[Akhenaten]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

$1:

Do you not agree that LIB+NDP > PC ? LIB+NDP+BLOC > PC ? Where is the error?

DUDE. Quit being stupid. Try this: PC+NDP > LIB.
PC+NDP+BLOC > LIB.
NDP+BLOC > LIB

No matter how much you try and pound the square peg into the round hole it's not going to work genius.

VERY SAME LOGIC. YOU ARE WRONG. The error is assuming anyone who didn't vote conservative voted against the conservatives but FOR the liberals. Duh.

Need flash cards. Words don't work it seems.

Reminds me of Sesame Street where they take five items and arrange them in different shapes to try and see if it's more or less than the original number. His entire premise works on the logical fallacy (or lie) that a vote for the Conservative party is a vote for the conservative party and a vote for anyone else is a vote against them. Doesn't work that way, especially if your only rational is "because i say it's that way".

No one voted for a coaltion (which is what they do elsewhere like Europe - vote for a coalition, not create them after the fact), and it wasn't terribly popular to Canadians either. And what were the main complaints?

"I voted for the Liberal Party not a coalition with the Bloc"
or
"I voted for the NDP not for Dion as leader"

...so no. His premise is corked.

Bottom line is people vote for not against and the Liberal party never played 'nice' with the others either so that's also a load. Typical arrogance of liberal party though: "Any vote that wasn't for the conservatives was really a vote for us. People who voted NDP, 'didn't really mean it'". lol.

Curtman's logic rests on this arrogant assumption that everyone likes the Liberal Party more than the conservatives. Of course that just doesn't play out during election time when people actually vote for the party they like. 2 Elections in a row and the Liberal Party keeps bleeding seats.

[Akhenaten]

Curtman Curtman:

Still no explanation about how the math could ever work in the favour of a Conservative coalition with anybody except The Bloc... But thanks for trying this time around.

This is because one isn't needed. Frankly your assertion that the NDP wouldn't work with the CPC is an outlandish assumption. Bloc and NDP would surely form an alliance with anyone that can lend them more power. You have no rational reason to believe this notion of yours that the Liberal party is "more liked". There's nothing to prove that and the way they've been bleeding seats the last two elections (124 down to 103, then down again to 77) proves the opposite.

Good luck with your whole, "head in the sand" thing though. It's really working out well for the Liberals.

[Curtman]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

VERY SAME LOGIC. YOU ARE WRONG. The error is assuming anyone who didn't vote conservative voted against the conservatives but FOR the liberals. Duh.

No the error that keeps getting made around here is the one where you people dream about stealing power from the Liberals by getting some other party to form a coalition. There isn't one that would even entertain the idea other than the Bloc. Your party won't go that route, even though they usually don't shy away from being harpercrits.

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Curtman's logic rests on this arrogant assumption that everyone likes the Liberal Party more than the conservatives. Of course that just doesn't play out during election time when people actually vote for the party they like. 2 Elections in a row and the Liberal Party keeps bleeding seats.

The only arrogant assumption I see being made around here is the one which assumes the NDP can't decide how to best represent their voters. They should let Harper do whatever he wants, and ignore the voice of anyone else in the House of Commons.

I never once said the math doesn't work the other way around, I just don't think it can. I don't think any of you think it can either.

[Curtman]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

This is because one isn't needed. Frankly your assertion that the NDP wouldn't work with the CPC is an outlandish assumption. Bloc and NDP would surely form an alliance with anyone that can lend them more power. You have no rational reason to believe this notion of yours that the Liberal party is "more liked". There's nothing to prove that and the way they've been bleeding seats the last two elections (124 down to 103, then down again to 77) proves the opposite.

Good luck with your whole, "head in the sand" thing though. It's really working out well for the Liberals.

Yeah my head is in the sand.. While you pretend the NDP doesn't have the right to do what it does in fact have the right to do.

[Akhenaten]

$1:

While you pretend the NDP doesn't have the right to do what it does in fact have the right to do.

You can't argue what I say, so instead you're forced argue what I didn't say.
Never said this once. Not once. Of course they have the right. This is about your ludicrous statement that "more people voted against the CPC than voted for them". That's a silly game-playing talking point only an idiot would fall for. Since you can't argue that now you're running around trying to make it about something else -- including making up what I'm saying.

$1:

No the error that keeps getting made around here is the one where you people dream about stealing power from the Liberals by getting some other party to form a coalition.

Um no. Never said or argued or dreamed this. This is hypothetical dream is entirely beside the point. Again you make up what I say since you can't argue what I actually said. Have no idea what you mean about 'dreaming of stealing power from the Liberals'. CPC doesn't need to steal power from the Liberals. They earned it the usual way by getting way more votes.

$1:

There isn't one that would even entertain the idea other than the Bloc. Your party won't go that route, even though they usually don't shy away from being harpercrits.

You're the one who insists the NDP would never form a coalition with the CPC and you have absolutely no basis for that. You seem to just pull this idea out of thin air along with the idea that 37% of voting Canadians are just dumb rednecks. In fact aligning with the CPC is exactly what the NDP did do back in 2006. So I have an actual reason to believe the NDP would align with the CPC and you have absolutely zero reason to think they wouldn't. They did:

Wiki 2006 election Wiki 2006 election:

Conservative leader Stephen Harper, the leader of the Opposition, introduced a motion of no confidence on November 24, which NDP leader Jack Layton seconded.

link

$1:

The only arrogant assumption I see being made around here is the one which assumes the NDP can't decide how to best represent their voters.

Never said that either. I'm sure you wish I did, but I didn't.

$1:

I never once said the math doesn't work the other way around, I just don't think it can.

This sentence contradicts itself. This is math. It either works the other way around or it doesn't.
Since you're talking about a hypothetical situation with hypothetical numbers this is pointless. Of course they could. They did.


Since you can't debate my points and instead must make up things I didn't say in order to carry on, I'll leave you to it. You've painted yourself in a corner now and you can't get out. My argument rests on your notion that "more people voted against the CPC than voted for them" and I've destroyed that little talking point. Now you're running around in circles.

[Curtman]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

You can't argue what I say, so instead you're forced argue what I didn't say. Never said this once. Not once. Of course they have the right.

No, I believe you said it was my assumption that every NDP wants the Liberals over the Conservatives. I don't assume anything of the sort. I know the NDP made a decision to get rid of Harper in the fastest way possible, and that their voters would appreciate that.

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

You're the one who insists the NDP would never form a coalition with the CPC and you have absolutely no basis for that. You seem to just pull this idea out of thin air along with the idea that 37% of voting Canadians are just dumb rednecks. In fact aligning with the CPC is exactly what the NDP did do back in 2006.

I don't remember that coalition government.. I'm not insisting that it won't happen. I actually hope they try at some point. I would love to see it happen and then fall apart right away. Or better yet have the NDP tell them to piss off.

No, I don't think there are 37% of Canadians that are dumb rednecks. The number is significantly lower than that. Some people just vote conservative out of habit.

Wiki 2006 election Wiki 2006 election:

Conservative leader Stephen Harper, the leader of the Opposition, introduced a motion of no confidence on November 24, which NDP leader Jack Layton seconded.

Oh yeah, that's the same thing as wanting to form a government with the Conservatives. I also am amused that within 2 years they decided they made a huge mistake, and created a monster that needs to be slayed by unconventional means.

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Since you can't debate my points and instead must make up things I didn't say in order to carry on, I'll leave you to it. You've painted yourself in a corner now and you can't get out. My argument rests on your notion that "more people voted against the CPC than voted against the Liberals" and I've destroyed that little talking point. Now you're running around in circles.

Why does everyone here in the middle of a debate claim the other side refuses to debate? If you're out of ideas just say so and move on to the next topic.

[Akhenaten]

$1:

Why does everyone here in the middle of a debate claim the other side refuses to debate?

Well they probably say that to you a lot because you can't admit when you're wrong and instead change lanes and start arguing something entirely different, usually involving a position the person you're arguing with never took. I don't refuse to debate. I've won the debate. The statement, "More people voted against the Conservatives than for them" is hogwash. You've abandoned it to sit there and try to keep the argument going by arguing something else. Reminds me of the Black Knight from Monty Python. If more people voted against the conservatives than voted for them then EVEN MORE people voted against the Liberals.

$1:

No, I believe you said it was my assumption that every NDP wants the Liberals over the Conservatives. I don't assume anything of the sort. I know the NDP made a decision to get rid of Harper in the fastest way possible, and that their voters would appreciate that.

There you are with your head in the sand again. The voters DIDN'T appreciate it or do you not remember the poor approval rating of the coalition?

$1:

Oh yeah, that's the same thing as wanting to form a government with the Conservatives.

No it's the same situation reversed. Instead of the Conservatives in power it was the Liberals and indeed the NDP aligned with them.

$1:

No, I don't think there are 37% of Canadians that are dumb rednecks. The number is significantly lower than that. Some people just vote conservative out of habit.

No, according to the numbers they left the liberal party and supported the cpc. They way you say it Conservatives would've been in power since the country began. What you said was:

$1:

Oh how you would whine and cry about how unfairly power was stolen. Still you would have to face facts that more people voted against redneckism than for it.

And yes this does assume that everyone who voted conservative is a redneck. No 2 shits about it.


Face it Curtman: you'll just argue anything forever and ever. You'll argue 2+2=4 on certain days and you'll never admit you're remotely wrong or that someone else has a point.

[kenmore]

ridenrain ridenrain:

So he's not Canada's Obama after all? Poor Liberals..I guess they'll have to find another leader, again.

Maybe he and harper can go job hunting together

[Curtman]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Well they probably say that to youa lot because you can't admit when you're wrong and instead change lanes and start arguing something entirely different, usually involving a position the person you're arguing with never took. I don't refuse to debate. I've won the debate. The statement, "More people voted against the Conservatives than for them" is hogwash. You've abandoned it to sit there and try to keep the argument going by arguing something else. If more people voted against the conservatives than voted for them then EVEN MORE people voted against the Liberals. There is no debate.

I abandoned it? You want me to keep saying it? I thought we had already established that. Less than 50%, so you better tread lightly. Harper doesn't tread lightly, he stomps around huffing and puffing. What's left to discuss about that?

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

There you are with your head in the sand again. The voters DIDN'T appreciate it or do you not remember the poor approval rating of the coalition?

The conservatives didn't like it.. Everyone else was on board. Nobody elected Steve based on a campaign promise to run around praising Israel every time they engage in terrorism, he makes those decisions on his own. The voters put their trust in a representative, and those representatives try their best to keep the voters happy.

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

No it's the same situation reversed. Instead of the Conservatives in power it was the Liberals and indeed the NDP aligned with them.

A non confidence motion is the same thing as forming a government with the opposition? Come on now, you're being ridiculous.

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

No, according to the numbers they left the liberal party and supported the cpc. They way you say it Conservatives would've been in power since the country began. What you said was:

[quot="Akhenaten"]Oh how you would whine and cry about how unfairly power was stolen. Still you would have to face facts that more people voted against redneckism than for it.

And yes this does assume that everyone who voted conservative is a redneck. No 2 shits about it.[/quote]

Oh there's several shits about it. Redneckism wasn't born in Alberta. You guys imported it from the southern U.S. It has infested the minds of many people. They believe in big wars, big defecits, throwing money at businesses, lots of guns, more prisons.. All that fun stuff.

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Face it Curtman: you'll just argue anything forever and ever. You'll argue 2+2=4 on certain days and you'll never admit you're remotely wrong or that someone else has a point.

Yup.. I'll keep on arguing until you say something sensible.

[Akhenaten]

$1:

Less than 50%, so you better tread lightly.

All minority governments are less than 50%. You have no point here. But at least this is different than your "more people voted against the CPC than for them" strawman. I agree Harper should tread lightly so there's little point telling me "I" should.

$1:

The conservatives didn't like it.. Everyone else was on board.

Again this ignores reality. Many liberal and NDP voters didn't like it. Enough to give the coalition a poor approval rating and to kill Dion's career. This is why they didn't go ahead with it remember? It's also why they avoided calling an election at all costs.

$1:

A non confidence motion is the same thing as forming a government with the opposition? Come on now, you're being ridiculous.

No you're being ridiculous. This proves, obviously, that the NDP would be willing to align with the CPC if the positions were reversed. Non confidence is non confidence. That they wanted an election instead of forming a coalition is moot. I have a precident and you have your wishful thinking and assumptions.

$1:

Redneckism wasn't born in Alberta. You guys imported it from the southern U.S. It has infested the minds of many people. They believe in big wars, big defecits, throwing money at businesses, lots of guns, more prisons.. All that fun stuff.

Again you're just pulling this out of thin air. First you don't deny that you called anyone who voted CPC a redneck, then you do deny it, now you admit it again. Well Alberta votes didn't get the CPC into office. There's that hiding your head in the sand thing again. refusing to face facts won't get the Liberals out of hot water. Your kind of thinking is why they've gone from 124 seats to 77 in 4 years. People who left the Liberal party in favor of the CPC is why they won. I suppose they're all rednecks. Ontario voted the CPC in not Alberta. Deal with it.

Oh and you don't like big wars? Then I guess you'll be voting for someone besides Iggy since he's such a big fan of the Afghanistan mission and NATO and coalition actions with the U.S. and American style economics and pro-Isreal and and.... The only thing anyone brought from the States is Iggy.

Wiki Wiki:

Ignatieff has written extensively on international development, peacekeeping and the international responsibilities of Western nations. Critical of the limited-risk approach practiced by NATO in conflicts like the Kosovo War and the Rwandan Genocide, he says that there should be more active involvement and larger scale deployment of land forces by Western nations in future conflicts in the developing world.

In this vein, Ignatieff was a prominent supporter of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.[24] Ignatieff says that the United States established "an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known." The burden of that empire, he says, obliged the United States to expend itself unseating Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in the interests of international security and human rights.
Ignatieff initially accepted the position of the George W. Bush administration: that containment through sanctions and threats would not prevent Hussein from selling weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists. Ignatieff believed that those weapons were still being developed in Iraq.[25] Moreover, according to Ignatieff, "what Saddam Hussein had done to the Kurds and the Shia" in Iraq was sufficient justification for the invasion.[26][27]

In August 2006, Ignatieff said he was "not losing any sleep" over dozens of civilian deaths caused by Israel's attack on Qana during its military actions in Lebanon.[47] Ignatieff recanted those words the following week. Then, on October 11, 2006, Ignatieff described the Qana attack as a war crime (committed by Israel). Susan Kadis, who had previously been Ignatieff's campaign co-chair, withdrew her support following the comment. Other Liberal leadership candidates have also criticized Ignatieff's comments.[48] Ariela Cotler, a Jewish community leader and the wife of prominent Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, left the party following Ignatieff's comments.[49] Ignatieff later qualified his statement, saying "Whether war crimes were committed in the attack on Qana is for international bodies to determine. That doesn't change the fact that Qana was a terrible tragedy."[50]

Looks like you don't know what you're talking about when you yak on and on about 'redneckism'. You have it backlwards. Or is it just ok when they call themselves Liberals?


After the dust settles and you're done running around in circles if more people voted against the Conservatives than voted for them, then EVEN MORE people voted against the Liberals than voted for them.

[Curtman]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

All minority governments are less than 50%. You have no point here. But at least this is different than your "more people voted against the CPC than for them" strawman

Yes, and a coalition is possible at any time during a minority government. No disagreement here whatsoever. All you need is support of another party which can give at least one more seat than the minority government has. There was no point to make other than that.

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

No you're being ridiculous. This proves, obviously, that the NDP would be willing to align with the CPC if the positions were reversed. Non confidence is non confidence. That they wanted an election instead of forming a coalition is moot. I have a precident and you have your wishful thinking and assumptions.

There is also the option of defeating the government, with the belief that doing so will gain your party more seats. One is cooperation, the other is not really the same. It's cooperation among them believing they can win more at the expense of the others. A coalition government is a more attractive option when there can be a meeting of the minds. A non confidence motion would be what the NDP would go for when their attitude is 'I don't like those jerks or those jerks'. A coalition would be a better option when their attitude is 'I really don't like those jerks. I dislike them so much I'd rather those jerks were in power'. See where I'm coming from at all here?

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Again you're just pulling this out of thin air. First you don't deny that you called anyone who voted CPC a redneck, then you do deny it, now you admit it again. Well Alberta votes didn't get the CPC into office. There's that hiding your head in the sand thing again. refusing to face facts won't get the Liberals out of hot water. Your kind of thinking is why they've gone from 124 seats to 77 in 4 years. People who left the Liberal party in favor of the CPC is why they won. I suppose they're all rednecks. Deal with it.

Of course I pulled out of thin air.. You don't call people a redneck unless you're trying to rial them up. My plan is working splendidly. But I did not ever say anyone who voted Harper is a redneck.. Just that Harper has redneck policy, that is aimed directly at people who are rednecks. We could use a different term if you like, but I don't think 'right-winger' really describes the police state that is attempting to be constructed.

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Oh and you don't like big wars? Then I guess you'll be voting for someone besides Iggy since he's such a big fan of the Afghanistan mission and NATO and coalition actions with the U.S. and American style economics and and.... The only thing anyone brought from the States is Iggy.

Remember the time the Conservatives said we should be fighting in Iraq beside our American friends? Boy I'm glad they were in opposition. We have no NATO obligations in the Iraq war.

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

After the dust settles and you're done running around in circles if more people voted against the Conservatives than voted for them, then EVEN MORE people voted against the Liberals than voted for them.

Oh man.. That is true! But EVEN MORE people voted for the Liberal and NDP parties combined in to something we might want to call.. I don't know, how's 'coalition' sound?

[Curtman]

One of my all time favourite Stephen Harper quotes:

BigSteve BigSteve:

I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans.
-- Stephen Harper: Report Newsmagazine, March 25 2002

[Akhenaten]

$1:

You don't call people a redneck unless you're trying to rial them up. My plan is working splendidly.

Right. You're a troll with no serious intent on discussion or debate. I know. Thanks for admitting it.

$1:

Remember the time the Conservatives said we should be fighting in Iraq beside our American friends? Boy I'm glad they were in opposition. We have no NATO obligations in the Iraq war.

No I don't remember him ever saying we should be fighting in Iraq. Or do you mean this:

$1:

I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans.

...which isn't remotely the same thing.
I never said we had a NATO obligation in Iraq either.
Again you only read what you want to read. Here it is again. Be sure to throw your hands over your ears so you don't hear it:

$1:

Ignatieff has written extensively on international development, peacekeeping and the international responsibilities of Western nations. Critical of the limited-risk approach practiced by NATO in conflicts like the Kosovo War and the Rwandan Genocide, he says that there should be more active involvement and larger scale deployment of land forces by Western nations in future conflicts in the developing world.

In this vein, Ignatieff was a prominent supporter of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.[24] Ignatieff says that the United States established "an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known." The burden of that empire, he says, obliged the United States to expend itself unseating Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in the interests of international security and human rights.
Ignatieff initially accepted the position of the George W. Bush administration: that containment through sanctions and threats would not prevent Hussein from selling weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists. Ignatieff believed that those weapons were still being developed in Iraq.[25] Moreover, according to Ignatieff, "what Saddam Hussein had done to the Kurds and the Shia" in Iraq was sufficient justification for the invasion.[26][27]

In August 2006, Ignatieff said he was "not losing any sleep" over dozens of civilian deaths caused by Israel's attack on Qana during its military actions in Lebanon.[47] Ignatieff recanted those words the following week. Then, on October 11, 2006, Ignatieff described the Qana attack as a war crime (committed by Israel). Susan Kadis, who had previously been Ignatieff's campaign co-chair, withdrew her support following the comment. Other Liberal leadership candidates have also criticized Ignatieff's comments.[48] Ariela Cotler, a Jewish community leader and the wife of prominent Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, left the party following Ignatieff's comments.[49] Ignatieff later qualified his statement, saying "Whether war crimes were committed in the attack on Qana is for international bodies to determine. That doesn't change the fact that Qana was a terrible tragedy."[50]

Sounds like Iggy is more of a proponent of 'redneck policies' than Harper...oh but you'll still vote fo him right? Because it doesn't really mean anything to you. You'll just vote Liberal no matter what or you'll be a 'redneck'...lol!.....and no, you called anyone who voted Conservative a redneck....because your head is in the sand...because you can't face the truth that ex-Liberal voters like myself and half of Ontario left the Liberal party to vote 'against them' by voting CPC. Not because of redneck policies but because of liberal 'legal problems' they got themselves into. Ironic to our conversation Iggy might sway me back.

$1:

That is true! But EVEN MORE people voted for the Liberal and NDP parties combined in to something we might want to call.. I don't know, how's 'coalition' sound?

Actually nobody voted for a coalition. No one. They didn't vote for a coalition of parties ahead of time which is what you do in other countries where voting in coalitions is common. This was one of the voters main complaints (something you know but need to ignore) and why the coalition wasn't favored in the polls.
"I voted NDP not for Dion"
and
"I voted Liberal not for a coalition with the Bloc"
were common Liberal and NDP voter complaints. Iggy played it out brilliantly though, Dion would've drowned in confusion and panic.

[Curtman]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Right. You're a troll with no serious intent on discussion or debate. I know.

No, thats just your all or nothing default position again. I'm trying to have a serious discussion, and sprinkling in some flavour. The idea is so the other guy gets frustrated and isn't able to put together a cohesive response. I don't really know if it's working or if the same thing would happen without it.. But the choice of the word really was about lacking a better term. Perhaps I should say neocon instead, it's more or less the same.

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Again you only read what you want to read. Here it is again. Be sure to throw your hands over your ears so you don't hear it:

$1:

Ignatieff has written extensively on international development, peacekeeping and the international responsibilities of Western nations. Critical of the limited-risk approach practiced by NATO in conflicts like the Kosovo War and the Rwandan Genocide, he says that there should be more active involvement and larger scale deployment of land forces by Western nations in future conflicts in the developing world.

In this vein, Ignatieff was a prominent supporter of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.[24] Ignatieff says that the United States established "an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known." The burden of that empire, he says, obliged the United States to expend itself unseating Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in the interests of international security and human rights.
Ignatieff initially accepted the position of the George W. Bush administration: that containment through sanctions and threats would not prevent Hussein from selling weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists. Ignatieff believed that those weapons were still being developed in Iraq.[25] Moreover, according to Ignatieff, "what Saddam Hussein had done to the Kurds and the Shia" in Iraq was sufficient justification for the invasion.[26][27]

In August 2006, Ignatieff said he was "not losing any sleep" over dozens of civilian deaths caused by Israel's attack on Qana during its military actions in Lebanon.[47] Ignatieff recanted those words the following week. Then, on October 11, 2006, Ignatieff described the Qana attack as a war crime (committed by Israel). Susan Kadis, who had previously been Ignatieff's campaign co-chair, withdrew her support following the comment. Other Liberal leadership candidates have also criticized Ignatieff's comments.[48] Ariela Cotler, a Jewish community leader and the wife of prominent Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, left the party following Ignatieff's comments.[49] Ignatieff later qualified his statement, saying "Whether war crimes were committed in the attack on Qana is for international bodies to determine. That doesn't change the fact that Qana was a terrible tragedy."[50]

Sounds like Iggy is more of a proponent of 'redneck policies' than Harper....and no, you called anyone who voted Conservative a redneck....because your head is in the sand...because you can't face the truth that ex-Liberal voters like myself and half of Ontario left the Liberal party to vote 'against them' by voting CPC. Ironic to our conversation Iggy might sway me back.

I don't know about that.. There is some drift between the parties but at their core (the membership) but what you guys started calling "grass roots" a few years ago always existed. The only thing that remains to be seen is whether Iggy will listen to what is decided at the policy conventions, or if he'll moderate it with his own beliefs.

I'm pretty scared about that as well, because it looks very much like he's going to ignore them on a few issues already. There's no way in hell Iggy is going to start talking about a Green Shift during an election, even though the party wants him to. People hear the words 'carbon tax' and they go completely stupid, and can't see that it's actually a 'carbon rebate' to them.. Good job on that strategy though, they bought it hook line and sinker.

It really is my belief though that the Conservative party's members would have no problem supporting them joining the Iraq war, and we would be there as well as Afghanistan right now if cooler heads hadn't prevailed. I believe the Liberal party would toss out their leader if he tried to do that.

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Yes but they didn't vote for a coalition which is what you do in other countries where voting in coalitions is common. This was one of the voters main complaints (something you know but need to ignore) and why the coalition wasn't favored in the polls.

I can't believe you say I'm the one dragging this conversation in circles. This is how we got back to where you are implying that the NDP doesn't have the right to try to represent its voters. They are free to try and toss out their leader at any time as well. Looks like Jack's in it for the long haul though. Until then, all he can do is make the decisions he thinks are best for his party.

[Akhenaten]

$1:

This is how we got back to where you are implying that the NDP doesn't have the right to try to represent its voters.

I don't imply it, but many of the NDP voters (the people he represents) said it, and the polls followed them.

$1:

No, thats just your all or nothing default position again. I'm trying to have a serious discussion, and sprinkling in some flavour. The idea is so the other guy gets frustrated and isn't able to put together a cohesive response. I don't really know if it's working or if the same thing would happen without it..Perhaps I should say neocon instead, it's more or less the same.

Dude, that IS a troll...lol. Or at the very least a juvenile. You seriously think if you rile someone up that makes their point less valid or yours more so? I don't think you really know what a neocon is without looking it up. TO most people it's just a catch all for something they either can't understand or articulate.....a lot like the word redneck.

$1:

I don't know about that.. There is some drift between the parties but at their core (the membership) but what you guys started calling "grass roots" a few years ago always existed. The only thing that remains to be seen is whether Iggy will listen to what is decided at the policy conventions, or if he'll moderate it with his own beliefs.

I'm pretty scared about that as well, because it looks very much like he's going to ignore them on a few issues already. There's no way in hell Iggy is going to start talking about a Green Shift during an election, even though the party wants him to. People hear the words 'carbon tax' and they go completely stupid, and can't see that it's actually a 'carbon rebate' to them.. Good job on that strategy though, they bought it hook line and sinker.

Thank you for some honesty. When I get a straight answer like this I haven't the heart to argue with the person.