[mtbr]

Zipperfish wrote:

mtbr wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

The Coalation is dong a great job of keeping the Conservatvies from trying to govern like a majority. Now if we could just get rid of the Governor General, so that the actual people Canadians voted for are making decisions, not some ornament.

Voted for? you mean the Conservatives and not HiJacks Coalition?
I could image the uproar if the old PC party had joined with the Reform and some right wing party to overthrow the Libs in the 90's .

you would sure be kissing the GGs ass than wouldn't you.

Not surprisingly, your understanding of Canada's democratic prinicples and procedures is woefully lacking.

Who'd have thought the Conservatives would be such big fans of teh Goivernor-General and an appointed Senate now. Looks like they are just like the Liberals once they get to the trough.

I'm sure you would be singing her praises if she would have denied Harpers request.

[roger-roger]

I think she should have denied the recess then called an election.

[roger-roger]

Its bound to happen sooner rather then later.

[Biblesmasher]

Eisensapper wrote:

When did 65% of the country vote for the Coalition Party?

Didnt say they did...Try reading what I wrote again. Trust me, everything you need is there.

[Brenda]

DerbyX wrote:

A coalition didn't bother Harper when he tried it.

http://majoritycoalition.ca/2009/01/har ... c-in-2004/

There is a significant difference.
He won that election right? He could easily form a coalition to get majority. I know it is not common in Canada, but in Europe it is. I don't even know better.

The one that wins the election forms a coalition to become majority. Not the ones that DON'T win the election though. Everybody knows that when they vote. Everybody knows which parties the coalition probably is formed by (is that even English? ).

I have said it before, and I will say it again: I don't see why Harper didn't form a coalition. With the Greens and some independants? Just an example... Anybody BUT the oposition.

[Biblesmasher]

Brenda wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

A coalition didn't bother Harper when he tried it.

http://majoritycoalition.ca/2009/01/har ... c-in-2004/

There is a significant difference.
He won that election right? He could easily form a coalition to get majority. I know it is not common in Canada, but in Europe it is. I don't even know better.

The one that wins the election forms a coalition to become majority. Not the ones that DON'T win the election though. Everybody knows that when they vote. Everybody knows which parties the coalition probably is formed by (is that even English? ).

I have said it before, and I will say it again: I don't see why Harper didn't form a coalition. With the Greens and some independants? Just an example... Anybody BUT the oposition.

Why would he form a coalition with the greens when he is diametrically opposed to them in their main party platfom. Face it, he had only one choice, the same ugly choice everyone else has....

[Brenda]

You completely missed my point regarding last years election and the mess that came from it, BS...

[DerbyX]

Brenda wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

A coalition didn't bother Harper when he tried it.

http://majoritycoalition.ca/2009/01/har ... c-in-2004/

There is a significant difference.
He won that election right? He could easily form a coalition to get majority. I know it is not common in Canada, but in Europe it is. I don't even know better.

The one that wins the election forms a coalition to become majority. Not the ones that DON'T win the election though. Everybody knows that when they vote. Everybody knows which parties the coalition probably is formed by (is that even English? ).

I have said it before, and I will say it again: I don't see why Harper didn't form a coalition. With the Greens and some independants? Just an example... Anybody BUT the oposition.

No. Harper did not win the election in 2004. He wated to form a coalition govt with the NDP "supported" by the Bloc except the NDP told him to go to hell.

Yes, Harper could have a majority or at least a supported govt. All he had to do was work with one of the other parties last govt or this one.

He didn't.

[Biblesmasher]

Brenda wrote:

(is that even English? )

Maybe this is the problem?

[Brenda]

DerbyX wrote:

Brenda wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

A coalition didn't bother Harper when he tried it.

http://majoritycoalition.ca/2009/01/har ... c-in-2004/

There is a significant difference.
He won that election right? He could easily form a coalition to get majority. I know it is not common in Canada, but in Europe it is. I don't even know better.

The one that wins the election forms a coalition to become majority. Not the ones that DON'T win the election though. Everybody knows that when they vote. Everybody knows which parties the coalition probably is formed by (is that even English? ).

I have said it before, and I will say it again: I don't see why Harper didn't form a coalition. With the Greens and some independants? Just an example... Anybody BUT the oposition.

No. Harper did not win the election in 2004. He wated to form a coalition govt with the NDP "supported" by the Bloc except the NDP told him to go to hell.

Yes, Harper could have a majority or at least a supported govt. All he had to do was work with one of the other parties last govt or this one.

He didn't.

Ah, ok, my bad

On your last point: exactly.

[Brenda]

Biblesmasher wrote:

Brenda wrote:

(is that even English? )

Maybe this is the problem?

Typical Liberal reaction. Blame everybody but yourself

[Biblesmasher]

Brenda wrote:

Biblesmasher wrote:

Brenda wrote:

(is that even English? )

Maybe this is the problem?

Typical Liberal reaction. Blame everybody but yourself

HA!

[mtbr]

DerbyX wrote:

No. Harper did not win the election in 2004. He wated to form a coalition govt with the NDP "supported" by the Bloc except the NDP told him to go to hell.

Yes, Harper could have a majority or at least a supported govt. All he had to do was work with one of the other parties last govt or this one.

He didn't.

really? I thought this was all sewed up when they asked the GG to exercise her options. Well at least it was according to you Libs last month Now the NDP weren't involved
Stories change like the wind and forecasts from Calgary weathermen.

[DerbyX]

mtbr wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

No. Harper did not win the election in 2004. He wated to form a coalition govt with the NDP "supported" by the Bloc except the NDP told him to go to hell.

Yes, Harper could have a majority or at least a supported govt. All he had to do was work with one of the other parties last govt or this one.

He didn't.

really? I thought this was all sewed up when they asked the GG to exercise her options. Well at least it was according to you Libs last month Now the NDP weren't involved
Stories change like the wind and forecasts from Calgary weathermen.

See Brenda? A complete lack of intelligence and understanding about the truth.

[mtbr]

DerbyX wrote:

mtbr wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

No. Harper did not win the election in 2004. He wated to form a coalition govt with the NDP "supported" by the Bloc except the NDP told him to go to hell.

Yes, Harper could have a majority or at least a supported govt. All he had to do was work with one of the other parties last govt or this one.

He didn't.

really? I thought this was all sewed up when they asked the GG to exercise her options. Well at least it was according to you Libs last month Now the NDP weren't involved
Stories change like the wind and forecasts from Calgary weathermen.

See Brenda? A complete lack of intelligence and understanding about the truth.

Really? so the NDP told Harper to go to hell?

do you have a link?

But, than again they probably did because Hijack wouldn't agree to anything unless it was in writing and sealed with a handshake like Dion';s coalition. Harper probably tried to goat the NDP and the Bloc just so the GG would pull the plug on the Libs and call an election? what did I miss?

the truth as told by a rat loving Lieberal