Ricki Bobbi

Rae would do the best of all the Liberal candidates. That's why I agree with Paul Wells' conspiracy theory about the leaked CPC memo saying they most feared facing Iggy. I think it's a setup too. With Iggy at the helm a majority is very likely for the Conservatives. Rae at the helm and we are looking at a third straight minority government, probably Conservative...

Still waiting fort just *one* Federal example from you....

Sexism does not equal rational discussion. See below. Condescension and sexist/unfunny jokes does not equal rational discussion. See below. Creepy sexual references apropos of nothing does not equal rational discussion. See below.

If there are numerous examples provide one? The Conservatives pulled the trigger in 1958 and won a massive majority. (Not defeated in the House, unlike 1980 and 2005). The Liberals pulled the trigger in 1980 and won a massive majority. The Conservatives pulled the trigger forcing the January 2006 election and won with a scary, scary, scary leader after 12 1/2 years in the wilderness. Do you want the recent examples of leaders of *majority* governments getting paid off for forcing early elections too?

Actually there were Five priorities during the election. I take your ignoring the whole discussion on how this has been blown out of proportion to mean that you agree. Don't you know it. There are many things that could have held them up. Does anyone really believe the MSM would leave this story alone if there were anything really to it at this point?

Pearson didn't try and force an election. Actually Diefenbaker took advantage of a rookie mistake made by Pearson to call the election in 1958. Pearson had the audacity to ask Diefenaker to return power to the Liberals without an election because of an economic downturn. Diefenbaker pounced on Pearson's arrogance and used a "classified" Liberal document from before the 1957 election showing the Liberals were expecting the economic downturn that came. Sorry, try again for a case where forcing an early election has been a case in a Federal election.

Lord's party lost two whole seats in that election. Any other examples?

Every time there is a minority government and there is talk of an election the concept of the electorate *punishing* a party for forcing an early election comes up. There isn't one historical example were the *forcing* of an early election has ended up being a major issue in a campaign.

All the *experts* were saying the CPC would be shutout in Quebec last January.

Your workplace. Sure Gerry.

You hate women, you hate homosexuals and you hate Stephen Harper. Keep your hatred to yourself. Trying to somehow pretend that your misogynistic and homophobic attacks were honest mistakes is painful. Even if I were female, calling me a girl would still be paternalistic and condescending. Look for some sort of healthy release Gerry. Your attacks are becoming more shrill and will drive you crazy.

The Liberals are the only Federal party that doesn't have a good reason to want an election in the spring. For the other three parties it is all about picking a time when they think the Liberals will be easiest to beat. That means an election in the spring.

I hope you are right about the Conservatives staying viable in Quebec. It will depend how much Afghanistan plays a role in the election. I know the Conservatives will be ready for an election in the spring. I could see them using the budget as a springboard to another election. Not your typical *election budget*, but it will appeal to Conservative votes and potential swing voters. They will dare the other parties to defeat them. If Harper really wants an election they will make the budget as unpalatable to the new Liberal leader as possible.

Wow. Scary scary scary has now gone from describing *any* Conservative government to a Conservative majority government. It worked in 2004. Didn't work so well in January and hopefully is even less effective next spring.

But the upper ranks of the party has changed in the last 13 years. Can't really say that about the upper ranks of the Liberal Party of Canada. As the person who started the tit for tat, you gotta realize the Liberals have so much sleaze on them from their 13 years in office they need a little more than an eight month timeout. Did the PCs do some underhanded stuff during their nine years in power? Sure. But they were forced to sit in the sidelines for more than a decade.

From today's Toronto Star. Hebert made the case in the context of Michaelle Jean preventing a spring election, which is pretty doubtful. But part of it is a good read on why we'll probably go to the polls again sometime before next summer. Seems like a pretty plausible scenario.

Volpe sold memberships to dead people and had children donating *thousands* of dollars to his campaign. Good use of wikipedia as a source? Did you *update* the pages before posting links? Fair enough.

Uhh, it was 13 years ago and *nobody* is supporting the Chretien face ads. The Liberal ads were from the last election.

Volpe is an embarassment to the Liberals. But his staying in the race is a gift for the Conservatives. Any bets on how many more emarassing Volpe stories between now and the convention? Two or three I figure...

All the Government has to do is let the dumbasses at CBC lose the rights to Hockey Night in Canada. The loss in profit from that cash cow will force a major re-organization at MotherCorp.

No one here has been arguing that the issue doesn't need to be resolved. Gerry is blowing it completely out of proportion. If you look at my posts on this topic you will see that I agree with everything you say. Of course the Conservatives do need to comply. But there are many reasons why they may not have yet. Gerry's blown it so much out of proportion in his own mind that he has portrayed this as breaking the law. Look at the original post. If he wants to use this forum as a staging ground for continual attacks on Harper and the Cosnervatives he has to expect people to push back.

I have answered your question before, I will again. Yes I have volunteered for the party in the past. Yes I will do so in the future. No I don't work for the party, or Government, in any paid capacity. So I guess you aren't answering the question because your answer would be so obvious. Harper puts the extension of the mission to a vote of Parliament ... so you start a thread attacking him. If Harper hadn't put the extension of the mission to a vote of Parliament ... you *would have* attacked him. At least you are consistent. Really though, the sexism and homophobia is schoolyard stuff. But if that is the level you have to sink to in order to deal with your feelings of rage and powerless at the rest of the decade with Prime Minister Harper governing ... so be it. I think I am figuring you out though. The symptoms are all there. Somebody who truly feels the Government owes them something. Rather than spending your copious amounts of free time raising your income to replace what the Government *should* be providing you with you spend your time attacking the Government, thus fueling your anger and leaving you in a situation less than what you truly deserve. I feel your pain Gerry.

Mulroney's Government ran the first operating surplus in over 15 years. The regulatory streamlining of the Mulroney era made the boom of the 90s possible. National debt went up 12 times in Trudeau's 16 years in office. It almost doubled in Mulroney's 9 years. Who was the better fiscal manager? Pretty obvious to me.

Yes, I do have a little knowledge on the issue Gerry. I also have common sense, something some posters here seem to be lacking. Please do answer the questions what makes you angrier? Your inability to debate rationally on the issue, thus limiting you to posts questioning where my *knowledge* comes from? Or that burning, growing inner anger knowing that Stephen Harper will likely be PM for the rest of the decade? Is it that burning hatred for homosexuals and women you hinted at two posts ago yet refuse to acknowledge? Despite all your rage are you still just a rat in a cage?

Again with the homophobic and sexist remarks Gerry? There is no party that notifies Kingsley directly every time they file something with Elections Canada. Maybe if you weren't too busy attacking people and spreading your hatred for Harper you would actually take a minute to examine things. But wait, then you would realize that Canada is better of with Harper at the helm than with Mr. Dithers... Man, what makes you angrier Gerry? Knowing that your hatred for Harper will grow over time when we win a majority next year, that the world won't pay you your dues and support you to the lifestyle you feel you deserver by feeding at the government trough or that you are so unable to debate anything that you have to resort to insults that would be considered childish in an elementary schoolyard? Sad to be you.