Bryan

How am I bought and paid for if I'm the one who puts his money down? You really shouldn't go off your meds without supervision like that.

Are you seriously trying to claim that only cabinet ministers are members of the governing party? In your head, Conservative backbenchers are actually opposition members then? What colour is the sky in your world anyway? 2004 had nothing to do with a coalition. Continuing to claim otherwise only further verifies the depths of your delusions.

One thing the early UFCs did better than the current ruleset, IMO: no judges. You had to take the win, no one was going to hand it to you on points.

Option for what?

It's not like I thought you had any credibility before, but this is classic. Are you claiming that the Bloc did not sign the coalition agreement? Or that their membership in that coalition was not contractually obligated for 18 months? Or are you just math challenged in thinking that the LPC and NDP had enough seats on their own?

Scurrilously false. I know several people whose MPIC settlements were in excess of $1 million. We do get what we pay for: an insurance that doesn't have a profit motive to deny claims.

See here's the thing. I'm telling the straight truth, and now TWO lefties have accused me of lying to cover up their own blatant dishonesty. It's a broken record, the typical M.O. of the left in Canada. The Bloc are formal signatories to the coalition contract. Their support is contractually obligated for 18 months. The LPC and NDP did not have enough seats on their own, it's the combination of all three parties provides that 18 month stability guarantee.

Nothing to retract. You're still lying, and I'm still right.

You're the one who is lying here. The Bloc's formal contractual membership in the coalition is an absolute fact.

Yes, he did. The choice was be made to look like the bad guy, or let the Bloc Quebecois into the government. He made the right choice.

Of course they did. Everyone loves perogies, even Liberals!

I'm not sure what McCallum brings to the table in terms of work ethic and devotion to the LPC. He may well be considered an asset to the party. But he should never do PR work for the party. When he speaks, he only reminds people like me who used to vote Liberal why we moved our positions to the right.

I sure am, and so are a lot of the CPC base. I wouldn't support that, nobody would. Thankfully no one is doing anything even remotely like that. The CPC has shown themselves to be among the best fiscal managers in the world, one of the best this country has had, They've proven economists, the opposition, and the PBO wrong time and time again.

Nanos daily tracking: April 4/2001: Tories enter second week with commanding 14-point lead Conservative - 42.3 Liberal - 28.4 NDP - 16.4 Bloc - 8.0 Green - 3.8 http://www.nanosresearch.com/election2011/20110403-BallotE.pdf http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-enter-second-week-with-commanding-14-point-lead/article1969494/

I want to start by disagreeing with this part of your opening premise. It is simply untrue. Most Conservative members would strongly disagree, include pretty much any Reformer. Not because they don't want people to think it, but rather because they're disappointed that it isn't, and wish that it was. The most common complaint you hear among the Conservative membership is that Harper is nowhere near right-wing enough. He is commonly referred to as "CINO" (Conservative In Name Only). If people really want to get rid of Harper, you should be careful what you wish for -- because if/when the CPC gets around to replacing Harper, it will be with someone who is SIGNIFICANTLY more right-wing than Harper is. I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.....

"none of the above"?

OIlsands are an environmental reclamation project. The fact that we end up with fuel from it is just a nice bonus.

According to the recent Nanos polling, you are in good company even among fellow Liberals.

I already said it should have been handled differently. Feel free to speak your mind. You lost money, I expect that you're going to have a strong opinion. Unlike others here, I don't rush to the report button just because someone says something I don't like. I'm a big girl, I can fight my own battles. From what I've seen on this board, you and I agree about more than we disagree, this one's just a sensitive one for you. that's OK.

Nobody's whining about it. It's done, it had to be done, sorry it didn't work out for you.

I'm specifically looking to see the difference between people who vote for a given party and those who actually support it financially. Like I said before, I'm interested to see if those numbers here, with a crowd that really follows politics, differ much from the general population. Perhaps the wording of "vote" could be changed to "support". ...vote for one, donate to another though? That's a lot of variables to poll for... could I even fit each possible combination? Wouldn't that make you "none of the above"?

I didn't notice that you were posting from the UK before. Sorry that I was snappy with you, you couldn't be expected to know the people invoved in the campaign. We don't have hung parliaments here. If the winner has less than a majority, he's still the winner. Our current PM has been governing with a minority of seats for over five years.

I started this poll in this thread: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?app=forums&app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=edit_post&f=3&t=18467&p=648314 Some expressed concern with the poll being public, so here's a non-public version. FWIW, I didn't even care who specifically responded, and I don't care at all about public vs. not with polls. I just wondered if the breakdown of which party's supporters donate money is different among political junkies compared to the general trend we've seen in Canada so far.

multiple millions of dollars... and that's not big enough to want to shield yourself from liability? You must have a lot of change stuffed in your couch!!!

Ignatieff's (failed) leadership campaign included a promise of cap and trade. Dion won, and ran on the "Green Shift" in 2008. After that, Ignatieff said the green shift was dead. Well, it's back: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/the-economists/liberals-significant-climate-plan-cloaked-in-silence/article1968885/ Significant change in course is an understatement. Let me guess, his first step would be to shut down the oil sands, and introduce a carbon tax? Followed by what. cap and trade? I can't wait for the next round of "Tax on Everything" ads.