[DerbyX]

OnTheIce wrote:

Because that's not what Canada wants. Further, it's BS. It's a tactic used by those who crave power. It was the same tactic before when Harper was involved and it's the same now.

This has nothing to do with what's best for Canada. This is what's best for Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton.

IF you think that a coalition government would provide stability I think you'd be kidding yourself. Canada is stable. Our economy is on track and doing very well coming out of the recession.

Our economy is far from on track and as to be said time and again it has nothing to do with what Harper did. The stability offered by a coalition is the elimination of the threat of constant elections given that they were committed to a fixed period of time.

As for a tactic to gain power? That describes everything politicians do. Bribery with our own tax money? Check. Throwing money at specific provinces/ridings to win support? Check. Big ticket military purchase promises? Check.

They all want power. That is why they run for office. Would you run for office to some in second?

OnTheIce wrote:

I think he needs to make his position clear. Would he consider it again if the situation came forth? If not, say so....just don't lie. This is dogging him already and we're not even on the campaign. The National media is hounding him already and he refuses to answer then they remove the papers from the site.

I just gives the CPC and the media anti-Liberal talking points right from day 1. Bad move.

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/art ... government

Perhaps this will help.

[DerbyX]

OnTheIce wrote:

Right here.

You did answer me, but after I asked you again and noted your lack of response

Actually read it again. Your first post was not a question directed at me. My response was therefore not a dodge nor lack of response. Your quoted post was a response to mine not vice-versa.

[OnTheIce]

DerbyX wrote:

OnTheIce wrote:

Right here.

You did answer me, but after I asked you again and noted your lack of response

Actually read it again. Your first post was not a question directed at me. My response was therefore not a dodge nor lack of response. Your quoted post was a response to mine not vice-versa.

Yes, it was a response to your post, quoting you, with questions directed at you.

Seriously Derb, stop the games....you know very well those questions were directed at you, you even answered one of them and ignored the other two.

[OnTheIce]

DerbyX wrote:

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/art ... government

Perhaps this will help.

1. Naturally, the Liberal Star will do anything to soften the stance. As Would the Toronto Sun if the tables were turned.

2. The examples they have cited, like the ones in Europe, cannot be compared. Why? It's likely that a coalition would have to be supported and partially run by a party that wants to break up the Country they now have power over.

The idea is bad. The optics are terrible.

[DerbyX]

OnTheIce wrote:

Yes, it was a response to your post, quoting you, with questions directed at you.

Seriously Derb, stop the games....you know very well those questions were directed at you, you even answered one of them and ignored the other two.

I'm not playing games. We might be in disagreement but I'm not dodging or playing games.

Lets try this. Number each of our posts. Derb1, Derb2, etc. OTI1, OTI2, etc.

OTI1: First post asking why a coalition document was missing from a Lib site. Not directed at me.

Derb1: I responded with a "ha ha, Harper started the coalition thing". Since your post was not a question directed at me you can't say it was a dodge or that I was ignoring your question.

Your response (OTI2):

Quote:

Nice dodge, but that's what.....7 years ago....uber-old news. Why won't Ignatieff answer this question TODAY? Why was this document removed?

That was your first direct question to me.

Derb2: I responded directly to that question in my next post which you acknowledge.

Like I said. If you think I'm not answering your questions directly it might not be because I'm dodging them but because there is a misunderstanding.

Lets chalk this up to a misunderstanding. I've certainly tried to answer all your posts. I can't read Iggys mind though so I can't answer why he is doing what he is doing just giving you my opinion.

[DerbyX]

OnTheIce wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/art ... government

Perhaps this will help.

1. Naturally, the Liberal Star will do anything to soften the stance. As Would the Toronto Sun if the tables were turned.

2. The examples they have cited, like the ones in Europe, cannot be compared. Why? It's likely that a coalition would have to be supported and partially run by a party that wants to break up the Country they now have power over.

The idea is bad. The optics are terrible.

That article is about as neutral as you can get. In fact the Star has lots of articles that lambast the Libs. Hell RR used to quote them all the time.

The legality of a coalition isn't in dispute nor is the logic. You might find it icky but our constitution and election laws are as is. Lots of people want PR as opposed to FPTP but until that changes they have to suck it.

You say you are opposed to any coalition but I have my doubts. I have no doubts that had Harper managed it back in Martins tenure and managed to take power when the Libs had more seats then more then a few Cons would have considered it a masterful stroke of genius.

Of course those of us liking the coalition would probably be screaming bloody murder so it works both ways ......

[paganmystic]

DerbyX wrote:

Quote:

The ruling party needs the support of other parties to govern. It doesn't get any simpler then that.

So why where the opposition parties not in the HOC for the debates on the bills, which required their input then vote to ratify or reject. Yet they all managed to be there for question period when the cameras were on and they can fake they are doing the country's business (a show only for the national news). The Government may have been in contempt of Parliament but the opposition MPs are in contempt of their constituents. Gee, ethically I wonder which one is worse.

So, we have a "still unknown" Iggy still no national party agenda, still no national tours to meet and greet with Canadians, still no official stands on anything except sitting in the Big Chair; a self proclaimed power monger, hell bent on selling off the rest of Canada and distroying our national reputation; and a seperatist.

This coalition, hmm awesome! Where do I sign up? Yeah, riiiight! Nope looks alot like another CPC minority Government. We, the Canadian people have to take back our Parliament. This is a good start:
http://paganmystic.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... nk-ballot/

[herbie]

I'm fucking sick of this Tory apologist shit on the radio all day.
Harper got booted for contempt of Parliament. HUMILIATION!
And all I here is whining about coalitions, BAW why won't Iggy come clean.

Do you even have a clue how Parliaments work? Citizens in the UK, Australia, New Zealand would be up in arms over a gov't falling on contempt of Parliament, that's something you expect from India, from Kenya fer fuck's sakes.
But all I hear is how evil and shitty a coalition... well that's how it's supposed to work! You don't expect to run a minority gov't like the last 3 on sheer hope that everyone's too disorganized to Oppose. Look at the UK, you're gonna tell us it's suddenly turned to shit because they have a coalition? Israel, Italy... you look up the list.
Or is everyone too dumb to realize that threatened Lib-NDP-Bloc coalition would have been Harper's guaranteed ticket to a majority within a couple months?
But no, he ducked and covered with a prorogue so he didn't have to face the music right then and there. Add that to the list of contempts!

[Dragon-Dancer]

CDN_PATRIOT wrote:

Gilles Duceppe has always been a few fries short of a plate of poutine, and for anyone to think anything he ever says has some kind of merit/truth, then your nuts.

He's nothing more than a delusional separatist.

-J.

Actually I find he's quite the opposite. He's a well spoken person who is generally up front about what he wants and where he stands. There's pretty much nothing duplicitous or delusional about him. He also has no illusions over his prospects for leading the country when his party doesn't run outside of Quebec which gives him a very level approach. Have you noticed him talk about separation lately? No? that's because everybody knows what his party stands for so there isn't much merit in belaboring the point.

Make no mistake, he sees the writing on the wall. That writing says that most residents of Quebec, especially the younger generation, don't want to separate. What the Quebecois do like though is a strong voice in the house that advocates for them and the block does that so their support is still very strong.