[Donny_Brasco]

Saxon wrote:

Donny_Brasco wrote:

Saxon wrote:

I am a National Socialist. I DON'T like democracies. This very incident we have with traitors forming a coalition highlights EXACTLY why I have a grave dislike of democracy.

Typical Con, even when elected dislikes the freedom of the people to elect their own government.

Good luck with that movement. My guess is you spend the rest of your life angry and disenfranchised.

People are out to get you, really they are. Its a conspiracy. Don;t tell anyone I told you.

Freedom to create chaos? Once the coalition is in power, do you believe they will give you any of this 'freedom' you mention? They will be picking your pockets for ever more cash for their own pockets. They will spend YOUR money like drunken sailors. They have also the freedom to sell out our country to the separatists. In most countries, members of the BQ are HUNG for treason, because they are SMART. Every year, it is 'separate Quebec this', 'separate Quebec that'. Quebec is a PROVINCE of Canada that needs to be told to 'shut the fuck up, or we will MAKE you shut up'. Your beloved democracy allows the Quebecois their incessant whining, bitching etc. It allows 'elected' governments to keep sending cash Quebec's way, when there are provinces that need it far more. This is your beloved democracy, a democracy that just HAD an election, yet felt it was not enough for the country. If THIS is your democracy, you can have it whilst I stick to my National Socialism which would not put up with any of this fucking nonsense.

I find it ironic that you mention the 'freedom of the people to elect their own government', yet that is EXACTLY what has already happened. Alas, your beloved commie-pinko libtard opposition is not happy to be in opposition. They want POWER, so they have OVER-RIDDEN your 'freedom of the people to elect their own government' since that elected government is clearly the Conservatives. Hypocrisy much? The people may enjoy that 'freedom' as long as it agrees with the libtard/commie agenda.

Thats a good post. It should be on Page One of your movement's web site.

[Thanos]

Biblesmasher wrote:

Thanos wrote:

Maybe you guys can bring in your beloved proportional representation in after the Dion/Layton/Duceppe take over. It should help you win by more the next time.

Ah... you mean have the representation actually reflect the will of the people?? No! Who would want that?!?

Um yah...maybe "we" can. That would be phenomenal. Then we can get some greens or some other smaller parties in there.

And maybe next all the people who don't want to live in an economically-dead burnt-out leftist hellhole should all just "get the fuck out" too?

Sorry for beating you to what you were going to say next

[Gunnair]

Streaker wrote:

Go away. Nobody takes you in the least bit seriously.

There's some irony...

[ShepherdsDog]

Adler on the Three stooges of coupscam
http://www.cjob.com/StationShared/AdlerOnline.aspx

[AlwaysCanuck]

Quote:

For a constitutional democracy to properly function there must be a clear understanding between the rulers and the ruled.

Ruler and the ruled?

Interesting spin on democracy.

[Streaker]

Gunnair wrote:

Streaker wrote:

Go away. Nobody takes you in the least bit seriously.

There's some irony...

You're pretty grouchy today, too, eh?

[Kjorteo]

People seem to be under the impression that the parties that didn't win the election no longer exist. At least, that's the impression I'm getting from all this whining I'm seeing (most notably from Biblesmasher, but there are others) about how a coalition government would allow lesser parties like the NDP at least some say as opposed to none.

Um, guys? They already have a say, even right now. It's called Stephen Harper's minority government. In a minority government, the PM has to be careful because the other parties can shoot down anything he says if they agree to do so, and can non-confidence vote him if he gets too annoying. The fact that Harper hasn't really been able to do anything, as some people here (mostly Donny_Brasco, though) have been alleging? That's the say of the Liberals and NDP and Bloc right there! They don't need to band together in some sort of let's-everyone-but-Harper-be-PM coalition to be heard. They're already heard in the form of thwarting most of what Harper tries to do. They can only block the agenda and don't get to actually set it, yes, but that's apparently perfectly in line with the will of the Canadian voters, seeing as the Conservatives won the last election.

This is why the complaining about Harper having 38% of the vote and still being PM is especially ridiculous. If he had an actual 50%+1 majority, then that would be a majority government, and your beloved opposition parties really would have absolutely zero say on anything. Actually, an actual majority is where the Canadian Parliamentary process breaks down more than any other place, because that's where the only thing stopping Harper from all-out dictatorship is the possibility of being fired by a ceremonial figurehead talk show host who's mostly there because Paul Martin likes diversity.

[Donny_Brasco]

JJ wrote:

This should not be a partisan issue. It is an issue about the continuity of stable and predictable government as it has always been in the history of Canada, and as it always should be, until we the people explicitly agree to reject it.

So what you are saying is the Stephen Harper hould be able to do as he pleases with a minority government?

Under the same pretext as you spoke of above Mr. Harper should have the obligation to rule in a way that helps ensure a stable and predictable government. Obviously he failed when he tried to cripple each of the other parties.

Furthermore, each party foremost acts in its own self interest, as a company or a business or even a living being generally does first. When it's ability to exist is threatened its first reaction is self preservation. It is naive to think that these three parties would tow the line when Steve started cutting out the legs from under them?

Harper should have known or guessed that something would happen. If he was too stupd or too proud to think he could be pulled from power then he is not worthy or smart enough to be our PM.

[Thanos]

Streaker wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

Streaker wrote:

Go away. Nobody takes you in the least bit seriously.

There's some irony...

You're pretty grouchy today, too, eh?

We'll see how much you're still laughing when it's all said and done and the bill has to be paid, fucktard.

[dino_bobba_renno]

RUEZ wrote:

Donny_Brasco wrote:

LOL, I love to see the cons squirming.

There is nothing illegal, unethical or unconstitutional about this. Its a great idea and a great day for Canadians when these three groups agree to work together to form a functioning government.

If it was such a great idea why didn't these parties form a coalition before the election? I'll tell you why, because the Canadian electorate didn't want it. I'm looking forward to the next election I can tell you that.

Ditto, this is going to back fire on the Lib's more than they can imagine.

Anyone with the slightest bit of political sense knows now is not the time you want to be governing so why force the defeat of the government? They could have sat back and watched the economy go into the toilet (which it will do regardless of who's in power) and played the blame game a year or two from now all the while preparing for the next election.

This coalition of their doesn't stand a chance of enjoying the Bloq support which it so desperately needs for much more than a year. They will have to manage probably one of the worst economic down turns since the 80's all the while trying to constantly unite 3 completely idealistically different parties which if anything will only add to instability in our economy.

Add to that the reasoning for doing this, to protect their bottom lines and the fact they are going to have to make concessions to the Bloq to gain their support.

Democratic or not this is a bad move on the left's part. They might as well have painted a bullseye on their backs.

[Sapio]

Donny_Brasco wrote:

LOL, I love to see the cons squirming.

There is nothing illegal, unethical or unconstitutional about this. Its a great idea and a great day for Canadians when these three groups agree to work together to form a functioning government.

You are assuming that it will be a functioning government for more than a few months, if that.

[Streaker]

Thanos wrote:

Streaker wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

There's some irony...

You're pretty grouchy today, too, eh?

We'll see how much you're still laughing when it's all said and done and the bill has to be paid, fucktard.

It won't be nearly as big as the bill Mulroney left us with, cockwit. And, thanks to some sound fiscal management on the part of previous Liberal governments, we have the option of adopting Keynesian economics to prime the pump during this recession.

[Kjorteo]

Now, now, children. Let's see if we can focus on discussing the issues without dipping into how many dicks your opponent may or many not have sucked recently.

[Sapio]

Streaker wrote:

we have the option of adopting Keynesian economics to prime the pump during this recession.

Keynesian economics, which we only partly follow, is part of the problem. We need to look to the Austrian school to fix the mess, or just have it happen again.

[Streaker]

Sapio wrote:

Streaker wrote:

we have the option of adopting Keynesian economics to prime the pump during this recession.

Keynesian economics, which we only partly follow, is part of the problem. We need to look to the Austrian school to fix the mess, or just have it happen again.

Keynes hasn't been de rigueur in Canada for quite some time. But he might be making a (hopefully) brief comeback.