Ladies and gentlemen, your latest Blogging Brownshirts talking point:
The trap is set
The latest news is that the potential of Bloc-Liberal-NDP coalition government in waiting is shrinking a bit now that the Conservatives have promised to remove required confidence from the party welfare issue.
This is bait of course.
If the BLN coalition backs down now, Canadians will understand that their opposition to the economic statement really wasn’t about the “lack of stimulus”, the rescue of Canadian jobs, or the “protection of rights of women and workers”. The opposition and brinkmanship that was threatening a fresh election or constitutional crisis would have been about parties that are so fresh out of ideas, so unable to inspire, that they were ready to go to political war over their $1.95-per-vote handout from the Canadian taxpayer.
So there you have it. It was never a bit of insane idiocy by HM PM Stephen Harper, who stupidly over-reached and was about to get reamed up the ass for it. No, apparently, it was all some clever gamesmanship during which Harper toyed with his opponents, then ruthlessly humiliated them in public.
Yes, Stephen, whatever you say. Fuck, what a retard. What a pretentious, insufferable retard.
BY THE WAY, did you catch that other talking point of Stephen's? That public funding of Canadian elections has suddenly morphed into "party welfare." Because the thought of using public funds to level the playing field and give the smaller voices a chance to participate in the basics of democracy is nothing less than a bunch of parasitic leeches trying to scam honest, hardworking Canadian taxpayers.
At least now we know what Stephen Taylor thinks of democracy. Apparently, it's only for the rich.
22 comments:
I get it now! It's so twisted and insane that I didn't know what they were yammering about.
They should still shit-can this pathetic excuse for a government.
So... everything is evidence of Harper's brilliance. A proposal is evidence for it, and its retraction is evidence for it too.
All-righty then.
I love it when Stephen Taylor gets all tactical and explains chess to us.
Who the fuck is this little dimwit, anyway?
... and when the Libs and the NDP form a Bloc-supported coalition to teach that fuckface harper a lesson, that'll be "genius" as well!
Blogging Tory: "By graciously sacrificing his government in order to show how the leftists will stoop to ANYTHING in their mad quest for power, and leaving the recession to be blamed on THEM, harper has once again performed a double triple-axle summersault pirouette of a humdinger of a ... blah, blah, blah."
It will be amusing to watch all the back-pedaling as numerous BTs who were squealing with glee over Harper's initial brilliance will now claim that they knew all along that it was a bluff.
These are truly people without principle and without honour. And without brain cells.
"So... everything is evidence of Harper's brilliance. A proposal is evidence for it, and its retraction is evidence for it too."
Well, technically, both the proposal and retraction are evidence of positive tactics, but I wouldn't call them "brilliance". It's something that anybody who has been involved with labour negotiations has expertise in. And it's likely something that anyone who has ever bargained for something in their life knows a thing or two about.
Taylor's desire to jerk off to every move Harper makes is amusing, but I'm partial to the suggestion that Harper had this all scripted. Not because Harper is some brilliant genius, but rather, like I say, because this is the most basic principles of Bargaining 101.
It seems that the opposition isn't going to back down. They've put forward a non-confidence motion:
“In light of the government’s failure to recognize the seriousness of Canada’s economic situation and its failure in particular to present any credible plan to stimulate the Canadian economy and to help workers and businesses in hard-pressed sectors such as manufacturing, the automotive industry and forestry, this House has lost confidence in this government and is of the opinion that a viable alternative government can be formed within the present House of Commons.”
Yes.. "we have a coalition, including.. the Bloc Quebecois.. You remember them.. they were the party that the Liberals bitched and moaned about the Cons just voting with.. even though now, it appears, the Libs are ready to get into a nice little menage a trois, sharing bodily fluids with them..
In the dictionary under sell-out hypocracy, you will find:
Tony Valeri, making comments about the "Conservatives and their new separatist friends"..
or maybe Scott Brison warning us of the "collusion between the Conservatives and the separatists".
Shit.. at least I have the stones to admit when the party I voted for is fucking up.. go ahead, drink some more Liberal kool-aid.. after all, Stephane Dion has assured you there is a alien spaceship just hiding behind the moon waiting to take you to his version of heaven.
Indeed.
ugh. The only thing that'll be shrinking in days to come is Stephen Taylor's MASSIVE erective capacity for blogging sycophancy, as the RepubliCons get the public whipping they deserve.
You mean the Bloc Quebecois that Mulroney helped bring into being, Roblaw? That Bloc Quebecois? The one Mulroney cabinet appointee Lucien Bouchard created? You do remember the days of Tories cozying up to Quebec separatists, right?
BTW, it's "hypocrISY".
And considering that the BQ won't be part of any coalition, but instead supporting it as long as they deem it politically advantageous, I don't see where the hypocrisy comes from.
..oh sorry, "hypocrisy".. wonder why I spelled it wrong and you didn't.. hmmm.
And.. true to libspeak.. no response on the "collusion" with the separatists.. I mean, I didn't say the Lib's were "colluding".. only that they bitched and moaned about it in 2005and are now doing the cons one better..
..oh, and yes, the BQ aren't "part" of the coalition, they're just "supporting it". So much better than just joining the Cons in a non-confidence vote. And you wonder why the Libs have shown so freaking dismally in the last election.
Finally - do you think for a moment that I'm offended at you taking shots taken at a guy who took gobs of cash in brown envelopes - was he a greaseball?.. you bet, but then I never voted for him.
I voted for John Turner for fuckssake, and for Chretien after that.. before I realized (pre adscam) that the Libs were too stupid to keep voting for (can you say gun registry? I knew that you could)
How 'bout you, my friend?.. do you just vote red because everything else is just "evil".. Hopefully you're just as offended by the idea that Paul Martin and Jean Chretien were at least monumentally stupid, if they weren't complicious, in the Adscam fiasco.
Go ahead, show me your balls.. I don't care what you say.. if you agree, well, I guess I'll respect you, but then you'll have to acknoweldge that the Liberals have some pretty ugly baggage themselves.. if you disagree, well, then that will just prove you're a sheep..
I don't care what you say.. if you agree, well, I guess I'll respect you, but then you'll have to acknoweldge that the Liberals have some pretty ugly baggage themselves.. if you disagree, well, then that will just prove you're a sheep..
Well fuck me! Choice, choices. Conservatives just love hearing different viewpoint eh?
Uh, wtf CanuckRover..? I'm all over different viewpoints.. if you can read, you can see my point, in fact, that I think Mulroney was a douchebag.. IF you can read.
My point is that this partisan "my party's teflon" attitude of Canadians is letting us all get screwed..
But, if you feel more comfortable just spouting your mantra that anyone who voted for Harper must be satan.. well, perhaps you would be more comfortable throwing grenades at tourists in Mumbai..
Oh.. and just to amplify on "hypocrIcy"..
*“We would see him [Stephen Harper] and (Bloc Québécois Leader) Gilles Duceppe, if they get enough seats, working together to dismantle this country that all of us are so proud of." (Paul Martin, Toronto Star, December 3, 2005)
* Martin questioned how the Tory leader can explain “his common agenda with the separatists.” (Ottawa Citizen, June 3, 2005)
* “Stephen Harper has made it so clear that he is prepared to do the Bloc's bidding in Parliament, which I find incomprehensible...” (Paul Martin, Ottawa Citizen, April 28, 2005)
* “Let me tell you, Stephen Harper, you made an alliance with the Bloc, not me. The Bloc wants only one thing: a referendum to divide us and break up our country.” (Paul Martin, Globe and Mail, November 29, 2005)
* “The Conservative Party and the separatists … want this Parliament to fail because the Bloc wants Canada to fail.” (Public Works Minister Scott Brison, Hansard, May 2, 2005)
* “…it is impossible to understand why the Conservative Party supports the Bloc” (Scott Brison, Hansard, April 5, 2005)
* “It has become clear that the Conservative-Bloc alliance is alive and well, despite the Leader of the Opposition's claims to the contrary.” (Susan Kadis, Hansard, May 17, 2005)
* “It is an unholy alliance [Between Conservatives and the Bloc] and Canadians need to know all about it. I take great exception to the hypocrisy of saying that they are not in bed with the Bloc and the separatists because they are.” (Roy Cullen, Hansard, April 14, 2005)
'nuff said.
No way was this a negotiation tactic from Harper. It was a huge f**k up, and he's now realised it.
Harper has overplayed his hand. He's done like dinner, and putting off a confidence vote for a week won't change a damned thing.
He forced the start of coalition talk, and that sort of thing has its onw momentum. Welcome to the new world of coalition governing. We're watching a paradigm shift in full spate.
um roblaw, speaking as a non-liberal, non-partisan.... piss off. adscam was bad. it was also several prime ministers ago and a number of liberal leaders ago. the guilty party were the ones that initiated and supported a full enquiry, took their licking, had their asses kicked at the ballot box and are attempting (however ineptly) to rebuild. the old school libs are dying off.
now look at how the current pm and his party have dealt with their own little imbroglio, the in and out affair. obstructed investigations, obstructed committees, slandered elections canada and officials, stone walled, lied and twisted at every turn. hell, the rcmp had to exercise a warrant against the governing party's offices to secure documents, how very attractive and trustworthy they are! the liberals for all their faults, threw open the doors and took their medicine. harper drafted a manual for the obstruction of committees to prevent oversight.
i don't love the liberals but i really detest harper and his brand of american/republican authoritarian governance.
..by old school, you mean Iggy, with the help of Warren Kinsella?
..and by "taking their medicine" you mean Chretien suing to over-turn findings of Gomery?
That being said.. I don't take massive issue with your comments re the conservatives, though I think the whole "dictator/authoritarian" thing is over-played.. I'd say more, "mickey-mousian" truth be told.
I, and I'm sure a few million Canadians, would like a government, a politician, they can believe in. Problem is, getting elected has less to do with quality than appeasment, less to do with ideas, than charisma, and less to do with the interests of the country than with tribalism..
ie. I'm Conservative - if you're not, you're a communist.. I'm a Liberal/NDP - if you're not, you're a fascist.. it's so often about us vs them.. and as much as I question the authenticity of Obama, clearly, that ring of.. genuineness?.. is what carried him.
Do I have the impression there is a single leader of the Federal Parties who is genuine? (with the exception of perhaps Duceppe who wants to ruin our country - so fuck him) Nope.
*sigh*.. so, we throw words at eachother in our blogs, meanwhile, in Ottawa, the political games continue..
Are all lawyers from Alberta nuts, or what?
Getting lectured about partisanship by a president of a provincial conservative riding association? Priceless. Really.
That's it CRover and Ti-Guy.. that's your response? I come here, knowing I'm going to get toasted..because I think every party, including the Cons, need to be more open to understand other views and where they might be wrong.. if you think that makes me nuts.. I'm really losing sleep over your opinion.. ..and if you HAVE to have a Conservative riding .. would you want some people in it who are willing to look at things from a somewhat different point of view? Who are wiling to engage "the enemy" as opposed to just ignoring or dismissing them?
Sometimes, the quality of someone's thought is best reflected in their willingness to understand points of view they object to.. even if they don't agree..
Or.. would you rather I just recite some usual response about how you're probably too busy taking advice from Che Guevara or Fidel Castro.. or some such nonesense..
I mean.. does "Progressive" mean looking forward to better solutions.. or does it just mean, complaining about what is, and offering nothing towards what could be?
Post a Comment