceitful Gerry!

Yup, that court of public opinion made up of you and your fellow Harper haters. There aren't enough of you out there to prevent a majority in the spring.

MacKay didn't try to deny 'the exchange'. He denied calling Stronach a dog. He never did call Stronach a dog so he was being honest. He never tried to deny the exchange so you are being weaselingly dishonest in trying to frame it that way.

More deceiftfulness on your part. 1. MacKay denied calling Belinda Stronach a dog. (Proven fact.) 2. He never called her a dog in the House of Commons on Thursday, October 19th. (Proven fact.) Two separate statements of fact. Ergo your reading is deceitful and dishonest.

Wait no longer. "essentially" Weren't you attacking MacKay for being lawerly??? He denied calling her a dog. The best you can come up with is he 'essentially' called her a dog??? Good argument Gerry. Your analogy essentially proves nothing.

Dreaming in technicolor because? He denied calling her a dog. He never called her a dog. Your misrepresenting what he denied is clearly 'weaseling dishonesty' if you are going to hold yourself to the same standard you are trying to hold Peter MacKay to.

No, no they don't Gerry. Weak and deceitful. As most of your attacks on Harper have been. Why not post that analogy again. I kinda like watching people dig themselves a hole. MacKay's lawerly response. Hmmm, imagine a lwamaker responding in a matter that respects the law.

She wouldn't have accomplished any of that without Daddy's influence and money. Your analogy doesn't make sense. He motioned towards her chair and said you already have her = he called her a dog! Open to interpretation. Decorum is missing on both sides of the aisle. But not in your spiteful hateful world. You hate Harper and the Conservatives. Always do. Close-minded. But that's ok, come spring you'll have another four years of spewing your hatred towards the Government confirmed by Canadian voters!

Weasling dishonesty? He didn't call her a dog. Any attempts to draw the analogy are weak and strained. Tempest in a teapot. Coonservative majority in the spring!

You just proved how deceitful your whole argument against MacKay really is. Good work Gerry! Conservative majority in the spring!!!

Tiresome Gerry. If you are going to say the same thing over and over and over and over you can't really expect me to do any different. Your analogy is deceitful. It goes to show that Liberals don't really get it. Instead of focusing on their internal problems they try and make a mountain out of a molehill.

Ahhh, tiresome. She chaired the board of three companies owned by Daddy does not equal accomplishment! She chaired the board of three companies owned by Daddy = NEPOTISM! MacKay never called her a dog. Your 'analogies' are strained and deceitful. What we stand for is honesty in government, keeping electoral promises and fiscal responsibility. We have delivered. The Liberals didn't. That is why you keep up this sad charade of trying to manufacture a scandal.

Read the thread. That's been dealt with about five times already. What is 'clearly' audible is ... "you already have her."

That's why I am afraid of Bob Rae winning the leadership. The NDP hit an historic low of a little under 7% fo the vote Nationally in 1993 and 17% in 2006. The NDP would go beserk if Rae won and their share of the vote will drop under 10% in the spring election. The majority of that vote would go to the Libeals which could put them back in power. Go Iggy Go!

Smokescreen is the key. Watch out for the Liberal apologists. They attack without thought or even a consideration of the truth. It worked so well for them in January they are thnking of using the same playbook again.

Don't really know enough about the Australian system to comment. As time goes on I am more and more thinking a form of proportional representation would definitely be an improvement on first past the post. But the Senate would have to be reformed (or abolished) at the same. Which means re-opening the constitution. yikes... Why even respond to a poster who says "blah blah blah. What a bunch of garbage"? Seems like a waste of time to me.

Two front war? wtf are you talking about? Martin controlled the National Exec with an iron fist. That is how he was able to force Chretien out so early. Not having the support of the National Executive of the Liberal Party of Canada did not have *anything* to do with Martin's failures as PM and in January.