Wednesday, March 23, 2011

So, We Are Having An Election Because????

Because....

Iggy needs to go back to Haaarvard?
Layton was bullied by his own MP's? (I wouldn't put it past Pat Martin and Mulclair)
The opposition can't work with anything that smells like a Conservative?
It's spring and it's a good time to spend 300 million?
Conservatives are bullies?
Liberals are pathetic?
NDP are wrong headed?
Bloc are only interested in stuffing money into their pockets?
Duceppe looks good in a hair net?
Harper sang out of tune once?
Layton believes he deserves to be PM?
Iggy isn't really a real Count?

Add your own because.....

Oh, and for all those lefties denying that there is a coalition afoot. Here is what happened in one riding last election.



No coalition? Right! Is that bridge to Hawaii sold yet?

24 comments:

mystereeoso said...

We're having an election because the Government, lead by Stephen Harper is in contempt of Parliament and because the Government has lost the confidence of the House.

Paul MacPhail said...

No, we're having an election because the opposition parties want one. The contempt issue is about as realistic as the so-called lack of democracy we keep hearing about; the charge being led by a guy who was given the role of party leader without a vote and has probably the worst voting attendance record in the House of Commons.

mystereeoso said...

"No, we're having an election because the opposition parties want one."

The government DOES need the confidence of the House to function, no? Maybe you're thinking of a different political system. As for the rest, geeze if Iggy's got enough sway to get all that "unrealistic" stuff done without even voting, whoosh he must be a super powerful guy, much more powerful than Stephen J. Harper, son of an accountant.

West Coast Teddi said...

Mysty-Sue ... the commentors on this site have found you in contempt! Please call an election and go campaign in your basement. The mushrooms will vote for you.

I would beleive you on the contempt charge if it was a "non-partisan committee" but it isn't. NO MATTER WHAT the EVIDENCE IS the committee is playing politics and the opposition is in the majority.

Your arguements hold no water such YOU are in contempt ... blast away eighty cent-er!

mystereeoso said...

"NO MATTER WHAT the EVIDENCE IS..."

You see, you have a problem right there. You seem to be suggesting that even if the committee found no evidence of contempt,their assessment would be wrong because it is not composed of conservatives. Surely the evidence supersedes the political composition of the committee/

I don't know why I bothered pointing out your little disconnect - you seem t have trouble with the fact the opposition IS the majority.

What were you saying about mushrooms?

mystereeoso said...

Anyway, whatever you say about the water in my argument - your argument puts me in mind of the one John Baird tried to make in 2008 in defence of prorogation. What was the great line he kept saying? "We're gonna go over their heads! We're gonna go over their heads!"

I must say the opposition leaders certainly did all look wonderfully chipper compared to your leader yesterday. They all welcomed questions from the press. They all had smiles and good cheer and even jokes! Not old sourpuss though.

Leeky Sweek said...

Of course all the oppostion leaders were all smiles. Just before, they were in the back patting each others fannies and telling themselves how wonderful they are.

Who knows? Maybe even the "c" as in "coalition" word was mentioned.

mystereeoso said...

Guys. Guys. Voldemort, (the v word) is the one that shall not be said. Coalition? Coalition is the way things work. If you don't know that, you're a little out of the loop. Coalition, my coalition is this! Ha!

Leeky Sweek said...

Coalitions are legit when voters know that's what they're getting. This back room deal by the COL (coalition of losers) was unethical even if it was technically legal.

So the question is: will Iggy or won't Iggy? Only the ultra-secret COL knows for sure.

mystereeoso said...

Nice try Leaky.

Logic the texture of jello with chunks of maraschino in it. The Ultra secret coalition of losers all you blogging tories seem to know SO MUCH ABOUT? Hahahaha!

Leeky Sweek said...

Mystereeeeee...

Wow, it's tripe like that that is sooooo Liberal. Ever say anything that actually makes sense? Suggestion: don't follow the Liberal playbook on smarmy remarks. Try an original thought.

mystereeoso said...

C'mon Leaky. Politics, is all about coalitions. Heck, Canada as a nation is a coalition. Can you dispute that with a lefty? Or only with a righty?

Eskimo said...

Stephen Harper's father was an accountant, so says the resident sissypants troll.

So what?

Jack Layton's father was a Conservative cabinet minister. Conservative? Oh the HORROR!

Poor little rich kid and multiple passport holder (Count Igula) is the son of a diplomat. Wanna talk about Iggy's grandpappy? You know the Russian who drafted legislation leading to widespread persecution of the Jews?

Gilles Duceppe's father was a popular soap opera and stage actor in Quebec.

Elizabeth May's father was a high ranking board member of an American insurance company. An EVIL American insurance company! Oh the HUMANITY! At least her Mother was a full-time activist, giving Lizzy partial points of redemption. Good thing Daddy brought home the big cheques so Mommy could go out and protest big business. Also helped to ensure Lizzy could be a trust fund baby too.

What's your point mysterymeat? Do you really want to get into an arguement about the lineage of a politician now that your hero Ignatieff recently so carelessly lied about his?

It's laughable that the oppostion think this election is about some form of moral platitudes they're suddenly the champions of. What with Adscam still resonating and the recent news that Layton may have held off in bringing down the Conservatives before our last election so some of his NDP cohorts would have the minimum required amount of time to qualify for generous government pensions. Typical union mentality. How about Ulglybeth May wanting to hold back up to 25% of her candidates in favor of liberal seats.

The howls from the collective left the last time over the CPC wanting to eliminate taxpayer funding to politicians was very telling. The fact that only the CPC can raise any significant funds from grass roots supporters while the rest of them can't function without government handouts only assures us what would happen if the coalition loosers got hold of the purse strings.

If a political party and it's message cannot garner the support directly from the voters they claim to represent it most certainly does not deserve to be propped up by the taxpayer.

So what did your Daddy do, mysterymeat? Was he an academic? Did he smoke a pipe and wear tweet sportcoats with patches on the elbows? Did he hold court with other academics and was fond of saying, "I say, old boy"? Or are you too embarrassed to speak about him because he worked with his hands?

Leeky Sweek said...

Politics is all about coalitions? Really? Does the electorate know about this? The only coalition I have lived through was the disasterous Liberal/NDP love-in back in 1972. Do you know that one? Trudeau and Broadbent? That's the one where our wonderful debt began.

I imagine that if Joe Q. Public votes Liberal, they'd want a Liberal, not some some Liberal/NDP hybrid with a dollop of BQ on the side for extra support. If that's not the case, you Liberals need to be honest about your intentions and stop all this hemming and hawing. Let the public know what they're in for.

mystereeoso said...

"Politics is all about coalitions? Really? Does the electorate know about this?"

The electorate is a coalition of voters. Did you know about this?

"The only coalition I have lived through was the disasterous[sic] Liberal/NDP love-in back in 1972. Do you know that one? Trudeau and Broadbent? That's the one where our wonderful debt began"

I've seen that typo before in BT blogs. Very special way to spell disastrous, and yet endearing:-)

You are wrong. Harper took Paul Martin's surplus and blew it. Harper and his gang are the only one's responsible for our wonderful debt. Remember that little GST thingy they canned?

"I imagine that if Joe Q. Public votes Liberal, they'd want a Liberal, not some some Liberal/NDP hybrid with a dollop of BQ on the side for extra support. If that's not the case, you Liberals need to be honest about your intentions and stop all this hemming and hawing. Let the public know what they're in for."

Why wouldn't Joe Q. Public who votes Liberal be thrilled to see other parties support meritorious Liberal policies? Why wouldn't Joe Q. Public who votes Liberal be thrilled to see the Libs support the meritorious policies of other parties? This is, of course lost in the conbot worldview Esquimault illustrates for us, above. Esquimault is having serious anger management problems today.

Leeky Sweek said...

Wow! Where to start!

"The electorate is a coalition of voters. Did you know about this?"

Did you know that you're missing the point? You must be having "one of those days."

"You are wrong. Harper took Paul Martin's surplus and blew it. Harper and his gang are the only one's responsible for our wonderful debt. Remember that little GST thingy they canned?"

Check you Funk and Wagnall's. "Debt" and "deficit" are two different, albeit related terms. And no, it was Trudeau and his ilk that gave us the wonderful $500B DEBT we all now enjoy.

"Why wouldn't Joe Q. Public who votes Liberal be thrilled to see other parties support meritorious Liberal policies? Why wouldn't Joe Q. Public who votes Liberal be thrilled to see the Libs support the meritorious policies of other parties?"

You really don't give the Liberal voter much credit in the intelligence department, do you? (I can hardly believe I'm saying that.) Basically, you're implying that one lefty party is as good as the next. Maybe you folk should all amalgamate together and become the "New Liberal Bloc" Party or something. I can't believe that some Liberal voter in Alberta (I think I may have met one once) would be thrilled that his vote is actually only 1/2 to 1/3 of a broader coalition he may not even approve or know of.

And BTW, if you're so sure of your ground I reiterate, let Joe Q. Public know in ADVANCE that Liberals are ready to French kiss with the Bloc and honeymoon with the NDP. It's only ethical.

Eskimo said...

French kiss with the Bloc? I'd be inclined to say it's a little lower than that, but this is a family blog.

Incidentally, Paul Martin's so-called surplus was laregly due to a robust US economy, but mainly it was acheived by over-taxation, namely obsene U.I. premiums. Billions were also siphoned from the U.I. funds to bankroll the many unaccountable and untouchable foundations. Follow THAT money and see where it leads you.

mystereeoso said...

"it was Trudeau and his ilk that gave us the wonderful $500B DEBT we all now enjoy."

Canada's debt has never been higher than under Mulroney.Did it ever come anywhere near that under Trudeau? No it didn't but Harpo is taking it right close.


"Basically, you're implying that one lefty party is as good as the next."

I said nothing of the sort. I said this:

"Why wouldn't Joe Q. Public who votes Liberal be thrilled to see other parties support meritorious Liberal policies? Why wouldn't Joe Q. Public who votes Liberal be thrilled to see the Libs support the meritorious policies of other parties?"

Let's simplify the question for you. Why shouldn't a good policy that's been developed by any party be supported by any of the others?

"And BTW, if you're so sure of your ground I reiterate, let Joe Q. Public know in ADVANCE that Liberals are ready to French kiss with the Bloc and honeymoon with the NDP. It's only ethical."

LOL, in advance of an undetermined election? Spare us. What a prude.

Southern Quebec said...

Sweater Steve is slowly becoming unelectable. Or haven't the BT's noticed? Maybe we should change his name to Sweet Contemptible Steve? It's time for him to go write the ultimate Canadian hockey book, or just go on Wing Nut Welfare like the rest of them.

Or maybe just go away, ya, that's it, just go away...

Leeky Sweek said...

As much fun as it is, in a rectal exam sort of way, debating with those defending the COL, I must depart.

""And BTW, if you're so sure of your ground I reiterate, let Joe Q. Public know in ADVANCE that Liberals are ready to French kiss with the Bloc and honeymoon with the NDP. It's only ethical."

LOL, in advance of an undetermined election? Spare us. What a prude."

Mystery man, thanks for answering in a typical Liberal manner by not responding properly to this question. It's actually very telling. BTW, unless the Liberals plan on "voting" in Parliament again by keeping their buns in their seats, an election looks rather likely, don't you think?

And thanks for the spelling lesson for "disastrous." I imagine you must be quite familiar with that word, what with people's remarks about Liberal party policy.

Hunter, thanks for the use of your blog. Take care.

hunter said...

Another fun day was had by all!! Nobody came up with a valid reason for an election right now, but neither could I. Maybe we should be asking the opposition "why an election now?"

Thucydides said...

Will London North Center MP Glenn Pearson be taking his marching orders from London Fanshawe MP Irene Mathyssen?

liberal supporter said...

We are having an election to remove the criminal CPC from power. They need to be held accountable for their lack of accountability.

Ardvark said...

You forgot one Hunter.

The loss of a confidence vote in a minority parliament is the reason an election will be called.

The why the vote was lost and the timing of why now part however is debatable.