So Bob Rae is complaining that Liberals won't have the right to elect their leader:

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- So Bob Rae is complaining that Liberals won't have the right to elect their leader:
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Posted by Jayx1 on Dec-09-2008 16:54:

So Bob Rae is complaining that Liberals won't have the right to elect their leader:

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by Moral Hazard on Dec-09-2008 16:58:

I also thought that was one of the funniest things I've heard in a coons age.

Posted by ChemEnhanced on Dec-09-2008 17:05:

IMO Bob Rae should quickly accept that he is not the front runner and throw his support behind Michael. The best thing they could do is show a strong support for a leader instead of a divide between two candidates.

Posted by Orko on Dec-09-2008 17:10:

quote:
Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
IMO Bob Rae should quickly accept that he is not the front runner and throw his support behind Michael. The best thing they could do is show a strong support for a leader instead of a divide between two candidates.

And this why the coalition will hopefully fail.

Just moronic moves all over the place.

Posted by Moral Hazard on Dec-09-2008 17:19:

quote:
Originally posted by Orko
And this why the coalition will hopefully fail.

the coalition is already dead... they just haven't accepted that yet.

Posted by exstasie on Dec-09-2008 17:22:

I'm not a fan of either, but if one had to be in office, i'd through my support to Rae.

Just because he currently is the MP for my riding...

Posted by ChemEnhanced on Dec-09-2008 17:23:

quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I also thought that was one of the funniest things I've heard in a coons age.

I can't believe you said coon's age

Posted by Jayx1 on Dec-09-2008 17:23:

at this point id love to see another election. 55% would vote conservative right now. Thats not just a majority, but a majority of votes. This has only happened twice in Canada and i believe they were both conservative governments. Chretien never had it, neither did Trudeau. This would put an end to all the BS and allow the government to govern.

Posted by exstasie on Dec-09-2008 17:25:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
at this point id love to see another election. 55% would vote conservative right now. Thats not just a majority, but a majority of votes. This has only happened twice in Canada and i believe they were both conservative governments. Chretien never had it, neither did Trudeau. This would put an end to all the BS and allow the government to govern.

As i've said before, and I'll say it again...

One can dream!

Posted by Orko on Dec-09-2008 17:27:

Rae bows out of Liberal race

Posted by Wurm on Dec-09-2008 17:31:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
at this point id love to see another election. 55% would vote conservative right now.

That's why there has to be an election CAMPAIGN. You can't call one over a hot-button issue.

Isn't that also a reason why we are supposed to have fixed election dates? Hypocrisy much?

Stop sanctifying the Conservatives.

We are still stuck with Plato's dilemma.

Please don't twist this as support for any political party. I wish they'd all fuck off so I can enjoy my Christmas. I want prezzies.

Posted by Moral Hazard on Dec-09-2008 17:35:

quote:
Originally posted by Orko
Rae bows out of Liberal race

Guess who got offered a Senate seat?

Posted by ChemEnhanced on Dec-09-2008 17:43:

quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Guess who got offered a Senate seat?

not me dammit

Posted by Moral Hazard on Dec-09-2008 17:50:

quote:
Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
not me dammit

I sent a letter to the PM and GG as soon as I hit 30 to advise them that I was now qualified (over 30 and owned more then $4000 of property within Canada) and would entertain any offers... I still haven't heard back... I should follow up.

Posted by MarkT on Dec-09-2008 18:41:

Re: So Bob Rae is complaining that Liberals won't have the right to elect their leader:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

your open-mindedness and ability to distinguish between two very different situations never ceazes to amaze me.

/sarcasm

Posted by Jayx1 on Dec-09-2008 19:39:

quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Guess who got offered a Senate seat?

i was gonna say..what kind of cash and prizes bought off rae in less than 24 hours? Third world politics anyone?

Posted by Jayx1 on Dec-09-2008 19:41:

quote:
Originally posted by Wurm
That's why there has to be an election CAMPAIGN. You can't call one over a hot-button issue.

Isn't that also a reason why we are supposed to have fixed election dates? Hypocrisy much?

Stop sanctifying the Conservatives.

We are still stuck with Plato's dilemma.

Please don't twist this as support for any political party. I wish they'd all fuck off so I can enjoy my Christmas. I want prezzies.

HUH? Of course there would be an election campaign. Calling an election automatically dictates a minimum campaign period. Nice try though.

Posted by Jayx1 on Dec-09-2008 19:43:

Re: Re: So Bob Rae is complaining that Liberals won't have the right to elect their l

quote:
Originally posted by MarkT
your open-mindedness and ability to distinguish between two very different situations never ceazes to amaze me.

/sarcasm

im pretty sure you see the irony here. You arent a stupid person.

Posted by Wurm on Dec-10-2008 02:33:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
HUH? Of course there would be an election campaign. Calling an election automatically dictates a minimum campaign period. Nice try though.

No, you're the one trying to claim that because support is at an all-time high an election must be called immediately. Support levels that high wouldn't stand the test of a campaign.

Still haven't wriggled away from the fixed election date lie, though.

Posted by 7-4-7 on Dec-10-2008 04:54:

in related news conservative supporters know deep down in their batteries that life after Harper is even bleaker than life with.

There is no runner up when your front runner is second rate.

Posted by Yohan on Dec-10-2008 05:04:

quote:
Originally posted by 7-4-7
in related news conservative supporters know deep down in their batteries that life after Harper is even bleaker than life with.

There is no runner up when your front runner is second rate.

There are some smart Cons. It's just Harper wouldnt let anyone get a headline unless its a scandal.

Dont see Libs doing any better because essentially Ignatieff is a rookie when it comes to political life and a lot of Libs think Justin Trudeau will be the saviour of the Liberal Party when all he has going is his fathers name and legacy. (And Trudeau was pretty shitty as a PM)

Posted by Jayx1 on Dec-10-2008 16:25:

quote:
Originally posted by Wurm
No, you're the one trying to claim that because support is at an all-time high an election must be called immediately. Support levels that high wouldn't stand the test of a campaign.

Still haven't wriggled away from the fixed election date lie, though.

Obviously they wouldnt call an election just because support is so high. Stephen Harper is not Jean Chretien. But because conservative support is so high right now, the liberals are backing away from the coalition. This just further proves that this was all about political opportunity and not "whats best for canadians"

Posted by daves on Dec-10-2008 16:57:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
Obviously they wouldnt call an election just because support is so high. Stephen Harper is not Jean Chretien. But because conservative support is so high right now, the liberals are backing away from the coalition. This just further proves that this was all about political opportunity and not "whats best for canadians"

this works better when it is served along with your proof of how what Harper does is only from this magical land called "what's best for canadians"

...as if you don't get that they are almost all opportunists in the big parties anyways.

on topic though, BOB RAE is pretty awesome for his comments too, laughs all around on that one.

Posted by Jayx1 on Dec-10-2008 22:13:

they are all in it for the same reason no doubt... just that right now the opposition has shown just how low it can go.

Posted by Moral Hazard on Dec-11-2008 13:03:

quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
Obviously they wouldnt call an election just because support is so high.

Um... they called the last one because support was slipping and they wanted to secure their position before they lost more... I wouldn't be surprised if Harper would call another because support is high. Of course this is politically risky as the electorate may not take kindly to it.

quote:
because conservative support is so high right now, the liberals are backing away from the coalition. This just further proves that this was all about political opportunity and not "whats best for canadians"

In all probability the coalition was all about political opportunism; however, so was Harper's move to cut party funding. The whole situation was started by the Cons political opportunism... don't be one sided on this Jayx, you have to know that both sides of the house acted like petulant children, which is why we ended up in that game of political chicken... I'm just happy that Harper backed down some and the Liberal caucus hit the eject button on Dion when it appeared he wouldn't back down in-turn.

Pages (2): [1] 2 »