Jack Weber Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 He's hiding the fact that this election was contrived in order for them to do this, and has now admitted it after saying no coalition. Erm...yeah... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted April 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Coalition of losers.... Hmmm.... Like the losers in 2004??? Why was that "coaliton" A-OK but this one is total crap??? There was no official coalition, it was an agreement to co-operate on a case by case basis - big difference, but of course you et al choose to believe the liberal narrative and spin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 (edited) There was no official coalition, it was an agreement to co-operate on a case by case basis - big difference, but of course you et al choose to believe the liberal narrative and spin. Of course.. Your Dear Leader did'nt want to take power through a collaborative effort IF the Martin minority government fell... It was'nt an "evil coalition between seperatists and socialists"... It was an agreement to co-operate on a case by case basis.... What did your Dear Leader call it?? Co-Opalition?? Coaliperation??? Co-opalooza??? But it is definately NOT a coalition!!!! Nevermind the letter that basically tells the GG that she had the option of allowing the opposition take power to avoid an election.... Whatever... Edited April 1, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 There was no official coalition, it was an agreement to co-operate on a case by case basis - big difference, but of course you et al choose to believe the liberal narrative and spin. Wow, this non-coalition letter gets more interesting with each re-telling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 It was'nt acted upon because Mr.Layton backed out once he realized what Mr.Harper was really up to... Your version of history isn't exactly accurate. But even if we agree with your scenario. It's not as though Harper continued to pursue it. Why is it bad for anyone other than Mr. Harper??? That's for voters to decide. But said coalition never went past the thought/exploritory phase in 2004. Unfortunately for the opposition parties today, they took it alot further down the road. That's up to them to explain to Canadians. So far they've done a pretty poor job of it. It's the difference between somebody thinking about cheating, versus somebody that actually goes through with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 It's the difference between somebody thinking about cheating, versus somebody that actually goes through with it. So let me get this straight, a lawful constitutional means of producing a government is now to be equated with adultery? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Your version of history isn't exactly accurate. But even if we agree with your scenario. It's not as though Harper continued to pursue it. That's for voters to decide. But said coalition never went past the thought/exploritory phase in 2004. Unfortunately for the opposition parties today, they took it alot further down the road. That's up to them to explain to Canadians. So far they've done a pretty poor job of it. It's the difference between somebody thinking about cheating, versus somebody that actually goes through with it. Erm...If one of the three "co-operators" backed out in 2004,the whole thing would have been dead...Which it was.. It had nothing to do with Mr. Harpers sense of patriotism or his love of parliamentary democracy... The fact that Harper and "The Co-operators" actually drafted a letter and sent it to the GG telling that GG that the opposition was prepared to take power if the Martin government fell tells me that they were all pretty serious... The fact that you think the coaliton option is cheating in a parliamentary democracy tells me that you have very little grasp of how a parliamentary democracy works... If it was good enough in 2004,it should be good enough now... Why is Mr. Harper,and his fans,against the idea?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 So let me get this straight, a lawful constitutional means of producing a government is now to be equated with adultery? No, not necessarily. But if it's such a great means of producing a government, why is Ignatieff constantly distancing himself from such action? Why has he tried to rule it out? Perhaps because it's not very popular. If you don't like the cheating reference, go ahead a pick something else that's not popular instead. It doesn't really matter to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Erm...If one of the three "co-operators" backed out in 2004,the whole thing would have been dead...Which it was.. That's what negotiations are for. To make it not dead. But none where even tried. It had nothing to do with Mr. Harpers sense of patriotism or his love of parliamentary democracy... Maybe not. But comparing motives of somebody possibly doing something, versus a group of parties that actually did is two different things. Whether you like or not, Harper didn't go through with it, or even really try very hard. The 3 amigos did. Deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 That's what negotiations are for. To make it not dead. But none where even tried. Maybe not. But comparing motives of somebody possibly doing something, versus a group of parties that actually did is two different things. Whether you like or not, Harper didn't go through with it, or even really try very hard. The 3 amigos did. Deal with it. Deal with what exactly? I've already made my position clear numerous times that I thought the 2008 coalition was a bad idea. You seem to think I'm a coalition supporter here. I will say this, that regardless of what anyone says, if the government is toppled after the election, all bets are necessarily off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 (edited) That's what negotiations are for. To make it not dead. But none where even tried. Maybe not. But comparing motives of somebody possibly doing something, versus a group of parties that actually did is two different things. Whether you like or not, Harper didn't go through with it, or even really try very hard. The 3 amigos did. Deal with it. There are no negotiations needed when one of the key members of Mr. Harpers 2004 "Co-Operation" backs out... The math no longer adds up! And in both situations,the leaders of that coaliton/co-operation did go through with it... It's just that in both cases,nothing ever came of it... 2004...Layton walked away... 2008...Harper pulled a "perogie"...Essentially,he walked away... Edited April 1, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Erm...If one of the three "co-operators" backed out in 2004,the whole thing would have been dead...Which it was.. It had nothing to do with Mr. Harpers sense of patriotism or his love of parliamentary democracy... The fact that Harper and "The Co-operators" actually drafted a letter and sent it to the GG telling that GG that the opposition was prepared to take power if the Martin government fell tells me that they were all pretty serious... The fact that you think the coaliton option is cheating in a parliamentary democracy tells me that you have very little grasp of how a parliamentary democracy works... If it was good enough in 2004,it should be good enough now... Why is Mr. Harper,and his fans,against the idea?? Hey you striped, yellow, pussy cat lover, still wasting your TIME trying to teach a democratic symphony to the tone deaf? Missed one > http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18464&view=findpost&p=648249 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Hey you striped, yellow, pussy cat lover, still wasting your TIME trying to teach a democratic symphony to the tone deaf? Well, actually, I would think the argument could be made that a minority government is ultimately more democratic than a coalition or a majority government, but that's just me. If I had my way, I'd have the Tory minority returned, it's feet still cooking from it's failed attempts to violate basic constitutional precepts, than any kind of awkward coalition which might, in fact, have many more reasons to try to skirt various House privileges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Hey you striped, yellow, pussy cat lover, still wasting your TIME trying to teach a democratic symphony to the tone deaf? Missed one > http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18464&view=findpost&p=648249 Completely off topic... I see the Blew Bummers traded their only able bodied QB to the Argonauts..Stephen Jyles.. Seeing as Buckaroo probably won't make it past 9 games (most likely 5) because he'll concuss himself brushing his hair,or something.... What's the back up plan at the QB position in Mosquitoville??? Is Paul La Police gonna buckle it up and take a few snaps??? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- And yes...The partisans have a bit of a problem with how our democracy works... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 There are no negotiations needed when one of the key members of Mr. Harpers 2004 "Co-Operation" backs out... Wrong, there are negotiations. You offer a better power sharing agreement. It's basic politics. Obviously Layton wasn't going to be PM in that scenario. But he would have wanted a certain amount of power within the coalition agreement. Or do you think Layton backed out because of his sense of patriotism or his love of parliamentary democracy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Well, actually, I would think the argument could be made that a minority government is ultimately more democratic than a coalition or a majority government, but that's just me. If I had my way, I'd have the Tory minority returned, it's feet still cooking from it's failed attempts to violate basic constitutional precepts, than any kind of awkward coalition which might, in fact, have many more reasons to try to skirt various House privileges. I'd take that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 It had nothing to do with Mr. Harpers sense of patriotism or his love of parliamentary democracy Also Jack, if forming a coalition is perfectly acceptable in our parliamentary democracy. How would Harper stepping back from a coalition be because of a love of parliamentary democracy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Does this mean that Mr. Harper's coalition of 2004 was equally invalid?? There never was any such coalition. If you want people to take you seriously, not lying would be a good start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Wrong, there are negotiations. You offer a better power sharing agreement. It's basic politics. Obviously Layton wasn't going to be PM in that scenario. But he would have wanted a certain amount of power within the coalition agreement. Or do you think Layton backed out because of his sense of patriotism or his love of parliamentary democracy? Not at all...Although,I have'nt seen Mr. Layton try to usurp the parliamentary process like Mr. Harper has (perhaps he would if he was ever given the opportunity?).... Mr. Layton basically stated that Mr. Harper wanted to run the show by himself and simply wanted the support of the other two... Where have we heared about Mr. Harper's autocratic "style" before??? As I understand it,Mr.Layton realized what was up,and bolted.... Voila...No 2004 "Co-Opalition"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 There never was any such coalition. If you want people to take you seriously, not lying would be a good start. Come'on Byran, that's asking quite a lot out of Jack. That's how he gets by in this forum dammit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 There never was any such coalition. If you want people to take you seriously, not lying would be a good start. Of course not.... There was no letter outlining the GG's options vis a vis the opposition taking power to avoid an election.... It's not a coalition.... It was a "Co-Opalition"... Because the squeaky clean Stephen Harper would never stoop so low as to get involved with those dirty seperatists and socialists,right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Voila...No 2004 "Co-Opalition"... I'm glad you finally admitted that there was no 2004 coalition. It took a while, but you got there! Fact is, Harper never even tried to negotiate one. Even you also admit that now. He offered no power to the other parties. However, in 2008, the Liberals definitely did offer power to the NDP and the Bloc. Perhaps that's why Harper refers to that coalition as a bad idea. Get it now? Good. I'm sorry to have to educate you and embarass you all at the same time. But it had to be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Well, actually, I would think the argument could be made that a minority government is ultimately more democratic than a coalition or a majority government, but that's just me. If I had my way, I'd have the Tory minority returned, it's feet still cooking from it's failed attempts to violate basic constitutional precepts, than any kind of awkward coalition which might, in fact, have many more reasons to try to skirt various House privileges. Pretty much what I said > http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18464&view=findpost&p=648249 This election is very far from a decided issue... What if the NDP get really squeezed and loose the "deciding factor" option and the Liberals or CONS and the BLOC gain enough seats for those 2 oppostion parties to have enough seats to "bring down" a CON or a Liberal minority (a really bad outcome that the "Harper Coalition Ploy" could easily generate)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 (edited) I'm glad you finally admitted that there was no 2004 coalition. It took a while, but you got there! Fact is, Harper never even tried to negotiate one. Even you also admit that now. He offered no power to the other parties. However, in 2008, the Liberals definitely did offer power to the NDP and the Bloc. Perhaps that's why Harper refers to that coalition as a bad idea. Get it now? Good. I'm sorry to have to educate you and embarass you all at the same time. But it had to be done. I admitted that one of the key members of the Harper led 2004 "Co-Opalition" backed out... I did'nt abmit that it would not have come to fruition id that had not have happened... And please,continue to consider yourself an intellectual leviathan.... It provides so much comedy for the rest of us... Of course,its' very nice that you took time out from your star spangled banner slurpfest to pay attention to what's going on your own country... Edited April 1, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted April 1, 2011 Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 I admitted that one of the key members of the Harper led 2004 "Co-Opalition" backed out... I did'nt abmit that it would not have come to fruition id that had not have happened... And please,continue to consider yourself an intellectual leviathan.... It provides so much comedy for the rest of us... Of course,its' very nice that you took time out from your star spangled banner slurpfest to pay attention to what's going on your own country... WOW! Both barrels at once, that's gotta hit and hurt something soft... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Phone).thumb.jpg.165c8315c6251d31b87efa29fe65361b.jpg)
.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.