Nycole Turmel’s flirtation with sovereignty was not a secret.
- Thread starter Retired_Can_Soldier
- Start date
My Quebec-born neighbor keeps reminding me that 'they do things differently in Quebec", so I can see the argument about 'everyone was doing it' - to a point. I don't understand why she was still holding onto her provincial membership at the time the media pounced on the story. It certainly wasn't politically astute unless she wanted to send a message to Quebec.
I had chuckle listening to Bob Rae take her to task today.
Soooooo....
What is untrue in my post?
Quebec Solidaire is a separatist group.
Quebec Solidaire was founded, in large part, by the Communist Party of Quebec.
As of Tuesday, Turmel was a member.
(stay with me here...
)Turmel did NOT admit her membership.
So, Turmel was a closet commie separatist elected to head the NDP.
Linear thought, my friend.
I think it is hilarious.
Especially when you look at the two deputy leaders, and realize nuttiness is the norm.
The NDP will not be the government of this nation until they get their ducks in a row.
Good luck.
How is that "Global Governance" that is stripping way our sovereignty thing working out for ya?
Linear thought or propagandic bafflegab? It all comes down to transparency. No politician is good at it - from backbenchers to the Grand Poobah.
The quote from the article, it's faulty logic. You thought it's the best you've read yet, but it's a logical fallacy.
The no true Scotsman fallacy in this case treats an entire group as a monolith, by wiping out individuality. It is as retarded as claiming that the Brevik is the only representative example of those who want immigration reform.
Why I always liked Stéphane Dion:
Two questions for Nycole Turmel - thestar.com
Solid logic. On Quebec, anyway.
Two questions for Nycole Turmel - thestar.com
Solid logic. On Quebec, anyway.
In politics, the appearance of impropriety is just as damning as an act of impropriety. Transparency on issues that one can reasonably expect others to take issue with is just good sense. Barring that, facing it head on and taking ownership is the only real survival option.
Don't really see a whole lot of either going on.
Don't really see a whole lot of either going on.
LOL YOu just can't make this stuff up!:lol:
Round Two
Ding!
Round Two
Ding!
Turmel's resignation letter from the Bloc Québécois
Published Monday, Aug. 01, 2011 10:15PM EDT
Last updated Monday, Aug. 01, 2011 10:18PM EDT
The letter translates to: "Enclosed is my Bloc Québécois membership card, which I wish to cancel. I wish to state that my request has nothing to do with the party's policies, I am doing this for personal reasons."
"I know some people don't like it, it's a loss of National Sovereignty but it is a simple reality".
Stephen Harper - G20 Toronto 2010
Stephen Harper - G20 Toronto 2010
The whole video...in context...so you can quit posting that line over and over and over and over.......
Stephen Harper _ I know some people don't like it. It is a loss of national sovereignty - YouTube
Last edited:
Yup loss of sovereignty is indeed a reality. I'm glad the PM agrees.
Stephen Harper: "people don't like it. It is a loss of national sovereignty" - YouTube
What is global governance rather than global government? Who is going to govern if it isn't government? Dictatorial governance?
Stephen Harper: "people don't like it. It is a loss of national sovereignty" - YouTube
What is global governance rather than global government? Who is going to govern if it isn't government? Dictatorial governance?
Unfortunately for those that put their trust in the NDP in the last election, no spin is necessary.
The NDP have elected as their leader a MEMBER of a provincial separatist party with strong communist leanings, and an ex-member of the federal Bloc..
That is not spin.
Spin is Turmel telling us "it was all about a friend".......and you must be pretty damn dizzy to swallow that!!!!
I was asked by a friend and old co-worker to help in his brother-in-law's (Liberal) campaing in my district last election....I told him, I'm not voting for him...I certainly won't work for him.
We're still friends:smile:
Maybe your friend should have offered to pay for the membership and buy the beer like mine did....
eheh...I think he knew that not only the politics came in question but I can't stand his brother-in-law personaly....but we're like that...we can separate politics and friendship:smile: