[Streaker]

ryan29 wrote:

Streaker wrote:

ryan29 wrote:

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 .

Maybe, but I wouldn't be surprised if nothing came of it.

[Streaker]

lily wrote:

I use them too..... care to make something of it?

[mtbr]

Streaker wrote:

Maybe, but I wouldn't be surprised if nothing came of it.

don't hold your breath.

[Streaker]

lily wrote:

Streaker wrote:

lily wrote:

I use them too..... care to make something of it?

On another thread..... he used them himself.

Are you suggesting that he's...... a bit of a hypocrite?

[EyeBrock]

Maybe he should be gloating over the Mumbai massacre like you streaker eh?

[Streaker]

EyeBrock wrote:

Maybe he should be gloating over the Mumbai massacre like you streaker eh?

I wasn't gloating over it. Whatever gave you that idea?

[EyeBrock]

Your posts about the Brits and yanks looking for an excuse to bomb more people while the whole thing was ongoing. Piss poor taste.

[bootlegga]

RUEZ wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

Given that the three parties in the proposed coalition received more than 50% of the votes, it would actually be the first time in a long time that the government had such a majority.

Therefore, it would be fairly democratic, as the majority of Canadians would be represented.

You couldn't be further from the truth. A majority didn't vote for a coalition. The three parties that could possibly form a coalition are not interchangeable or even very similar. The people in favour of a coalition seem to think that a vote for any one of these parties is completely transferable to the other. If you form a coalition with these three parties whose ideology do you use? The Liberals were in favour of a carbon tax whereas the NDP weren't. The NDP wanted to put 8 billion into healthcare, I don't believe the Liberals supported that. The Bloc would like to see Quebec as a seperate country, I don't think either of the other two parties supports that. In fact the only thing these three parties can agree upon is that they want to be in power at any cost.

Well, Ryan should have worded his question properly. He asked if coalitions are undemocratic. Given who is talking about joining together, then it isn't, in the strictest sense.

Yes, you are correct that Canadians did not ask for a coalition government, but they didn't give anyone an out and out majority, so theoretically, for anything to get done, someone has to compromise and get help from at least one other party to pass bills. Whether that support comes from an absention or actual votes is irrelevant.

How do you think the Bloc/NDP is similar to the Conservatives? Harper had no problem using their support to bring down Martin in 2005...so I think it's your argument that is flawed, not mine.

[Streaker]

EyeBrock wrote:

Your posts about the Brits and yanks looking for an excuse to bomb more people while the whole thing was ongoing. Piss poor taste.

It was piss-poor taste. My bad.

But no gloating.

[EyeBrock]

I agree boots but it's not how it's looking in the media. Even the usual Lib flag wavers at CTV are seeing this whole NDP-Bloc thing as something sneaky and not nice.

This backroom deal has just made the Tories look noble.

[EyeBrock]

Streaker wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

Your posts about the Brits and yanks looking for an excuse to bomb more people while the whole thing was ongoing. Piss poor taste.

It was piss-poor taste. My bad.

But no gloating.

Ok, I'll have that as an apology and it's accepted. I leave this one alone from now on.

[RUEZ]

bootlegga wrote:

How do you think the Bloc/NDP is similar to the Conservatives? Harper had no problem using their support to bring down Martin in 2005...so I think it's your argument that is flawed, not mine.

There is no similarity between the Bloc/NDP and the Conservatives. Co-operating in parliament is different then forming a coalition, which in essence is a temporary union of those parties under one leader.

[StuntmanMike]

lily wrote:

I use them too..... care to make something of it?

No, sometimes it's a very effective literary techinique.

But not in the context Kenmore used it.

That was the point I was making. And having read some of your posts, I think you are quite capable of realizing that. So why are you picking a fight with me over it?

[Robair]

EyeBrock wrote:

Even the usual Lib flag wavers at CTV are seeing this whole NDP-Bloc thing as something sneaky and not nice.

This backroom deal has just made the Tories look noble.

Sneaky and not nice? That's been Harper's M.O.! Are you kidding me? They should be playing nice?

[EyeBrock]

Yea but this doesn't look good for the Libs and NDP.
Plays badly to the undecided masses to join with the Bloc, plus it all looks really back-stabbingly sneaky, as opposed to the usual Tory robot stuff.

Not a good day for Jack. We are seeing him for the used car salesman he really is.