Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

They were largely objective. And largely unawnsered.



Neither did you, but then, you're not Socrates. The questions remained unanswered and thus, largely proved my points.



Sooooooo, you don't have a degree, likely haven't taken anything beyond first year, have an interest in history, don't have a B.A., M.A. or Ph.D (and how delightfully naive to assume in first year that you'll "get" a Ph.D!) and you are, in fact, NOT a classical historian. Quit passing yourself off as one.



Not my problem - it's not my role to make my points and YOURS too.



We're going to have run-offs at the local constituency level? Holy crap, and this is free, rigth? And how much time would this take (keeping in mind the distinct fact that we'll be having more elections with minority gov'ts) would these elections take? Canadians will love the money and time this things will cost.



Not so fast...i made a slew of points and asked a myriad of questions (all left by our resident classical historian - like dressing up for "300" counts) and i'll wait for you to actually demonstrate some knowledge about this topic BEFORE i'm held to a similar standard.

   

Firstly I am 3rd year not first. How am I not a classical historian I am in the field of study aren't I? Whatever. Your questions were raised to Rev not me about proportional representation. I tried merely to say it is not that bad, but i am for run offs, which is not really proportional representation. So if your questions go un answered that is Rev's problem not mine. Why don't you try addressing the correct questions to the correct people. Also your questions were not very objective they clearly had an underlying bias towards the current system of voting in Canada. Now ot adress another point, run off elections could happen on every political level, but mainly I was pushing for federal ones. It is a more fair way of voting because everyone gets their voices in even if their party was not elected like if 60% of Canadians don't want Harper in then the 60% should win. Secondly I don't really have to prove my point any more about me talking about France mainly because of the fact it is in writing in my first post.

   

Wow...3rd year? Good for you. Any 3rd year student would know that NO degree equals no academic title. You're not a classical historian, you're a student. You've got no degree, no dissertation, no published works, so no, you're not a historian. Why not go up to one of your professors, call them "colleague" and ask them to refer to you professionally as a historian. Tell me how that goes.



Brilliant retort.



Huh? Are you having problems following this? Here's where I specifically addressed questions to YOU

canadian-politics-f17/what-do-you-think-of-our-federal-political-system-t68235-15.html

And here too

canadian-politics-f17/what-do-you-think-of-our-federal-political-system-t68235-30.html

Want a list?



Why don't you try and keep up. Here's a list of DIRECT salient questions addressed to YOU. Ready?

In fact, why not articulate to me why fringe parties and special interest groups deserve disproportional advantages? And how about elections and minority governments? We want more elections and less legislative action? And please, oh please, tell me why local constituents should be abandoned and people receive less accountability from members of parliament? Oh...and when you're done, explain to me the merits of having federal or provincial parties simply chose representatives - again, with little accountability - to be those selected for seats.

If 5% of the popular vote gets you representation, then, by convention, that party would receive a political voice. Buy, why should it? Why should 5% of the population get a disproportional voice? What happens of this seat or seats occupies a vital position in a coalition? What kind of influence can be exerted? And is this fair or beneficial to the majority of Canadians that electorally rejected this party?

All directed to you. Why don't you learn some basic reading comprehension skills? Oops, there's another question.





Oh, they're objective and remain unaddressed by you, Michael Grant.




Empty minutia - there's no demonstrably justifiable reason to introduce this into Canada. It's merely your opinion.

   

haha you accuse me of brushing off your questions when I said whatever, over a completely stupid arguments. Then you say "Empty minutia" when I addressed your argument of on what level of government we would hold the elections and why they would be better. Brilliant. As for the historian argument it is idiotic personal preference of wording. I am not in search for an academic title, it does not mean much to me. I am a historian because I search for the truth of the past. I am through arguing it with you. I consider myself a historian, you don't, whatever. Anyways as for those two question they do not apply to a run off election like i said in my last post, because run off elections are not the same as proportional representation. As for me learning basic reading skills, I don't know where you got that from considering I have already answered the questions.

   

uhm. can we have some peace here?
i just want your opinions. if other people has other opinions, just respect it...please. but thank you for your answers they're really helping me with this paper.

   

Pretty bold statement for a n00b. Seriously and no offence but if the above exchanges offend you then you won't like this forum.

Alot of strong opinions here and alot of people unwillinging to back down from harsh words and unafraid to mix it up when its necessary.

BTW, what paper and how can I help?

   

I noticed said questions remain unanswered - i'll assume they're beyond you.



Correction. I wrote "empty minutia" because you offered up useless prattle as a rebuttal.




Correct. I guess you can make a correct point after all.



Actually, it's an incorrect title and it smacks of dishonesty. You're not a historian. You can call yourself Indiana Sir Arthur Evans of Hibernia for all i care but that doesn't mean it's true. You're not a historian. You're a student. Sorry to burst your rather infantile, delusional bubble.



And yet you got caught brandishing it anyway. Don't use it if it doesn't mean much to you.



Really? I've been in a hospital, does that make me a doctor? Sometimes i kick back to Law and Order - am a cop or attorney? If i watch Christian Bale kick ass, does that make me the Dark Knight? Grow up.



You weren't arguing - that would assume you had a point.



Actually, others don't consider you a historian as well. Why not ask U of T if you're a historian? What would they say? How about your professors? Hey, pick any history grad program in Ontario and tell me which one considers you a historian. Sorry, Lara Croft, only you think you're a historian and we all know how much that counts, but by all means, put that in your CV when you apply for a position at a post-secondary program.



Really you've answered them? Where, Heinrich Schliemann, did you answer them? I'll play...you demonstrate where you specifically addressed EACH of the following;


1.Why not articulate to me why fringe parties and special interest groups deserve disproportional advantages?
2.And how about elections and minority governments? We want more elections and less legislative action?
3.And please, oh please, tell me why local constituents should be abandoned and people receive less accountability from members of parliament?
4.Oh...and when you're done, explain to me the merits of having federal or provincial parties simply chose representatives - again, with little accountability - to be those selected for seats.
5.If 5% of the popular vote gets you representation, then, by convention, that party would receive a political voice.
6.Why should 5% of the population get a disproportional voice?
7.What happens of this seat or seats occupies a vital position in a coalition?
8.What kind of influence can be exerted?
9.And is this fair or beneficial to the majority of Canadians that electorally rejected this party?

   

Sorry, i don't march to your posts. But thanks for dropping the Karma bomb!

   

I support an STV system like proposed in BC.
And our system is highly preferable to "US style". We don't need a President, and there is nothing better for the people than minority government where no party can impose ideology without huge compromise.
The last minority was a very poor example (Libs too weak and nutless to function as an effective opposition) to make my case on. The Paul Martin minority was a better example of compromise and influence of smaller parties.

   

I am done arguing the historian point, it makes no difference in this thread. Also pleas read. Damn it I am tired of making the same points over and over again. To all your questions, RUN OFF ELECTIONS ARE NOT THE SAME AS PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. All yours points are against PR, not run offs. Run offs do not create fringe parties, in fact they eliminate the parties that get the least votes. Run offs allow the people how voted for the losing party to cast their vote again when it is cut down to the final two.

Actually one more points on the historian thing (this will be the last). You are looking at the definition of a historian from a western modern perspective. Did Thucydides on Herodotus have a university degree? No, they were historians because they searched for the truth. Again last point I am making on this subject so don't bother bringing it up again, it will go ignored.

Your childish name calling is also not appreciated.

   

Be nice!

He/she might be a nifty niner or frosh researching their first big paper.

Be a teacher!

   

I'm sorry, but this thread is placid compared to most political discussions here at CKA.


This is CKA. This is where most Liberals see Conservatives as blind, old-fashioned sheeple towing Dictator Harper's party line while destroying Canada, and where most Conservatives see Liberals as Godless, corrupt heathens who are destroying Canada.

And the NDP are the crazy people you see on the street, but don't shoo them away because they're harmless.

   

Just take it as a chance to write a second paper on the psychology of these forums lol.

   

That's like trying to make sense of the internet.

   

LOLOL!
hmmm... nice idea!

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next