Will there be a Fall 2007 election?

[KO2]

And I thought we were through calling each other names.......

[Michael Bluth]

And I thought we were through calling each other names.......

I wasn't calling you a name. I was taking umbrage with the attitude you characterized to a hypothetical "person of reason". Those actions appeared to me to be more fairly considered the attitude of a close-minded bigot.

Why take offence at that?

Perhaps a bigger questions is what do any of your posts have to do with the timing of the next election?

[WestViking]

".....the head of the Catholic Church to ask Catholics to adhere to their teachings when making decisions. That is his job."

That is exactly why we have so much trouble in the world few people are actually capable of using rational judgement.

"That is his job" It is only his job if you are a believer.

To a person of reason it is an abomination.

Bingo - the Pope directed his comments to Catholics as he should. Why would you care when one Catholic speake to another? It is really none of your concern.

You appear to be opposing our freedoms of belief, association and expression.

[KO2]

This is the crux of my hope, that "religious Ideologues" the likes of Randy white, and many others, don't get to insert their moral views into the criminal code, healthcare ethics, and other issues that have no business being judged for their conformation to anyone's religious creed.

I long for the day when Canadians will oust the current Chameleon, he ran on family values but has no real help for families now, although he is fond of being photographed in uniform today.

Have you forgotten the Income Trust Promise, his solem oath based on his religious ethics, I take it, eh?

Oh, and what about same sex marriage vote? A little bit awkward, so we let that slide into oblivion with a little parliamentary finagaling.

And the Equalization payments, another solem promise from a solid Christian MP, Mr. Harper.

Such rock solid examples of the worth of both the current PM, and Religious Ethics, eh!

You bet I can't wait to see this dangerous autocrat go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited July 10, 2007 by KO2

[bush_cheney2004]

..Isn't 140 years enough of this continuous bullshit? Lets turf the crooks we know so that we can try to teach the next generation of MPs to listen to the voters, not the lobbyists and American bosses.

When do we get another chance to roll the dice?

Oh what a woeful rant this be....those big bad 'Merkins made us do it again. Shucks, eh?

Edited July 10, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[jbg]

KO2, you are a wonderfully profound new poster, and I wish to extend to you a hearty welcome to the Board.

I don't agree at all that Steve the GWB's buddy, has the mandate to say Canadians want this war.

He barely got a third of those eligible to vote for him.

I'm confused. Didn't Crouton, who didn't get along with Bush at all, start the commitment?

I'd say one third of those were discontented Liberal voters driven to Harper because they saw no other alternative.

And what alternative was there?

To me, who knows how to train a dog fairly well, voting for either of these party dictatorites reinforces their feeling of entitlement and allows a campaign of blaming each other with lies.

Do you attack train Newfoundlands and Labradors, the two breeds created in Canada and bred for their ferocity?

The true dangers are those institutions like religions, whose leaders-like the Pope, wish to subvert our individual power of the vote, the very foundation of freedom, by telling us which Candidates are "approved" by the Catholic Church.

The last Pope had the audacity to call on our elected members and demand they vote their religious concience on the same sex issue.

I'll tell you one thing; no Pope controls my vote.

The sophistication of our government led it be silent over what is a direct attempt to interfere in the sovereignty of our country.

What attempt? You're losing me. Maybe I'm not smart enough to follow.

Think about how you would feel if Osama Bin Laden had rallied his troops to vote a certain way on certain issues, openly.

Ever been to Windsor, or certain parts of Toronto? Or perhaps you mean the ones that burned the Montreal synagogue?

I know enough about the religions practicing in this country to be able to call them all terrorist organizations.

Excuse me. The Mennonites pack 16 year olds full of explosives and then instruct them to detonate themselves. Or detonate even younger children with stuffed animals in their backpacks via cellphone? Show me the Catholic savagery in Canada? Or Lutheran? Or Jewish?

I don't wish to ban the bible, I think that it is a great piec of literature and human wisdom.

Define "piec".

Although I know many people have been killed by religious nuts of all stripes, I would stil not wish to criminalize someone's freedom of choice and the right to suffer the consequences.

I suppose the Pope organized September 11?

Harper, though, has no quams like any ideologue dictator, running over my right to freedom of choice, although using marijuana has never hurt anyone and with only about 1/3 of the vote available in this country, oppress me with state force and allows organized crime to flourish so that his religious moral foundation is satified.

Wait, Harper's responsible for marijuana laws on the books? I'm confused.

When do we get another chance to roll the dice?

October 19, 2009, and since that will be a CPC majority, the third Monday of October 2013 thereafter.

[Michael Bluth]

I'm confused. Didn't Crouton, who didn't get along with Bush at all, start the commitment?

And enough Liberal MPs supported exending the motion for the extension to receive a majority vote in the House of Commons.

The Mennonites pack 16 year olds full of explosives and then instruct them to detonate themselves. Or detonate even younger children with stuffed animals in their backpacks via cellphone? Show me the Catholic savagery in Canada? Or Lutheran? Or Jewish?

Calling the political actions of Catholic leaders 'relgious terrorism' is an insult to the memories of the victims the Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks. It also somehow forgives those who organized and carried out those attacks.

[KO2]

Yeah I guess you got me........

You are just as clever as the Neo cons to the south, aren't you?

All those loud mouthed idiots telling everybody how right their god appointed mission was and allowed no dissent.

You guys aren't even original because you regurgitate everything.

This may be amature science but nothing any of you have written shows anything new in your trained rhetoric.

You will forever be locked into your narrow filtered view, driven to shout your righteousness to the world, even declaring war to gain your goals.

Follow it up from the bottom to "Do humans have a political gene?" and criticize to your myopic mind's content, my friends. Have fun correcting the mistakes too.

http://technocrat.net/d/2006/11/3/10052

Edited July 10, 2007 by KO2

[WestViking]

Yeah I guess you got me........

...said the certified and self-confessed troll. Goodnight.

[jbg]

Yeah I guess you got me........

You are just as clever as the Neo cons to the south, aren't you?

To whom are referring as the one "just as clever as the Neo cons to the south", Michael Bluth? And what is wrong with "the Neo cons to the south"? Do I meet your social universe as a member of the Democratic Party to the south? Or are "neo cons" the only ones "clever" enough for you?

All those loud mouthed idiots telling everybody how right their god appointed mission was and allowed no dissent.

And who are these "loud mouthed idiots"? Even Francois Ducros, Chretien's assistant, conceded that I was a "moron" (my IQ tests are actually somewhat under the "moron" threshold). Maybe your political G-d is Carolyn Parrish, who referred to the "people to the South" as the "idiot coalition".

You guys aren't even original because you regurgitate everything.

Vomitus does not smell good on a keyboard, trust me.

This may be amature science but nothing any of you have written shows anything new in your trained rhetoric.

Not sure what you mean by "amature science". Care to explain? While you're at it, explain who "trains" our "rhetoric"?

You will forever be locked into your narrow filtered view, driven to shout your righteousness to the world, even declaring war to gain your goals.

And those goals are?

Follow it up from the bottom to "Do humans have a political gene?" and criticize to your myopic mind's content, my friends. Have fun correcting the mistakes too.

There are too many mistakes.

[KO2]

Or you are too dimwitted to understand it perhaps?

you guys can have this board back . I don't suffer fools well.

all I see here is childish bickering amnd inane comments, boring stuff, eh!

I've put a little rotor in this slug board now im gone.

You can correct each other's spelling mistakes in peace.

[Michael Bluth]

you guys can have this board back . I don't suffer fools well.

I've put a little rotor in this slug board now im gone.

Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!

[M.Dancer]

All I can say is closing threads for no good reason is starting to piss me off.

Fair enough. It's a fine line to draw though. The board appeared to have been far too lightly moderated for a while. So maybe a heavier hand is necessary.

Perhaps but it seems to me the one who is always whining about an indentical thread is august, who happens to be the author of the thread he claims is the senior....methinks he is simply an attention whore.

The thread and poll regarding whether the Harper minority would last past the 4th longest as it is now had the potential to be an intersting discussion on its own right but instead it has been coopted and hijacked into ausust's thread.

I wish this unneccesary interference by August and the mods to stop.

[Michael Bluth]

Perhaps but it seems to me the one who is always whining about an indentical thread is august, who happens to be the author of the thread he claims is the senior....methinks he is simply an attention whore.

The thread and poll regarding whether the Harper minority would last past the 4th longest as it is now had the potential to be an intersting discussion on its own right but instead it has been coopted and hijacked into ausust's thread.

I wish this unneccesary interference by August and the mods to stop.

Fair enough. Perhaps a note to Charles Anthony asking him why the thread was closed might be in order. (Thanks for bringing this thread back from that last huge tangent btw.)

The crux of the matter is whether or not this Government becomes the third longest. Fourth longest is a given for all intents and purposes.

Going back to the original topic of the thread I started ... it very much appears that Harper can last until October 2009 if he wants.

Right or wrong you know what to expect with Harper. Steady, pragmatic, centre-right Government. No big changes, no crisis a day a la Paul Martin.

I can't see anything on the horizon to change that date. We'll honour our commitment in Afghanistan then move on. Climate change is being addressed.

Even with an election in the fall of 2008 this Government becomes the third longest minority government in Canadian history.

[August1991]

Perhaps but it seems to me the one who is always whining about an indentical thread is august, who happens to be the author of the thread he claims is the senior....methinks he is simply an attention whore.

The thread and poll regarding whether the Harper minority would last past the 4th longest as it is now had the potential to be an intersting discussion on its own right but instead it has been coopted and hijacked into ausust's thread.

I wish this unneccesary interference by August and the mods to stop.

Me? A whore?

This thread offers a poll that asks how long this government will last. (ie. when we will have the next federal election.)

Dancer, you started a thread (with poll) that asked people how long this government will last. (I believe you linked to the same wikipedia article that is in the OP of this thread.)

The moderator chose to join the two threads.

----

There is no doubt that Harper's government will be the 4th longest minority in Canadian history. The question now rather is whether it will be 3rd longest and last longer than Pearson's second minority.

To do that, Harper would have to survive to Fall 2008. Frankly, predicting that far is pure conjecture at this point

[Michael Bluth]

This thread offers a poll that asks how long this government will last. (ie. when we will have the next federal election.)

Dancer, you started a thread (with poll) that asked people how long this government will last. (I believe you linked to the same wikipedia article that is in the OP of this thread.)

The moderator chose to join the two threads.

----

There is no doubt that Harper's government will be the 4th longest minority in Canadian history. The question now rather is whether it will be 3rd longest and last longer than Pearson's second minority.

To do that, Harper would have to survive to Fall 2008. Frankly, predicting that far is pure conjecture at this point

August, I started the thread you got shut down. I started it because this thread has been highjacked multiple times and I asked a similar, but different question. I felt those two things warranted a separate thread. I still don't see why you requested the second thread be shut down. If you really want to be teritorial about it so be it.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[August1991]

August, I started the thread you got shut down. I started it because this thread has been highjacked multiple times and I asked a similar, but different question. I felt those two things warranted a separate thread. I still don't see why you requested the second thread be shut down. If you really want to be teritorial about it so be it.

I'm sorry, I thought it was Dancer.

I'm not being territorial about it at all. I don't view a thread as belonging to anyone.

I merely posted that we had a thread (with poll) on the exact same, specific topic. The moderator then chose apparently to join the two threads. That strikes me as eminently sensible.

I agree that this particular thread has been highjacked (and I may be now encouraging another highjacking).

----

So, to get back to the original point, the poll results above seem to show that no one believes we'll have a fall election. It's still possible however and I'd even say likely. With Quebec soldiers in Afghanistan, the BQ may think that this is a good time to go to the polls. The BQ is primarily concerned about reviving interest in the PQ. The best way to do that would be to do well in the popular vote in a federal election. The BQ would try to turn the election (at least in Quebec) into a referendum on the way the federal government is conducting military efforts in Afghanistan.

Parliament resumes in September and I wouldn't be surprised to see the opposition much more Bolshie. If the government were to fall before the end of October, we'd have an election in December.

[M.Dancer]

Bah....I don't buy it at all.

[Michael Bluth]

So, to get back to the original point, the poll results above seem to show that no one believes we'll have a fall election. It's still possible however and I'd even say likely. With Quebec soldiers in Afghanistan, the BQ may think that this is a good time to go to the polls. The BQ is primarily concerned about reviving interest in the PQ. The best way to do that would be to do well in the popular vote in a federal election. The BQ would try to turn the election (at least in Quebec) into a referendum on the way the federal government is conducting military efforts in Afghanistan.

Parliament resumes in September and I wouldn't be surprised to see the opposition much more Bolshie. If the government were to fall before the end of October, we'd have an election in December.

I don't buy it at all. There are a number of flaws in your reasoning.

Here's a good quote from Chantal Hébert's column yesterday in The Star.

And while the leaders of the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal party opposed the extension of the deployment last year, Gilles Duceppe and Stéphane Dion still agree that having undertaken to stay until February 2009, Canada now has to keep its word to NATO until then.

With that viewpoint it is tough to force an election on Afghanistan. It would be contstrued as blatant opportunism.

While the polls are pretty wild these days they haven't been good for the Bloc. The Strategic Counsel poll on February 18th is the most recent poll to put the BQ's level of support at or above that of the level of support they received in the 2006 election.

wtf does more *Bolshie* mean?

Does any party really want to force a second consecutive winter election?

Edited July 10, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[M.Dancer]

wtf does more *Bolshie* mean?

Does any party really want to force a second consecutive winter election?

Bolshevick? leftie

[Michael Bluth]

Bolshevick? leftie

Yeah, I guess. But how can Jack Layton be more leftie? What would this mean in real terms? More obstructionist in the House of Commons?

[jbg]

This is a very interesting debate on who starts, whacks threads. Is this the way Question Period typically goes?

[Michael Bluth]

This is a very interesting debate on who starts, whacks threads. Is this the way Question Period typically goes?

Yes, perhaps August should be a little more forthcoming in his role in having said thread whacked.