ToadBrother Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 I think this has more to do with an egomaniac like Warren Kinsella,than anything else.... Well he's pretty much cooked his own goose now. Even if there were talks (and it now seems that there were at least some informal ones), he's done any potential negotiations some pretty severe harm. It's possible that we're talking about the sort of negotiations that were probably going on in the UK before its election, which would naturally have been kept very quiet for a number of good reasons. But Kinsella has become the Liberal version of Ezra Levant now, and he'll find it a pretty lonely position, where even your allies don't want to admit knowing you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 Just because the NDP believes in Democracy and does not crack the whip on its members does not mean they are Socialist Well, except for all those whipped votes in the Commons.....and remember Bev Desjarlais or is she purged from The Big Book of NDP History already? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 Well he's pretty much cooked his own goose now. Even if there were talks (and it now seems that there were at least some informal ones), he's done any potential negotiations some pretty severe harm. It's possible that we're talking about the sort of negotiations that were probably going on in the UK before its election, which would naturally have been kept very quiet for a number of good reasons. But Kinsella has become the Liberal version of Ezra Levant now, and he'll find it a pretty lonely position, where even your allies don't want to admit knowing you. speculation abounds... that this may, in fact, be Kinsella's method to scuttle "it all". He also has put up another affidavit on his website (from another Liberal party insider, John Mraz) offering suggestion that former Progressive Conservatives have been involved in the "supposed unofficial" talks between "certain" NDP and Liberal party members. Of course, that leads to an easy squawk about, apparently, the CPC "big tent" not being quite so big, after all. Hey... wasn't it only days ago that Simple touted that very thing... the CPC "big tent"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 Rising demand creates Booms...Over supply creates busts I stand corrected as I assumed you understood the gist. Such is the problem with forum discussions. Better to be accurate then assume. Even jokes can get messed up or friendly chatter. Regardless Deregulation increases the heating and cooling amplitude and the number of times for Bust and Boom Cycles increase. An good example being the recent US economic fiasco. Similar events happened in the late 20s to help create the dirty 30s. The victims of Deregulation and Market manipulation are the people. Now what does this all mean.... Someone in the Liberal Party is Lying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 Now what does this all mean....Someone in the Liberal Party is Lying. are these imaginary talks involving imaginary persons? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 (edited) Well, except for all those whipped votes in the Commons.....and remember Bev Desjarlais or is she purged from The Big Book of NDP History already? Why nothing happene to Bev Desjarlais. She spoker her mind. Went on her principles and ramained a sitting NDP MP. NDP MPs are not protected, similar to Chuck Cadman etc, and she was challenged for the nomination. Bev Desjarlias said she made her vote based upon the support within the community. The community needed to come to the Nomination meeting and back her up. Unfortuneately for her, she lost. For Cadman, his nomination meeting was hijacked and he was crushed at the nomination meeting with full blessing and support of the Conservative party. Chuck Cadman also voted based on the will of the people. When it came time to run, Cadman and Desjarlais ran as independants. Cadman obviously did have the support of the people as he Defeated all parties, Conservative, NDP and Liberal and took his seat as an independant. Desjarlais ran as a independant and her support was not that strong and quite Frankly Niki Ashton who challenged Desjarlis in the nomination doubled Desjarlis vote and the Liberals won the seat. So it wasn't like Desjarlis just lost a squeaker to the Liberals. Ashton then went on to Crush the Liberal incumbent and is likely the best MP Churchill has had in sometime and she will continue to serve well. So only those who didn't support Desjarlis in the first place are doing the whining today and thinking there is something there that will stick. Best those people look in there own backyards. Especially when respected Conservatives are driven out of the party caucus because they held their principles and trusted the Conservative promises. Meanwhile. Put a fork in Kinesella... this guy is TOAST!!! Edited June 10, 2010 by madmax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 Why nothing happene to Bev Desjarlais. hahahaha, good one. Her removal as parliamentary critic immediately after the vote of conscience and loss of the NDP nomination after 9 years as MP- pure coincidence, nothing punitive or authoritarian there. Move along, nothing to see.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 Why nothing happene to Bev Desjarlais. Aside from being fired as a parlimantary critic and losing her nomintaion for her seat....nothing happened to her... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 MDancer has made a fascinating discovery. I am shocked. Truly shocked. Someone in the Liberal Party is lying!!! Interesting to see that after this major discovery has occurred the thread turns into an NDP discussion. So if you take away the LPC lie, there is nothing LIberal to talk about Punked. If you go to all these NDP events and know all these groups, I am certain you could tell us if these conventions, regular meetings etc ever have any mention of joining the LPC? I didn't say shooting them, I said Joining them IIRC the PC/ Reform merger talks were active and on the floor of many conventions and backroom discussions of BOTH parties. It took TWO attempts to Reform the Canadian Alliance into the Progressive Conservative Party. As if it were the "Progressives" that ran Billion Dollar Deficits, brought in Consumer taxes, and charged towards Globalization faster then you can say NEOLIBERAL. All these Liberal Policies are the Lead action of Present Day Conservatives and our Prime Minister Stephen Harper. I think that if MDANCER does another investigative report, he would find Someone is the Conservative Party is Lying and then the LPC and CPC could merge on that policy feature The only time there was any real chance of it being a real thing was the first convention. In fact that is why Tommy ran, he knew Hazen Argue a large labour leader would be running and he knew he was a Liberal. So many was scared to death the party would be eaten up by labour then sold to the Liberal party. Tommy won hands down gave a call to Canadians to unite behind the NDP and the rest was history. Tommy later found out his worst fears were true when Argue left the NDP not more then 6 months lager for the Liberals. What a snake in the grass. That is as close to joining the Liberals the NDP has come and I think will ever come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 hahahaha, good one. Her removal as parliamentary critic immediately after the vote of conscience and loss of the NDP nomination after 9 years as MP- pure coincidence, nothing punitive or authoritarian there. Move along, nothing to see.. Again she does not get to vote the way she feels and take the parties money to run. If she wants to be an NDP MP then she has to vote the way the members tell her to or face the repercussions, just like in Conservatives and Liberal party. If all you have is that the NDP is less strict on whipped votes then the Liberals and Conservatives but you still think they are to strict then you better leave the party you vote for and vote independent or continue being a hyporcite because you know nothing about the NDP or Canadian politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munsinger Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 Simply work your way backwards.... Kinsella - Rae - Chretien (Desmarais family) You would think Michael I. would be getting the message, by now..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 Just because the NDP believes in Democracy and does not crack the whip on its members does not mean they are Socialist. Pardon me? Doesn't crack the whip on its members? Huh? As I have said before, you can be pro choice or pro life if you're a tory or liberal. You can be against the death penalty or an abolitionist, if you are a tory or liberal. You can be in favor of gay marriage or not if you're a tory or a liberal. Such choices are not permitted to NDP members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 Pardon me? Doesn't crack the whip on its members? Huh? As I have said before, you can be pro choice or pro life if you're a tory or liberal. You can be against the death penalty or an abolitionist, if you are a tory or liberal. You can be in favor of gay marriage or not if you're a tory or a liberal. Such choices are not permitted to NDP members. No NDP members can have their choice and they do. I have meet a few pro-life members at conventions and they get to express their opinions however you don't get to take NDP money and run for the party funded by NDP members and not exercise their and their consistents will. Last time I checked BTW you are not allowed to be pro-hunters rights in the Liberal party (they are cracking that whip hard on a private members bill) or anti-long gun in the Conservative party (they are cracking that whip hard on a private members bill). Seems to me you have a very short memory. Again that is how our political system works get over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yesterday Posted June 10, 2010 Report Share Posted June 10, 2010 I was sort of the same way on that test.I was about half way centre left on the economic scale,but on the authoritarian/libertarian scale I was basically right in the middle.Actually,I leaned slightly to the libertarian side... How old are you? Are you a political science student? Hi, you should never ask a woman how old she is. I will however admit to be a young woman in my late 30s. No, I am not a political science student just a restless mind with the time and the desire to understand. Most of my personal studies have been about rather recent events which is why I struggle abit in trying to figure out how all these agendas are aligned. There are so many current events to read it is hard to focus on the history. Between dis-information and sheer volume of information, well its an ongoing project. A big part of my interest stems from the cross border market fraud between Canada and the US. This last year has been a big eye opener for me. Lets just say I decided to step away from the garden and stop smelling the roses for awhile. Now, I am firmly entrenched and fascinated with the world of politics and finance. This is my first political forum and I am so glad that I stopped in. I am learning so much. So much about the people and parties that are responsible for creating all these agendas and what not. This place is a treasure trove for a person like me. Thanks for helping me yesterday. If I can't ask simple questions I'll never learn this properly, I would prefer to be corrected so I can be correct. So, how old are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 Here's my 2 cents. Right now I don't the Libs want a merger or a coalition with anyone, BUT,after the next comes then if the Libs. supporters don't come forth and give the Lib. party more support, then I think they will, either, change leadership one more time OR talk to the NDP. It all depends on the next election. I still think Harper is going to lose some seats, especially in Ontario. BTW, tonight, the Tories got the NDP and the BLOC together to pass the immigration bill. So the Tories have nothing to talk about when it comes to a coalition! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 BTW, tonight, the Tories got the NDP and the BLOC together to pass the immigration bill. So the Tories have nothing to talk about when it comes to a coalition! And last week 30 Liberals got lost on their way to a vote so the budget could pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 BTW, tonight, the Tories got the NDP and the BLOC together to pass the immigration bill. So the Tories have nothing to talk about when it comes to a coalition! What does cooperation on the voting on one bill have to do with coalitions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 And last week 30 Liberals got lost on their way to a vote so the budget could pass. We'll it looks like they will have a second chance thanks to the senate. Err maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 We'll it looks like they will have a second chance thanks to the senate. Err maybe. New meaning to sober second glance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 New meaning to sober second glance? This is what happens when you make a russian your leader (in jest) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 We'll it looks like they will have a second chance thanks to the senate. Err maybe. Wont happen Raymond Lavigne hasn't sat in the Senate in 3 years, there is one seat Harper can fill anytime he wishes. Which means the opposition has to get all their members there (tough task) AND hold them together. It is really a big task. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yesterday Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 (edited) This is what happens when you make a russian your leader (in jest) Hi, would you tell me why so many references to Harper being Russian/socialist? Why did you? What has he done to make people think this? Edited June 11, 2010 by Yesterday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 Hi, would you tell me why so many references to Harper being Russian/socialist? Why did you? What has he done to make people think this? I think he is referring to Count Ignatieff - IMO there have been talks, and I'll bet Bob Rae is behind it. A merger would require a leadership convention, something the Liberals won't be having until after the next election (assuming the Count loses) so Bobby Rae has to cool his heels until then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yesterday Posted June 11, 2010 Report Share Posted June 11, 2010 (edited) Mad Max wrote this...All these Liberal Policies are the Lead action of Present Day Conservatives and our Prime Minister Stephen Harper. I understand why I am having a hard time separating the Socialist mentality across parties. I was having a hard time with accepting the fact that a Conservative party was pursuing policies that I viewed as Liberal too. So I actually perhaps wasn't as confused as I thought. Still more to learn though. So, is the production based dividend a socialist concept? Did the Conservatives just adopt the idea. IE: The Federal Counsel on Climate Change. Has anyone read this 181 page piece of silliness? Count Ignatieff, giggle. Edited June 11, 2010 by Yesterday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 14, 2010 Report Share Posted June 14, 2010 (edited) BTW, tonight, the Tories got the NDP and the BLOC together to pass the immigration bill. So the Tories have nothing to talk about when it comes to a coalition! What part of the term "minority government" don't you understand? A coalition means slapping together a Cabinet with several parties, and giving those parties Cabinet posts in a position to influence policy. If you put a Dipper into Treasury you have, in part, a socialist government, even if the PM is a Liberal. Unless you expect the CPC to fall on the Throne Speech ever vote held in a minority government involves support of non-government parties.Sorry to have to call you out on your _____. Edited June 14, 2010 by jbg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.