normanchateau Posted March 31, 2009 Report Posted March 31, 2009 It's like arguing with a Witness at your door on a weekend morning. You might enjoy chewing over the subject matter but then it becomes obvious that there's no point. Faith cannot be shaken by debate, evidence or reason. To someone who is more objective, this comes as a disappointment and a frustration. I've not noticed too many Harper supporters becoming Ignatieff supporters, or Ignatieff supporters becoming Harper supporters as a result of reasoned debate on this board. In case you haven't noticed, people on this board are more partisan than the average voter. Not sure why you're singling out one particular poster for a personal attack. Is it because she's a woman? Quote
Alta4ever Posted March 31, 2009 Report Posted March 31, 2009 You are absolutely right. However, again the issue is why were they 'separatists' in 2008, and not in 2004, when Stephen Harper actually needed them, not to just prop up his coalition but to join it? The Bloc's mandate has not changed since 2004, or for that matter since 2000 when Stockwell Day sought them out for his coalition.Bloc part of secret coalition plot in 2000 with Canadian Alliance Then again, with the Bloc's main concern, and I agree, being what's in it for Quebec; what was in it for Quebec? What did Stephen Harper promise them? Guess we'll have to wait until Gilles Duceppe gets out of politics and writes a 'tell all' book. After Harper's hypocrital campaign to save his job, however, I don't see anyone trusting him again in even a minor agreement, let alone a coalition. From your own artical "In an interview, Mr. Chipeur played down the importance of the offer, saying he never discussed the matter with Mr. Day or other MPs, and was simply getting ready in the event of a minority government." I don't think you have a thing PT just tring to fabricate stories. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
85RZ500 Posted March 31, 2009 Report Posted March 31, 2009 That would have meant Harper temporarily giving up power instead of grovelling to the GG and begging her to let him keep his job. So much for the pre-election perception of Harper being a strong leader. Not really, he could have sat back and watched the three stooges squabble each other half to death. An election would be called, he would have looked like a hero next to the insanity that had prevailed. The next best thing will be to watch the fireworks of the runup to the next election. Quote
Progressive Tory Posted April 1, 2009 Report Posted April 1, 2009 This happens a lot on many discussion boards. It's just a part of human nature. If it bothers you, it's best to just move on. There's no point in trying to be a rock against the waves. You just get worn down over the years. It doesn't bother me a bit. I rather like being a rock against the waves. It's no fun debating with someone if they just agree with you. BTW, there are several here who I can predict a response from. Sometimes they surprise me though. 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.
jbg Posted April 1, 2009 Report Posted April 1, 2009 Not really, he could have sat back and watched the three stooges squabble each other half to death. An election would be called, he would have looked like a hero next to the insanity that had prevailed.The next best thing will be to watch the fireworks of the runup to the next election. Would you like to see a record set on number of elections in a calendar year? Going for three perhaps? 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).
normanchateau Posted April 1, 2009 Report Posted April 1, 2009 Not really, he could have sat back and watched the three stooges squabble each other half to death. An election would be called, he would have looked like a hero next to the insanity that had prevailed. Yet Harper did not sit back. Instead he went to the GG and grovelled because of intense fear that he'd lose power to the coalition. Or do you have a better explanation of why he grovelled? Quote
Wild Bill Posted April 1, 2009 Report Posted April 1, 2009 It doesn't bother me a bit. I rather like being a rock against the waves. It's no fun debating with someone if they just agree with you.BTW, there are several here who I can predict a response from. Sometimes they surprise me though. Well, it would be only fair to cite some of your GOOD points! You are unfailingly polite and 'civilized' in your posts. There are many on this board who cannot make that claim. A number of posters are frankly snide, patronizing and sarcastic. That's just not you, I'd like to say! I don't care about another's politics as much as I care about them passing the 'good neighbour' test. You know, some folks make great neighbours. They are friendly, respectful and a pleasure to have next door. Others are constantly writing 'Letters to the Editor' demanding that everyone in the neighbourhood conform to THEIR ideals or how everyone ELSE is not believing or behaving correctly! I'd have no problem with you as my neighbour, PT! There are others on this board that would make me sell my house at a loss just to get away... Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
normanchateau Posted April 1, 2009 Report Posted April 1, 2009 Is there a specific reason Progressive Tory is continually allowed to span this forum with post after post after post in succession? There is no rule against successive posts nor should there be. Quote
jbg Posted April 2, 2009 Report Posted April 2, 2009 Yet Harper did not sit back. Instead he went to the GG and grovelled because of intense fear that he'd lose power to the coalition. Or do you have a better explanation of why he grovelled? Yes. The Coalition effort was really a coup attempt. 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 April 2, 2009 Report Posted April 2, 2009 There is no rule against successive posts nor should there be. Spamming perhaps? 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).
Cuzzin E Posted May 1, 2009 Author Report Posted May 1, 2009 ... thoughts? The Conservative-Seperatist-Socialist coalition Quote
normanchateau Posted May 1, 2009 Report Posted May 1, 2009 Harper said he will listen to any elected MP, but dismissed talk of an alliance to avoid an election as “absolutely untrue.” “The Bloc Quebecois stands for the break-up of this country. We will not govern this country in a pact or arrangement with the Bloc Quebecois,” he said. “There is no contemplation of that, let alone possibility.” http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/200...319961-sun.html Perhaps Harper also remembers Dion's fate after his pact with the BQ. 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.