[Apollo]

Scape wrote:

WMG, the Bloc supported the CPC in 39th parliament. Now that the table is turned your not in favor? I'm sure the Bloc voters were not happy to be propping up Harper either but the shoe is on the other foot now.

Supporting a government is very different from forming a coalition.

Do I really need to explain this to you?

[Scape]

No, you have to show how an elected MP is not the will of the people and then show how that parties leader is not working in the parties best interests by working with the other parties in parliament in order to establish a mandate.

Till then sit down, shut up.

[westmanguy]

In the 39th Parliament the CPC wasn't in talks with forming a coalition with the BQ, and didn't ask the BQ to support them, the BQ chose to.

This is a formal agreement that included the Bloc.

Again.

Completely different.

[ryan29]

Scape wrote:

WMG, the Bloc supported the CPC in 39th parliament. Now that the table is turned your not in favor? I'm sure the Bloc voters were not happy to be propping up Harper either but the shoe is on the other foot now.

bloc supported the cpc ? i don't think so as they voted against many confidence votes , remember it was the liberals who did not show up to vote back then and reason minority lasted so long .

[Mustang1]

Scape wrote:

No, you have to show how an elected MP is not the will of the people and then show how that parties leader is not working in the parties best interests by working with the other parties in parliament in order to establish a mandate.

Till then sit down, shut up.

Not worth it, Scape. This isn't about political science, it's about whining and partisan hackery. Seriously, the utter lack of understanding regarding basic Canadian politics is appalling and it's just goes to show you that simply because someone reads something doesn't mean they get anything.

Coalitions ARE completely democratic, have historical precedence and are well withing the conventions of parliamentary system. Whether those here agree with that is actually immaterial.

[Streaker]

ryan29 wrote:

Streaker wrote:

The Bloc Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is strong in this thread.

what you honestly though that canadians outside of quebec would be cool with a coalition that involves the bloc quebecois ? its the last thing that we want , this coaliton is going to be so unpopular out west and in ontario it is guaranteed to fail if they ever go thru with the idea .

It doesn't have to be popular in the west to be democratic.

[ryan29]

Apollo wrote:

Quote:

and is the liberals and ndp willing to make consessions to quebec that would make it a more independent province so as to please the bloc ?

They will do handstands to keep the alliance going. The Liberals are on the verge of collapse and Jack Layton knows that this is as close to governing the country as they are ever going to get. They would sell Canada for a plum nickel to the seperatists. These are very dangerous times.

jack layton is the root cause of this problem i think , he is desperately trying to get his small party into some sort of power and doesn't care how he gets there . he needs to except the will of the people and the recent elections and back off .

[Apollo]

Scape wrote:

No, you have to show how an elected MP is not the will of the people and then show how that parties leader is not working in the parties best interests by working with the other parties in parliament in order to establish a mandate.

Till then sit down, shut up.

Try to follow along Scape. It's been explained several times. You either don't have the mental capacity to understand or you refuse to acklowledge it.

Either way, I really don't care. For now I'm with you. Bring on the coaolition. It's the best thing that could ever happen to the Conservatives.

Seriously, please form your unholy alliance. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!

[ryan29]

Streaker wrote:

ryan29 wrote:

Streaker wrote:

The Bloc Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is strong in this thread.

what you honestly though that canadians outside of quebec would be cool with a coalition that involves the bloc quebecois ? its the last thing that we want , this coaliton is going to be so unpopular out west and in ontario it is guaranteed to fail if they ever go thru with the idea .

It doesn't have to be popular in the west to be democratic.

i wouldn't be surprised if a separist movement starts out west if this thing goes thru . some out there are not going to be very pleased for some time .

[Scape]

Apollo wrote:

Scape wrote:

No, you have to show how an elected MP is not the will of the people and then show how that parties leader is not working in the parties best interests by working with the other parties in parliament in order to establish a mandate.

Till then sit down, shut up.

Try to follow along Scape. It's been explained several times. You either don't have the mental capacity to understand or you refuse to acklowledge it.

Either way, I really don't care. For now I'm with you. Bring on the coaolition. It's the best thing that could ever happen to the Conservatives.

Seriously, please form your unholy alliance. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!

http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/votes.php?s=8

Look for yourself. The bloc and CPC worked together then and you said what then?

[ryan29]

Mustang1 wrote:

Scape wrote:

No, you have to show how an elected MP is not the will of the people and then show how that parties leader is not working in the parties best interests by working with the other parties in parliament in order to establish a mandate.

Till then sit down, shut up.

Not worth it, Scape. This isn't about political science, it's about whining and partisan hackery. Seriously, the utter lack of understanding regarding basic Canadian politics is appalling and it's just goes to show you that simply because someone reads something doesn't mean they get anything.

Coalitions ARE completely democratic, have historical precedence and are well withing the conventions of parliamentary system. Whether those here agree with that is actually immaterial.

some coalitions would be considered democratic just not this one , my question is not if coaltions if general were democratic but if this proposed one was .

the one proposed is the most undemocratic thing we have seen in ottawa in our times , the oppositon parties should be ashamed of themselves .

[Scape]

They were given the option of the political abyss. That was undemocratic at a time where the economy is about to do the same the 1st thing on the agenda was to cut the throats of poltical parties and not do a dam thing for people out of work. Harper made his bed, now he gets to lie in it.

[Mustang1]

ryan29 wrote:

Mustang1 wrote:

Scape wrote:

No, you have to show how an elected MP is not the will of the people and then show how that parties leader is not working in the parties best interests by working with the other parties in parliament in order to establish a mandate.

Till then sit down, shut up.

Not worth it, Scape. This isn't about political science, it's about whining and partisan hackery. Seriously, the utter lack of understanding regarding basic Canadian politics is appalling and it's just goes to show you that simply because someone reads something doesn't mean they get anything.

Coalitions ARE completely democratic, have historical precedence and are well withing the conventions of parliamentary system. Whether those here agree with that is actually immaterial.

some coalitions would be considered democratic just not this one , my question is not if coaltions if general were democratic but if this proposed one was .

the one proposed is the most undemocratic thing we have seen in ottawa in our times , the oppositon parties should be ashamed of themselves .

ALL coalitions (in this context) are democratic. That's basic political science. This isn't debatable, it's objective fact. YOU may not LIKE it, but that certainly doesn't render it undemocratic, illegal or without precedence (and ssshhh...don't tell anyone, but even the Conservatives have formed federal coalitions.)

[StuntmanMike]

In my opinion, anyone who is willing to come on a site and debate their views is entitled to do so, and should be treated respectfully, and in a mature manner. Regardless of whether one disagrees with their point of view or not.

That said, every once in a while, some blathering fool comes on a board and just asks to be shut down.

We've seen this exemplified by the poster below, who, for some inexplicable reason, thinks he can make his point through invective, vulgarity and grammatical nonsense.

kenmore wrote:

wouldnt count on an end to the liberals wackjob... but we almost ..guess we did put an end to the useless torys when they were reduced to 2... repeat 2 seats .. and someone should have put a stake in the heart of the remaining.. out of the ashes of the racist white supremist reform party... came little boy bush blower harper.. now we are stuck with it for a while.. they said on the news today 30 % voted in the last election..harpers flunkies got the most seats but didnt win nothing.. the shit we are facing now is him wanting to be king ... nothing else..he cant work with a minority government and everyone knows heaven help us if he ever did get a majority.. I would prefer M.Dusceppe as PM to harper.. a coalition would work for the people of the country unlike the torys who are there for the bucks and to steal from the average guy...

O.K. Kenmore, how about explaining some of your views. First off, the symbol ...., in the English language, means further commentary not transcribed. Usually, it's used by reporters or authors when quoting portions of statements from public figures.

For instance, if Andrew Coyne of Macleans were to quote Jean Chretin when he declared "The Proof is the proof", and then thrown in punctuation such as ...., then people could be forgiven for not fully understanding Chretien's meaning.

However, if Jeffery Simpson of the Globe and Mail were to quote Chretien by saying "The Proof? The Proof is the Proof, and when you 'ave good proof, it is proven." Then the average Canadian is left in no doubt as to what his Prime Minister is trying to say.

Wait a minute, now I'm confused too.....

Maybe I'll try posting like Kenmore.

....two Coor's Light sweetheart.....hey Mike...should we get another table dance?.....did you catch the Pats this afternoon?....Favre sucked today...is that Kenmore guy retarded?....she's sweet!...What's this crap about Canadian Mohawks Indians ripping off people in Boston as seen on 60 Minutes....I'm so drunk....Bush is a Liar and War Criminal...The Audacity of Hope...

I see your point Kenmore. Dots to make your point so much more effectively.

[Elvis]

Ho boy the irony of this is amazing

In Québec the con where telling people to vote for them because the Bloc would be powerless in perpetual opposition.

If the coalition government is actually going to be. I wonder what would be there next campaign slogan?

Well let's say that I find this political situation very amusing