[MOVED] Lyle Bauer back in Manitoba - Politics, not football

[Jacquie]

sidemouth only prorogued the one time because he was in a majority position for many years... PM Harper was not in so cushy a spot. he had a power hungry failure from Ontario provincial politics (who had done the exact same thing in an Ont minority to disasterous effect!) conspiring with separatists to usurp power...

 

So when the Conservatives tried to form a coalition with the NDP and Bloc Quebecois when Martin was PM, Harper was conspiring with separatists to usurp power too. 

 

 

Rule 3 from the Lefty handbook: When someone says something you don't have a response for, act offended and cry 'Politically Incorrect'!

Too funny!

 

 

There you go... I responded to the rest of the post.. Still doesn't change the fact that making fun of a person's paralysis is really low regardless of your politics. 

[iso_55]

Yeah Jacquie, Chretien really suffered with his paralysis. So much so  he became Prime Minister. I guess you find it politically incorrect & sensitive to say that Chretien didn't speak either official language.

[bluto]

i'll remember this sensitivity next time i see the media jump all over Ford for being a big fatso (he is... but he'd never get called that if he weren't a white, male, conservative... because that would be "fat-shaming" then)

[Jacquie]

You call it "political correctness" while I call it "human decency".

[17to85]

 

So when the Conservatives tried to form a coalition with the NDP and Block Quebecois when Martin was PM, Harper was conspiring with separatists to usurp power too. 

 

I didn't like the idea of it back then either. Here's why I find the idea of a coalition between 3 parties undesirable.... They have too many differences between them and it's just a power grab. As much as the system isn't set up that way, the simple fact of the matter is people elected a specific party to govern and they did not want some amalgamation of other parties to run the country. 

[Jacquie]

 

 

So when the Conservatives tried to form a coalition with the NDP and Block Quebecois when Martin was PM, Harper was conspiring with separatists to usurp power too. 

 

I didn't like the idea of it back then either. Here's why I find the idea of a coalition between 3 parties undesirable.... They have too many differences between them and it's just a power grab. As much as the system isn't set up that way, the simple fact of the matter is people elected a specific party to govern and they did not want some amalgamation of other parties to run the country. 

 

 

And that's a very sensible reason to be against it. It's the hypocrisy of people who criticize the Liberals, NDP and Bloc for trying but seem to think it was okay when the Conservatives tried.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't normally jump in here but this is complete and utter bullshit.  The governement answers to parliament.  Not the other way around.  If the ruling party doesn't have the confidence of the House .. the House is well within it's means to vote down the government and form a collaborative majority which will allow them to govern with the confidence of the House or trigger an election if that stable majority cannot be established.   This is not a coup.  This is how our parliamentary democracy works.

 

Harper proroguing parliament was nothing more than avoiding a confidence motion which would have defeated his government. 

 

Well it's not quite as simple as that, a coalition has to go to the governor general and convince him that they can govern rather than calling an election. Similarly prorouging is not some evil sin either, hell Chretien did it a ton too, Harper asked the governor general to do it, the governor general has to agree, and that's that. There's nothing scandalous about it. Both sides were using the tools at their disposal to play the game. 

 

 

I would never dispute any of that .. with one exception .. Chretien prorouged parliament only once, in 2002, in large part to avoid tabling a report which would have shed light on the sponsorship debacle.    It was not a matter of confidence (at least not at that point in time).

 

I tend to take exception to those who reinforce the notion that coalition governments are some diabolical political maneuver .. voting down the government on a matter of confidence and attempting to form a stable ruling majority is *not* a coup .. I certainly object to anyone who attempts to tell me that the government isn't answerable to Parliament.  Parliament is an extension of the people .. and the government must ensure they have the confidence of our sitting representatives.

 

This is wrong in practice.  Its a weakness of our political system.

 

I dare say most people vote for the party they want to run government, much like in the US (though its more the person and the party).  The coalition attempts were plain disgusting in my view.  Its was pure arrogance on the part of the liberals to lose the election and then claim they HAVE to form a coalition (with separatists no less) because only THEY can deliver to Canadian what they really need, even when those same Canadians voted for a Cons government.  What a joke that would have been.

 

The GG did the right thing by staying out of it.  And Harper absolutely did the right thing by not allowing turncoat liberals to hand the balance of power in Canadian politics to seperatists.  And then he went out and won a majority.  So you tell me, what did Canadians want?  I realise that lefties always think they know whats best for everyone even those people that dont want it.  But it's not true.  The people voted.  And thats why Harper has been a LOOOOONG standing Prime Minister.

 

Im still waiting for the soldiers in the streets, the death penalty debate, the abortion debate etc etc etc.  You know, all those terrible things Stephen Harper was going to do when he won a majority.  All Harper has done is been a good statesmen, keep his election promises, steer us through a global melt down (that even other countries envied Canada for).

 

Bottom line is, NO government will ever be for ALL the people.  But the vast majority of whining about Harper is personal or ridiculous.  If you want to say the Cons shouldn't have lowered the GST, thats a debate I can get behind.  But to hang nonsense around the neck of the PM who KEEPS GETTING ELECTED is silly.

 

It sucked when Cretien went nuts and we suffered through.  But we did suffer through.  And then, we voted him out.  So go vote.  And if the people speak, then so be it. 

 

But dont tell me Justin will be a better PM based on his hair and last name.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

 

 

So when the Conservatives tried to form a coalition with the NDP and Block Quebecois when Martin was PM, Harper was conspiring with separatists to usurp power too. 

 

I didn't like the idea of it back then either. Here's why I find the idea of a coalition between 3 parties undesirable.... They have too many differences between them and it's just a power grab. As much as the system isn't set up that way, the simple fact of the matter is people elected a specific party to govern and they did not want some amalgamation of other parties to run the country. 

 

 

And that's a very sensible reason to be against it. It's the hypocrisy of people who criticize the Liberals, NDP and Bloc for trying but seem to think it was okay when the Conservatives tried.

 

The difference (and Im not condoning it) is that Paul Martin was not elected to be Prime Minister by the voters.  Lets not debate the nuances of our political system.  When most Canadians vote, they are voting for the Prime Minister which is why the poll of "who do Canadian view as most Prime Ministerial" is very important.

 

And I cringed at the idea of ANY coalition with the BQ.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

 

So when the Conservatives tried to form a coalition with the NDP and Block Quebecois when Martin was PM, Harper was conspiring with separatists to usurp power too. 

 

I didn't like the idea of it back then either. Here's why I find the idea of a coalition between 3 parties undesirable.... They have too many differences between them and it's just a power grab. As much as the system isn't set up that way, the simple fact of the matter is people elected a specific party to govern and they did not want some amalgamation of other parties to run the country. 

 

its undesirable because its not what Canadians intend when they vote.  Period.

[Jacquie]

 

 

 

 

So when the Conservatives tried to form a coalition with the NDP and Block Quebecois when Martin was PM, Harper was conspiring with separatists to usurp power too. 

 

I didn't like the idea of it back then either. Here's why I find the idea of a coalition between 3 parties undesirable.... They have too many differences between them and it's just a power grab. As much as the system isn't set up that way, the simple fact of the matter is people elected a specific party to govern and they did not want some amalgamation of other parties to run the country. 

 

 

And that's a very sensible reason to be against it. It's the hypocrisy of people who criticize the Liberals, NDP and Bloc for trying but seem to think it was okay when the Conservatives tried.

 

The difference (and Im not condoning it) is that Paul Martin was not elected to be Prime Minister by the voters.  Lets not debate the nuances of our political system.  When most Canadians vote, they are voting for the Prime Minister which is why the poll of "who do Canadian view as most Prime Ministerial" is very important.

 

Wrong. Harper tried it after the 2004 election which the Liberals under Martin won a minority government. 

[The Unknown Poster]

 

 

 

 

 

So when the Conservatives tried to form a coalition with the NDP and Block Quebecois when Martin was PM, Harper was conspiring with separatists to usurp power too. 

 

I didn't like the idea of it back then either. Here's why I find the idea of a coalition between 3 parties undesirable.... They have too many differences between them and it's just a power grab. As much as the system isn't set up that way, the simple fact of the matter is people elected a specific party to govern and they did not want some amalgamation of other parties to run the country. 

 

 

And that's a very sensible reason to be against it. It's the hypocrisy of people who criticize the Liberals, NDP and Bloc for trying but seem to think it was okay when the Conservatives tried.

 

The difference (and Im not condoning it) is that Paul Martin was not elected to be Prime Minister by the voters.  Lets not debate the nuances of our political system.  When most Canadians vote, they are voting for the Prime Minister which is why the poll of "who do Canadian view as most Prime Ministerial" is very important.

 

Wrong. Harper tried it after the 2004 election which the Liberals under Martin won a minority government. 

 

I stand corrected.  And it would have been wrong if he had done it.  I bet the liberals thought it was wrong too....until they wanted to try it.

[17to85]

If parties want to form a coalition it should be done before the election so voters know what to expect from a government if they're going to vote for that party. I tend to vote Conservative, but if they really ticked me off I could vote Liberal as well... but there is no way in hell I would ever vote for the NDP so having the NDP in any kind of significant role in governing is something I very much do not want to see. 

[The Unknown Poster]

If parties want to form a coalition it should be done before the election so voters know what to expect from a government if they're going to vote for that party. I tend to vote Conservative, but if they really ticked me off I could vote Liberal as well... but there is no way in hell I would ever vote for the NDP so having the NDP in any kind of significant role in governing is something I very much do not want to see. 

Absolutely.  100% agree.

 

The Liberals knew they were screwed and saw one chance to take down the Cons and steal back power.  Thank God for Harper and his courage to pro-rogue government knowing the looney left would criticise him for what was absolutely in the best interests of the country.  Imagine a left wing coalition governing Canada during the recession?  YIKES!

[bluto]

 

If parties want to form a coalition it should be done before the election so voters know what to expect from a government if they're going to vote for that party. I tend to vote Conservative, but if they really ticked me off I could vote Liberal as well... but there is no way in hell I would ever vote for the NDP so having the NDP in any kind of significant role in governing is something I very much do not want to see. 

Absolutely.  100% agree.

 

The Liberals knew they were screwed and saw one chance to take down the Cons and steal back power.  Thank God for Harper and his courage to pro-rogue government knowing the looney left would criticise him for what was absolutely in the best interests of the country.  Imagine a left wing coalition governing Canada during the recession?  YIKES!

 

 

 

the sad thing is that they did end up running us anyway (after a fashion).

 

Flaherty/Harper proposed a sensible budget of austerity and immediately started getting the no-confidence threats from the loons across the aisle (because, as you know, conservative people hate poor people and children and the elderly and enfeebled and don't even get me started on how we loathe minorities, gays and are at war on women)...

...the Dipper/Lieberal/Boqhead coalition force a "stimulus" budget which ends up in porkbarrelling all over the country and helps virtually none of the downtrodden that the left claim to be the champions of...

...fast forward not even a frickin year and the left are already using the budget deficit created by the very "stimulus" that they crammed down our throats as exhibit A in why the conservatives can't run an economy.

 

all politicians get corrupt and crooked eventually... Acton's dictum tells us that much. but those of a lefty-bleeding-heart bent are no better than children to me and ought to just step aside while the adults manage the store.

[17to85]

The worst part is how the Dippers all brag about their record of balanced budgets... I have no interest in balancing the budget if it means jacking up the taxes every time you start spending more than you have. 

[iso_55]

You call it "political correctness" while I call it "human decency".

Oh please, take your pulpit elsewhere. 

[Jacquie]

You call it "political correctness" while I call it "human decency".

Oh please, take your pulpit elsewhere.

Sorry Iso, I don't have one.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any family members or close friends who have a disability?

[iso_55]

Yeah, myself. I have had 3 major surgeries on my right foot since early 2012 because of severe arthritis that set in around 2006. Google Triple Hind Foot Fusion or Triple Arthrodesis as it is also called. That's the surgery I had. Anyway, you asked.

I have no sympathy for Chretien because he never let any disability stand in his way. He became the most powerful man in Canada & he had the power to make or break political careers with the snap of a finger. He was a ruthless politician. Like all politicians, he could be charming one minute & an SOB the next. Don't feel sorry for  that guy because he never felt sorry for himself. And he could be as mean spirited & dirty as the Conservative politicians you're going tsk tsk to.

[Jacquie]

I never said anything about sympathy. As far as I'm concerned it is wrong to belittle someone's disability. Would you like it if people downplayed what you've gone through and made jokes about it as if it was nothing. You want to criticize Chretien's policies, personality or tactics - have at it but joking about his disability is wrong.

[iso_55]

If someone called me a gimp or made fun of my permanent limp, I could care less & probably agree with them. Like I said, put away your pulpit away & stop lecturin'.

[Jacquie]

If someone called me a gimp or made fun of my permanent limp, I could care less & probably agree with them. Like I said, put away your pulpit away & stop lecturin'.

So some stranger mocks you and is a total jackass and you're going to laugh it off but someone here tells you to lighten up and you get all bent out of shape.

If you don't like my posts then 1) don't read them or 2) put me on your foe list. It's certainly no skin off my nose. As for lecturing, there's the pot calling the kettle black.

But don't worry, Iso, I'm done with this thread.

[iso_55]

Point taken Jacquie but you're the one who brings up this crap about Chretien's disabilities when he was the butt of comedians & impressionists jokes for years. 

[Mr Dee]

Jacquie was just pointing out the schoolyard tactics of some posters who think it's OK to point out and mock people's disabilities. 

It has nothing to do with politicians or morticians or beauticians.

That wasn't the point.

And really, who cares about comedians and impressionists who have to stoop to that level for comedy? Comedy…really?

 

It's still a form of bullying and a means to elevate one's own position over the unfortunate circumstances of others.

Am I taking this too seriously?

Maybe, but I, for one, agree with her.

[iso_55]

The double standard of the Liberal-left wing segment of society is comical. Lefties constantly talking about Harper's secret agenda & going online with name calling & saying uncomplimentary things about him, his family & his government. Yet, if someone on the conservative end of the political spectrum says something these same left wing supporters don't like about one of their own like a political leader then suddenly it's all about being bullies & insensitive. It's a two way street. I see insults being thrown at people like Harper by the left everyday just as I do at left wing politicians by the right. No one side is better than the other. Hence the comment to Jacquie to quit lecturin'.

[Atomic]

Classic Liberal guilt-mongering!