Monday, March 28, 2011

Stephen Harper: I Did Not Have Electoral Intercourse With That French Man

...or that tiny Socialist, in that hotel room so long ago. (Or was it a motel room? But that would be so tawdry.)

24 comments:

ridenrain said...

You've seen the video:
"uhhhh but in no way we’re a coalition and we won’t be a coalition. "

Straight out of Gilles Deceit's mouth.

bigcitylib said...

Sounds Clintonesque.

ridenrain said...

With the speed of a fastboat!

Ted Betts said...

The actual quotation works even better with the reference to "relations": "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

DivaRachel said...

This is the best title I've seen yet!

rural.belle said...

don't forget the facts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkdXycwDUxA&feature=player_embedded

LoyalLiberal said...

I agree, great title.

Nadine Lumley said...

Here come the Coalition Zombies:

Hide yo wife, hide yo kids, hide yo husband – 3 min.

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/11565575

Nadine Lumley said...

‎15,000 hits; Harper speaking in french:

"We do not need an unnecessary erection".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL68FSbM1JU

ridenrain said...

Rural Belle: Be sure to save a copy of that because you can be sure the Liberal lawyers are on the way to have that pulled.

Ted Betts said...

Rural.Belle, Ridenrain:

Missing the important point here.

Harper in 2010: Losers don't get to form government. Only the party with the most seats does.

Harper in 2004: Hey, GG, if Martin asks for an election, don't give in. I've got the "cooperation" and support of the other parties to form a government - we've got an "agreement", Tom Flanagan calls it a "co-opposition" agreement and I call it the "first phase" but whatever - and so your option, indeed your only other option, is to make me Prime Minister. Without an election. A Loser. In Canada. I'm not making this up.

ridenrain said...

Spin Ted Spin.
2004: Issue by issue party cooperation. All three say no coalition but I guess Jack and Deceit are getting confused with age.
2010 Coalition of losers: Signed document showing cabinet seat distribution between the 3 parties. Dion said no coalition and then he rolled it out to the disgust of all Canadians. Now Count Iggy is saying no coalition even though his signature is on the document and doesn't expire until June 30, 2011.

Ted Betts said...

Ridenrain:

Duceppe was proposing in 2004 to do exactly what he did in 2008 and exactly what he proposes to do now. He won't and never has entered into a "formal coalition". And Layton also talks about no "formal" coalition.

But that is not the point.

Even you admit that they planned to go issue by issue. Harper admits they had an "agreement" which was only the "first phase". His chief of staff says there was an "accord".

You are not going issue by issue, pursuant to an agreement with socialists and separatists, asking the GG to consider her options (i.e. crown Harper without an election) in opposition.

Harper was prepared to form a government despite being a "loser" without an election and with the support of the socialists and the separatists. All things he has attacked the opposition on and said he would never do.

There is no bigger hypocrite in politics right now than Say Anything Steve.

ridenrain said...

Where's the contract and the signatures? Duceppe, Layton, Dion and Count Iggy all signed this coalition.
The "sedition coalition" clearly spells out the agreement, including the "no suprises" and "a permanent consultation mechanism with the Bloc Québécois." It's all there on http://www.stephentaylor.ca/ and it's all missing on your 2004 slander-fest.

Give it up. It's just not sticking.

Ted Betts said...

Poor poor ridenrain. Caught up in Harper's lies and hypocrisies.

You'll have to ask Harper what he meant when he said the opposition parties had reached an "agreement" - his words, not mine - and that this was what he hoped was the "first phase" - his words, not mine. You'll have to ask Harper's then Chief of Staff what he meant when he said the opposition parties had reached a "co-opposition" accord - his words not mine.

By the way, Duceppe never signed the coalition agreement between the NDP and the Liberals. Just like he wouldn't join any "formal" coalition with Harper in 2004 and just like he is saying he won't now. He's at least being consistent.

Harper? Not so much. Indeed, not at all.

But do tell me what's not sticking? Harper has had to face 3 days of questioning on this and he still isn't giving a satisfactory answer so there will be more.

The more he tries to fearmonger with this invention of a coalition, the more he will be asked to answer for his own hypocrisy.

He said losers don't get to form governments, but he tried to form a government in 2004.

He said he would never rely upon the support of the socialists or the separatists, but was prepared to rely on their support in 2004 in order to get power (and he relied on the Bloc for his first two budgets as well).

He said it is illegitimate to form a government without an election, but he asked the GG to consider doing just that in 2004.

That's all sticking, Riden.

Ted Betts said...

Oh, and then there is this juicy quotation from then conservative commentator and now Conservative Senator Mike Duffy:

"It is possible that you could change prime minister without having an election," Duffy said on CTV on Oct. 5, 2004. "If you could put Stephen Harper — and this is some of the thinking of Conservatives — in 24 Sussex Drive, even for five or six months without an election, it would make the Conservative option much more palatable to Canadians because they'd see that they don't have horns and a tail."

DOH!

ridenrain said...

By the way, Duceppe never signed the coalition agreement between the NDP and the Liberals.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html

Ted Betts said...

Poor poor Ridenrain. Do try to keep up. And you really would do well to read what you like to.

Must be difficult finding out that Harper is just making it up. But that doesn't mean you have to as well.

Duceppe didn't sign the coalition. That is a Conservative lie.

Here is the "coalition agreement", actually called "An Accord on a Cooperative Government to Address the Present Economic Crisis". Notice who signed it? And who didn't?

Duceppe didn't sign a coalition agreement and was not part of the coalition.

Just like he was not going to form a coalition while supporting Harper form a government without an election in 2004.

ridenrain said...

bla bla bla..
Did you read the text on the signature page?

"Today we respectfully inform the Governor General that, as soon as the appropriate opportunity arises, she should call on the leader of the official opposition to form a new government, supported as set out in the accompanying accords by all three of our parties."

Keep spinning though. There might still be some Liberals reading this that still believe Count Iggy.

Ted Betts said...

OK, so Duceppe wanted to do in 2008 exactly what he and Harper wanted to do in 2004. I get it. I don't deny it.

Harper and Duceppe and Layton wanted to install Harper as PM without an election, even though he lost the election, even though he was a "loser".

Four years later, Dion and Duceppe and Layton wanted to install Dion as PM without an election, even though he lost the election, even though he was a "loser".

Them's the facts. And Harper is getting tripped up on the campaign trail by his own hypocrisy.

Loving it!

ridenrain said...

Your still spinning.
I have clearly shown that that the Libs, NDP and Bloc all have a contract and plan in place to enter into a coalition. This contract is still in effect. This is something everyone knew but Liberal pretend didn't happen.

2004 had the Martin government reeling from the ADSCAM scandal and the prorogation of parliament. Even in this hectic times, no coalition was made, no contracts or agreements signed. It’s a completely different situation.

Ted Betts said...

Ridenrain:

Usually when someone bottoms out, they stop digging. Put down the shovel.

You have not shown that Duceppe signed a coalition agreement. In fact, you have shown that he did not.

You have also not denied my summary of Harper's coalition/co-opposition agrement attempt to install Harper as PM despite being a loser and without an election and with the support of the socialists and separatists. So I'm glad you at least recognize that reality.

Tof KW said...

Hey Ridofbrain,

First - are you being paid to troll?

Second - Tom Flanagan is telling us Harper (and you) are lying. The 'agreement' was to topple the Martin government and to make Harper the PM. In Flanagan's words:

“I can’t see what other point there would have been in writing the letter except to remind everybody that it was possible to change the government in that set of circumstances without an election”

Former aide Tom Flanagan's comments about 2004 coalition undermine Stephen Harper's version

BTW - the Bloc was never part of the 2008 coalition, like they were not part of a 2004 coalition.

You so totally fail -
Now go fuck off!!!

Maria said...

French toast for old french man :)


Maria[mens suit]