WWWTT Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 The conservative spin doctors will be burning the midnight oil over the next few days. Franticaly trying to find some kind of positive spin.Or maybe find a way to say "Our ministers past support for seperatism is different from the NDP's" Good luck! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 Liberals got some to. Heck they even asked the same person they are now thumping to run for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 The conservative spin doctors will be burning the midnight oil over the next few days.There is nothing to spin:http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/08/09/lorne-gunter-a-tory-used-to-support-sovereignty-many-ndp-still-do/ Mr. Lebel ceased to be a member of the BQ 10 years ago. Between his withdrawal from the Bloc and his election as a Tory MP — a span of more than seven years — he served two terms as mayor of Roberval, Que., during which time he made a conscious choice to eschew his sovereigntist past and seek election to the House of Commons as a federalist.Ms. Turmel, by contrast, quit the Bloc only seven months ago, just weeks before she was nominated as an NDP candidate, and never fully renounced her support for the separatists. Indeed, she seems to have turned in her Bloc card only so she wouldn’t have to admit to having one while running for the NDP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 They should all be asked to make oaths of loyalty to the Queen and be done with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 There is nothing to spin: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/08/09/lorne-gunter-a-tory-used-to-support-sovereignty-many-ndp-still-do/ Got it so the time line in which you were allowed to be a Bloc member is 10 years ago. Funny that is the same number of years as the Conservative Cabinet minster some might say that is an odd coincidence eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 (edited) Got it so the time line in which you were allowed to be a Bloc member is 10 years ago.You are deliberately misunderstanding the compliants about Turmel. It was never about the fact that in the past she supported the BQ. After all people can change their mind. It was about the fact that she only gave up her membership recently and half heartedly, was a member of the extreme provincial seperatist party and was appointed leader of the opposition. There would have been no complaints if she was just a shadow minister or if her resignation from the BQ was not so half-hearted. Edited August 9, 2011 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 They should all be asked to make oaths of loyalty to the Queen and be done with it Now he wants to be done with it after perpetuating a thread all last week because it involved the "NPD". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 was a member of the extreme provincial seperatist party And was still a member of said party, Quebec Solidaire, after she was appointed interim leader. But...but...the poor thing only joined those parties to help a friend. If she did not believe in the stated mission of those separatist parties, how low would she stoop to help a friend in other circumstances? With what we know now about Ms. Turmel's character how can she possibly be trusted in a position of power? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 Now he wants to be done with it after perpetuating a thread all last week because it involved the "NPD". I wonder how many of the NPD...or even the anglo wing, would refuse to pledge to the Queen? I suspect their allegiance to the head of state is shallow...and the Queen, odious to them. Which is why an oath would be so amusing. I guess lacking humour, you missed that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 I guess lacking humour, you missed that... I'm all humour, but that was maybe just a bit too subtle for me. I guess after failing miserably in Quebec, all CPCers can do now is question Quebeckers' loyalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 I'm all humour, but that was maybe just a bit too subtle for me. I guess after failing miserably in Quebec, all CPCers can do now is question Quebeckers' loyalty. Always a good idea...as a matter of fact, questioning the loyalty of all NPDers is appropriate, even the anglo wing (and especially the BC wing)....too many closet internationalists for my liking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 I guess after failing miserably in Quebec, all CPCers can do now is question Quebeckers' loyalty. Hardly. CPCers have proved that it's possible to win a majority without widespread support in Quebec. In the long run, I think knocking Quebec down a notch or two won't harm the province one bit. This is a federation. There should be no favourites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted August 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Hardly. CPCers have proved that it's possible to win a majority without widespread support in Quebec. In the long run, I think knocking Quebec down a notch or two won't harm the province one bit. This is a federation. There should be no favourites. That depends on the definition of "widespread". Aswell the majority win by the CPC(or any party) with only 5 seats in Quebec is a first in Canadian history. Can it be accomplished again? I believe it depends more on the overall percentage of seats Quebec holds among all seats across Canada. In other words if Quebec seat percentage drops(and will) then the greater the chance of winning a majority without a significant Quebec percentage. So therefore the conservative demonization of the seperasts makes sence in trying to canvas support outside Quebec. And how will Lebel play in all of this now,and what will the Canadian public think of a hypocrit being the prime minister!Will there be a backlash? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted August 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 appointed leader of the opposition. There would have been no complaints if she was just a shadow minister Actually she was appointed "interm" leader,and not elected leader.There is a difference. And Lebel is a cabinet minister,so who has more authority?A cabinet minister or the interm leader of the opposition? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 And Lebel is a cabinet minister,so who has more authority?A cabinet minister or the interm leader of the opposition? That's a question the weasels will never answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 she only gave up her membership recently and half heartedly, was a member of the extreme provincial seperatist party...Mindreading and hyperbole make your arguments look weak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Always a good idea...as a matter of fact, questioning the loyalty of all NPDers is appropriate, even the anglo wing (and especially the BC wing)....too many closet internationalists for my liking It's not appropriate. The ROC have been waiting for Quebec to get back on board with federalism and as soon as they do, the ROC questions their "loyalty". The Quebec Left had been supporting sovereignty for some 40 years. Everyone and I mean literally every last politically active person on the Left in Quebec has supported sovereignty in some shape or form in that time. Now that Quebec has taken a chance getting back on board with federalism, showing that "Quebec wants in", the loyalty of MPs in a federalist party are questioned because they were politically active on the Left.You want to question the loyalty of federalists, do it when they act like separatists, not before. Until then all you're doing is saying that Quebec doesn't deserve to be involved in the federal government. And I'm sure you can imagine how that will work out. By alienating Quebec from federal politics, you're giving support to the sovereigntists you claim to be fighting. The only solution to a Quebec that can't take part in federal politics is an independent Quebec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 This is a federation. There should be no favourites. I trust you were vocal in your opposition to Harper's unsuccessful, cynical pandering to Quebec for votes by recognizing it as a nation. Just kidding. I know you aren't allowed to criticize Dear Leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 It's not appropriate. The ROC have been waiting for Quebec to get back on board with federalism and as soon as they do, the ROC questions their "loyalty". The Quebec Left had been supporting sovereignty for some 40 years. Everyone and I mean literally every last politically active person on the Left in Quebec has supported sovereignty in some shape or form in that time. Now that Quebec has taken a chance getting back on board with federalism, showing that "Quebec wants in", the loyalty of MPs in a federalist party are questioned because they were politically active on the Left. You want to question the loyalty of federalists, do it when they act like separatists, not before. Until then all you're doing is saying that Quebec doesn't deserve to be involved in the federal government. And I'm sure you can imagine how that will work out. By alienating Quebec from federal politics, you're giving support to the sovereigntists you claim to be fighting. The only solution to a Quebec that can't take part in federal politics is an independent Quebec. What evidence is there they are "back on board" with ferderalism? Aside from supporting a left wing party seen as soft of separatism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 What evidence is there they are "back on board" with ferderalism? Aside from supporting a left wing party seen as soft of separatism? Wow. CPCers sure are poor losers, even when they win a majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Wow. CPCers sure are poor losers, even when they win a majority. Well, if not liking a party that has made it their position to ignore the rest of Canada and other stakeholders in Quebec's future, in order to be liked by separatists is being a poor loser ( or poor winner) then fine. I can live with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 (edited) Well, if not liking a party that has made it their position to ignore the rest of Canada and other stakeholders in Quebec's future, in order to be liked by separatists is being a poor loser ( or poor winner) then fine. I can live with that. I could too, but of course that's not true. That's what makes you a poor loser. Now how do feel about Cabinet Ministers being former members of the BQ? Edited August 10, 2011 by BubberMiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 I trust you were vocal in your opposition to Harper's unsuccessful, cynical pandering to Quebec for votes by recognizing it as a nation. That occurred only 5 years ago and you got your facts wrong. The House of Commons has overwhelmingly passed a motion recognizing Québécois as a nation within Canada.Conservatives, most Liberal MPs, the NDP and the Bloc voted 266 to 16 in support of the controversial motion, which earlier in the day had prompted the resignation of Michael Chong as intergovernmental affairs minister. --- The motion states: "That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2006/11/27/nation-vote.html I don't see "Quebec" in the motion but "Quebecois". And OMG, even Liberal leader Ignatieff voted in favour. Just kidding. That's the way I read all your posts. Good for a laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Now how do feel about Cabinet Ministers being former members of the BQ? I think they should be required to take an oath of Loyalty to the Queen. In French of course... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 I could too, but of course that's not true. What's not true? Are you saying that the NPD now support Clarity Act? 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.