Previous  1  2  3  Next

Okay, according to what you've said in this thread, leaders of political parties aren't partisan; putting unelected appointees into positions previously reserved for elected officials is democratic; nothing anybody says or does counts unless they are part of the governing party (unless they are Elizabeth May, apparently); the many mixed systems of proportional representation are undemocratic. Is that about it?

Never mind the massive contradictions in your argument (how can Elizabeth May have a record since she's never been elected?), your dislike of democracy is showing.

   

My dislike of democracy? The most democratic system is the one that involves the most people. Relegating the review and revision of legislation strictly to elected representatives, who do not necessarily reflect the views of all Canadians, is actually less democratic than allowing a small number of outside individuals in to the process. It seems to me that you're the one who dislikes democracy. Why else replace our current system with a proportional representation system that inevitably undermines accountability?

The fact is that, with no MPs in the house, May has nothing to lose by being non-partisan. Unlike the NDP or BQ, who, typically, are very worried about who they work with and on what issues they work with them. For the longest time, the NDP wouldn't even admit they were working with the Conservatives to revise the Clean Air Act! Clearly, we can do better than the NDP in terms of non-partisan leadership.

What about the bureaucrats inevitably involved? Do you think they were elected? Not a chance. Yet involve an unelected politician as an independent arbitrator? Suddenly that's a travesty?

I'll level with you. I understand the unspoken truth of your objection. There's no question that the NDP feels threatened by any increase in Green Party popularity. I'd say it's simply too bad that you would rather see the entire process fail, embroiled in petty partisan bickering, then allow someone else into the discussion.

   

The NDP are at about the same place in the polls they were in the last election. The movement when we dipped was to the Liberals, not the Greens.

We currently have a government that only got about 1/3 of the popular vote, although they got more than 1/3 of the seats as a result. Even though they are in a minority government, the Conservatives have vowed to ignore bill C-288 when it becomes law even though almost 2/3s of our elected representatives voted for it. You want to talk about being accountable? How about getting a hold Harper and shaking him until he listens to the majority of those we elected?

That would be a far better use of your time than claiming that the leader of a political party isn't partisan and, though she's never been elected to anything, should fill a role where being elected is the first and biggest requirement.

   

So you somehow think that implimenting "reforms" that destroy accounatbility in government entirely by leaving MPs with no one to answer to other than their party whips, will make government more accountable?

That is a joke without a punchline.

But here's a good punchline for you: this thread was started to discuss the possibility of recruiting third-party leadership for a parliamentary committee, not for your partisan snipes at the Conservative party.

   

Again, you are misrepresenting what is being proposed. There would, under every serious proposal for PR, still a representative for each riding. That representation would then be topped up to reflect the popular vote. You maintain accountability at the riding level, and create real accountability at the party level. Since most voters, in poll after poll for year after year, have indicated that their primary consideration when voting is a party or a leader, that kind of accountability is very important.

Various systems offer other advantages too. Some regional systems could address things like the goverment not having any representatives of major urban centres, for instance. That could have saved Harper from first appointing an unelected senator, then naming that unelected senator to cabinet.

   

No, I'm not misrepresenting anything.

The fact is that under proportional representation, no MPs are elected directly. They are, essentially, selected from a list, then would still be asigned to a particular riding.

Even in propositions where the match-up would be determined by assigning representatives to each riding, from within the riding, this is still a quagmire proposal, because it means that some riding, somewhere, will be assigned MPs disproportionately to how the particular riding voted. For example, there is the argument that proportional representation will guarantee the Green Party a number of MPs. However, these MPs would inevitably be assigned to ridings where a severe majority of their would-be constituents voted against them, probably due to their lack of a comprehensive policy platform.

There is absolutely no way to hold an MP accountable when they are, in essence, appointed to your riding. It is fundamentally, democratically unsound.

Even in proposals where a separate "block" of proportionally elected MPs are chosen, in a parallel first-past-the-post/proportional system, still elects a block of unaccountable MPs.

Proportional representation, beyond utterly decimating the very idea of accountability in politics, also introduces democratically unhealthy partisan polarization -- far beyond our country's already-unhealthy level of partisan polarization.


On top of all this, this thread isn't about proportional representation either -- it's about the introduction of third-party leadership into the Clean Air Act committee. I suggest you try and stay on topic.

   

That is simply not true. Under most systems that have been proposed, the ridings stay pretty much the same, and you vote the same way. There is just a topping up...either regionally or nationally...to reflect the popular vote.



The candidate who won the riding would still go to Ottawa, still sit in the House.



Except that nobody is suggesting that.



They will be accountable to their party and their leader...JUST LIKE NOW. We've seen Stephen Harper whip the vote on a Bloc motion and a Liberal MP's private member's bill. Do you think the Conservative MPs from Quebec and Ontario canvassed their constituents before agreeing to the way they were forced to vote? So who are they accountable to? Stephen Harper and only Stephen Harper.



Canada, the US, and Britain are the last three major countries to use a first past the post system. We also have a terrible record when it comes non-partisan action. The US, with it's two-party FTP system, is more partisan than any other western democracy. Countries that have a PR system have a much greater chance of two or more parties working together. Saying that PR will lead to increased partisanship is ignoring the facts.



Again, just responding to your posts. I mentioned PR in passing, and you've made it a major issue.

I think it's kind of funny that you are so afraid of PR though. One of the parties you support would actually get into Parliament because of it, then have a chance to grow. The other party you support is always railing against the Liberals and PR would limit the power the Liberals have. Do you really believe that the Liberals, if we stick with the FTP system we have now, won't have a majority again one day?


As for introducing third-party leadership into the Clean Air Act committee...that's entirely undemocratic. It is a committee of elected representatives and introducing a non-elected member sets a really bad precedent.

   

Nonsense. That is precisely one of the ideas that has been proposed, and I have a political science textbook that can back it up. You accused me of misinforming people. Who's doing it now?



So, then, let's discuss this idea of "topping up" the House of Commons in accordance with the popular vote. This still entails, essentially, appointing MPs into a parallel block of seats who have no constituents to answer to, and are thus accountable to no one but the party whip. That is fundamentally undemocratic.



Except that they are. I'm pretty well vested in these things, and this was a proposition suggested to me by someone advocated we try to emulate the German model of proportional representation, and it's still a nightmare.



And we saw the NDP whip their caucus on the same sex marriage bill... twice. Whereas we saw Conservative members vote in favor of SSM, and against reopening the debate -- Peter MacKay being the most prominent of them -- so, then, by your argument, where parties whip their MPs over one bill and not another, NDP MPs are accountable to Jack Layton and only Jack Layton. Which is unsurprisingly, considering that he believes he is the party. Otherwise, I doubt he'd have his MPs brainwashed into referring to the NDP as "Jack Layton and the NDP".



The United States has been more partisan than any other western democracy under this current administration. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was perhaps the most bi-partisan leader in the western world, appointing Republicans to his cabinet.

All the same, the United States is not fully comparable to parliamentary democracies. The rotation by which they elect their congressmen and senators usually results in a dealigned government, in which a president of one party has to cooperate with a congress controlled by the other, and sometimes a senate controlled by the other as well.

The recent Republican dominance of congress, the senate, and the presidency is an abbheration in American political history.



:roll: Your last post was entirely about proportional representation.



Who's afraid of Proportional Representation? It doesn't precisely take a doctorate in political science to reach the conclusion that proportional representation simply poses more problems than it would solve.

You think I should support proportional representation because it would allot seats for the Green Party? I believe the Green Party deserves to have some Parliamentary seats. I also believe it has to earn them first, and the only way it will do that is by diversifying its policy platform beyond its current single-issue platform.

Furthermore, I actually believe that the Liberals should have a majority again some day... in about seven to eight years, with a Conservative majority in between. Unlike too many people, I believe in the alternation of power between competing powers, because that is the only way that we will have a democracy that reflects the needs of all Canadians.

I would even like to see the NDP govern the country one day, provided that they can ever find themselves another principled leader, a la Tommy Douglas. Not necessarily any time soon -- but some day.



That's nonsense. It would actually set the precedent of forced non-partisanship, and I think the only reason you oppose it is because it allows a representative of a party you feel threatened by to sit at the table.

Ultimately, the point that you aren't getting is that, ever since 1999's Battle of Seattle, NGOs have been involved in discussions such as these, and the results have been nothing but constructive. Frankly, until the Green Party manages to elect an MP, I can't view them as anything but an NGO.

   

Can you show me one proponent of PR in Canada who is promoting a straight list system? Everybody who is seriously talking about it putting forth some version of a mixed system.

I have a photography textbook that says computers won't be a major photographic tool for at least 50 years. Maybe you should put your poli-sci textbook next to it on the shelf and we'll see if they mate.



They will be answerable to everybody and if they do a shitty job their share of the popular vote will drop. If it's a regional system, they will be even more directly effected.



A nightmare for Liberals and Conservatives who get more seats than they do votes.



The NDP has never pretended that it didn't whip votes though. The Conservatives scream like stuck pigs every time any party dares to even consider whipping a vote. Then the Conservatives whip votes on motions and laws they insist aren't important and they aren't going to follow anyway.

All those speeches Harper made about the Liberals having to follow the will of parliament look like lies now, don't they? Cynical, hypocritical lies at that.

The point remains though. Most Canadians, in poll after poll, year after year, have said that they put more importance on a party or leader than they do on local candidates when choosing who to vote for. You'll notice that national pollsters don't call you up and ask what you think of your specific MP, but which party you support. There's a reason for that. People understand that policies flow from parties, not from individual MPs. If it were otherwise, you'd see a lot more independents in the H of C.



And he was impeached by a highly partisan opposition for getting a blow job.



And the recent rise to power of a radically far right, ideologically driven party in Canada is also an aberration. There they are though, stacking courts and committees with their ultra-conservative friends.

I didn't just mention the US though. I mentioned Canada, Britain, and the US. The only three western democracies not have instituted some form of PR and the three most likely to suffer highly partisan differences. Your point was that PR leads to more partisanship. The facts do not bear you out on that.



Again, just a reply to your post.



Well, you're the one desperately arguing against it.



Except for all of those political scientists who argue for it who have doctorates.



No, I believe you should support PR because it would provide more diverse and better representation for the Canadian people. The inability of the Green Party to gain seats in Parliament even though they have the support of about 5% of the Canadian people was just an example of that. The other example I gave was that the Liberal Party will again win a majority government one day and you've been rather outspoken in your distaste for Liberal governments.




It has earned them. The problem is that it doesn't have a single pocket of support large enough to win a seat. Without a seat, it doesn't get into the debates.

If you look at the last three parties to successfully start up, they all had a pocket of very strong support. The CCF/NDP had Saskatchewan, the Bloc had Quebec, and the Reform had Alberta. The Greens have a couple of areas where they are stonger than others, but they don't have that foothold of support.



Canada's best programs have come out of minority governments. Health care, pensions, EI...the entire social safety net. They happen because parties work together and reach compromises. You get a combination of ideas.



I'd like to see them govern one day too...then they could institute proportional representation.

I've spent most of my life in two provinces that alternate between NDP and Conservative governments. No matter what you think of the policies and initiatives those governments take, nearly half the population feels disenfranchised when their guys aren't in power. It's extremely polarizing and a lot of voices aren't heard as a result.



Nope, the Greens don't threaten me at all. I'm more than familiar with the Conservatives with Composters movement.

I actually made the argument elsewhere (I should really start taping my bar room conversations...there's some good ones) that it should first go to a non-parliamentary committee where representatives of all parties and representatives from NGOs and business all had seats. I would have been more than happy to see May chair that. My thinking was that committee would be more likely to be able to come up with useful ideas and compromises, which could then be passed on to a special parliamentary committee.

The precedent set would be one of unelected, interested third parties chairing parliamentary committees. What's next, the Christian Heritage leader chairing the committee on the status of women? Maybe we could get McVety chairing a special committee on science and education?



NGO's don't run political campaigns. If May was on a parliamentary committee, it would just add another layer of partisanship to the committee and set a bad precedent.

I agree that NGOs have become more involved. I think they should be even more involved than they are. They are not elected representatives though, and should not be given the same status.

   

Mine was published in 2007. All the same, one wouldn't find experts in the field discussing such proposals if they hadn't been made. All the same, even within a parallel system, it doesn't change anything. Accountability is still a huge issue within the parallel system.



Under three-folding initiatives, they inevitably will be.

   

And that makes it right in what way?

My photography text was published 20 years ago. Its prediction missed by forty years. It's still wrong.



Accountability is a huger issue under the current system. Look at the ever-diminishing voting stats. Listen to all the people who insist that all politicians are the same or don't do anything.



So who are present MPs accountable to between elections? Nobody. Most of them don't even know what they are voting on most of the time, they just vote with their party. Watch CPAC when they are debating a bill...there's five or six people there.



Nah, just for those who would only be given the power they've earned.



The NDP has never denied whipping its MPs. The Conservatives have said, time and again, that only confidence votes should be whipped. Now that they are in power, they are imposing three line whips on Bloc motions that they can ignore and Liberal bills that they swear mean nothing.



Okay. It's a bill, not a motion though.



Which has nothing to do with the bill.



Experts disagree with you on this, or are you an environmental and economic expert now too. Even if we miss by a couple of years though, it is better than not trying at all. If we all gave up as easily as the Conservatives, none of us would even learn to tie our shoes.

Sir Stern is coming over from Britain to kick Harper in the ass next week, BTW.



He changed his mind after Layton pointed out how hypocritical Harper was being during Question Period.

He also said that he would do so after it clears the Senate, and a Conservative senator on Don Newman seemed to be hinting that they were going to hold it up as long as possible. Is Harper going to use his unelected senators to thwart the will of our elected representatives?



He said the Liberals had to obey the will of the H of C, but tries not to do the same. He did ignore the Bloc motion on Kyoto, which is the same kind of motion he used to criticize the Liberals for ignoring. He's bound by law on the private member's bill once it clears the Senate and gets royal assent. Harper wouldn't delay sending the bill for royal assent, would he?

Anyway, his stating one thing when the Liberals were in power implied that he wouldn't do the same. Now that he is doing the same, that implication is a lie.



Can you name one working democracy where there aren't parties? Even in situations where there aren't any official parties, alliances and allegiances form that amount to being parties even though parties are not officially part of the system.



That depends on the system chosen. Since nobody is considering a straight list system, they can always win a seat. In regional systems, they can form a party of one. In national systems they can form an independent party.

Most proposals make allowances for independent candidates in some way. Many of those proposals also include ways to make it easier for independents to compete than it is right now.



Not the point. The point is that there was a highly partisan attack on Clinton that was based on nothing of any real substance. It had nothing to do with anything but partisanship.



Ah, that typical Conservative response...when you can't come up with a valid reply, you sink into the bullshit.



And we can use that to impose safeguards against the same thing happening here.



Again, I mentioned PR in passing in one post, and you have chosen to build on that.



Then why haven't you done so?



What have you cut to pieces? You've made a few assertions that you failed to back up with facts.



A partner? They've been in power most of the time. The constructive things they've accomplished...the ones they identify when speaking about their accomplishments and the ones that keep showing up as popular programs in polls...were NDP initiatives that the Liberals put into effect during minority governments.



Yes it has. See the number of Canadians who have voted for them.



If NDP and Reform support had been spread all over the country instead of concentrated in relatively small areas, neither party would have ever won a seat.



PR would be more stable than minority governments though. Most of the proposals come with fixed terms and the parties would be more likely to search out common ground since cooperation would become the norm.



You've never said how or why it would be a nightmare. You seem to think that making the statement makes it a fact. That isn't discussion.

As for having to open the Constitution, Harper is going to have to do that anyway if he wants to implement real senate reforms instead of diddling around the edges.



I wasn't talking about partisans though, I was talking about the general population. On the prairies, its a rural/urban split, mostly. It's a very polarizing phenomenon.



I don't care if it's Elizabeth May or Shirley Douglas. You want to put unelected people into postions where they are equal or superior to elected representatives. That's inherently undemocratic.

If it was because the Greens are basically conservative, I would support it because they are at least red tories instead of the much more right-wing Conservative you want May to replace. Your accusations against me don't even make sense.



By installing unelected representatives instead of elected ones? That's not political will, it's facsism.



I think the difference between us is that I'm ultimately concerned with democracy and you are insisting that we institute some decidedly undemocratic reforms.



Both of them would argue that they are infinitely qualified. So would their supporters.



Funny, but I don't recall Jaggi Singh running for office. May quit her job at the Sierra Club to run for office. Protest is an important part of democracy. Advocacy is an important part of democracy. So are elected representatives though. The roles are different and we have to respect those differences.



I'm not sure if your mis-use of the word "reign" is a typo or an elitist Freudian slip. Perhaps you can clarify.

If the committee fails due to partisanship though...which is looking likely...it will be because of the Liberals and Conservatives playing partisan games. They need to be reined in by their leaders.

What would May do, bang her gavel and declare them out of order every time they uttered a sentence? I doubt they would agree to those terms, but even if they did the time would be spent by the chair explaining her out of order rulings instead of anything constructive being done.

The problem is that you have two parties in full election mode, both desperate to hide their own records by pointing at the other guy, neither in a political position where they can admit their past errors and positions. The only way that changes is if Harper and Dion tell their people to keep the partisan cheap shots out of committee and save them for Question Period and scrums where they belong. That's not going to happen.



Will they?

   

Well, I would almost consider allowing to have this one tiny point, except that this basically suggests that while I'm studying political science, you studied photography. [/quote]

$1:

Accountability is a huger issue under the current system. Look at the ever-diminishing voting stats. Listen to all the people who insist that all politicians are the same or don't do anything.

[color=blue]Electing them proportionally isn't going to change that.



You want a good example of MPs being accountable to their consitutents? Take the Progressive Conservative massacre of 1993. Western voters decimated the PC party, essentially over the Meech Lake Accord. That's a fine example of accountability at work.



And an absolute dream for those who haven't earned the power they will recieve; such as the Green Party... oh, and the NDP.



So, what you're saying is, it's fine for the NDP to whip their MPs, but not for the Conservatives to. But let's take a look at the larger issue: the Conservative party, at the very least, doesn't set party policy on issues of conscience, such as same sex marriage. Thus, the freedom for Conservative MPs to vote in favor of SSM, a number of which did.

The NDP, on the other hand, does whip their MPs on issues of conscience. This is by your own admission. So, while you have yet to back up your assertions by providing examples of votes on which Conservative MPs were whipped, the current example we have on the table -- same sex marriage -- in fact demonstrates to us that the NDP uses the whip more liberally than the Conservatives do. This is a very troubling revelation for your argument.



Wrong. That has everything to do with the bill, because it impairs Canada's ability to put the necessary controls in place in order to meet the targets within the timeframe.



And who are these experts? Members of the pro-Kyoto lobby? Given recent revelations about their efforts to suppress dissent within the scientific community over the science of global warming, many of these "experts" have no credibility to anyone with an objective point-of-view.



And I'm sure Harper is shaking in his boots.



Oh, yes. I forgot. Used Car Salesman Jack, leftist hero.



The Liberals hold a majority in the senate. There is nothing the Conservatives could do to hold it up. Not surprising that you watch Don Newman, though.



Except that the current facts before us entirely contradict your claim. Harper has flat-out said that the Conservatives will honor this bill. You're relying entirely on cynicism to advance your argument on this. That simply isn't a starting point for a rational argument.



Except that he isn't doing the same. Isn't it funny how the facts undercut your arguments like this? Funny to me, at least.



Periodical dealignment and realignment have always been part of the lifecycle of any healthy democracy. Effectively entrenching alignment as a staple feature of our democracy is only going to undermine it.



But what about the parallel block? How will an independent be chosen from the parallel block?

Suppose, by some oddity of history, that 100 independent candidates are elected in the first election under a parallel system. Who will recieve the proportionally-elected seats in that block? It's a conceptual quagmire to use that proportional system to elect the independent candidates who should be occupying seats within that block, because they don't have party leaders to select them.



In theory. I want you to tell me how that's supposed to work in practice.



No. It's precisely the point. They tried. They failed. Meanwhile, Clinton ran one of the most successful bi-partisan administrations, any where in the world, in recent history. Facts are facts.



I'm just brining to your attention who's really radical and extreme. While your party was condemning Canadian soldiers as terrorists and advocating for a remembrance day for transexuals, the Conservative party was putting together real policy.

Furthermore, would an "extreme right wing party":

-Apologize for the Chinese head tax?
-Spend billions of dollars on green energy initiatives?
-Build affordable housing for the homeless?
-Institute an AIDS vaccine program?

The fact is that you simply don't seem to have a valid definition of what a far-right party is. This is simply more garbage rhetoric on your part.



What safeguards would you put in place? People vote, their votes are counted. If their candidates win, they go to office.

Don't deflect this. I want you to explain to me why we should put any stock in this proportional representation snake oil, when it has allowed freakin' Neo-Nazis to be elected in Germany.



Nonsense.



Because I can, and because you brought it up.



I've brought plenty of relevant facts to this dicussion. Ironically, the one who hasn't is you. You've based your entire argument off of ill-formed theory and garbage rhetoric. Don't try to lecture me about facts.



Early electoral reforms like the secret ballot occurred long before the NDP ever existed. Believe it or not, the Liberals used to be a reformist party.

While often purely politically motivated, numerous advances occurred under other Liberal governments that the NDP can't claim credit for: multiculturalism, for example.



And those votes have been enough to win how many seats, again?



Actually, that's not true. Spreading a portion of western support for Reform into Ontario, in particular, would have made the difference between many second-place finishes, and extra parliamentary seats.



So you're suggesting non-confidence motions -- the tool given to opposition to defeat corrupt or incompetent governments -- would be abolished under proportional representation? That's only another reason to oppose it.



The destruction of direct accountability in government isn't enough of a nightmare for you? It is for me.



We'll be waiting a long time for any one to muster the political will to re-open the Constitution.



They make plenty of sense, as a matter of fact. It seems that you're all for political reform when it will benefit you. When it will benefit a party poised to absorb significant support from the NDP, you're suddently against it, unless the NDP will somehow gain out of it as well.



Cute. The guy who wants to ignore how proportional representaiton gave additional strength to the Neo-Nazi movement wants to lecture me about fascism.

If anything, allowing unelected representatives to get involved on these committees re-integrates elected officials with ordinary people. That's hardly facism. As a matter of fact, it's a more democratically complete process.



First off, I'm hardly insisting. I'm suggesting. Big difference. Secondly, you don't seem to have a solid idea of what democracy is, to begin with.



But these things are a form of political campaigning, and you can't refute that. At least, you haven't yet.



Well, I guess I've got you beat, since you've resorted to critiquing my typos.



I don't view Harper or Dion as terribly likely to do that. Which is why it would be nice if we could find a way for someone else to do it for them.



She could also boot them out of the committee. Which would be highly embarrassing for both parties: the Minister of he environment and the environmental critic both being tossed out of a crucial committee -- that's a humiliation for both parties.

Maybe they would learn from the experience.



You're right about this, at least -- this is precisely the problem. Lack of leadership is the cause of this problem. So, instead of complaining about the problem, why not try to find some innovative solutions -- like reforming parliamentary committees, allowing for third-party leadership?

The funny thing is: it need not necessarily be Elizabeth May. As you previously mentioned, David Suzuki is a good candidate as well, but not necessarily as strong a candidate as May, in my view.



You're an NDP supporter, and I'm surprised you can't at least follow this.

In 1999, protestors in Seattle managed to de-rail negotiations over the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which would have insitituted draconian new rules on international investment that would essentially undermine the economic sovereignty of everyone involved. This is what most people involved in these protest movements refer to as the "Battle of Seattle".

Ever since then, negotiations such as these have been more and more open to NGO groups, as previously explained. Essentially, political leaders, business leaders, and cultural leaders have been involved in more and more negotiations over both domestic and international policy. Whenever all three get together, it results in a process that has come to be known as three-folding. It's essentially a way to prevent the interests of any one sphere from encroaching on the interests of the others.

In any discussion of environmental policy, in my opinion, such three-folding processes are essential, expecially considering how crucial the global warming issue is.

   

Ah the arrogance of the student. It's funny...when I was studying photography, I thought I knew all there was to know about that too. Then I spent some time working with people who had actual experience and learned how much I still had to learn.

Eventually you'll figure out how much you still have to learn too.



Isn't it? Offering more choice and the representation of more views would do a lot to involve those who feel they aren't represented under the current system according to a lot of analysts. It is why BC and now Ontario are looking at the options.



You should likely point to Elijah Harper instead. He listened to his constituents, then stood up and said, "No." He did that despite incredible pressure from all sides.

The PC massacre in the west had a lot of causes ranging from energy policy to meech to the CF-18 contract. Obviously western PC MPs weren't being accountable to their constituents though, because if they would have been listening they wouldn't have been fired.



The power of smaller parties comes from championing issues popular with the overall electorate. Do you think Diefenbaker would have introduced hospitalisation or Pearson medicare if there wasn't support for the NDP position with voters from all over the political spectrum? If that support isn't there, the issue dies.



First of all, SSM marriage was not an issue of conscience, but of human rights. That's why the NDP whipped the vote.

What I'm saying is that it's hypocritical for the Conservatives to criticize others for whipping their MPs on any issue when they do the same thing. Any issue can argualy be claimed to be a matter of conscience, including the budget since it contains the funding to address issues of conscience. Either you believe in whipped votes or you don't. You don't get to decide what is a matter of conscience for others.



The bill has nothing to do with the failures of previous governments. It has to do with this government's refusal to even try to meet Kyoto.

You might have a better case if the Conservatives had backed a similar bill when Martin had a minority.



Seems to me that Sir Nicholas Stern is pretty well respected around the world. Or do consider him unimportant now that he said something you didn't like?



I'm betting there will be some political implications, just as there were when Stern's report was originally released.



Funny...all the Conservative rhetoric was that they would ignore the bill before QP. Why did that change?



They can hold it up in a vriety of ways. Is Harper going to tell them to send it through?



Again, after his hypocrisy was pointed out by Layton. You are still ignoring the Bloc motion too, which is much more analagous to the motions the Liberals ignored and Harper was so critical of them for ignoring.



Again, right back to that Bloc motion.



Alignment isn't entrenched though. It's encouraged, it's given room to happen, but there is nothing saying that everybody will have to agree to everything all of the time. You'll still have shifting allegiances, but they are more likely to be based on issues than arcane political maneuverings.



All of that depends of the specifics of the system we decide on. That decision will have to be based on a lot of input from many quarters.

Just as an example though, it might be based on which independents drew the most votes...a kind of modified STV system.



Again, it depends on the final system chosen. That's likely to be a mix of several proposals.

What you are doing is trying to stop PR from even getting that far.



Your argument is precisely off the point. The US system has led to such extreme partisanship that they tried to impeach a president for something that had nothing to do with his ability to govern. That it happened to a president with a record of going out of his way to be bi-partisan shows just how divisive the system is.



No, what you are doing is trying to dismiss an argument that you have no real answer too.



-The Chinese head tax was a pretty blatant attempt to gain votes in the immigrant community.
-The green initiatives are mostly reannouncements of programs that were cut.
-The affordable housing was a reannouncement of money from the "NDP budget" that you guys screamed about so much.
-The AIDS vaccine program, while welcome, is largely seen as being too little to late after the dismal performance of the Conservatives at the International AIDS Conference.



Our existing hate laws are a pretty good start. It's doubtful that neo-nazis would be able to run for office here unless they did so under the guise of another party.



As long as you deflect the white supremacist connections to the old Reform Party.



Not at all. It was you who chose to make it an issue.



You don't because you can?



I mentioned it. You made it an issue.



What relevant facts? That you don't like PR? That you want unelected individuals chairing parliamentary committees? That politics is a a partisan endeavour?



of course that not what I was talking about and is not one of the things the Liberals bring up when talking about their accomplishments.




I don't deny that, but when it comes to the parties listing what they've done, listen to the Liberals. The NDP initiatives are the ones they take the most pride in.

For that matter, I've seen/heard Conservatives try to take full credit for health care because Diefenbaker brought in hospitalization, but even Dief had the grace to give Douglas credit for that.



Are you saying that 5%, give or take, of Canadian voters deserve no representation in the House of Commons?



Not at all. If you take the original support for Reform and average it over all ridings, Deb Gray doesn't win her seat, Reform doesn't get into the debates, and the party could very well have fizzled.

It isn't that they didn't have support elsewhere, it's that most of their support was concentrated in a small area, allowing them to win that all-important first seat.



Again, that would depend on the specific system. I would oppose any measure that made it impossible for a government to fall on non-confidence, but I would support a "try again" rule where they were required to try to work out some sort of compromise before the government fell. That would lessen a lot of the political games that go on.



Accountability, direct and indirect, wouldn't be destroyed though.



Will we? Harper wants Senate reform and there's a lot of rhetoric from the right about about "activist judges". How long is he going to be able to peck at the edges before his core gets antsy?



They make no sense at all. You are saying that because I am left wing I prefer a member of a party that's far to the right and has consistently worked against what I consider to be the right thing over somebody who is moderately right-wing and shares my concern on this issue.

My own anecdotal evidence suggests that Greens are likely to make gains on the rural prairies at the expense of the Conservatives, mostly as a protest over the Conservative attacks on the CWB.

If you check the latest polls, you'll find that the NDP is up a couple of points. Do you really think we're terrified of Elizabeth May?



Nice try bud. The party I support never had white supremacists guarding its leader.



Nonsense. What next? Are you going to suggest that unelected people of your choosing get a vote in the H of C?



I've got a pretty decent idea of what democracy is. More importantly, I recognize that putting unelected people into important Commons positions is decidedly undemocratic. Like I said, I don't care if its Elizabeth May or Shirley Douglas.



So is typing in posts on the internet. That doesn't make you and me elected representatives.



Not at all, I asked you to clarify if it was typo or a Freudian slip. I could have just gone after you because of the political implications of the word reign. I could have questioned the extent and quality of your education, something I notice you've done to me. Instead I asked if it was a typo...something everybody makes.



I don't either, but I don't see how May could make a difference.



That would just delay things more. It would also cause a lot of people to question if May did so for partisan reasons.



They are showing leadership though. Do you think there aren't strategy meetings about this? It just isn't the leadership that gets us anywhere on Bill C-30. Neither of them want to get anywhere with it though.



And if either were to hold a seat, I'd agree with you. If it wasn't a Parlimentary committee, I'd agree with you. It is a Parliamentary committee though, and both Suzuki and May lack the basic credential...being elected...to sit on such a committee.



Oh, I followed it. At the time, I argued on the side of the protestors and would do so again even though I had all sorts of epithets launched at me as a result. I'm happy with the small amount of influence that has been gained and wish there was much more.

When it comes to unelected leaders of whatever group suddenly being given the same status as people that have been elected in our government, I'm against it though.

There is a huge difference between being included in talks and chairing a committee of elected representatives.

   

Ah, the arrogance of the clueless.



Politicians will still be politicians. Let's take a look at who some of these people are who don't feel they are adequately represented, and let's see if we can figure out why. I'll give a few examples:

Christian Heritage Party - Scary, scary people. Canadians aren't interested in a theocracy, thank you.
Canadian Marxist-Leninist Party - Marxist. Leninist. Next!
Canadian Communist Party - SEE: Marxist Leninist, only they want to be more Marxist and less Leninist.
Marijuana Party - If your only political issue is the legalization of marijuana, you are literally too stupid to vote.

Just a few examples of fringe groups who don't deserve to hold seats in parliament because they don't have a credible policy platform, or are simply way too scary. As with the previous example of the Neo-Nazi party in Germany, proportional representation would actually legitimize these scary/astoundingly stupid people.



Unless I'm mistaken, Elijah Harper was reelected. So, in a sense, this is a fairly good example: he listened to his constituents, and was rewarded as a result.

Now, imagine that vote in the Manitoba legislature with a block of MLAs, proportionally elected, who have no one to answer to other than the party whips. That being the case, Harper's consientious NO vote doesn't make a difference.



Don't forget the GST. Yet, the Meech Lake Accord was still the tipping point in the west between continuing with (at the time) distasteful government by the PCs and the uncertainty of Liberal government.

Without Meech Lake, western voters would have held their nose and voted PC. Then again, the percieved certainty of the PC defeat in Ontario and Quebec probably made it a lot easier for western voters to take the risk of voting Reform. The rest is history.





It's the MacKenzie-King model of high-pressure governance. The government moves, on key issues, from right to left to alleviate pressure from each side. This doesn't change the things that the Liberals did without pressure from the NDP, nor does it change things the Conservatives did without pressure from the NDP.



That's rhetorical. SSM was not an issue of human rights, because the UN declaration of human rights doesn't include anything within it even related to marriage. Once we thusly eliminate human rights from the issue, it becomes, strictly, an equality issue. Let's not mix up our issues here.

The fact is that, no matter how you slice it, equality issues are conscience issues. Some people see inequality where others do not, and they use moral/ethical judgements to decide. Once legislation starts to delve into a debate about morality, people need to be allowed to make those decisions on their own. It's wrong to legislate morality, one way or the other. Not necessarily wrong to legislate relating to moral issues, but wrong to legislate morality.

Thus a reason why we should never be able to pass a law branding homosexuality as right or wrong. The government simply has no right to decide such things for other people. This, however, is all just metaphysical, philosophical pontificating. The fact is, I'm sure we'll both agree, that the Canadian parliament, collectively, made the right decision on the issue.



I'm still waiting for mr. show me to show me an example of the Conservatives whipping their caucus on a vote where in no confidence motion, or even a principle of confidence, was involved.



So then you're telling me that you support the McGuinty bill despite the fact that it is a demand that they do something that is impossible to do without violating existing agreements with industry.



What would that solve? The obstacles would still be in place.



I'm just becoming more and more suspicious of the pro-Kyoto "experts", because we have plenty of examples of them skewing their science to draw conclusions that aren't necessarily valid. Don't even bring up the Exxon-sponsored guys, either, because they're equally as guilty.



I'd like you to dig up an example of a Conservative saying that, explicitly. Not an example of "oh, they said this, which can be construed as this." Find me an example of a Conservative saying "we'll just ignore this." Those exact words, or as close to them as you can come.



I wouldn't know. I'm not Stephen Harper. But with six weeks to try and put together a plan to do the impossible, I wouldn't blame him for buying extra time.



I do so love it when my opponents have to resort to cynicism to advance their arguments, because they don't have anything credible.

Furthermore, I'm not sure which bloc motion you're referring to.



See, that's funny. Because you of all people should encourage dealignment. Unless millions of voters suddently dealign themselves from the Liberals and Conservatives, the NDP will never govern.

The fact of the matter is that the institution of a parallel system makes political dealignment impractical, because the parallel block would essentially have to be chosen according to partisan voting. There is simply no other practical mechanism for filling those seats.



You can't answer that question, can you?



The independents who win the most votes will already be in the HoC. What do you mean to tell me here? That the indepdendent MPs will appoint these MPs. How about you tell me what isn't wrong with that?



No, I'm trying to make you explain to me how we solve these problems in practice. Answer the question.



No, my argument is precisely on point because they tried and failed. The partisan support for impeachment just wasn't strong enough.



You can call it that, but it's really dismissing a garbage rhetoric-based argument that shouldn't be justified with a response.



Cynicism is not a starting point for a rational discussion. Next.



The versions of the programs that were cut were actually spending .50 on the dollar on administration. The Conservative versions direct more of those funds toward what they are supposed to do. Thus, the Conservative versions are superior.



If the Energuide program example, cited above, is any indication, you should be happy about that, because it means more of these funds are going toward putting roofs over the heads of the homeless, and less for bureaucrats.



Typical. Goodwill is considered premium over actual action for a change?



Our hate laws can actually be pretty lax. Look how long it took us to get Ernst Zundel out of Canada.



I don't need to. The white supremacists who were trying to coopt the party were stomped out "like cockroaches", in the words of Preston Manning.



You were the one who brought it up, you were the one who first devoted an entire thread to it.



:roll: SEE: above portion.



The facts about lack of accountability within proportional representation. The facts about things that have happened under proportional representation in countries that use it. The facts about extremism in Canadian politics. The fact that you have yet to cite a single fact in this entire thread.



It is what I was talking about -- I brought that up, remember? Of course, all you want to talk about are NDP accomplishments. Surprise, surprise.



They cite those because they want to attract more voters from the NDP. I don't think those are things they should be so eager about, because they aren't entitled to full credit.



You'll never catch me trying to give the Conservatives credit for health care. I would never steal Tommy Douglas' thunder like that. He was a great man.



They should focus on trying to be successful within the current system. I wouldn't sacrifice electoral accountability just so 5% of the population can feel better.



Prove that.



Actually, the previous election was won by the Tories almost entirely on the issue of NAFTA. Once the tory majority was secure, voters felt more confident taking a risk on Reform, and the voters of Beaver River had the opportunity.



Stop dodging the hard questions. It only undermines your credibility.



Yes, it would. We've been over this.



I don't know. Why don't you consult your crystal ball?



Have you ever been to the prairies? Not many people crying crocodile tears over the CWB, no matter what the activist media/historical revisionists may tell you.





Nor have the Conservatives.



Absolutely not. But this isn't the House of Commons. This is a committee.



You've used that line twice now.



It's still a form of campaigning. I swear to god, you aren't even good at mincing words.



Critiquing typos = lame. 'Nuff said.



It is, at the very least, worth a try.



No one ever said the committee can't deliberate in the absense of either of those individuals.



Holy crap! I really can't believe you just suggested that allowing a committee to degenerate into political sniping constitues leadership!



For someone who "altruistically" champions a piss-poor method of letting people in, you sure do want to seem to keep other people out.



Not much of one: both propositions bring more people to the table. Both are an example of more complete democratic measures -- you know, the ones that include a wider group of people, something you say you're in favor of but for some reason argue against.

   

Why don't you ask your poli-sci prof if he knows it all? If he's honest, he'll tell you he doesn't. Why don't you tell him that you know it all? When he's done laughing at you, I'm sure he'll tell his buddies about it so they can laugh at you too.



That's good...it keeps the unemployment rate down.



All of who are below any suggested threshold and who, should they rise above that level, do deserve a voice.

You forgot to mention the CAP, the Progressive Canadians, the Atlantica Party, the Cosmopolitan Party (I still think they should be the Neopolitan Party because everybody likes ice cream) and likely a dozen others.



Would it? Every proposal I've seen requires someplace between 3% and 7% of the popular vote.



Something kind of funny about Harper...his constituents in this case were aboriginal people from all over the country. He was clearly, even though he was only a provincial MLA, the voice for recognized First Nations, the Metis, and non-treaty aboriginals. By extension, he ended up representing a lot of non-aboriginals who considered themselves to represent a nation or distinct group of one sort or another.

So much for your narrow definition of accountability.



It still would have made a difference because it required a unanimous vote. He was already defying his party whip...something every MP, MLA, or MPP is free to do if they are willing to accept the consequences. He might have had somebody standing with him though, because there would have been more voices in the provincial legislature.

Ever wonder why the federal NDP pushes for PR, but the NDP in Manitoba and Saskatchewan refuse to even consider it? Doer and his little undertaker buddy in Saskatchewan give all kinds of excuses, but if you happen to be in a bar (I know you don't like bars, but I find you can learn a lot there if you remember to pay for rounds, but not drink too much) when a convention is going on and randomly ask the question, what comes up time and again is that it makes it hard to maintain party discipline. MPs/MLAs/MPPs tend to understand that they can represent their constituents from those other parties.



Thanks...I need to send the feds some cash for that. I wish they'd opay me for doing their book-keeping for them though.



In Alberta and south-west Saskatchewan, maybe. In Manitoba and north-east Saskatchewan, it was really the CF-18.



Did you learn that from a book or sitting in the kitchen and drinking rye and water? Never mind, I was sitting in the kitchen. You ever notice how the rye is always kept under the sink? Why is that?



No, it's the power of good ideas. Politicians will always do the right thing if we force them to.



No more than allowing women to vote was rhetorical and not an issue of human rights.



I have a statue of Jesus on my wall, yet I'm not a Christian. Sure he has a bobble-head and a joint in his mouth, but the fact is that Jesus is spiked to my wall. I bought that particular piece of iconography at the over-priced head shop while looking for an odd edition of a Hunter Thompson book because I lend things out and people don't bring them back. The book wasn't there, but I did find Jesus...so to speak. The girl who worked there was a vague aquaintance (I think she used to date my brother in law's step daughter's friend's brother or something like that) and knew I liked dogs so she showed me her puppy, which she could bring to work because she works at an over-priced head shop. The puppy started gnawing on this bobble-head Jesus and I just had to buy it.

Sorry, I just thought that one completely irrelevant statement deserved another.



They whipped the vote on the Bloc motion requiring the government to meet our Kyoto goals. That was last week, I think. It might have been the week before. The analysts on NewsWorld and NewsNet mentioned that it was thought Michael Chong wasn't happy with his party's position. Despite the whipped vote, Harper wasn't there.

For a poli-sci student, you sure don't seem to spend much time following politics. If it's a time conflict, I think you'll find that DVD recorders are cheap and VHS machines are pretty much free.



The McGuinty bill? Sorry, but 288 (the Kyoto Implementation Act) is all Pablo Rodriguez...he of the thick hair and newly minted Che beard. If I was a young girl, he'd make me wet. I'm an old married man though, and he's a Liberal, so I just wonder why guys grow beards like that if they are going to spend as much time trimming as they used to spend shaving.

I do support 288, I just think it should have been passed two or three parliaments ago.



About two and a half years of pissing around. Obstacles are easier to clear if you get a run at them.



The science is solid, and has been for more than a decade, as you seem to understand...at least at some level. The politics aren't, but politics never are.

I kind of giggle at the term "political science" in the same way I giggle when somebody suggests that eight ball is just a matter of applied geometry. I love politics and pool, but they have far more in common with the black arts or blank verse poetry than they do with science.

Twist that as you may.



You want John Baird saying that it's a joke, or something more arcane?



I thought that, as somebody who claims to be politically educated, you'd be above resorting to pedantry and literalism. Apparently not.

We've all seen the reactions though.



Uh huh.



See, and you thought you had nothing to be grateful for...



Sixty days. The Harper people said they had an environmental plan when they were opposition. They said they had a plan when they were running for office. They said they had a plan after they got elected. They said they had a plan when they introduced the original hot air act. I realise that none of those alleged plans contained measures to meet Kyoto, but if they had honestly considered all of the options, they would at least know where to start. All of the opposition parties are more than happy to offer suggestions. A whack of NGOs will be more than happy to lend a hand. Hell, if they really need it, I'll show up in my bib-alls and give them a lesson on basic building science...I still have much to learn, but I do know the basics.



Yeah, because at 42 I have every reason to look at our politicians with optimism and wide-eyed wonder. They've never fucked up before, I haven't ever heard these lies before, and I have no reason whatsoever to look at the disappointed and say, "Told ya so, but you refused to listen...again."

Don't give me that shit about just being partisan either, because if you look around you'll find that I've gone after the NDP when I disagree with them too.



The one requiring the government to honour Kyoto. It was kind of a silly motion, being that there was already a bill in the House, but it passed. Harper whipped the vote against it. CPAC is on channel 83 here, where is it on your dial?



I do. I am right now. You just don't like who I'm telling you to dealign from.



All votes are partisan by nature. You don't think that when I voted for Marianne Cerrelli for mayor (a non-party civic system) I was being non-partisan do you?

What I'm advocating is that the popular vote be respected. Most people who vote in federal elections vote either for the party or the leader. That vote is not reflected in the proportion of seats those parties get or those leaders control.



Not until a specific system is proposed. I can give examples, I can can say "if".

What you are doing is working to keep thing from progressing to the point where that specific is reached though. I wonder why?



Will they? Even if they lose their ridings? We've got one MP elected as an independent right now. Last parliament, we had a different one.

If independents win a percentage (not determined because the Conservatives and Liberals don't want it to be) of the popular vote, and are granted...let's say three seats (two more than we've had in the last two parliaments, three more than we usually have) without a single independent actually winning a seat...would it be off to say that independents X, Y and Z won more votes than all of the other independents and therefore get a seat?

They may or may not represent the same thing as the other independents, but then again we are asked to accept that Stephen Harper's present public statements represents the people of Wild Rose. Washing the finest mushrooms down with the best Jimson weed tea doesn't reconcile that little gap.



By standing there and yelling at each other until we figure it out.

You are looking for a complete solution...like taking Barbie and Ken out of their boxes and knowing that they were made for each other.



Why were they trying? How did things become so partisan that blatant character assasination became an acceptable political maneuver. What about the swift-boating it led to? Your premise is that these things are harmless because the world hasn't ended because of them. Have a look at politics in North America and tell me the last time there was a reasonable conversation about anything.



Still no answer.



Yeah, so why the cynical attempt to gain votes?



Been through this before. First of all, having people go out and do evaluations is not administration. Putting that responsibility on the private sector does not remove or reduce the cost, it merely shifts it.

You want to get rid of admin costs? Drop the GST on insulation, vapour barriers, efficient appliances, hybrid cars, and anything else you can think of that reduces emissions. No middleman, no admin costs. I haven't seen one political party...yours, mine or theirs...suggest that. You know why? Because they get no control. Too cynical for you?



Misrepresented above, according to what Sheila Fraser said, which is why your party backed off that claim.



Wow, was that the mushrooms or the jimson weed tea talking?



No, the entire world noted your failures.



So strengthen the laws. We never did try him...instead we pretended he was a terrorist instead of just saying that he was a hateful little fuck who belonged in prison. Enact the laws and try the bastard. If you lose, then you lose. Don't be all goofy and deport him for somebody else to do the dirty work.



Preston Manning says a lot of things. A man that most native groups in our country have called a racist was instrumental in Harper's last campaign. Having read most of his writings and being pretty conversant with the situation, I tend to agree with the native groups.

The racist weren't stomped out. They're still there. They just learned not to say "fucking Indians" in public. That's hardly an improvement.



You haven't shown that though. You have tried to define accountability as being very local and very narrow, but anybody who looks at the overall political culture should be able to comprehend that isn't valid beyond a high school election for most popular football player.



That's every democracy outside of the US, Canada, and England.



Like a well-known Reform/Alliance supporter shooting a man for walking into his store because the man committed the horrible crime of being native?



You should check that last one. Prince Albert is a nice town, but I wouldn't want to try it if I wasn't white.



Actually, if you had any accomplishments I would have mentioned those too. You don't though.



No, they cite those because polls show those things are popular...not just among the NDP, but among Canadians in general.



Me either!



He was. Apparently I blew snot on him as an infant. He didn't kill me, so obviously he was a superior human being.

More importantly though, he was right more often than not. He had a very simple way of looking at things. People are more important than money and money is just a tool to help people. Look at what he did and said, and that's it. Everything else is detail and nuance.



You've aligned yourself with a party that has whored itself out to anybodyu with a cheque book, and yet you talk about about accountability.



That Deb won a seat and it got Reform into the debates? Nothing to prove...it's one of those facts.



Somehow I don't think you lived where I did during that period.



I'm not dodging at all. There are a variety of ideas out there and they need to be looked at, fought over, and decided on. I agree with overall concept, but don't have a favourite specific. You present generalizations and outright fallacies in an effort to keep specifics that I can argue for or against from coming forth.



And you failed to prove your point. In the end you resorted to a vague reference to nazis. I guess I should have countered by noting that you are possibly a distant grand nephew of somebody who might have seen Hitler once.



I generally ask my left nut. If it talks back, I know that it's time to have a nap. Sometimes I kill a chicken and read its entrails, other times I summon the ghost of Cap'n Crunch.

Odd thing. I was right about Reagan, I was right about Thatcher, I was right about Mulroney. I was right about Iraq (both times) and I've been right about Afghanistan ever since the US started sending in "advisors". I've been right about global warming ever since I was first dragged to it (kicking and screaming because I really like v-8 motors).

My crystal ball? I actually listen to what the people who know what they are talking about are saying. I consider the situation. I think about what the likely outcome is.

I understand magic, my friend. It's all deception and misdirection. Tell me I'm cynical, and that's fine. It doesn't make me wrong though.



I spent three years of my young life in Ottawa, and I used to have to travel a lot for work, but most of my life has been spent in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. A family farm on each side, friends who got into it mostly because once you've spent a day on a tractor you really can't stop even if you move away and wear suits.



Funny, I know a lot of people...working farmers on the prairies...that consider the CWB to be a major issue. They aren't activist revisionists, they are farmers. They've been voting for the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives on the gays/guns/god thing but now you're fucking with their money. They aren't about to vote Liberal or NDP, but they aren't likely to vote for you either.

Since you seem to think you can question my prairie credentials, let's give yours a test. How much of your last vacation did you spend haying? Have you ever run a pull-type swather? What's a Deutz? What's the best thing about the tool-box? Why did the first generation of them disappear from the flat lands? What's AI? Ever done the Agribition crawl? What's the name of the most famous bucking bull ever? Are you sad the Paddock is gone? The difference between black and brown soil? How does a picket pounder work? What's the difference between an air seeder and a seeder? What do they call they individual parts of a knife? Do you even know what a correction line is? Ever spent x-mas eve with your arm up a cow? When you go to the mud-bogs, do you keep your beer in a cooler or just hope the cops have ice?



Manning tried to make that go away and everybody thought we'd all forget. Funny that.



No, it's a Commons commitee.



Which might explain why I used the preface "Like I said." I would hardly say, "Like I said," if I didn't say that before.



Am I wrong, or are you and I not elected representatives? Or maybe you are, but afraid to admit it? I just want to make things clear here...I am not an elected representative and nothing I say should be construed as the position of anybody but me.



being as lame as Patrick=do you have sex less than a 98 year old widow, or do you have a pet sheep.



Why? What could it possibly acomplish?



Those aren't individuals...those are parties. If the Liberals and Conservatives weren't there, would they have a quorum? I can't remember the exact rules, but my gut says no. Even if they did, would any decision they reach be considered legitimate if the two largest parties were not involved? That doesn't depend on rules, and every sense I have says no.



I didn't suggest it, I said it out loud, plain and simple.

I'm not claiming that it's good leadership. I'm not saying that it's the way things oughtta be. I am saying that the leaders of our two biggest parties are leading this mess. Three minutes of hushed expletives in the hall shuts them down and makes them act like adults. The "leaders" haven't done that.

You know as well as I do that this shit comes from the top. Plumber's creed...shit flows down and payday is Friday.

You want to bitch about political leadership? Don't pretend there's a lack of it, point out its the wrong type.



Nah, I welcome them. I just believe that there should be some democracy.



Wider is fine, but elections are important. I find it disturbing that you'd appoint instead of electing, even at the level we currently elect. It's kind of like you just watched The Doors and are pointing at Pat Boone and yelling that he's the same thing in an attempt to keep us all from noticing the Sex Pistols just kicked ass and Willie Nelson is trying to pass us a joint so we can listen to a David Allan Coe tune and be in the right mood before we amble off to the Violent Femmes concert.

Oh wait, are all of those old bands? Hmmm...it's just like I've been here before, isn't it? I won't get fooled again though, I'm way too much of a street fighting man for that. Of course I could ignore the lessons of history and look like an American idiot.

Fuck it though. I'll just keep talking back.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I not fold to the poli-sci student from...where are you from?

No matter. Launch some more shit. I throw it back.

   

Previous  1  2  3  Next