Canadian Blue Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 I'm talking about the desperation of planning an attack on the word 'we'. It's irrelevant. Yet you're up in arms because Harper referred to the separatist Bloc as 'separatists.' Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 I'm talking about the desperation of planning an attack on the word 'we'. It's irrelevant. Right....it's a switch that's turned on and off when most convenient. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Oleg Bach Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Right....it's a switch that's turned on and off when most convenient. Reminds my of my former wife "we really don't like you" - as if she were speaking for the whole family...It is either the royal "we" or it might be the conspiratorial "we" or it just might be the - it's not just me "we" - kind of disappating the blame - like dumping toxics in a huge lake. Quote
Canadian Blue Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Right....it's a switch that's turned on and off when most convenient. Exactly. Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
g_bambino Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) Actually, it was in this case. The Crown is certainly not supposed to coddle a prime minister from the attacks of a parliament that very prime minister incessantly and very purposefully provoked. After being goaded one time too many, the opposition retaliated with a move from Harper's own play book. As proven by Martin's example in 2004, however, it wasn't then necessary for Harper to go to Rideau Hall to seek a prorogation; he had other options available to him to solve what was still only a parliamentary dispute, not the least of which was show some humility and attempt to placate the opposition he'd relentlessly poked at. But, as we all know, Harper's chosen tactic was to be a hypocrite, lie to the public about how he obtained his position, and then, with the media's spotlight turned squarely on him, run to the Governor General with the expectation that she, as merely an inconvenient formality in the exercise of his presidential powers, would immediately do as he said. That, to me anyway, shows that Harper has either completely forgotten that he's the Prime Minister of Canada and now believes himself to be some alternate President of the Northern United States, or that his own political well-being is more important than our central institutions of government. Either way, though, he sure got skool'd. [ed. for sp.] Edited March 10, 2009 by g_bambino Quote
Canadian Blue Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 The Crown is certainly not supposed to coddle a prime minister from the attacks of a parliament that very prime minister incessantly and very purposefully provoked. After being goaded one time too many, the opposition retaliated with a move from Harper's own play book. As proven by Martin's example in 2004, it wasn't necessary for Harper to go to Rideau Hall to seek a prorogation; he had other options available to him to solve what was still only a parliamentary dispute, not the least of which was show some humility and attempt to placate the opposition he'd relentlessly poked at. Actually the opposition was clear that no matter what Stephen Harper did he wouldn't get the confidence of the house. Therefore he had to go to the Governor General. But, as we all know, Harper's chosen tactic was to be a hypocrite, lie to the public about how he obtained his position, and then, with the media's spotlight turned squarely on him, run to the Governor General with the expectation that she, as merely an inconvenient formality in the exercise of his presidential powers, would immediately do as he said. That, to me anyway, shows that Harper has either completely forgotten that he's the Prime Minister of Canada and not the President of the United States, or that his own political well-being is more important that our central institutions of government. Either way, though, he sure got skool'd. So you're saying that you really don't know how the system works either with regards to the Governor General's powers in Canada, correct? But he sure did get "skool'd" according to you since he ensured his government survived while Stephane Dion left politics losing his one chance to become Prime Minister. You know, I love how all the lefties like G here argue that Conservatives know nothing about Parliament and then showcase their even larger ignorance of the role of the GG. First of all, Harper did what you wanted since he brought forward a budget that was passed by the majority of the house, thus showcasing that the coalition wasn't needed. But let's keep in mind this dispute was largely due to the fact that the Liberal Party and Bloc Quebecois can't survive because their supporters are evidently too lazy to sign a cheque. Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
g_bambino Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) Actually the opposition was clear that no matter what Stephen Harper did he wouldn't get the confidence of the house. And so what? Is the house losing confidence in Harper some kind of affront to the natural order of the universe? Only if that were so could the Prime Minister have been some kind of hapless victim, forced suddenly to protect from an inexplicably delirious opposition his popularly mandated, and thus totally incontestable, nearly divine, right to hold power. Of course, anyone who does understand the system knows that such a claim is absolutely false. This isn't about "lefties" or "righties" (actually, it seems you'd be surprised at where on the spectrum I sit); Harper took the situation beyond simple political partisanship when he started to machinate our very system of parliamentary democracy and our constitutional monarchy in order to save himself from something he started. [copyedited] Edited March 10, 2009 by g_bambino Quote
Canadian Blue Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 And so what? I'm just pointing out that unlike your previous assertion Harper really couldn't have done anything about it. Is the house losing confidence in Harper some kind of affront to the natural order of the universe? Yes, to any politician it is. Including shockingly enough politicians on the left whom are apparently angels on earth. Only if that were so could the Prime Minister have been some kind of hapless victim, forced suddenly to protect from an inexplicably delirious opposition his popularly mandated, and thus totally incontestable, nearly divine, right to hold power. Of course, anyone who does understand the system knows that such a claim is absolutely false. No, it isn't. The Governor General does hold that power. This isn't about "lefties" or "righties" (actually, it seems you'd be surprised at where on the spectrum I sit); If you were on the rational side of the political spectrum you would have recognized that the entire episode was a clusterf*ck of idiotic politicians from both the left and right whom had no concern about solving the problems the country was facing and only wished to either hold or attain power regardless of the consequences. Harper took the situation beyond simple political partisanship when he started to machinate our very system of parliamentary democracy and our constitutional monarchy in order to save himself from something he started. Really, so the coalition wasn't taking a situation beyond political partisanship, even after the government withdrew the contentious parts of the update that the opposition was pissed off about. So let me get this straight, you're saying that the coalition never went beyond political partisanship once, right? Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
Smallc Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) If you were on the rational side of the political spectrum Pfft. I'm a Liberal, but I voted for the Prime Minister, and after some careful thought, I decided I didn't like the coalition (Dion), but even I could see the game that the Prime Minister played. He knew that he was poking the opposition....he just didn't expect them to bite him. Oh, and there is no such thing as a rational side to the spectrum. Edited March 10, 2009 by Smallc Quote
g_bambino Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 I'm just pointing out that unlike your previous assertion Harper really couldn't have done anything about it. Ah, there it is again: Harper was a victim. Well, you can of course believe that if you wish, but it doesn't make it true. Just like it isn't true that I never criticised the opposition for their part in the affair. But, hey, it's probably just easier and makes you feel better to call me irrational, right? Quote
Canadian Blue Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Pfft. I'm a Liberal, but I voted for the Prime Minister, and after some careful thought, I decided I didn't like the coalition (Dion), but even I could see the game that the Prime Minister played. He knew that he was poking the opposition....he just didn't expect them to bite him.Oh, and there is no such thing as a rational side to the spectrum. What I meant was rational side, are people that can look at a situation objectively and recognize that not everything is black and white. Yes, Stephen Harper played a political game [attempting to lure the NDP into voting for the update, thus destroying the LPC] and failed. However any person who thinks that politicians don't play political games just because of where they sit on the spectrum has no critical thinking skills whatsoever. Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
Canadian Blue Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) Ah, there it is again: Harper was a victim. Well, you can of course believe that if you wish, but it doesn't make it true. Just like it isn't true that I never criticised the opposition for their part in the affair. But, hey, it's probably just easier and makes you feel better to call me irrational, right? I haven't seen your criticism thus far of the opposition, and yes you are somewhat irrational if you don't think politicians on the left side of the spectrum play political games. I find it somewhat repetitive to remind people that politicians are in politics and will likely play political games. It's something I've had to repeat ad nauseum however it never seems to get through. However I have no love for Stephen Harper, if anything I wish the coalition did go through just so he'd have some dignity while watching said coalition crumble apart a few months later due to the incompatibility of the Bloc, NDP, and Liberal Party. But listen I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings by pointing out certain facts, like how the opposition was going to go through with the coalition regardless of what happened. I can't change history to meet your needs. Edited March 10, 2009 by Canadian Blue Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
Smallc Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 However any person who thinks that politicians don't play political games just because of where they sit on the spectrum has no critical thinking skills whatsoever. They all were playing a game. The prime Minister though, started the game. I still think that he was the best of the leaders available in October, but I didn't like what he did in the economic update because it didn't do anything except create division and ultimately a Parliamentary crisis. Quote
g_bambino Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) I voted for the Prime Minister, and after some careful thought, I decided I didn't like the coalition (Dion), but even I could see the game that the Prime Minister played. He knew that he was poking the opposition....he just didn't expect them to bite him. Save for the surety with which you hold your favoured party, you echo almost exactly both my vote and my subsequent feelings. [added missing word] Edited March 10, 2009 by g_bambino Quote
Canadian Blue Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 They all were playing a game. The prime Minister though, started the game. I still think that he was the best of the leaders available in October, but I didn't like what he did in the economic update because it didn't do anything except create division and ultimately a Parliamentary crisis. Looking back at it I would have preferred division. Then we might have atleast one MP that would have argued against the deficit that'll chain our children to more debt. Quote "Keep your government hands off my medicare!" - GOP activist
g_bambino Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 I haven't seen your criticism thus far of the opposition... No party or leader behaved in a particularly admirable fashion throughout the whole fiasco... Not the strongest criticism I've ever levelled, but where I started with this was only with two points: Harper's hypocricy, and Harper's lies. The opposition was another, tangential matter. ...and yes you are somewhat irrational if you don't think politicians on the left side of the spectrum play political games. Well, then, at least it's settled that I am not irrational. However I have no love for Stephen Harper, if anything I wish the coalition did go through just so he'd have some dignity while watching said coalition crumble apart a few months later due to the incompatibility of the Bloc, NDP, and Liberal Party. I can't say I disagree with much there other than Harper maintaining any dignity coming out of this (for reasons I think I've already made clear). Quote
jbg Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Apparently if you ever showed sympathy with the United States, had a "Support the Troops" magnet, or questioned the ethics of abortion, you are no different from David Irving and Ernst Zundel.As a U.S. citizen and a Jew I am honored to count many original Reformers among my friends, both e- and in-person. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 If the confidence the house has vested in him is on shaky ground, then Harper must either stabilise it or loose it. Period. It is not up to the Crown to shore up his position, nor is our parliamentary system of responsible government there for him to disassemble in his favour.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. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 My comments were tongue in cheek. However, you can call Ignatieff whatever you like, but never say he's anything like Harper, who is cold, petty and a snivelling coward.At least you're not shy about your opinions.Harper is a refreshing change from the course of unmitigated political correctness that has been going on nonstop since Pearson took over from Diefenbaker. The course of non-stop Quebec appeasement has done nothing for Canadian unity and in fact basically rent the fabric of a great nation. Harper, hopefully, will be able to rebuild something of value. A coward? I think not. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Peter F Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 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. That is only one remedy. And even the election remedy is to allow an opportunity for change of MP's so's they can come up with a government that has a support of the majority of the members. If any party - even a minority party - hell even 1 person - can drum up the support of a majority of mps then guess what? they get to form the government! See Churchill/Chamberlain ala 1940. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
jbg Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 That is only one remedy. And even the election remedy is to allow an opportunity for change of MP's so's they can come up with a government that has a support of the majority of the members. If any party - even a minority party - hell even 1 person - can drum up the support of a majority of mps then guess what? they get to form the government! See Churchill/Chamberlain ala 1940. Wartime situations are no sui generis. Honestly, how many died in the wool 'dippers thought they were voting for a center-left government or for Quebec separatists? How many Quebec separatist Bloc voters thought they were voting for the alleged "Captain Canada" to become PM? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Peter F Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 Wartime situations are no sui generis. Honestly, how many died in the wool 'dippers thought they were voting for a center-left government or for Quebec separatists? How many Quebec separatist Bloc voters thought they were voting for the alleged "Captain Canada" to become PM? 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. 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. gets tossed during wartime? I think not. 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. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
Progressive Tory Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 1. Don't worry, I won'd ad hominem attack Ignatieff like you did Harper. But listen I understand, you really hate Stephen Harper. I hear that kind of hatred come from the left all the time, it's normal. 2. That is unless you think it's abhorrent that a politician would be criticized. 3. Of course not, otherwise all of the Jews would have been exterminated in Europe. 4. Actually, Flahrety stated that it would be in the next election that the CPC would abolish said funding. But then again it's really not a surprise that the parties of left require taxpayer dollars to survive. 1. I had always promised myself that I would never buy into the 'scarey Harper' "Hidden agenda' nonsense, and at no time before December of 2008, did I actually hate the man. I hated his politics and his ideology but tried to at least once a month or so find something positive to say. Even on this board I said that I liked his idea of provinces having more autonomy and mentioned reading that during an annual press party at Stornoway, he included the media's families. 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. 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. 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. 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; doesn't mean they are better; just have richer supporters. 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. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Progressive Tory Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) Yet you're up in arms because Harper referred to the separatist Bloc as 'separatists.' 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. 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. 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. Edited March 10, 2009 by Progressive Tory Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
Progressive Tory Posted March 10, 2009 Report Posted March 10, 2009 But let's keep in mind this dispute was largely due to the fact that the Liberal Party and Bloc Quebecois can't survive because their supporters are evidently too lazy to sign a cheque. 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. Quote "For all our modesty and self-deprecation, we’re a people who dream great dreams. And then roll up our sleeves and turn them into realities." - Michael Ignatieff "I would not want the Prime Minister to think that he could simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another General Election. That's not the way our system works." Stephen Harper.
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.