Alta4ever

The election was called the beginning of September after harper consulted with the other party leaders, the venue the delgates and the preparation for the convention was done before Aug.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=P9o8AAAAIBAJ&sjid=VSsMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1336%2C6363660 its their google doesn't have pages in the proper order.

I wonder what you would have though of the Liberals doing it after the winter session was 50 seconds in, just before the opposition leader stands up to speak.

Not exactly true the platform comes form the grassroots in the conservative party and the National Policy convention was scheduled in November a month after the election when the members decided what the updated party platform would be be. The policy book is on the website you should read it.

So the the conservative caucus is one member? I wonder who all those mps are sitting on the government side of the house, I wonder who the Mps were that were making statements at the end of QP over the last 4 years?

Bottom left hand corner on page a3

So your changing now from all of the conservative caucus to just the prime minister?

Maybe you shouldn't make such statements with out proof.

Here is an instance of Trudeau using a prorogation of parliament to silence a member Feb 23, 1972 - Parliament had been dismissed the day. of Mr Lundrigan's speech, in preparation for a new session. said the opposition had been effectively muzzled on this occasion, normally a chance for .the opposition to he' heard, by the prime minister's decision to prorogue after 50 seconds of ... From Ruddle-duddle" Provoker Predicts Liberal Downfall . - http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=P9o8AAAAIBAJ&sjid=VSsMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1336,6363660&dq=history+of+prorogued+parliaments&hl=en

So you admit you can't do it? The fact is that you can't prove your statement, and now your just making excuses.

Really is that so, Chretien did, so did trudeau,as with every other PM in history, it been prorogued 105 times. So want to try again.

3 examples one for 3 people of a caucus of 145 members, yep that is a real strong argument. For you argument to have merit you must have multiple examples for each member, to show a behavioral pattern.

Those are Jack Layton's own words taken from the transcript of the November teleconference.

I don't know what conservative movement your posting about, but certainly isn't the one that i have been following.

They have delivered on much of there platform.

The argument is over until you can prove your statement.

Then do it. Otherwise you have nothing.

I really don't care what you personally believe. The fact is you have slandered an entire caucus with no proof, until you can substantiate your claims against the whole caucus you have lost the argument. But we both know you can't provide that list of each Mp sourced with multiple examples of them lying.

public outrage stopped that "bail out", and it was the outrage of us, we the people, the citizens of Canada.

I've never seen the liberals actually admit to just how much really went missing during the sponsorship scandal. What about the liberal government spending 612,0000 in 1999 for a contract with Group action to study if they were gettign good value on the sponsorship dollars What about the 478 million the liberal government spent to cancel the replacement of the sea king only to talk about tendering a contract for the same helicopters they cancelled a few years later. Then in 2002 the Prime Minister bought two new jets to ferry him around even though his own government said it was not necessary. The Gun registry 2 million turned in 2 billion. Then we have shawinigate, I don't remeber the liberal party taking credit for these blunders do you

He didn't bail them out we the poeple didn't allow it.

So thats 3 members out of 145. Weak examples at that Really no different then Chretien and his 1993 campaign on removing the GST.

In January 2000 Manley came out with a 20 million dollar bailout package for Canadian hockey teams, that was only though to be 25% of the plan as provinces and cities were to come up with 75% to the tune of a total 80 million dollars. What stopped it was the publics opposition, and that black eye to the then federal government who had not offered any tax, helped lead to the tax break in the 2000 budget. http://openlibrary.org/b/OL8559042M/Tax_Me_I'm_Canadian

Prove it how is your statement completely true. Lets have the proof you called the caucus liars and hypocrites, lets see it, lets see the itemized list caucus member by caucus member. All you have posted so far is the oh so scary hidden agenda argument that hasn't washed now at least 2 or 3 years. Grow up lets see some sourced proof.

In politics everything is related.