Conservatard minority government in Canada just toppled

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
Note to Harper: there is something called a "majority", which you do not have. So no matter how much you whine about it being "undemocratic", the majority of people who voted against you are about to topple you. Democracy at work, bitches.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/12/03/canada.government/?iref=mpstoryview

Canadian leader vows to fight planned ouster



(CNN) -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper appealed directly to Canadians for support Wednesday, vowing in a nationally televised address on the economy that he will do all he can to halt his opponents from carrying out a no-confidence vote in Parliament -- as planned for Monday -- and forming a coalition government that would replace his own.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper accuses coalition leaders of "betrayal" by relying on Quebec separatists' support.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper accuses coalition leaders of "betrayal" by relying on Quebec separatists' support.

"Unfortunately, even before the government has brought forward its budget, and only seven weeks after a general election, the opposition wants to overturn the results of that election," said the prime minister, whose Conservative Party strengthened its minority position in federal elections on October 14.

"Canada's government cannot enter into a power-sharing coalition with a separatist party at a time of global insecurity," he said. "Canada's government must stand unequivocally for keeping the country together."

The country is undergoing "a pivotal moment in our history," he said, then ticked through a list of efforts his government is making to help the country survive the economic crisis, including personal tax reductions, doubling of spending on infrastructure, injecting liquidity into the financial markets and securing pension plans. iReport.com: Outrage brewing in Canada

"Tonight, I pledge to you that Canada's government will use every legal means at our disposal to protect our democracy, protect our economy and to protect Canada," he said.

Though Harper did not specify what those legal means might entail, his opponents predicted that he would try to dissolve Parliament and wasted no time in voicing their opposition.

The Liberal Party, which lost seats in the October vote, and the leftist New Democratic Party announced plans earlier this week to form a governing coalition with the support of the Bloc Quebecois, which supports independence for French-speaking Quebec.

In a televised address that followed Harper's, opposition Liberal leader Stephane Dion called for a vote of confidence.

He said he had asked Canada's Governor-General Michaelle Jean -- the acting head of state who would call for a new election or a confidence vote -- "to refuse any request by the prime minister to suspend Parliament until he has demonstrated to her that he still commands the confidence of the house."

He said Canada "is facing the impact of the global economic crisis" and must act quickly.

"Stephen Harper refuses to propose measures to stimulate the economy" and his party has lost the confidence of the majority of the House of Commons, he said.

"This means that they have lost the right to govern," Dion said.

He said he and Jack Layton, head of the New Democratic Party, had agreed to form a coalition government to address the economic crisis, and that the Green Party supported it too.

"Coalitions are normal and put in practice in many parts of the world and are able to work very successfully," he said.

"Mr. Harper's solution is to extend the crisis by avoiding a simple vote -- by suspending Parliament and continuing the confusion," Dion said. "We offer a better way. We say, settle it now and let's get to work on the people's business."

The vote scheduled for Monday ought to be allowed to proceed, he said.

In separate televised remarks, Layton accused Harper of having "delivered a partisan attack."

The Conservative Party's plan would create no jobs and protect no pensions, he said.

"He seems to be more interested in his job than in protecting your job," Layton said. "Now, that's simply wrong."
E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend
Share this on:
Mixx Digg Facebook del.icio.us reddit StumbleUpon MySpace
* Mixx it * Share
 
You'd think that growing up in, living in, and being an active participant in a Parliamentary democracy this Stephen Harpers cove should have some faint idea of how it all works.

Sort it out Queen Elizabeths II: Attack of the Clones.
 
this is the exact reason why we didn't form a democracy in this country, we have a constitutional republic. So whiny assed liberals and socialists can't tyrannize the minority.
 
this is the exact reason why we didn't form a democracy in this country, we have a constitutional republic. So whiny assed liberals and socialists can't tyrannize the minority.

What about whiny assed conservatives tyrannizing the majority? That's what they've been doing. You're idiotic token libertarian anti-democratic rant notwithstanding, the purpose of a government should never be to enshrine a certain political ideology in stone forever. That's retarded. The only acceptable option is a DEMOCRACY.

REPUBLICS SUCK
 
What about whiny assed conservatives tyrannizing the majority? That's what they've been doing. You're idiotic token libertarian anti-democratic rant notwithstanding, the purpose of a government should never be to enshrine a certain political ideology in stone forever. That's retarded. The only acceptable option is a DEMOCRACY.

REPUBLICS SUCK

The problem with a democracy in this country is the amount of idiots who will react in a knee-jerk fashion to things they are clueless about.

More people know who won the last American Idol than know who the Secretary of State is.

More people have 3 or more video rental cards than have library cards.

Does anyone remember the poll that asked people if the government should be able to censor the press? Some unbelieveable number of people said yes.

Look at the TV ratings for who watched the last State of the Union address and the ratings for the last episode of Survivor, and tell me that this shows we have a well informed and well educated population.
 
What about whiny assed conservatives tyrannizing the majority? That's what they've been doing. You're idiotic token libertarian anti-democratic rant notwithstanding, the purpose of a government should never be to enshrine a certain political ideology in stone forever. That's retarded. The only acceptable option is a DEMOCRACY.

REPUBLICS SUCK

A government ABSOLUTELY must operate in 'etched in stone' policies, otherwise you have true chaos and anarchy as operations shift and change with the winds of elections.

what is retarded is your mentality of thinking that once a socialist majority can rule, nobody else would have a say and you'd have your utopia. democracies suck.
 
A government ABSOLUTELY must operate in 'etched in stone' policies, otherwise you have true chaos and anarchy as operations shift and change with the winds of elections.

what is retarded is your mentality of thinking that once a socialist majority can rule, nobody else would have a say and you'd have your utopia. democracies suck.

I think what WM said was the government cannot have certain political ideologies etched in stone. Of course there are rules to be etched in stone.
 
Let's say that the Greens got into congress with, say, 40 seats or so, and the Republicans won the most. The Democrats decide to support the Republican choice for speaker, because the Greens are too far to the left for them. Then the Republicans totally fuck everything up, and start abusing their minority, pressuring the other parties into signing things like new patriot acts and such. If the Democrats then vote the Republican speaker out and use the support of the Greens to elect one of their own, is this tyrannizing the minority?
 
Let's say that the Greens got into congress with, say, 40 seats or so, and the Republicans won the most. The Democrats decide to support the Republican choice for speaker, because the Greens are too far to the left for them. Then the Republicans totally fuck everything up, and start abusing their minority, pressuring the other parties into signing things like new patriot acts and such. If the Democrats then vote the Republican speaker out and use the support of the Greens to elect one of their own, is this tyrannizing the minority?

if republicans won the most, how are they the minority?

If the other parties succumb to the pressure, it's hardly the republicans fault.

If the democrats have a minority, how are they going to vote out the speaker?

your hypothetical bullshit situation makes no sense.
 
if republicans won the most, how are they the minority?

If the other parties succumb to the pressure, it's hardly the republicans fault.

If the democrats have a minority, how are they going to vote out the speaker?

your hypothetical bullshit situation makes no sense.

If the Republicans had 210, the Democrat had 185, and the Greens had 40 no one would have 50% plus one (about 218). No one would have a majority. Is that difficult to understand? The Democrats and the Greens could team together, by both voting for the Democrat and defeat the Republicans, because they'd have 225 votes together vs. 210. There's nothing undemocratic about that.

It's fully possible to have the most seats and not have a majority, although it's only ever happened in Americas history.
 
Last edited:
if republicans won the most, how are they the minority?

If the other parties succumb to the pressure, it's hardly the republicans fault.

If the democrats have a minority, how are they going to vote out the speaker?

your hypothetical bullshit situation makes no sense.

Then surely you'll have no problem being the minority.

The "republic" spoke and tossed republicans out on their asses and into the minority .. left them with a MILF as the standard-bearer.

The beauty of socialism is that you don't have to convince anyone .. it comes on it's own. :)
 
If the Republicans had 210, the Democrat had 185, and the Greens had 40 no one would have 50% plus one (about 218). No one would have a majority. Is that difficult to understand? The Democrats and the Greens could team together, by both voting for the Democrat and defeat the Republicans, because they'd have 225 votes together vs. 210. There's nothing undemocratic about that.

It's fully possible to have the most seats and not have a majority, although it's only ever happened in Americas history.

Wouldn't it be remarkable if each member of Congress actually voted SOLELY on the basis of what was good for the people and good for the US?

What a dream, huh?
 
Wouldn't it be remarkable if each member of Congress actually voted SOLELY on the basis of what was good for the people and good for the US?

What a dream, huh?

Everybody has a different view of what if good for the people of the US. Party leaders, for instance, with the power to kick people off of committees, have views of what is good for the US.
 
i'm fine with it, just so long as the majority doesn't get to ignore, deny, or eradicate my rights.

Obama is the president and he appears to be more concerned about what you think than many of the people who voted for him.

I'd say you have nothing to worry about .. although when republicans are in power no such consideration is given.
 
Everybody has a different view of what if good for the people of the US. Party leaders, for instance, with the power to kick people off of committees, have views of what is good for the US.

And many of those party leaders will ignore what is good for the people in order to exert their power over the other party or to thwart the other party.

And that is what I was talking about. The political bullshit that has caused our system to spend more time worrying about whether there is a (D) or an (R) behind someone's name than what can actually get done if they worked together.
 
And many of those party leaders will ignore what is good for the people in order to exert their power over the other party or to thwart the other party.

And that is what I was talking about. The political bullshit that has caused our system to spend more time worrying about whether there is a (D) or an (R) behind someone's name than what can actually get done if they worked together.

careful sol, WM just might unleash a tirade of libertarian hellspawn comments your direction
 
And many of those party leaders will ignore what is good for the people in order to exert their power over the other party or to thwart the other party.

And that is what I was talking about. The political bullshit that has caused our system to spend more time worrying about whether there is a (D) or an (R) behind someone's name than what can actually get done if they worked together.

I care more about whether there's a D or an R behind someone's name than their smile or personal priorities. Their personal beliefs are irrelevant if they support a fascist for house speaker.

The house leaders look out for the nation - they are, after all, trying to get their parties more seats the next time around, and if they do a bad job they won't get more. I'd rather not have a federal government made up of individuals, because it will be more like a federal government made up of pork distributors.
 
Back
Top