Progressive Tory Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) You're absolutely right, that the fact that we have differing opinions on...well...just about everything, makes for spirited debate. However, you still can't accept that Harper is a hypocrite when it comes to calling the Coalition an act of treason. He DID KNOW THAT IT WAS LEGAL. You'll hear him say it. You'll also hear him say that an election IS NOT NECESSARY when the House loses confidence in the leading party. He could be Prime Minister without an election. All he had to do was make a deal with 'Separatists' and poof! (as per letter) Now, right from the horse's mouth. Hope it works. You can find the letter here: http://nickcoulter.posterous.com/harper-le...o-clarkson-2004 Edited January 4, 2009 by Progressive Tory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Harper is a pragmatic hypocrite. I think it's fairly obvious by now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Harper is a pragmatic hypocrite. I think it's fairly obvious by now... If by 'Pragmatic Hypocrite', you mean 'Opportunistic Purveyor of Untruths", than you're right. I just want to stop this nonsense of the new Coalition as somehow being undemocratic. If it was democratic for Harper in 2004, it's democratic for us now, and his saying that he would NEVER make a deal with 'Separatists', should be served up at Burger King, because its a WHOPPER! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 'Opportunistic Purveyor of Untruths' is a label you can put on EVERY (repeat that in your head a few times) politician in Canadian politics right now. An election is basically a contest on who can better fool the ignorant electorate. Harper, Ignatieff, Dion, Layton are ALL guilty of giant hypocrisy and lies. It's silly to argue against that simple fact. At the same time, until the average voter spends more than 30 minutes a year paying attention to politics, it's even sillier to be outraged when a politician is not entirely truthful all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 How about if they are _seriously_ mendacious _most_ of the time, and in very destructive ways? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 How about if they are _seriously_ mendacious _most_ of the time, and in very destructive ways? We're not really discussing absolute truths, but the hypocrisy of accusing others of being undemocratic, when they are only (legally) doing what you yourself did (also legally), and we have the tape to prove it. Do you think any of this will fly during the next campaign? Does Harper not realize that when you make public statements, they now belong to the public and can be used to fend off his nonsense. Those whom the gods wish to destroy they make politicians. Again, this posting is about hypocrisy. The video showing the two faces of Stephen Harper is very fitting. Not the only two faced politician to be sure, but two faced just the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Harper called the election because he said HE couldn't work with the oppositions and then after the election he tells Canadians he's going to work with the oppositions and when that isn't going to work he runs to GG for help. I say the problem isn't the opposition parties its HARPER himself and he needs to be replaced with a new Cons leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Harper called the election because he said HE couldn't work with the oppositions and then after the election he tells Canadians he's going to work with the oppositions and when that isn't going to work he runs to GG for help. I say the problem isn't the opposition parties its HARPER himself and he needs to be replaced with a new Cons leader. I couldn't agree more. If he couldn't get a majority after the finite character assassination of Mr. Dion, he never will. Canadians simply don't like him and being caught in one of the worst hypocrisies, that involved alienating an entire province to keep your job, is unredeemable. I don't think he will lead the party through 2009, and in fact, I predict he's gone by May. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 It is all falling into place. Progressive Tory=David Orchard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 It is all falling into place.Progressive Tory=David Orchard Ha ha ha. I wish, or at least I wish I had his money. I do share some of his political views, but not all. Isn't he a Liberal now or did he join the new Progressive Party started by Sinclair Stevens? I'm in Ontario so he doesn't really cross my radar. Again the thread is about hypocrisy and the recent campaign where Harper said that he would never make a deal with 'Separatists' and the videotape where he states that a PM shouldn't expect to call an election everytime he fails to do his job. But now that you bring up David Orchard, I guess the left side video is another hypocrisy when speaking of 'backroom deals'. (MacKay/Orchard when a signed contract wasn't worth the paper it was written on) I forgot about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 David was against free trade! I liked him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) You're absolutely right, that the fact that we have differing opinions on...well...just about everything, makes for spirited debate. However, you still can't accept that Harper is a hypocrite when it comes to calling the Coalition an act of treason. He DID KNOW THAT IT WAS LEGAL. You'll hear him say it. You'll also hear him say that an election IS NOT NECESSARY when the House loses confidence in the leading party. He could be Prime Minister without an election. All he had to do was make a deal with 'Separatists' and poof! (as per letter)Now, right from the horse's mouth. Hope it works. You can find the letter here: http://nickcoulter.posterous.com/harper-le...o-clarkson-2004 I've seen the letter several times but have never seen actual signatures on the document. I have heard Harper say that they talked about a possible deal but Harper could not reach an agreement with the Bloc without giving them special treatment....so the idea of a coalition never went anywhere. I'd be curious to know if this letter was ever really signed and delivered to the GG - I doubt it very much.....I'd hazard a guess that it's just a draft created in the PMO that never went anywhere. In a large way, that would back up what Harper has said - that he would never put himself in a position where he was beholding to a Separatist party. Edited January 6, 2009 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) I've seen the letter several times but have never seen actual signatures on the document. There was a PDF file posted on another thread here that had all the signatures on it. http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/11/28/a-trip-...nt-memory-lane/ From a letter to then-Governor General Adrienne Clarkson signed by all three opposition leaders: Gilles Duceppe, Jack Layton and Stephen Harper(September 9, 2004) http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/03/jean-crisis.html But opposition members have denied the charges. They fired back with charges of hypocrisy, citing a letter to former governor general Adrienne Clarkson in 2004, signed by then opposition leaders Harper, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton that discussed the prospects of dissolving Parliament if the government of Paul Martin, the prime minister, was to be defeated.The letter stated that the opposition parties, which constituted a majority in the House, have "been in close consultation" and that if Clarkson was asked to dissolve Parliament, she should "consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority." The Tories counter that that agreement was different because it didn't include a formal coalition. Clarkson mentioned the letter in interviews and said that she would have turned to Harper if the coalition he was gathering defeated the Liberals. You are the only Conservative I have seen who says the letter was never sent, never signed. Edited January 6, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 There was a PDF file posted on another thread here that had all the signatures on it.http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/11/28/a-trip-...nt-memory-lane/ http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/03/jean-crisis.html Clarkson mentioned the letter in interviews and said that would have turned to Harper if the coalition he was gathering defeated the Liberals. You are the only Conservative I have seen who says the letter was never sent, never signed. Yes. Many are trying to spin it while others just hope it will go away. We have the video and we have the signed document. Now we should be able to put the whole nonsense of this recent Coalition as being undemocratic to rest. From the horse's ass...er...mouth "That is not how our constitution works." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 I've lately been running into a Google ad that presents a picture of Stephen Harper with the caption saying that his IQ is 125, and an invitation to take a test to see if you are as smart as he is. I don't know who is sponsoring it or why, or how valid its assertion. It strikes me that 125, while a bit higher than average, is shockingly run-of-the-mill, lower than I would have expected, and by quite a bit. I'm curious about whether it hits others the same way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 I've lately been running into a Google ad that presents a picture of Stephen Harper with the caption saying that his IQ is 125, and an invitation to take a test to see if you are as smart as he is. I don't know who is sponsoring it or why, or how valid its assertion.It strikes me that 125, while a bit higher than average, is shockingly run-of-the-mill, lower than I would have expected, and by quite a bit. I'm curious about whether it hits others the same way. IQ is only a single measure and not a complete and functional test at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Well, duh. My spatials must be off. I was aiming for something other than the programmed response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Well, duh.My spatials must be off. I was aiming for something other than the programmed response. My apologies, yes it does seem low but have you ever met the man? It seems kinda high after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 My apologies, yes it does seem low but have you ever met the man? It seems kinda high after that. umm... 125 would be in the top 6 or 7% of the population.. regardless, once over 120 the difference is moot. 100 is the average by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Top 6 or 7% is exactly what makes it seem so low. That would make him the second smartest kid in a median classroom. Since we can fairly safely assume that very dim people don't generally talk politics for entertainment, that would make him maybe... average.... possible even below average among the folks who regularly blather here. I would have expected at least mid 130s just to have climbed the political ladder to higher echelons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 I've lately been running into a Google ad that presents a picture of Stephen Harper with the caption saying that his IQ is 125, and an invitation to take a test to see if you are as smart as he is. I don't know who is sponsoring it or why, or how valid its assertion.It strikes me that 125, while a bit higher than average, is shockingly run-of-the-mill, lower than I would have expected, and by quite a bit. I'm curious about whether it hits others the same way. I thought it was rather low too, for someone running the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 I thought it was rather low too, for someone running the country. Well that's because it isn't really him running the country. Puppets only need to be smart enough to remember their lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Doors Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Top 6 or 7% is exactly what makes it seem so low. That would make him the second smartest kid in a median classroom. Since we can fairly safely assume that very dim people don't generally talk politics for entertainment, that would make him maybe... average.... possible even below average among the folks who regularly blather here. I would have expected at least mid 130s just to have climbed the political ladder to higher echelons. Well first of all, IQ measurement is a notoriously bad measure for success. There are lots of people with high IQ's on welfare for example. You must also have drive and passion. Secondly, there are lots of dumb people who comment on politics. You can see many on this forum. They aren't able to read past the headlines mind you, but their mind is made up and that's good enough for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 LOL Obviously it's a poor measure if a paltry 125 can get you the prime ministership! What's your point? I have to ask who's sponsoring those ads and why. If it's the Conservatives attempting to impress folks with his brilliance, it ain't working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.