Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.

[g_bambino]

But if confidence is lost, the proper remedy is....... an election. A tripartite agreement not to vote down the government on a confidence measure is an abdication of the MP's duties towards the ones that elected them, their constituents, and towards the Crown.

In most situations, yes, you'd be correct. However, matters are different when there has been an election only two months previous. Besides, the opposition MPs did nothing against those who elected them, merely against those who elected the Conservatives (which would include me), as is their job to do; is it not?

_{[ed. to add]}

Edited March 10, 2009 by g_bambino

[Canadian Blue]

I thought that was quite nice. However, after his hypocritical and hateful attacks to keep his job, he no longer deserves any of my respect. However, I have noticed that any criticism of harper goes automatically to 'you hate him' from the right. Maybe many people just don't like him, which is not the same as 'hate'. That's a cop-out because you then don't have to defend anything he does, but simply dismiss it as 'hate' for the man.

Actually you do, that's why you seem to have a blind cultish attitude towards Ignatieff.

2. A politician expects criticism and so their supporters, but at least make it something other than he once said 'we'. That goes beyond ridiculous. I have several old 'Bulldog' Magazines from when Harper was head of the NCC and if want twisting of statements, it will be just too easy. In fact it might be rather fun.

Actually, that was those of us on the board pointing out that you were angry because Harper used the word separatist and was too friendly with the United States, then we pointed out Ignatieffs support for the war in Iraq and torture, which you conveniently ignore.

3. If the Royal families of Europe had found a way to sort out their family feud, millions of people would not have lost their lives in WWI and if they hadn't drafted a peace treaty that stuck it to Germany, Hitler would never have risen to power and all of those Jews could have avoided the Holocaust. War begets war and there will never be an end to war until people stop coveting other people's stuff; and religous leaders start preaching a different message. For Christians that means the message of Jesus of Nazareth.

Nice dodge, that still doesn't answer the question. Would you have supported taking action against Adolf Hitler when he attacked Poland.

Would you also support disbanding the military as well in accordance with your pacifism?

4. A political Party bragging that they have the most money so they now have a way to bankrupt the other Parties and end this silly idea of a democracy

Actually we didn't have the government subsidizing political parties before and it wasn't the end of democracy.

doesn't mean they are better; just have richer supporters.

No, it doesn't Have you ever read how much money can be given by supporters of political parties, it isn't that much. Most of the money the CPC got came from the grassroots, something the Liberal Party and Bloc don't have.

Questionable fundraising practices and the fact that by Uniting the Right he eliminated the competition, might give him more money, but it didn't give him more support. And of course having the fundraising guru evangelists doesn't hurt.

There you go again. Have you ever thought that their might be more to fundraising money for political causes than those evil evangelical Christians?

Give me a break. Harper's 'separatist' was a complete no holds barred attack on the Bloc. It was not about a single word in a university's professor's lecture.

He doesn't get to decide when the Bloc are separatists and when thery're not. They had the same status in 2004 as 2008.

You mean the separatists weren't separatists in 2004.

He piled one lie on top of the other. I still think he handed out crack to his caucus because I've watched their insane attacks several time and they were not rational human beings.

You mean like the lie that the party that advocates an independent Quebec is a separatist party? That lie?

But it's rich to see you complaining about rationality since your tirades tend to have no substance, mix in a hatred of Christians, and complete ignorance of any subject your talking about.

Harper lost the right to be Prime Minister when he divided the country to save his job. I'm now off the hook to find the odd nice thing to say about him, because there is nothing. I will no longer believe a single word that comes out of his mouth.

Stephen Harper is not my Prime Minister. Stephen Harper is not a Leader.

This country's always been divided, you must have just come out of a deep sleep. But Stephen Harper is still technically the Prime Minister of country, whether you like it or not, it's a fact.

The Bloc doesn't have to fundraise. They are financed from their province.

No, they weren't. Can you actually name a single political party that has no fundraising activities? Ever notice that most political parties have websites where you can choose to donate money?

Conservatives don't really need to either because they use our money to campaign.

You mean money that is taken from the evil evangelical Christians who want to turn us into an Aryan theocracy?

PS: The last point was mocking PT's contention that if the CPC were to be in power only white males would have any say in politics.

[Progressive Tory]

Nice dodge, that still doesn't answer the question. Would you have supported taking action against Adolf Hitler when he attacked Poland.

The West knew for years what Hitler was up to, but they turned a blind eye. The attack on Poland was not a surprise to any government and Walter Winchall reported what was happening to Jews long before it became public knowledge and several years before the war. Hitler wrote a book - I read it - where were the cosnervative then dissecting his words? Not too hard to figure out what he had planned.

My point is that it was WWI that created Hitler (All European leaders were related and it was a family feud), because it caused the complete demise of Germany. Hitler was the hero who was turning the country around, and the West loved him (except Churchill who also tried to warn his government) He was Times man of the year for 1933! But the Nazis made a lot of people rich, 'so what if he kills a few Jews', right?' Cha ching.

How do you think the Bush family made their money.

"George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany. The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism."

Wikipedia - Prescott Bush

"Bush was one of seven directors of the Union Banking Corporation, an investment bank controlled by the Thyssen family, which was seized in October 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act as being owned by "enemy aliens." The assets were held by the government for the duration of the war, then returned afterward."

War is just too profitable, so before someone decides that human life is worth more than money, and the real Christians start acting like Christians and not the world's gatekeepers, there will always be War, and I will always oppose War. I would not have supported a War against Hitler because there would have been no need of one, and if a few Christians had stepped up in 1914 and made the Royal family go to church or a boxing ring or something, the world would have been a much safer place. War begets war. It doesn't solve anything.

You mean the separatists weren't separatists in 2004. The point is not whether I thought they were separatists in 2004, but why Stephen Harper didn't when he asked them to join his coalition. And yet he ran a campaign against them with the term in 2008. Hypocrisy.

And I don't hate real Christians, and believe me there are many who don't support war, greed or intolerance. The politically correct 'pro-life' term only works if you support the right for all life. Once you support any war, or the murder of anyone simply because they're Muslim, you no longer qualify to follow the prophet Jesus of Nazareth, who wouldn't take kindly to you blowing up his homeland for oil.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[fellowtraveller]

Honestly? I voted for the NDP candidate in my riding so that he could be one of many NDP candidates and be able to form a government. Should I have voted otherwise? Should I have accepted the anti-democratic mantra "Whats the use?" and voted for the partys whose policys I dont agree with? Solely for the panacea of telling myself that "my vote wasnt wasted"?

Get real. I voted NDP hoping that maybe, just maybe, this time, people would come to thier senses and also cast votes for the NDP also.

What other reason could there possibly be to vote otherwise? I really want an NDP government so I should vote Liberal? Thats insane.

All quite rational.

However, now we know that a vote for Jack is also a vote for Gilles. And Michael. But not for Stephen.

I appreciate the Coalition for clearing all that up for the Canadian electorate. It makes the choices so much easier.

[Oleg Bach]

I feel the same way about the Russian revolution. The British monarchs were cousins of the Russian Royal family and I suspect that there was a feud of somesorts going on - the British harboured extremists and these idealogs were funded openly - as with Hitler - his first benefactor was the wife of a wealthy man and she was Jewish. Something was amiss and it's strange that some of Hitlers high henchmen had Jewish Germanic names - It all goes back to a dis-agreement between the Godly zionist and the material secularist ones - the Godly Jews refused to bow down to the state and were in the way of the monitary and political domination of Europe. We have all sorts of groups that betray each other - members of the same family will destroy the other - We assume that if they are Muslim - Christian, Jew or secularist - that they are united entities - not so..Israel has a segment of the populace that is against expansionism - and they remain quite for fear of persecution...off topic but I thought I would toss that in ------scuba diver? Interesting.

[Progressive Tory]

I feel the same way about the Russian revolution. The British monarchs were cousins of the Russian Royal family and I suspect that there was a feud of somesorts going on -

------scuba diver? Mostly searches and jumping out of planes with scuba gear on. I don't know, it was before I met him. He still got called in sometimes by the OPP or local police to help with searching for bodies.

The British royal prince was the first cousin of Czar Nicholas and could have saved him and the his family. (The Czar's wife was the grandaughter of Queen Victoria) The White army offered to get him out of the country but the British Prince Albert refused because he didn't want to upset another first cousin, Kaiser Wilhelm, and make it look like he was taking sides. Talk about a dysfunctional family.

But it gave us Wayne Gretzky and Michael Ignatieff.

[Alta4ever]

The Bloc doesn't have to fundraise. They are financed from their province. Conservatives don't really need to either because they use our money to campaign.

Really why is it that the Conservatives could afford to cut the 1.95 per vote maybe because they know how to fundraise and get support from their base something these other loud mouthed incompetants don't seem to know how to do, they need the taxpayerto pay for thier campaigns.

By the way I think you are thinking of the Liberals, as the conservatives have never campaigned with monies sto;en from the taxpayer something the liberals did with adscam.

BTW are you ever going to take the moral politics quiz I posted so you can find out just were you actually fit not were you think you fit in politics......progressive liberal

[g_bambino]

The British royal prince was the first cousin of Czar Nicholas and could have saved him and the his family. (The Czar's wife was the grandaughter of Queen Victoria) The White army offered to get him out of the country but the British Prince Albert refused because he didn't want to upset another first cousin, Kaiser Wilhelm, and make it look like he was taking sides. Talk about a dysfunctional family.

Er, you do realise that the UK was then still a constitutional monarchy, right? Foreign affairs were dictated by the Cabinet, not unilaterally by any member of the Royal Family.

As for the consequences of the First World War, I share Churchill's reflections in 1945: "This war would never have come unless, under American and modernising pressure, we had driven the Habsburgs out of Austria and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany. By making these vacuums we gave the opening for the Hitlerite monster to crawl out of its sewer on to the vacant thrones. No doubt these views are very unfashionable...." and in 1946: "If the Allies at the peace table at Versailles had allowed a Hohenzollern, a Wittelsbach and a Habsburg to return to their thrones, there would have been no Hitler. A democratic basis of society might have been preserved by a crowned Weimar in contact with the victorious Allies."

[jbg]

Honestly? I voted for the NDP candidate in my riding so that he could be one of many NDP candidates and be able to form a government. Should I have voted otherwise? Should I have accepted the anti-democratic mantra "Whats the use?" and voted for the partys whose policys I dont agree with? Solely for the panacea of telling myself that "my vote wasnt wasted"?

Get real. I voted NDP hoping that maybe, just maybe, this time, people would come to thier senses and also cast votes for the NDP also.

What other reason could there possibly be to vote otherwise? I really want an NDP government so I should vote Liberal? Thats insane.

My point obviously is you voted for the NDP, not the LPOC. You werent' voting for the LPOC leader to become PM, or for that matter Finance Minister.

gets tossed during wartime? I think not.

My point was that during wartime some implicit suspension of electoral politics may be in order (though that's never happened in my country).

You seem to be under the impression that there is some sort of morality to the system. There isn't, and in a democracy there can't be. To be otherwise is to not be a democracy. Thus parliamentary democracy evolved. The elected mp's get to haggle amongst themselves making all sorts of backroom deals etc. How the hell do you think Harpers government has managed to stay in power? They make deals! The Harper government is, in fact, a despised - disloyal Coalation government. That is what a minority government is.

Not quite. A minority government governs bill by bill and risks being turfed on any one money bill. A coalition (until a party bolts that is) is a ban on individual members representing their constituents and adhering to the Crown, because their votes are tied by agreement to another party's bills.

In most situations, yes, you'd be correct. However, matters are different when there has been an election only two months previous. Besides, the opposition MPs did nothing against those who elected them, merely against those who elected the Conservatives (which would include me), as is their job to do; is it not?

_{[ed. to add]}

If it weren't for the fact that the CPC's membership in Parliament jumped rather than dropped you might have a point. This was no kick in of a rotten door. The CPC expanded its allegiance among voters and the LPOC/BQ/NDP had apparently decided, even before the October election, to nullify the likely result of the voting. Edited March 10, 2009 by jbg

[jbg]

Er, you do realise that the UK was then still a constitutional monarchy, right? Foreign affairs were dictated by the Cabinet, not unilaterally by any member of the Royal Family.

As for the consequences of the First World War, I share Churchill's reflections in 1945: "This war would never have come unless, under American and modernising pressure, we had driven the Habsburgs out of Austria and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany. By making these vacuums we gave the opening for the Hitlerite monster to crawl out of its sewer on to the vacant thrones. No doubt these views are very unfashionable...." and in 1946: "If the Allies at the peace table at Versailles had allowed a Hohenzollern, a Wittelsbach and a Habsburg to return to their thrones, there would have been no Hitler. A democratic basis of society might have been preserved by a crowned Weimar in contact with the victorious Allies."

Interesting set of observations.

The problem of course was that these were shattered countries and that even with the return of the dynasties these countries likely would have imploded.

[Progressive Tory]

Er, you do realise that the UK was then still a constitutional monarchy, right? Foreign affairs were dictated by the Cabinet, not unilaterally by any member of the Royal Family.

The Royal Families at the time of WWI were all blood related. Did you ever watch the old movie 'All Quiet on the Western Front'? It's the German soldier's perspective, but one of them wonders what they are doing there and why the Royal families don't just duke it out themselves.

That being said, many many many people from Great Britain to the United States knew exactly what Hitler was up to. I can't remember if it was Churchill or not but it was brought up in British Paliament about 1935, that he was killing off all disabled people, making sure they couldn't reproduce, so he could create his perfect race.

WWI shouldn't have happened and WWII wouldn't have happened if it were not for the first. It was a chain of events set in motion by country leaders intent on expanding their empire. There was no noble cause.

[Progressive Tory]

Interesting set of observations.

The problem of course was that these were shattered countries and that even with the return of the dynasties these countries likely would have imploded.

I read a paper a while back written by a history professor, from Australia, I think. I can't remember. He said that it would have been better for the world at large if Britain and her allies had lost the first world war. He drafted a hypothesis that made a lot of sense. of course nobody really knows what would have happened, but maybe WWII could have been avoided.

[Canadian Blue]

But the Nazis made a lot of people rich, 'so what if he kills a few Jews', right?' Cha ching.

The Holocaust never came into it's full stages until 1942, as well Hitler took out more than just the Jews.

War is just too profitable, so before someone decides that human life is worth more than money, and the real Christians start acting like Christians and not the world's gatekeepers, there will always be War, and I will always oppose War. I would not have supported a War against Hitler because there would have been no need of one

Their is no such thing as a rewind button when it comes to history. In the darkest days of 1940 would you have supported surrendering to Nazi Germany?

War begets war. It doesn't solve anything.

Unless you happened to be one of those unlucky Jewish Parisians, in which case it would have solved alot of problems.

The point is not whether I thought they were separatists in 2004, but why Stephen Harper didn't when he asked them to join his coalition. And yet he ran a campaign against them with the term in 2008. Hypocrisy.

Not really, yes I've read the letter and it simply asks the GG to consult with the opposition if an election was called.

And I don't hate real Christians, and believe me there are many who don't support war, greed or intolerance. The politically correct 'pro-life' term only works if you support the right for all life.

I'm assuming a real Christian is someone who votes NDP and for nobody else, correct?

So their is not such thing as self defence? But even with regards to greed you seem to believe that politicians should mandate compassion, so that's not really a Christian attribute since the state has absolved an individual of their duties.

Once you support any war, or the murder of anyone simply because they're Muslim,

When was that exactly, I don't recall being told by my superiors that the Canadian Forces was in the business of ethnic cleansing. However you do realize that your pacifism would still result in massacres in the world and people being killed, the only difference is that you don't want any western nations to intervene.

As for World War 1, yes I would have opposed that war and Woodrow Wilson screwed up the entire continent due to his intervention. However I'm not given the oppurtunity to rewind history and take an ambiguous position on whether or not I would have fought the Nazis.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[Progressive Tory]

Not really, yes I've read the letter and it simply asks the GG to consult with the opposition if an election was called.

From the letter, his interview with CTV and the videotape it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what he wanted. He was reminding her that she didn't have to call an election, that all opposition parties had been in close consultation, and had an alternative. He reminds us that we shouldn't have to go to an election when the government fails ... that's not how our system works. Adrienne Clarkson knew what he meant but she gave Paul Martin a chance to fix it. He did.

The 2004 letter of intent was signed by a 'socialist', a 'separatist' and Stephen Harper. Both Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe have already confirmed what the evidence reveals. He wanted to become Prime Minister without an election, which he knew at the time he couldn't win.

What did you think they were in close consultation about as an alternative to an election? A Sadie Hawkins Dance? I'm sure that Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe have other personal evidence to present if Harper does try to campaign on the coalition as a 'coup'. They're both pretty smart men.

[Progressive Tory]

As to the Nazis, if the players had put human suffering over profit, they could have cut off funding to the Nazis and avoided a war altogether. But again, war begets war and far too much cha ching, so I'm not going to comment on something that would never have happened if more Christians followed their founding prophet and not their founding profit.

[Canadian Blue]

The 2004 letter of intent was signed by a 'socialist', a 'separatist' and Stephen Harper. Both Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe have already confirmed what the evidence reveals. He wanted to become Prime Minister without an election, which he knew at the time he couldn't win.

More than likely, and I'm sure the Liberals would have made the same arguments. But I doubt said coalition would have gone ahead since you stated before that Harper was angry about Canada not being part of the Star Wars program, and any vote on that would have led to the downfall of said government.

However I still enjoy this conversation, when Ignatieff said "we Americans" in a speech regarding his support for the war in Iraq you seem to conveniently ignore it.

As to the Nazis, if the players had put human suffering over profit, they could have cut off funding to the Nazis and avoided a war altogether.

Not really, the Nazis would have nationalized the companies. They did employ Keynesian economics to their country to move the country towards a fulltime war effort. Just because a nation isn't motivated by profit, it doesn't mean they won't be aggressive, just look at the Winter War between Finland and the USSR.

But again, war begets war and far too much cha ching, so I'm not going to comment on something that would never have happened if more Christians followed their founding prophet and not their founding profit.

So you're just neutral on the whole fighting Nazism issue then? Which is quite a brave stand in this day and age.

If you are a pacifist, if Canada were to ever be attacked by a hostile nation would you support immediate surrender regardless of the consequences?

People have been at war before the time of Jesus Christ. As well you seem to forget that the theory of Just War came from Saint Augustine, considered one of that fathers of the Church.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[g_bambino]

The Royal Families at the time of WWI were all blood related. Did you ever watch the old movie 'All Quiet on the Western Front'? It's the German soldier's perspective, but one of them wonders what they are doing there and why the Royal families don't just duke it out themselves.

Of course there were blood links between the various royal families; I don't doubt that at all. However, I think it's an extreme oversimplification to state that World War I was literally nothing more than a "family feud". Unless one is speaking purely in symbolic terms - in the sense that the sovereign is the personification of the state - then it seems to me that one could only say such a thing if the Magna Carta had never existed, and monarchs still rode into battle to defeat their royal cousin and enemy. However, by 1914, European monarchies were constitutional in nature, meaning that politicians had, by that point, probably a larger role than the monarch to play in policy making. There were also treaties and alliances to honour, as well as strategic gains to ponder, all making the Great War's pretext far more complex than simply a spat between family members.

[Canadian Blue]

World War 1 was aggravated more by nationalism than it was by monarchism. That might be an oversimplification, but that's that the jist of it.

[Peter F]

All quite rational.

However, now we know that a vote for Jack is also a vote for Gilles. And Michael. But not for Stephen.

I appreciate the Coalition for clearing all that up for the Canadian electorate. It makes the choices so much easier.

No, a vote for Jack is a vote for Jack. Gilles gets his own votes and so doe's Micheal and so doe's Stephen. However I understand the concept that a vote for anyone but Stephen is a vote for them all. Personally I find a vote for anyone but Jack is a vote for everyone but Jack.

[Peter F]

My point obviously is you voted for the NDP, not the LPOC. You werent' voting for the LPOC leader to become PM, or for that matter Finance Minister.

Neither did I vote for the Leader of the Conservative Party to be PM - Yet there he is! So do please explain how if the Leader of the Liberal Party becomes PM, my democratic rights have misfired somehow, yet another person who I have no desire to be PM is PM and my democratic rights are met?

I put it to you that this idea having someone I don't vote for as PM being percieved as trodding on my democratic rights is entirely false.

My point was that during wartime some implicit suspension of electoral politics may be in order (though that's never happened in my country).

Well, I don't know much about your country's political history, but I am slightly more informed about mine. Electoral politics have never - never been suspended in wartime. But then you do seem to be confused about electoral politics and parliamentary politics. They are two different (albeit related) animals. In parliamentary democracy's, elections are about who a person will vote for and parliamentary politics are about who and how those elected mps decide will form the government.

Not quite. A minority government governs bill by bill and risks being turfed on any one money bill. A coalition (until a party bolts that is) is a ban on individual members representing their constituents and adhering to the Crown, because their votes are tied by agreement to another party's bills.

Where are you getting this crap from? Party's can bolt from parliamentary agreements anytime they like and there is nothing holding them to any agreements made (outside of the political hay the spurned party will make of the spurning).

If it weren't for the fact that the CPC's membership in Parliament jumped rather than dropped you might have a point. This was no kick in of a rotten door. The CPC expanded its allegiance among voters and the LPOC/BQ/NDP had apparently decided, even before the October election, to nullify the likely result of the voting.

Complete Falsehood. Its very simple, jbg, if most of the members of parliament do not support a particular partys policy's, that party will not form the government. The party or lone MP that can muster a voting majority gets to form the government.

Elections only come into it once every five years at least. You keep getting the two confused and think they are one and the same; that one depends upon the other. Why do you think Harper asked the GG to prorogue parliamentand not ask for parliament to be desolved?

Because Stephen, if not you, knows how parliament works and he knew what deep caca he had got himself into and he knew it was the only way out of said caca.

[jbg]

I read a paper a while back written by a history professor, from Australia, I think. I can't remember. He said that it would have been better for the world at large if Britain and her allies had lost the first world war. He drafted a hypothesis that made a lot of sense. of course nobody really knows what would have happened, but maybe WWII could have been avoided.

At least you're consistent that you hate champions of individual freedom such as Churchill, Harper, Bush II and support absolute monarchists and dictators including wannabees like Layton.

[jbg]

Neither did I vote for the Leader of the Conservative Party to be PM - Yet there he is! So do please explain how if the Leader of the Liberal Party becomes PM, my democratic rights have misfired somehow, yet another person who I have no desire to be PM is PM and my democratic rights are met?

I put it to you that this idea having someone I don't vote for as PM being percieved as trodding on my democratic rights is entirely false.

If a voter's choice for the leadership party doesn't prevail wouldn't most prefer that their choice of party go into opposition rather than into condominium with the self-selected governing party?

Well, I don't know much about your country's political history, but I am slightly more informed about mine. Electoral politics have never - never been suspended in wartime. But then you do seem to be confused about electoral politics and parliamentary politics. They are two different (albeit related) animals. In parliamentary democracy's, elections are about who a person will vote for and parliamentary politics are about who and how those elected mps decide will form the government.

Not in Canada but I believe in Britain the election was either delayed or rendered effectively academic by the wartime coalition. In Canada, you went more than 6 years between elections during WW I (link).

Where are you getting this crap from? Party's can bolt from parliamentary agreements anytime they like and there is nothing holding them to any agreements made (outside of the political hay the spurned party will make of the spurning).

Not under the "coalition agreement" that Duceppes forged with Dion and Layton.

Complete Falsehood. Its very simple, jbg, if most of the members of parliament do not support a particular partys policy's, that party will not form the government. The party or lone MP that can muster a voting majority gets to form the government.

Do those MP's enjoy having their nominating papers signed by the party leader?

Elections only come into it once every five years at least.

You mean "at most" I hope.

You keep getting the two confused and think they are one and the same; that one depends upon the other. Why do you think Harper asked the GG to prorogue parliamentand not ask for parliament to be desolved?

Because Stephen, if not you, knows how parliament works and he knew what deep caca he had got himself into and he knew it was the only way out of said caca.

Because there had been an election 2 1/2 months earlier. Have you forgotten?

Edited to add information concerning suspensions of elections in Canada.

Edited March 11, 2009 by jbg

[Peter F]

If a voter's choice for the leadership party doesn't prevail wouldn't most prefer that their choice of party go into opposition rather than into condominium with the self-selected governing party?

Not necessarily. I would be perfectly pleased that the NDP sign on to support the government of the day in return for some NDP inspired programs. Course that depends on the cost. But, no, I have no problem with "condominium" with other partys in order to get some of what they would not get otherwise.

Not in Canada but I believe in Britain the election was either delayed or rendered effectively academic by the wartime coalition. In Canada, you went more than 6 years between elections during WW I (link).

And you are correct. there was and election in 1911 and the next in 1917. I have no idea why that was so.

Not under the "coalition agreement" that Duceppes forged with Dion and Layton.

and what, pray, would compel the parties involved to honour the agreement if they felt the agreement was no longer what they thought it was? The could back out at any time they liked.

Do those MP's enjoy having their nominating papers signed by the party leader?

of course they do -yet many do things that induce party leaders to not sign their nomination papers. Quite a regular occurence actually.

Because there had been an election 2 1/2 months earlier. Have you forgotten?

not at all. Conservatives 143 seats; Liberals 77; BQ 49; NDP 37. You do the math - apparently Harper forgot to.

Again, Why do you suppose Harper sought prorogation and not another election?

[Progressive Tory]

More than likely, and I'm sure the Liberals would have made the same arguments. But I doubt said coalition would have gone ahead since you stated before that Harper was angry about Canada not being part of the Star Wars program, and any vote on that would have led to the downfall of said government.

However I still enjoy this conversation, when Ignatieff said "we Americans" in a speech regarding his support for the war in Iraq you seem to conveniently ignore it.

People have been at war before the time of Jesus Christ. As well you seem to forget that the theory of Just War came from Saint Augustine, considered one of that fathers of the Church.

You're right. Neither coalition had much of a chance but I think Canadians now know that a coalition is an option. My point was the hypocrisy of Harper calling the Bloc 'separatists' in 2008, and claiming that he would never make a deal with 'separatists', when in fact the evidence clearly suggests otherwise.

I don't care if Ignatieff said 'we purple people eaters'. It's irrelevant and shows how desperate the Conservatives are to find anything. We know how Harper felt about Iraq but stole someone else's speech (Howard) to say it, and then denied he ever supported the war.

I have an old Bulldog magazine from when Harper was head of the NCC. In it there is a piece on Quebec and as part of the argument it suggests that the Quebec problem will eventually correct itself through 'peaceful ethnic cleansing'. Now I found the article pretty typical of the NCC's claptrap, and knew the context of the remark. But what if I cherry picked that, saying that Harper supported 'ethnic cleansing' in Quebec under the headline "Stephen Harper believes that Genocide is the answer to the Francophone problem". It would misrepreseent the facts, but turnabout's fair play. I have another article about women and why they don't need pay equity. I could have a ball with that.

And as to St. Augustine and war before Jesus was born, you're right. That's why he took such a revolutionary approach, spreading a message of peace. He hated war and greed, and supported sharing the wealth and showing mercy toward his enemies. "God forgive them for they know what they do." He didn't call for revenge.

I respect the original message of the prophet Jesus of Nazareth, not the way the Bible got twisted to bury and distort his beliefs. True Christians would never support war.

[Progressive Tory]

World War 1 was aggravated more by nationalism than it was by monarchism. That might be an oversimplification, but that's that the jist of it.

It was still an unjust and unChristian war. Should never have happened.