Saturday, February 19, 2011

Coalition Government is Okay with Stephen Harper....Attack Ads to be dropped

The Conservative Party of Canada appears to be poised to remove any and all attack ads showing Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals forming a coalition government.

Afterall, the Conservatives circled the wagons this week to form their own coaltion government with Separatists and Socialists. Perhaps Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe will now be placed in the Conservative Cabinet. Layton continues his brofest with Steve.


Anonymous said...

One day I was in my car driving with the radio on and all of a sudden the station went to a live news conference with Jack Layton, Stephane Dion and the leader of the separatists.

The two buffoons of the two legitimate parties went to pains to say it was a coalition of just them and that the separatists would agree to not bring down the government but they weren't in the coalition.

Even though I wanted to see Harper gone, what went through my mind, and boy was I boiling mad, is that if it's a coalition with just the two parties then why is a separatist sitting beside you at the press conference because if I was in that position, I would sure as sh*t never hold a press conference with a separatist to announce plans to bring down the government.

My mind was screaming, why are there #!@$ing separatists on my radio!!!! And why are those two buffoons sitting beside a separatist and talking about bringing down the non-separatist government.

Apparently a lot of people felt the same way.

If you and your audience can't see or understand the difference between holding a live press conference with separatists talking about bringing down the government and what is happening now then you should expect your party to be in opposition for a long time and I hope you never hold any position of political power.

You need to get serious about winning because the person who you want to defeat isn't an idiot and he certainly isn't STUPID ENOUGH TO HOLD A LIVE JOINT CONFERENCE WITH A SEPARATIST and talk about written and joint agrements to rule and then try and pretend that the coalition excludes the very traitors sitting at the same table right beside them.

James Curran said...

Okay don't take this too personally. But, if you "want to get serious" about ever posting on this blog again you'll mind how you talk to its host and come back a a real person instead of an anonymous dirtbag.

And one of the biggest "separatists" in this country is Stephen Harper with his fucking "Firewall" and his love for dismantling Canada.

And if a coalition was never going to work or be accepted by Canadians why did his royal dictator Herr Harper prorogue the House?

So don't give me your "I'd like Harper gone" bullshit. You're a troll. And an anonymous cowardly one to boot. It's people like you that get me back into a fight that I walked away from a long time ago. Thank you for your inspiration.

Anonymous said...

"'ll mind how you talk to its host"
I can agree that there were words written that were completely unnecessary and probably shouldn't have been included.

"come back a a real person instead of an anonymous dirtbag"
I'm going to presume this comment isn't going to get posted then.
Regardless, I strongly disagree with your characterization of anonymity on the Internet. In any case it's your blog and you allow anonymous comments so I used the facility you provided. Colour me somewhat puzzled.


prior rancor aside, all the things you assert about Harper are true and yet ... all the things I wrote about really did happen.

You just can't equate that live conference and shock announcement with a vote on some bill on the Hill. This sort of tactic - asking Canadian who should they believe, you or their lyin' eyes - is not going to get the job done.

Trying to pass it off that way is a backhanded way of saying Harper is as politically dumb as Layton and Dion. Which he isn't. He's a dangerous adversary and you should treat him as such.

Since I've pissed you off, there's no putting the toothpaste back in the bottle ... but I've read your blog off and on and your post mildly surprised me. I was basically asking you to get your folks back in Liberal land to bring something better than this weak tea dual equivalency b.s. to the game and to not repeat recent mistakes of underestimating the man you need to defeat.

James Curran said...

Spare me the fake "surprise". And you weren't "asking me to get my folks" to do anything. You instead have spewed off an emailed Conservative talking point which I happen to also have a copy of. And, if you think Dion is a dummy, you certainly are full of shit.

You obviously do not know me or my readers very well for you underestimate both of us.

Anonymous said...

James, I'm not your enemy.

And I have no idea what the hell you are talking about, my points are hardly Con talking points.

Simple thing to many Canadians: if the separatists weren't part of the coalition then what the hell were they doing at the live conference sitting at the table?

And yes Dion was politically dumb. No one said he was "dumb" with no qualifiers and if you need to conveniently forget about that adjective preceding the word dumb in my earlier post in order to turn it into something else then the thing speaks for itself.

I've no interest in a war of words with you, I thought I'd share a personal story of coming back from the US in my car after being down there for a few days and first thing I get when turning back on Canadian radio is some #$#$#ing separatist on my #$#$#ing radio talking about forming part of the gov't. I didn't expect you'd try and turn that into a Conservative talking point.

The Liberal party needs money. So if you really believe that Cdns think a live conference with a separatist is the same as voting on some bill in the HOC that they weren't even paying hardly any attention to, then you should fundraise off of that and see how that resonates. take it to the streets.

Now, it would be better if Libs would stop bringing this weak dual equivalency b.s. and but if you're so hellbent on holding your ground that you have NO IDEA of what I'm getting at except to believe that it has to be some professional Con talking point, then there's nothing I can write that will make you believe otherwise.

As I said, I'm not your enemy, so have a good Sunday and I honestly regret having to belabour and debate all these rather obvious (to me) points.

CanadianSense said...

What specifically in the "firewall" letter was suggesting dismantling Canada?

A provincial police force, a provincial pension plan and the desire for a stronger provincial voice?

I have read the letter and understand after decades of Ottawa knows best some in Alberta did not want a repeat of NEP-70's.

Can you list specifics how Stephen Harper and his NCC wanted to dismantle Canada?


PS. Brian Topp does not agree with your assessment of the negotiation in 2006 vs 2008 coalition. It is in his book.
It was not the photo op went wrong that enraged the majority and resulted in a 46% spike in support of CPC in December 3, 2008.

James Curran said...

Who fucking cares what Brian Topp thinks!

Are these fresh, off the hopper Con talking points? I don't really need to list anything for you. I owe you zero explanation NonSense.

Have a nice fucking day.

CanadianSense said...


I am ^not a card carrying member running for the executive. My support for the Conservatives is based on their action on files-policies that I support.

Con talking points hopper?

I read your blog post and believed you were interested in a conversation with someone who does not drink the kool-aid from any party.

You don't "owe me" any specifics to the points you raised in your blog post.

You are free to dismiss readers-voters like myself as "bots".

I don't think it makes for a winning strategy to dismiss prematurely. An adult conversation is sorely missing in Ottawa. Fear mongering and faux scandals won't rehabilitate the fortunes for the Liberals.

James Curran said...

I'm not in charge of strategy.

I am, however sick and tired of bullshit and lies. And if that is the type of government you support - and you do...good for you. God bless.

And, there is no "conversing" with Conservatives. They are right a 100% of the time. Kind of like "conversing" with Jason Cherniak.

Faux scandals my ass. When the dust settles and this government is long gone, the record will show that it was the most corrupt at pork barelling and patronage in the history of Canada. And spare me the rhetoric. The entire Con platform is based on fearmongering. Or perhaps you haven't seen any of their ads on TV or heard any on the radio.

Anyway, feel free to "converse" amongst yourself.

CanadianSense said...


I never suggested you were responsible for the lack of adult conversation. I pointed to the fact that you are much more closely involved in the political parties.

You will find Conservatives come in different shapes and sizes. Some want cuts deeper and faster, some want a slow and steady approach.

You are correct each party has supporters who must win every online debate 100% of the time. I don't think applying the paintbrush to the entire movement makes sense.

I don't have a problem with a coalition between the Lib-NDP if they are open and provide the details prior to the campaign or at least publicly admit they will revisit it because it is legal.

In 2008 they ran away from the deal. It was dishonest considering the NDP had the Bloc already locked up (according to the tape).

If the Liberals and NDP win +1 seat than the CPC they should reject the Throne Speech.

The Bloc or CPC can choose to support them or not. I would have preferred an election in January to clear the air.

I expect voters in 2011-2012 will pass judgment on the actions of the coalition partners through a general election.