Leader Circle Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Mr.Duceppe and Mr. Layton were... And they both said a coalition was discussed.And Mr.Layton backed out when he realized that Harper was really trying to become PM... So what is it?? Coalition led by Mr.Harper = Good...And a coalition led by anyone else = Bad? Or you're simply cool with Mr.Harper's questionable ethics?? Not the meeting I was referring to. The meeting I meant was when the MSM decided how to cover up their bosses"(Ignatief) intentions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Coalition= Mob rule. Rather have a moderate dictator than a bunch of screaming toothless peasants screaming in glee as they lead another victim to the gallows...Let Harper stand....and let the rest of the weasils back off....Rule by committee is all to rampant these days..........rather have a king than a bickering bunch of wanna bees that will be at each others throats in private. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Not the meeting I was referring to. The meeting I meant was when the MSM decided how to cover up their bosses"(Ignatief) intentions. Ah yes... The old Con bugaboo od the "Leftist Media"... Well..No to worry!!! Peledeau is coming to give your ideological pablum very soon! "Yum! Yum!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 The old Con bugaboo od the "Leftist Media"... It's a bugaboo about a bugaboo: 1) The leftist media covering up 2) Ignatieff's malicious coalition intentions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tweetah Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Coalition= Mob rule. Rather have a moderate dictator than a bunch of screaming toothless peasants screaming in glee as they lead another victim to the gallows...Let Harper stand....and let the rest of the weasils back off....Rule by committee is all to rampant these days..........rather have a king than a bickering bunch of wanna bees that will be at each others throats in private. What like the one proposed by Harper in '04, in which Duceppe produced today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) What like the one proposed by Harper in '04, in which Duceppe produced today? You know they are using the word coalition in Libya too. The conservatives have trapped themselves into making Libya's operations "negative context" by resurging the concept coalition at this time. "Coalition airstikes etc.." They have made a split dichotomy for the neural trace.. this will cause a little confusion subconsciously to actually hurt the conservative position by making them appear anti-war with their strongest right leaning hawks. Edited March 28, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tweetah Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 It's a bugaboo about a bugaboo: 1) The leftist media covering up 2) Ignatieff's malicious coalition intentions. The Leftist media? Do you watch the neo-con whitewash CTV News? They are giving Harper a free ride on his attempt of a bloodless coup attempt in '04 with Layton and Doucepe as his Lieutenants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 The Leftist media? I didn't make the claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 You know they are using the word coalition in Libya too... "Coalition airstikes etc.." Yea, they use it in Britain right now too. Bush also used it; remember the "Coalition of the Willing"? What's your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Get rid of CBC...make them all get jobs cutting hair or maybe designing clothes for old rich ladies..I* could never figure out why our right wingers in power allow the lefties so much political force? But I guess that socialists have always been the dupes of high capitalist people. They come in handy like the lotto...............generate false hope with visions of equality..that never really materialize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tweetah Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Get rid of CBC... And let the private media whitewash Harper and his neo-cons for favours at the CRTC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 And let the private media whitewash Harper and his neo-cons for favours at the CRTC? Might as well....neo cons are just as much con artists as lefties...Lefties are like unionized post men delivering mail in Rosedale...they all dream of living in that big house--- there is not much difference between the left and the right..the right seems to be better at winning the dirty game because they are more cruel and secretive - lefties talk to much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) Ok, so we have the three amigos Harper, Duceppe, and Layton plotting in 2004 to take power away from Martin's minority government. The three amigos had the numbers so what happened? How come it never materialized? Edited March 28, 2011 by Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Ok, so we have the three amigos Harper, Duceppe, and Layton plotting in 2004 to take power away from Martin's minority government. The three amigos had the numbers so what happened? How come it never materialized? My guess is that Duceppe wanted even more than Harper had agreed to, as Quebec always does to the rest of Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) Thanks RNG but I think I found what I was looking for: Book excerpt: Layton on the "three amigos""Realizing immediately the full magnitude of what was at stake, I knew I had to walk away. I was not about to participate in any scheme cooked up by the Bloc and the Conservatives that would put the country in the hands of Stephen Harper. It was clear from the election results just three months earlier that Canadians were not ready to elect Mr. Harper as prime minister. In fact, judging from the results, Canadians were not particularly keen on any one of us being in control. None of the four parties in the House had succeeded in receiving the support of even two of every five voters. My decision made, I informed the other Opposition party leaders that I was withdrawing from the talks. The Three Amigos were down to two. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/03/book-excerpt-layton-on-the-three-amigos.html Edited March 28, 2011 by Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 In the unwritten common-law sense. ... in some other country with a completely different system of governing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) I think the situation is that no one can agree on what the agreement actually meant. To some, it is just a suggestion to the GG but to others it is the same thing as what the liberals did. In my mind, it isn't really clear and doesn't look like the power grab that the liberals were spear-heading. That's either pitiably naive, or intentional deflection. Edited March 28, 2011 by Molly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Not the meeting I was referring to. The meeting I meant was when the MSM decided how to cover up their bosses"(Ignatief) intentions. That meme could not be more patently rediculous, especially right now. Stephen Harper was given a complete pass on leading trhe first government in the history of this nation, if not the world, to have been, as a government, held in contempt of parliament. Gifts don't come any bigger than that. The hand of 'the MSM' has been feeding him peeled grapes and caviar! Biting it now is very bad form indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Layton's own words in 2004 on whether the letter had anything to do with a coalition: (warning, jack has a potty mouth) http://twaud.io/qMn0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 No one believes Iggy on coalition issue http://www.torontosun.com/news/decision2011/2011/03/28/17776696.html Leger Marketing surveyed 1,119 Canadians Saturday and Sunday and asked, among other things, if they believe Ignatieff when he says he's "ruling out a coaliton." Only 17% of those surveyed were prepared to take him at his word.And even among those who identified themselves as Liberal voters, 35% do not believe their leader's claim while just 32% do believe him. Nearly half of all NDP supporters, two-thirds of BQ supporters and 86% of Tory supporters aren't buying what Iggy's selling when it comes to the coalition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 No one believes Iggy on coalition issue http://www.torontosun.com/news/decision2011/2011/03/28/17776696.html A more interesting question would be how many believe Harper on 'the coalition issue'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 A more interesting question would be how many believe Harper on 'the coalition issue'. Acedemics are delluded dreamers and all lawyers are liars. None of these people can be fully trusted. If we can elect a Prime Minister that takes a wad of cash in a brown envelope....and still respect him..then we are not a respectable population. Montreal and Toronto have always been in competition...why give power to the French through a coalition? All they will do is continue to extort the rest of Canada...Iggy and Layton care more about career than service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Being pragmatic and mature is key. Money runs the nation - not idealism. Harper is connected and righfully so...what will Layton or Ignatieff do with power? Over throw the banks and corporations bringing Canada from a bowed stance to being totally on their knees? Lets be realistic here. We don't need more social programs or liberal harm reduction (genocide) of the drug addicted...nor do we need a man like Iggy who simply loves his own image a little to much...we need pragmatists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 A more interesting question would be how many believe Harper on 'the coalition issue'. 83% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 83% People are always willing to believe the worst first. Who cares if Harper is a liar or not? Telling lies is now instituted as normal in todays society. Try to find a person who will tell you the truth, if telling the truth will NOT benefit them? It is a confused and selfish world out there. The de-evolution of public service is running full tilt...The system has become to complex to manage effectively....eventually facism has to step in...It has in America...in Europe....so why go against the flow...It is a hopeless situtation and a fools dream to believe that some how electing a new leader will change the status quo. We have social and economic rot taking place in major Canadian cities...why not spend the election money on actually cleaning house...rather than empowering ego-centric twits? 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.