BT Chucker Canuck finally decides that appearing sane and logical is just too much effort:
Best Moment of 2008
In both leaders debates this year, Stephen Harper made the only conciliatory gesture between Conservatives what we would now call the coalition-in-waiting. He gestured to all four leaders of the coalition and said, "I believe you are all sincere in what you want to do." (or something like that)
Distrust is the default position in Canadian politics. Firewalling hidden agendas and cash stuffed envelopes are easy grist for the rhetorical mill. Stephen Harper - virtually alone in politics - has made the basic gesture to recognize the sincerity of their opponent's intentions. One small step for a politician, one giant step for politics.
Where to begin, oh Lord, where to begin? First, Chucker, my retarded little chew toy, there aren't "four" leaders of the coalition, there are only two: the Bloc is not (and never has been) a member of the Coalition, and the Green Party has no seats to offer so they can't possibly count.
Second, Chucker, my revisionist friend, Stephen Harper never gestured to "all four leaders of the coalition" since the coalition did not even exist at the time, but I'll understand if you enjoy rewriting history for your benefit.
And finally, Chucker, using the word "conciliatory" for someone whose first budget gesture was to slash funding to the opposition, prorogue Parliament so he couldn't be held accountable, then pack the Senate with Conservative suckups, cronies, bagmen and failed politicians doesn't strike me as particularly conciliatory.
But let's face it, Chucker's a Blogging Tory -- ergo, bullshit is what he does. It kind of goes with the territory.
CC, you revisionist tool. The Bloc not only was part of the coalition, it held the balance of power. The Libs and NDP did not have enough seats to form a coalition at all without the support of the Bloc. Add 'em up.
Ah.. the light & fluffy Marx Brother returns.
Can we hear from Gummo next? Huh, can we?
wv = "rumpled"
Would someone else like to enlighten "zeppo" on who was and was not in the "coalition," or is that job left to me?
Okay, let me try:
"Coalition" only formally describes when two parties _share_ power in a substantive fashion, and this generally means sharing cabinet positions, as the Liberals and NDP propose to do, and as the Bloc are NOT proposing to do.
Instead, the Bloc Quebecois is only promising to vote in favour of a throne speech brought forward by a Liberal-NDP coalition, thus giving them the confidence of the House and the right to govern, and promising not to vote down the new government between now and the middle of 2010. So, the Bloc is sitting as an opposition party; they are not a member of the new government.
If "coalition" applies to the Bloc in supporting the Liberal-New Democrat government, then it also applies to the Bloc in any situation where they have voted along with the Conservative government on confidence measures -- which has happened plenty of times before. Likewise, you could just as easily argue that the previous government has been operating as a Conservative-Liberal coalition given how often Dion refrained from bringing the Tories down.
You're entitled to your own opinion, of course, but not to your own facts. The facts are that the Liberals and the New Democrats are proposing to function as a coalition, and the Bloc are not a part of that. The Bloc remain an opposition party in the new parliament, just as the abstentious Liberals have been an opposition party in the last parliament.
A) Fact. The BQ was voting as a bloc along with the Libs and NDP and had guaranteed that for 18 months. If they all have an agreement to vote together as a bloc then they are a coalition, regardless of what they choose to call themselves.
Whether a BQ member held a cabinet post is irrelevant.
B) Fact. The Conservatives have more votes than the Libs and NDP combined. There is no coalition without the BQ.
C) I would love to see the coalition run as a coalition against the Conservatives. Conservatives would end up with a gigantic majority.
And who among us did not see that coming? "I'm going to define the word 'coalition' any way I want and you can't stop me! You can't, you can't, you can't!!"
Thanks for playing, zeppo. Now give the keyboard back to a grownup and we'll continue our conversation.
By the way, for people who are not feeble-minded, sycophantic Stephen Harper groupies, there's this. Feel free to read it carefully to understand how that coalition was to work. And who was a "member." And who wasn't.
CC: Oh the CBC, that bastion of semantic correctness.
You can call it whatever you want. The Libs and NDP form a coalition while the BQ only offers "a letter of support" for 18 months. Or one can be rational, look at the letter of support for what it really represents, and call the whole mess a three party coalition, which is really what it is.
The fact that the BQ chooses to call its membership certificate in the coalition a "letter of support" is semantic BS. The BQ is a member of a three party coalition.
Here's the deal. This semantic gerrymandering is all about the Libs and NDP reading the polls and finding out that the vast majority of Canadians think that having anything to do with a separatist party (BQ) is horrible. So they try and say the coalition is only between two parties but with "support" of the BQ. Bull excrement.
Without the BQ the coalition circles the toilet bowl before the dénouement. The BQ holds the balance of power because it can bring down the coalition in a heartbeat. Since the BQ only represents one province, guess what jurisdiction will occupy most of the coalition's efforts focused?
That's as simple as I can put it together for you.
You can call it whatever you want.
Ummm... that's called projection, zippo. Nice try but... FAIL.
Have a nice day.
Yeah. You really... ummm... got me there. ;-)
The Conservatives have depended on Bloc support to pass a number of their legislation. By your definition, they have been in coalition with the Bloc several times.
Coalition only applies if the parties share seats at the cabinet table. If all the Bloc is doing is sitting as its own party and voting in favour of the Liberal-NDP throne speech, they are doing and acting and being exactly as they are should they sit as its own party and voting in favour of a Conservative throne speech.
zeppo continues to whine ceaselessly:
"Oh the CBC, that bastion of semantic correctness. You can call it whatever you want."
Here's the thing, zep, my adorable little chew toy. We are having a disagreement based on facts, where you claim that the Bloc was/is a "member" of the coalition, and I claim it wasn't/isn't.
A quick check of the official record shows that I am, in fact, correct and you are wrong. So I'm not sure why you continue to debate the issue.
The terms of the coalition were laid out in some detail. Anyone can read them. I can read them. You can read them. And, when one does read them, one learns that you are defending a position that is simply wrong. This is not a matter of personal opinion -- it is a fact.
So why do you persist? Are you being deliberately obdurate? Or are you simply illiterate? Seriously, I'm curious now. I've pointed you to the actual truth, yet you continue to whine and mewl.
Why? Seriously, why?
I've been asking over at chuckers when the mass arrests start for those of us who support the so called coup. Oddly I have yet to recieve an answer...
Why do I persist? Well, because I am correct and you are not. The difference between the Lib-Dem so-called coalition membership and the Bloc "letter of support" coalition membership is zero. Nada.
If the Bloc wanted to retain its independence to vote however it wanted then it did not need to produce a letter of support.
Don't focus on what the party chooses to call their membership in the coalition, just look at the fact that they choose to vote as a bloc. The BQ promised its support for 18 months. If it wanted to vote independently it should not have produced a letter at all.
zeppo, you don't understand anything. You are a moronic, know nothing robot.
They are going to vote independantly on everything, except for votes of confidence.
Cameron Campbell said:
They are going to vote independantly (sic) on everything, except for votes of confidence.
You keep drinkin' the Kool-Aid pal; your arguments suck and you're already blowing chunks so it won't take much longer.
Post a Comment