Mr.Canada Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 Because it's irrelevant. . Had they got the same % of seats in ontario as they did in alberta, they would have a majority....BC and NS......BC and NFLD? In a nutshell, it's a stupid paradigm. It makes sense to me but I'll start saying that the CPC had won seats right across the country from coast to coast to coast. The Liberals cannot make the same boast. Or something, I'll work on it. Geez M.Dancer, you've been slapping me around a lot today Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
M.Dancer Posted October 24, 2008 Report Posted October 24, 2008 It makes sense to me but I'll start saying that the CPC had won seats right across the country from coast to coast to coast. The Liberals cannot make the same boast. The Liberals won seats in every province form coast to coast except Alberta. If the Liberals had won the same % of seats in alberta as they did in NFLD, they would have a majority. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Mr.Canada Posted October 24, 2008 Report Posted October 24, 2008 The Liberals won seats in every province form coast to coast except Alberta. If the Liberals had won the same % of seats in alberta as they did in NFLD, they would have a majority. LOL. That is absolutely ridiculous. Sounds funny as hell though. LMAO. I guess I see what I must sound like now. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
normanchateau Posted October 24, 2008 Report Posted October 24, 2008 The NDP won seats from coast to coast and in every province except Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island. Had they won the same percentage of seats in every province as they won in the Northwest Territories, they would have won every single seat in the House of Commons. Quote
Who's Doing What? Posted October 24, 2008 Report Posted October 24, 2008 ..and apparently the govt will own them?No ,whos doing what, the bank will hire a company to look after them , auction them off, sell them thru an agent, get out of them as fast as possible, but the govt will not pay a dime for the upkeep etc. But the bank doesn't own the mortgages anymore. The Govt. will have to "hire a company to look after them , auction them off, sell them thru an agent, get out of them as fast as possible" Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
Who's Doing What? Posted October 24, 2008 Report Posted October 24, 2008 100% false. I personally I really find the claim you saw them (in canada) suspect. No money down No money down Kind of blows your theory out of the water. Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
guyser Posted October 24, 2008 Report Posted October 24, 2008 But the bank doesn't own the mortgages anymore.The Govt. will have to "hire a company to look after them , auction them off, sell them thru an agent, get out of them as fast as possible" Yes , the banks will still own them if they foreclose. The govt is only ensuring liquidity, not buying the mortgages. Quote
madmax Posted October 24, 2008 Report Posted October 24, 2008 Geez M.Dancer, you've been slapping me around a lot today Yeah, I don't know whats going on. His barbs are backed up with facts and he seems to have his ducks in a row. No worries. Just wait, he will trip up. Then........ Quote
wulf42 Posted October 24, 2008 Author Report Posted October 24, 2008 The Liberals won seats in every province form coast to coast except Alberta. If the Liberals had won the same % of seats in alberta as they did in NFLD, they would have a majority. WHA.......??????????????????............lmao................the Liberal party is all but wiped out......Majority?????.....................they are barely a party at all....who cares how they did in NFLD!!!! Quote
William Ashley Posted October 24, 2008 Report Posted October 24, 2008 (edited) Try it in english and maybe I can answer you. Chap, How am I failing to serve you with sharing my opinion? What exactly do you beleive tax payer dollars should go to pay, you think taking on more debt load to inflate the private banks is the right thing when Canada has it's own bank, the bank of Canada. http://www.bank-banque-canada.ca/en/about/are.html learn something about it. Why pay interest to anyone but ourself? Why not you know save money, rather than flushing it all down the drain, giving it to private banks who don't serve anyone but their own and stake holder interests in most cases, as it is a corporation. The higher money rests in society the more people it benifits, that is why we need not pump our banks up. We should instead let them merge to gain international presence, and offer public banking for those not interested in investment banking. Feel open to PM me with issue you feel are important, or if you would like to explain to me the error of my ways feel open to send me an email [email protected] I really do strive to serve everyones interests. Eg. I take peoples input, note in regard to other recent posts of mine, this is not the limit of what I think a MP should do, I think that an MP should also deliver and read messages and petititions to the commons, or atleast distribute them in commons if there is insufficient time to read them to the public and speaker, that is offer the text to the speaker, and cabinet or privy council. Of course they may prioritize petititions etc.. on a basis of reference for a specific issue that is of current note, or as a resource to royal commisions or councils, or inquiriers or parlimentary committees and hearings etc.. but the point is to make available the public communique. I do wish to hear from you should you feel you have important information for me that is vital to my wellbeing and our common good. ------ As for being partisan because I am starting a political party, I really shouldn't insult you. I am not partisan until I have a political party that is representative of other members of the party while contradicting my own beliefs. I do not have a registered party nor do any other members disagree with my views at this stage of the game. Thus I have not had to forfit my opinion for a party. Thus I am not partisan, I am speaking my own opinion which is non partisan. Also as an individual I am not speaking on behalf of the party, I am sharing my opinion - once again non partisan. You must understand what partisan means. I am not advocating for anything but my opinion. There is a clear line between personal opinion and partisan statements. Partisan means: Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics Note that the party, group, is not applicable to "EVERYONE" because that is inane, there needs to be a segment of the whole for it to be a group. As for cause, I'm not advocating any one cause, I have a variety of beleifs, and have no agenda to bring into force by militant means at this stage of my life. Edited October 24, 2008 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted October 24, 2008 Report Posted October 24, 2008 (edited) It makes sense to me but I'll start saying that the CPC had won seats right across the country from coast to coast to coast. The Liberals cannot make the same boast.Or something, I'll work on it. Geez M.Dancer, you've been slapping me around a lot today Not in the souvreign north they didn't actually The whole NORTH HALF of Canada is all NDP and LIberal!!! and think of all the money they pumped into it... my gosh guess people think the Conservatives suck up there It may have something to do with how bad they treat the natives, totally neglecting native communities around the country, and letting them live without a basic infrastructure be it clean drinking water or other basic needs. Edited October 24, 2008 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Vancouver King Posted October 24, 2008 Report Posted October 24, 2008 The reason Harper won is simple: a well meaning but incompetent opposition leader was no leadership match for Harper. Add in campaign resources (3 to 1?) in favor of Tories and the suddenly the most relevant question becomes: How did Harper avoid a majority? The smart money is now being placed on a Liberal majority in 2010. Quote When the people have no tyrant, their public opinion becomes one. ...... Lord Lytton
OddSox Posted October 24, 2008 Report Posted October 24, 2008 Not in the souvreign north they didn't actually The whole NORTH HALF of Canada is all NDP and LIberal!!!and think of all the money they pumped into it... my gosh guess people think the Conservatives suck up there It may have something to do with how bad they treat the natives, totally neglecting native communities around the country, and letting them live without a basic infrastructure be it clean drinking water or other basic needs. Huh? What about Leona Aglukkaq? Think of all the money that was wasted on your education... Quote
Who's Doing What? Posted October 25, 2008 Report Posted October 25, 2008 Yes , the banks will still own them if they foreclose. The govt is only ensuring liquidity, not buying the mortgages. So it was a bailout? Look either we bought the bloody mortgages from the banks or the feds gave the banks a multi billion dollar bailout. You can't have it both ways. Now which friggin way is it? Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
Oleg Bach Posted October 25, 2008 Report Posted October 25, 2008 So it was a bailout? Look either we bought the bloody mortgages from the banks or the feds gave the banks a multi billion dollar bailout. You can't have it both ways. Now which friggin way is it? OK OK so our banking elite got drunk. They are drinking coffee and sobering up as fast as humanly possible. The rich are going on welfare - and bailouts are neccesary - but if they abuse the public purse then they are on their own...and they really don't like the thought of intergenerational poverty infecting their lives. And the writer is wrong - we can have it both ways - you can not hold the rich in contempt anymore than you can hold the poor in contempt and loathing - we must act in a civlized manner at this point - all are important - the top and the bottom... Quote
Who's Doing What? Posted October 25, 2008 Report Posted October 25, 2008 OK OK so our banking elite got drunk. They are drinking coffee and sobering up as fast as humanly possible. The rich are going on welfare - and bailouts are neccesary - but if they abuse the public purse then they are on their own...and they really don't like the thought of intergenerational poverty infecting their lives. And the writer is wrong - we can have it both ways - you can not hold the rich in contempt anymore than you can hold the poor in contempt and loathing - we must act in a civlized manner at this point - all are important - the top and the bottom... Have you been drinking? 'Cause your post has nothing to do with what you quoted other than one reference to the bailout of the banks. Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
Oleg Bach Posted October 25, 2008 Report Posted October 25, 2008 Have you been drinking? 'Cause your post has nothing to do with what you quoted other than one reference to the bailout of the banks. There was half a jug of wine on the desk - I came over to my daughters loft to walk the dogs and yes - I hate red wine - but it does the trick.....nice of you to notice that I was slightly askew. Quote
wulf42 Posted October 25, 2008 Author Report Posted October 25, 2008 The reason Harper won is simple: a well meaning but incompetent opposition leader was no leadership match for Harper. Add in campaign resources (3 to 1?) in favor of Tories and the suddenly the most relevant question becomes: How did Harper avoid a majority?The smart money is now being placed on a Liberal majority in 2010. lol................by then the Liberals will lucky to still be a party................Corruption finished them for good i am afraid! Quote
normanchateau Posted October 26, 2008 Report Posted October 26, 2008 How did Harper avoid a majority?The smart money is now being placed on a Liberal majority in 2010. Harper avoided a majority despite facing the weakest leader in Liberal history. CPC needs a new leader, one who is a fiscal conservative but not a social conservative. If they had one, we would now have a Conservative majority. Whetheer he tries or not, there is no way he can remake himself into a social liberal. There will be a Liberal majority in 2010 providing: (1) The Liberals have a leader who's a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. (2) Harper remains the CPC leader. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.