YEGmann Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 (edited) Lisa Laflamme has just reported in the Question Period, that Liberals and NDP have an agreement of non-competition, at least in Quebec. They already divided ridings there. That means candidates who are supposed to win in those ridings are mutually discussed and agreed, i.e. they are mutual Liberal-NDP candidates. Edited March 28, 2011 by YEGmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 Lisa Laflamme has just reported in the Question Period, that Liberals and NDP have an agreement of non-competition, at least in Quebec. They already divided ridings there. That means candidates who are supposed to win in those ridings are mutually discussed and agreed, i.e. they are mutual Liberal-NDP candidates. Uh huh.... Keep diggin'... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 Lisa Laflamme has just reported in the Question Period, that Liberals and NDP have an agreement of non-competition, at least in Quebec. They already divided ridings there. That means candidates who are supposed to win in those ridings are mutually discussed and agreed, i.e. they are mutual Liberal-NDP candidates. Now that really is a good howler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 Right now I can see the Layton clan and the Ignatieff crew after a late night arguing how to divide up the pizza and poutine they ordered in. I hope it goes as well as the Quebec ridings has. CTV better get on this right away. Oh wait this just came in,Layton also ordered bbq chicken wings,cmon Lisa get in there and lets hear some real dirt. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimzby Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 The Stephen Harper's Coalition Blues Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 (edited) Lisa Laflamme has just reported in the Question Period, that Liberals and NDP have an agreement of non-competition, at least in Quebec. They already divided ridings there. That means candidates who are supposed to win in those ridings are mutually discussed and agreed, i.e. they are mutual Liberal-NDP candidates. How do you have a Question Period when Parliament is dissolved? And on a Sunday? Edited March 27, 2011 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 It wouldn't be such a bad idea if they did. They are wanting to do anyting to stop Stephen Harper from getting a Majority. The issue is, without a majority we will never be able to go more than 2.5 years without an election zzz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 It wouldn't be a bad idea but the OP seems false. If this were true, the Liberals would leave Outremont alone instead of contesting it aggressively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 It wouldn't be a bad idea but the OP seems false. If this were true, the Liberals would leave Outremont alone instead of contesting it aggressively. That's right! CTV was broadcasting that there has been speculation about it but I doubt they would do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 How do you have a Question Period when Parliament is dissolved? And on a Sunday? You've never heard of CTV's Question Period? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Wow. Talk about an attempt to deflect away from how horrible the coalition talking point is going for Harper. He's been tarred by the press all weekend by this and it's only going to get worse if he keeps denying the 2004 letter, which he will because he can never admit when he's wrong. In any case, this thread is a lie. The so called "deal" is actually an attempt to ouster Trudeau in Papineau. The Bloc are going to run a soft campaign in Outremont to help out Mulcair in Outremont as Couchon has a really good shot of winning the seat. The NDP are going to run a soft campaign in Papineau to help the Bloc defeaut Trudeau. So, why in gods name would the Liberals join an agreement meant to beat 2 different Liberal candidates? Absolutely ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Wow. Talk about an attempt to deflect away from how horrible the coalition talking point is going for Harper. He's been tarred by the press all weekend by this and it's only going to get worse if he keeps denying the 2004 letter, which he will because he can never admit when he's wrong. In any case, this thread is a lie. The so called "deal" is actually an attempt to ouster Trudeau in Papineau. The Bloc are going to run a soft campaign in Outremont to help out Mulcair in Outremont as Couchon has a really good shot of winning the seat. The NDP are going to run a soft campaign in Papineau to help the Bloc defeaut Trudeau. So, why in gods name would the Liberals join an agreement meant to beat 2 different Liberal candidates? Absolutely ridiculous. Wow those are big accusation any proof? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 You've never heard of CTV's Question Period? Well now that makes a little more sense. Heard of it/seen it yes, but I generally don't watch the CTV news channel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Well now that makes a little more sense. Heard of it/seen it yes, but I generally don't watch the CTV news channel. I watch it on Sunday morning, on the main CTV network. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tweetah Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 CTV News (and the Question Period program) is right-wing leaning (due mainly to it's parent company's (BCE Inc.) disagreements with the CRTC. Corporate strategy is to be nice to the neo-cons and matters before the CRTC will go our way so any political news disseminating from this Harper lapdog MUST be taken with a grain of salt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGmann Posted March 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 In any case, this thread is a lie. The so called "deal" is actually an attempt to ouster Trudeau in Papineau. The Bloc are going to run a soft campaign in Outremont to help out Mulcair in Outremont as Couchon has a really good shot of winning the seat. The NDP are going to run a soft campaign in Papineau to help the Bloc defeaut Trudeau. It seems you are right. My fault. This is a link to the CTV clip. http://watch.ctv.ca/news/ctvs-question-period/#clip439855 Lisa LaFlamme in Montreal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 CTV News (and the Question Period program) is right-wing leaning (due mainly to it's parent company's (BCE Inc.) disagreements with the CRTC. Corporate strategy is to be nice to the neo-cons and matters before the CRTC will go our way so any political news disseminating from this Harper lapdog MUST be taken with a grain of salt. Wrong the ctv I'd say is centrist. If anything craig oliver is left leaning. Is msnbc right leaning because its privately owned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Wrong the ctv I'd say is centrist. If anything craig oliver is left leaning. Is msnbc right leaning because its privately owned? When the press is bashing your favorite party, the first defense is that the press is biased. Rightwingers will swear up and down had the leftist journalists is out to get them, and left wingers will inevitably declare the right wing media giants are out to get them. What the press loves above ideology is scandal and hypocrisy, or even the whiff of them. There are reporters out there, particular in the Ottawa press gallery, who would probably sell their mothers up the river if they thought the indiscretions would get the report on page 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGmann Posted March 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Day three of the election campain. Striking contrast to the last year fightings in the HoC. NDP does not attack Liberals. Neither Liberals attack NDP. The harshest words Ignatieff said (so far) about BQ:"With all my respect to Gilles Duceppe, he is not a good replacement for Stephen Harper". That's it. Gilles Duceppes emits rivers of dirty lies towards Harper. Not a single attack against NDP or Liberals. May be so far. Interpretation of these observations: Three amigos fulfil their agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 All right, who here is already on the payroll? Fess up! I'm joking of course, as anyone who does this can usually be spotted a mile away. Why doesn't Harper take some action now to help families instead of 5 years from now? Writers Needed to post Right-Wing Comments (National) http://i.imgur.com/757PM.png Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 All right, who here is already on the payroll? Fess up! I'm joking of course, as anyone who does this can usually be spotted a mile away. Why doesn't Harper take some action now to help families instead of 5 years from now? Kinda of a pity there isn't a firm paying for non-partisan posters. I could use the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 29, 2011 Report Share Posted March 29, 2011 Why doesn't Harper take some action now to help families instead of 5 years from now? At first glance it does look odd Harry. I think if the Treasury was in better shape the policy announced would probably be put in place immediately if his party is re-elected. Tagging it for implementation in 2015 sends a message of prudent spending and indicates where some of his priorities are, i.e. lower taxes and lessening the burden on families with children. Some people will be upset they can't collect their candy right now and some will be willing to wait for it. What both groups will know is what awaits them on the tax front if they decide to vote Conservative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 29, 2011 Report Share Posted March 29, 2011 At first glance it does look odd Harry. I think if the Treasury was in better shape the policy announced would probably be put in place immediately if his party is re-elected. Tagging it for implementation in 2015 sends a message of prudent spending and indicates where some of his priorities are, i.e. lower taxes and lessening the burden on families with children. Some people will be upset they can't collect their candy right now and some will be willing to wait for it. What both groups will know is what awaits them on the tax front if they decide to vote Conservative. Tagging a four year delay in implementation says "I'm making bold promises that I have no idea whether I can keep or not." Voting based on a campaign promise is an iffy business at the best of times. Voting on a promise to do something near the end of a hypothetical majority mandate seems positively foolish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted March 29, 2011 Report Share Posted March 29, 2011 Tagging a four year delay in implementation says "I'm making bold promises that I have no idea whether I can keep or not." Voting based on a campaign promise is an iffy business at the best of times. Voting on a promise to do something near the end of a hypothetical majority mandate seems positively foolish. Sounds a bit like blackmail to me. You will have to vote Conservative twice to reap the rewards. Voting for Harper once is bad enough, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 29, 2011 Report Share Posted March 29, 2011 Sounds a bit like blackmail to me. You will have to vote Conservative twice to reap the rewards. Voting for Harper once is bad enough, isn't it? Well yes, but that's what campaign promises are. Do you think voting based on Iggy's promises will get you much further ahead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.