YankAbroad Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 Suddenly he's got power, and he's not very savvy with using it. He's managed to tick off a number of people who voted for his party in the hope they'd get a housecleaning with the ministerial situation the last few days. And, of course, the NDP are going to take a truncheon to most of his planned reforms. Quote
shoop Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 Quite typical of an NDP supporter. Basic ability to grasp reality. Any parties that forced an election in 2006 would pay for it at the ballot box. Nobody wants a third election in a 30-month span. Thanks for coming out though. Suddenly he's got power, and he's not very savvy with using it. He's managed to tick off a number of people who voted for his party in the hope they'd get a housecleaning with the ministerial situation the last few days. And, of course, the NDP are going to take a truncheon to most of his planned reforms. Quote
uOttawaMan Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 Quite typical of an NDP supporter. Basic ability to grasp reality. Any parties that forced an election in 2006 would pay for it at the ballot box. Nobody wants a third election in a 30-month span. Thanks for coming out though. Suddenly he's got power, and he's not very savvy with using it. He's managed to tick off a number of people who voted for his party in the hope they'd get a housecleaning with the ministerial situation the last few days. And, of course, the NDP are going to take a truncheon to most of his planned reforms. So let me get this straight... you aren't dis-agreeing with anything he said, just merely stating that the government won't fall because noone wants another election. If the Conservatives f*&$ up, then they get brought down, regardless of how soon the last election was. Thanks for coming out though. Been in power for less than a month, and Conservative arrogance is replacing Liberal arrogance. Great. Quote "To hear many religious people talk, one would think God created the torso, head, legs and arms but the devil slapped on the genitals.” -Don Schrader
shoop Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 Was it a mistake? Yes. Should the government fall over it? No. I laugh at the idea of the NDP taking a truncheon (whatever the f*ck that is) to most of his planned reforms. How exactly will they do that? They don't have the balance of power. They have no natural allies in the House right now. The Canadian people gave the CPC a mandate to implement their five key priorities. They can't do it in 9 months. If a government fell every time it made one mistake we would be averaging two elections a year, at least. People don't want that. How is giving people what they want arrogant? So let me get this straight... you aren't dis-agreeing with anything he said, just merely stating that the government won't fall because noone wants another election. If the Conservatives f*&$ up, then they get brought down, regardless of how soon the last election was.Thanks for coming out though. Been in power for less than a month, and Conservative arrogance is replacing Liberal arrogance. Great. Quote
Shady Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 Whenever the next election takes place, all I know is, that it's better to elect the devil we know (The Conservatives) then the devil we don't know. How is giving people what they want arrogant?Because, to Liberals, the natural order of things in Canada is for them to be in power. When that doesn't happen, they tend to get quite bitter. Quote
uOttawaMan Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 Whenever the next election takes place, all I know is, that it's better to elect the devil we know (The Conservatives) then the devil we don't know.How is giving people what they want arrogant?Because, to Liberals, the natural order of things in Canada is for them to be in power. When that doesn't happen, they tend to get quite bitter. You're right, the natural 3rd party gets annoyed when the natural official opposition is in power. Quote "To hear many religious people talk, one would think God created the torso, head, legs and arms but the devil slapped on the genitals.” -Don Schrader
shoop Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 I thought the Liberals *weren't* supposed to be arrogant anymore. You're right, the natural 3rd party gets annoyed when the natural official opposition is in power. Quote
na85 Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 The Canadian people gave the CPC a mandate to implement their five key priorities. They can't do it in 9 months. Oh please. The Canadian people gave them a mandate? The national voter turnout numbers are extremely low (55% of the voting age population voted in 2004) and on top of that, Harper only won a minority government. This means that something like 30% or so of Canadians voted for Harper. You think this is a mandate given by the people? Quote
Shady Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 Mandate: An authorization to act given to a representative. That's exactly what the election was about. If you don't believe that Harper has a mandate, what does it say about the other party's, who got an even less percentage of the vote? Wow, I never knew that Liberals could be such sore losers. Actually, who am I kidding, I totally did. Quote
shoop Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 Actually it was just under 65% in 2006 (64.9%). Link. Are we to believe that Canada should be in a state of perpetual elections because you feel voter turnout was too low? What is the gospel according to na85 in terms of what constitutes a *mandate*? Oh please. The Canadian people gave them a mandate? The national voter turnout numbers are extremely low (55% of the voting age population voted in 2004) and on top of that, Harper only won a minority government.This means that something like 30% or so of Canadians voted for Harper. You think this is a mandate given by the people? Quote
uOttawaMan Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 I thought the Liberals *weren't* supposed to be arrogant anymore. You're right, the natural 3rd party gets annoyed when the natural official opposition is in power. I'm an arrogant NDP'er apparently. Wohoo for being an arrogant 3rd place!! Quote "To hear many religious people talk, one would think God created the torso, head, legs and arms but the devil slapped on the genitals.” -Don Schrader
shoop Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 Arrogance is very rarely directly correlated to actual achievement. I'm an arrogant NDP'er apparently. Wohoo for being an arrogant 3rd place!! Quote
uOttawaMan Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 Arrogance is very rarely directly correlated to actual achievement.I'm an arrogant NDP'er apparently. Wohoo for being an arrogant 3rd place!! You can't take my arrogance!! It's all I have left.. *sniff* Quote "To hear many religious people talk, one would think God created the torso, head, legs and arms but the devil slapped on the genitals.” -Don Schrader
tml12 Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 The Canadian people gave the CPC a mandate to implement their five key priorities. They can't do it in 9 months. Oh please. The Canadian people gave them a mandate? The national voter turnout numbers are extremely low (55% of the voting age population voted in 2004) and on top of that, Harper only won a minority government. This means that something like 30% or so of Canadians voted for Harper. You think this is a mandate given by the people? Our system is called "first past the post." In other words, your horse is waiting for you at the gate... Quote "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." -Alexander Hamilton
tml12 Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 Arrogance is very rarely directly correlated to actual achievement. I'm an arrogant NDP'er apparently. Wohoo for being an arrogant 3rd place!! You can't take my arrogance!! It's all I have left.. *sniff* Don't waste all those tissues tonight...save the box so the next time you go the GST will be less... Quote "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." -Alexander Hamilton
tml12 Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 Suddenly he's got power, and he's not very savvy with using it. He's managed to tick off a number of people who voted for his party in the hope they'd get a housecleaning with the ministerial situation the last few days. And, of course, the NDP are going to take a truncheon to most of his planned reforms. I give the gov't one year...I see a winter election (again) in 07. Quote "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." -Alexander Hamilton
Melanie_ Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 Mandate: An authorization to act given to a representative. And when the mandate is weak, go poaching and bring over the unethical from the other side.... Quote For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. Nelson Mandela
Hicksey Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 Mandate: An authorization to act given to a representative. And when the mandate is weak, go poaching and bring over the unethical from the other side.... Point made. Harper can be as unscrupulous as Martin. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
na85 Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 Mandate: An authorization to act given to a representative.That's exactly what the election was about. If you don't believe that Harper has a mandate, what does it say about the other party's, who got an even less percentage of the vote? Wow, I never knew that Liberals could be such sore losers. Actually, who am I kidding, I totally did. I'm not being a sore loser, surprisingly enough. I just find it very stupid and uninformed when elected parties claim to have "a mandate of the people" when they only got 30% of the vote. I'm not saying that the libs or the NDP should be in power this election, obviously the cons won fair and square. My point is that with such a low supporting percentage you really can't claim that Canadians as a whole are behind the cons. Actually it was just under 65% in 2006 (64.9%). Link.Are we to believe that Canada should be in a state of perpetual elections because you feel voter turnout was too low? What is the gospel according to na85 in terms of what constitutes a *mandate*? Oh please. The Canadian people gave them a mandate? The national voter turnout numbers are extremely low (55% of the voting age population voted in 2004) and on top of that, Harper only won a minority government. This means that something like 30% or so of Canadians voted for Harper. You think this is a mandate given by the people? I couldn't find any numbers on the 2006 turnout so after about 2 mins i gave up and used the 2004 numbers. 65% is pretty good. Quote
lonewolf Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 I am no fan of the conservatives I think that they are Harpercrites, but I do not want to see another election in a year. If that happens it means that we have spent close to a Billion dollars on elections since 2004. It's crazy I know some will say the price for ones ideas, granted....However, the price is high and in the end we would end up with another minority. "There is only one way to find out if a man is honest - ask him. If he says yes, you know he is crooked," Groucho Marks Quote
lost&outofcontrol Posted February 11, 2006 Report Posted February 11, 2006 Quite typical of an NDP supporter. Basic ability to grasp reality. Any parties that forced an election in 2006 would pay for it at the ballot box. Nobody wants a third election in a 30-month span. Thanks for coming out though. Nice, first reply you start off with an insult. If the Harper government falls within the next 10 months, the GG will ask whoever the future liberal party leader will be if he thinks he can form an alliance with the NDP. There is precedent on this subject. If the Liberal can't form an alliance, the NDP wins more seat during the next elections due to the disorganized state the liberals are in, if they do form an alliance, the NDP gets to call the shots on social programs, either way they win. Quote
shoop Posted February 11, 2006 Report Posted February 11, 2006 Nice, first reply you start off with a whine. So let me get this straight, you are actually trying to draw a comparison to King-Byng here? Hmmmm, the only people the NDP could form a coalition with that would actually create a majority government would be the Conservatives. According to you the Liberals are so *disorganized* that if the government falls within the next ten months in the following election they won't even hold onto the Official Opposition. If that were true, why would the Conservatives and Liberals allow the government to wall within the next ten months???? (You do realize that together they control over 2/3rds of the seats in the House of Commons.) I think that proves your basic inability to grasp reality. Nice, first reply you start off with an insult.If the Harper government falls within the next 10 months, the GG will ask whoever the future liberal party leader will be if he thinks he can form an alliance with the NDP. There is precedent on this subject. If the Liberal can't form an alliance, the NDP wins more seat during the next elections due to the disorganized state the liberals are in, if they do form an alliance, the NDP gets to call the shots on social programs, either way they win. Quote
Hicksey Posted February 11, 2006 Report Posted February 11, 2006 Lets be nice and call it wishful thinking. or grasping to hope. Something nice like that. Nice, first reply you start off with a whine. So let me get this straight, you are actually trying to draw a comparison to King-Byng here? Hmmmm, the only people the NDP could form a coalition with that would actually create a majority government would be the Conservatives. According to you the Liberals are so *disorganized* that if the government falls within the next ten months in the following election they won't even hold onto the Official Opposition. If that were true, why would the Conservatives and Liberals allow the government to wall within the next ten months???? (You do realize that together they control over 2/3rds of the seats in the House of Commons.) I think that proves your basic inability to grasp reality. Nice, first reply you start off with an insult. If the Harper government falls within the next 10 months, the GG will ask whoever the future liberal party leader will be if he thinks he can form an alliance with the NDP. There is precedent on this subject. If the Liberal can't form an alliance, the NDP wins more seat during the next elections due to the disorganized state the liberals are in, if they do form an alliance, the NDP gets to call the shots on social programs, either way they win. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
shoop Posted February 11, 2006 Report Posted February 11, 2006 Yeah, I can see how some people wouldn't understand condescension. lost&outofcontrol that means we will use small words that are easy for you to understand. Lets be nice and call it wishful thinking. or grasping to hope. Something nice like that. Quote
Hicksey Posted February 11, 2006 Report Posted February 11, 2006 You mean those little ones of the four-letter variety? Yeah, I can see how some people wouldn't understand condescension. lost&outofcontrol that means we will use small words that are easy for you to understand. Lets be nice and call it wishful thinking. or grasping to hope. Something nice like that. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
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.