| [Deep Freeze] Monday, December 22, 2008 9:58:40 AM | |
|
I thought we had dropped this one? Darn! I hate missing out on all the fun. Sharing the power, huh? Jeeze, strat. You're killing me! Fairness, fairness, fairness. Life is not fair, dude! It's not. Besides, I have said this MORE than once; do we really want certain people having the power of decision?? I mean, there are certain folks that simply are not capable of such things. Not to mention they are not trained properly NOR could they understand the training in the first place! A terrible FACT of life is that NOT EVERYONE has the mental capacity to do certain things...even with the training!
I like to consider myself a fairly bright guy. I am capable of doing many things. However, even with training, I could not be a surgeon, for example. I do not have the aptitude. I sure as hell do not want "power sharing" in MY operating room!! Passing around power and socializing everything is a great argument for your world politics theories (although even there I must say it falls embarrassingly short) but it is simply not feasible to operate business as you suggest. As I said to guido, "The world needs ditch-diggers, too." (R.I.P Ted) |
|
| [Head banger] Monday, December 22, 2008 7:53:14 AM | |
|
yep, the mechanic went to school for 4 years, and takes upgrading courses every year. The other thing with a mechanic that you have to recognize is that your paying for him (or her) and his tools. a mechanic has to own basic hand tools, my mechanic figures he owns $20,000 worth. now, the education of a mechanic is thru aprentiship, where he is paid a bit while he is learning, not like getting a degree. but in value of those 2 comitments, a mechanic is paid quite well. a general labourer, well, might work hard, but anyone is capable of that, paid less. you value the work the person does, the effort, and the skill, and the comitment to learning that skill.
if the power is more equaly shared, how do you make decisions? when henry ford started producing the model T, it came in black, and in one configuration. there were no diferences. that car is what made ford a major player today. now he owned the company, took the risk of spending all his money, but the decision making process was the same as if he was a CEO, he decided. what if everyone decided? design would take longer, costing money in lost sales. what if such a simple decision as to sell 5 colours instead of 1? well the cost of the car would have gone up $50, moving it out of many peoples range. why? you would need equipment to paint different colors, or if you decided to paint each days production one colour, you would have to move the production slower 4 days a week, because the reason he used black is it dried the fastest. colaborative decision making is fine, but when said company is losing ,money and has to lay off people, you wont find people laying themselfs off, and you create conflict or ineficiencys. can top down be too dictatorial, sure, but its the fastest method of decision making. politicaly, even though we are in a democracy, our head of government can make decisions without consultation, because if he had to determin what everyone wanted, then do it, it would be to late. and what if what the people wanted wouldnt work? after all, the people here might want to invade the USA, but he could quickly determine that we would get killed. should he do a bad thing because the people want it? if decisions were colaborative, blacks in the states might still be slaves.
sure, we can research that wine, but how does it taste? after all, a beter tasting wine should cost more no? what if the store is staffed by wine experts, that can help you make choices, food pairings, etc? they should be able to charge more, right, after all, they are selling their expertise, not just wine. if you want expertise, you go there, if you know what you want, you go to the store that has a 19 year old kid and a cash register, find what you want and get out.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, December 22, 2008 4:23:48 AM)| |  | _strat_ wrote: | | True, but that mechanic also had to learn some things he needs. A modern internal combustion engine is complicated as fuck. Just like I had to learn my work, and just like a (for example) an IT guy has to learn all sort of shit about computers, before he can do his job properly. The question here would again be: why does one guy earn 500€/month, and someone else 5000 or more? And we ve been through that... The problem is really the hierarchical structure of bussineses. I know, someone has to organise things, someone has to decide about this and that... But all that could be imo done without the parasites (yes, I still say that they are parasites) at the top. Not to mention that if power would be more equaly shared, more people would need to fuckup to have the same result as a fuckup of one person has now.
We can always do a little research "behind the scenes" of that bottle of wine. How much did the materials cost (from grapes, glass, the label, etc.), how much did the store pay for it, and was that fair in respect to how much did it cost to produce the bottle, how much of the final price did the store take for themselves, and is that in accordance to the expenses they had with it... Its complicated, but we can quickly determine if someone is taking more than his/her fair share of it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | yes their starting point may be higher than ours. I guess I dont compare well, because I started with my company before I went to school, so, 9 promotions and one graduation later, I am here, second in comand over three provinces and a few hundred employees. yay. not!!
the starting point is higher because they have learned some things they need. they dont need to actualy know how to screw in said taillight. I supervised a mechanic, I dont know how to re build an engine, nor do I care. I know how to supervise people, manage costs, build business, find efficiencies. thats what I did then.
fair is a point of view. is the price of that botle of wine fair? if you think so, you buy it, if you dont, you dont. you might think it fair, but not be able to aford it. then you make a new decision, can I borow the money and what will it cost me. now personaly, I think that borowing for wine is idiocy, but thats my value judgment.
companies lose money and continue for a few reasons. they made money in the past and have savings.
they think they can make money again, so borow to get to the good times again. the cost to disolve the company could be more than the yearly opperating losses.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Or more likely, he would stay there. The fact is that the high positions are a the dominion of the elites. And I would bet a lot that there are a lot of managers that get to their position straight from schools. Maybe they dont become CEOs right away, but their starting point is way higher than ours.
If people pay for it, that doesnt automaticaly mean that its fair.
If these companies lose money, why do they still exist?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | they probably dont start out as the guy screwing in the tail light. he would start in sales, accounting, lower managment, enginering, and rise from there. depending on the industry, and his individual skills, he would need some level of schooling, and the drive, then he has to get in the door, and show what he can do. I bet that no one goes straight from school to the CEO chair of any company of any size.
the guys who can and will put in that effort are rare, and those with the skills to match are more rare, so they get to demand more. same as pro athletes. fair? well, people pay it, therefore its fair.
your right, the owners hire thwm, most companies are owned by shareholders, like me, and
the $75 is a historical bit of foolishness. but, the labour costs to build a car are only a minor part of it. disigning it costs billions, the parts, tooling and factories billions more. fact is that most cars sold by these companies lose money. have for years.
and three on one isnt unfair, its just the way it is.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, December 22, 2008 4:25:45 AM | |
|
LOL. If you think THIS is ugly, you aint seen nothing yet.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by MG_Metalgoddess from Sunday, December 21, 2008 6:45:25 PM)| | | MG_Metalgoddess wrote: | |  |
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, December 22, 2008 4:23:48 AM | |
|
True, but that mechanic also had to learn some things he needs. A modern internal combustion engine is complicated as fuck. Just like I had to learn my work, and just like a (for example) an IT guy has to learn all sort of shit about computers, before he can do his job properly. The question here would again be: why does one guy earn 500€/month, and someone else 5000 or more? And we ve been through that... The problem is really the hierarchical structure of bussineses. I know, someone has to organise things, someone has to decide about this and that... But all that could be imo done without the parasites (yes, I still say that they are parasites) at the top. Not to mention that if power would be more equaly shared, more people would need to fuckup to have the same result as a fuckup of one person has now.
We can always do a little research "behind the scenes" of that bottle of wine. How much did the materials cost (from grapes, glass, the label, etc.), how much did the store pay for it, and was that fair in respect to how much did it cost to produce the bottle, how much of the final price did the store take for themselves, and is that in accordance to the expenses they had with it... Its complicated, but we can quickly determine if someone is taking more than his/her fair share of it.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Saturday, December 20, 2008 12:24:49 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | yes their starting point may be higher than ours. I guess I dont compare well, because I started with my company before I went to school, so, 9 promotions and one graduation later, I am here, second in comand over three provinces and a few hundred employees. yay. not!!
the starting point is higher because they have learned some things they need. they dont need to actualy know how to screw in said taillight. I supervised a mechanic, I dont know how to re build an engine, nor do I care. I know how to supervise people, manage costs, build business, find efficiencies. thats what I did then.
fair is a point of view. is the price of that botle of wine fair? if you think so, you buy it, if you dont, you dont. you might think it fair, but not be able to aford it. then you make a new decision, can I borow the money and what will it cost me. now personaly, I think that borowing for wine is idiocy, but thats my value judgment.
companies lose money and continue for a few reasons. they made money in the past and have savings.
they think they can make money again, so borow to get to the good times again. the cost to disolve the company could be more than the yearly opperating losses.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Or more likely, he would stay there. The fact is that the high positions are a the dominion of the elites. And I would bet a lot that there are a lot of managers that get to their position straight from schools. Maybe they dont become CEOs right away, but their starting point is way higher than ours.
If people pay for it, that doesnt automaticaly mean that its fair.
If these companies lose money, why do they still exist?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | they probably dont start out as the guy screwing in the tail light. he would start in sales, accounting, lower managment, enginering, and rise from there. depending on the industry, and his individual skills, he would need some level of schooling, and the drive, then he has to get in the door, and show what he can do. I bet that no one goes straight from school to the CEO chair of any company of any size.
the guys who can and will put in that effort are rare, and those with the skills to match are more rare, so they get to demand more. same as pro athletes. fair? well, people pay it, therefore its fair.
your right, the owners hire thwm, most companies are owned by shareholders, like me, and
the $75 is a historical bit of foolishness. but, the labour costs to build a car are only a minor part of it. disigning it costs billions, the parts, tooling and factories billions more. fact is that most cars sold by these companies lose money. have for years.
and three on one isnt unfair, its just the way it is.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Sunday, December 21, 2008 6:45:25 PM | |
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, December 20, 2008 12:24:49 PM | |
|
yes their starting point may be higher than ours. I guess I dont compare well, because I started with my company before I went to school, so, 9 promotions and one graduation later, I am here, second in comand over three provinces and a few hundred employees. yay. not!!
the starting point is higher because they have learned some things they need. they dont need to actualy know how to screw in said taillight. I supervised a mechanic, I dont know how to re build an engine, nor do I care. I know how to supervise people, manage costs, build business, find efficiencies. thats what I did then.
fair is a point of view. is the price of that botle of wine fair? if you think so, you buy it, if you dont, you dont. you might think it fair, but not be able to aford it. then you make a new decision, can I borow the money and what will it cost me. now personaly, I think that borowing for wine is idiocy, but thats my value judgment.
companies lose money and continue for a few reasons. they made money in the past and have savings.
they think they can make money again, so borow to get to the good times again. the cost to disolve the company could be more than the yearly opperating losses.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 20, 2008 12:02:29 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Or more likely, he would stay there. The fact is that the high positions are a the dominion of the elites. And I would bet a lot that there are a lot of managers that get to their position straight from schools. Maybe they dont become CEOs right away, but their starting point is way higher than ours.
If people pay for it, that doesnt automaticaly mean that its fair.
If these companies lose money, why do they still exist?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | they probably dont start out as the guy screwing in the tail light. he would start in sales, accounting, lower managment, enginering, and rise from there. depending on the industry, and his individual skills, he would need some level of schooling, and the drive, then he has to get in the door, and show what he can do. I bet that no one goes straight from school to the CEO chair of any company of any size.
the guys who can and will put in that effort are rare, and those with the skills to match are more rare, so they get to demand more. same as pro athletes. fair? well, people pay it, therefore its fair.
your right, the owners hire thwm, most companies are owned by shareholders, like me, and
the $75 is a historical bit of foolishness. but, the labour costs to build a car are only a minor part of it. disigning it costs billions, the parts, tooling and factories billions more. fact is that most cars sold by these companies lose money. have for years.
and three on one isnt unfair, its just the way it is.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 20, 2008 12:02:29 PM | |
|
Or more likely, he would stay there. The fact is that the high positions are a the dominion of the elites. And I would bet a lot that there are a lot of managers that get to their position straight from schools. Maybe they dont become CEOs right away, but their starting point is way higher than ours.
If people pay for it, that doesnt automaticaly mean that its fair.
If these companies lose money, why do they still exist?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Saturday, December 20, 2008 11:50:17 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | they probably dont start out as the guy screwing in the tail light. he would start in sales, accounting, lower managment, enginering, and rise from there. depending on the industry, and his individual skills, he would need some level of schooling, and the drive, then he has to get in the door, and show what he can do. I bet that no one goes straight from school to the CEO chair of any company of any size.
the guys who can and will put in that effort are rare, and those with the skills to match are more rare, so they get to demand more. same as pro athletes. fair? well, people pay it, therefore its fair.
your right, the owners hire thwm, most companies are owned by shareholders, like me, and
the $75 is a historical bit of foolishness. but, the labour costs to build a car are only a minor part of it. disigning it costs billions, the parts, tooling and factories billions more. fact is that most cars sold by these companies lose money. have for years.
and three on one isnt unfair, its just the way it is.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 20, 2008 11:58:25 AM | |
|
I know that I wont change the world. I know that very well. I also know that my posts wont bring down the current world order, just as yours wont protect it. We are debating, thats all. Not changing the world. Hell, I work most of the week, and sleep or geek out my spare time. Not much time left to change the world.
BUT... The system... Maybe at your end, IDK, youve had it long enough, and maybe youll keep it for a lot longer. We on the other hand... In the 20th century alone we went through such massive changes, that it would be absolutely foolish to say that the current system will last till long after Im gone. We started the century as a part of an empire, then joined a monarchy that later became a socialist republic, that in term disolved into many smaller bourgeois democracies. We were through three wars on our soil, we had two emperors, a king, a socialist leader, and a number of government coalitions. To say that it ends with what we have now, is extremely short-sighted. So is claiming that for the entire world, actualy. Many nations have been through much more turmoil and have gone through much more changes in a shorter period of time than we did. And things will change, and they will change very soon, Im sure. With or without the help of the two of us.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Saturday, December 20, 2008 11:18:50 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
You're right, it doesn't. However, it is what it is and although I can remember a time in my life when I wanted to "change the world", I eventually realized that I will not. My suggestion is that you start your own country. The "system" is far older than the two of us put together and will be around LONG after we are both gone. You may not like it, but that is the fact. Personally, I found that I was FAR more successful in my professional life by accepting it and "playing the game", as you say. ( Selling out?) Fighting may feed your 'soul' but it doesn't buy much in the way of food, clothing and whatnot. I hate to be a spoiler but that is also fact.
There is always a "better" way. Perhaps, with all we have seen in the financial crisis, there will be HUGE change. I do not know. I have been saying from the beginning that this is not all the fault of big business and Wall Street. People make their own beds, my friend. Buying things you know you cannot afford on credit is stupidity and you get what you deserve. That is how I see it but I fear we are venturing into yet another topic and I must go make breakfast for the Princess!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, December 20, 2008 11:50:17 AM | |
|
they probably dont start out as the guy screwing in the tail light. he would start in sales, accounting, lower managment, enginering, and rise from there. depending on the industry, and his individual skills, he would need some level of schooling, and the drive, then he has to get in the door, and show what he can do. I bet that no one goes straight from school to the CEO chair of any company of any size.
the guys who can and will put in that effort are rare, and those with the skills to match are more rare, so they get to demand more. same as pro athletes. fair? well, people pay it, therefore its fair.
your right, the owners hire thwm, most companies are owned by shareholders, like me, and
the $75 is a historical bit of foolishness. but, the labour costs to build a car are only a minor part of it. disigning it costs billions, the parts, tooling and factories billions more. fact is that most cars sold by these companies lose money. have for years.
and three on one isnt unfair, its just the way it is.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 20, 2008 10:28:47 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Saturday, December 20, 2008 11:18:50 AM | |
|
The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
You're right, it doesn't. However, it is what it is and although I can remember a time in my life when I wanted to "change the world", I eventually realized that I will not. My suggestion is that you start your own country. The "system" is far older than the two of us put together and will be around LONG after we are both gone. You may not like it, but that is the fact. Personally, I found that I was FAR more successful in my professional life by accepting it and "playing the game", as you say. ( Selling out?) Fighting may feed your 'soul' but it doesn't buy much in the way of food, clothing and whatnot. I hate to be a spoiler but that is also fact.
There is always a "better" way. Perhaps, with all we have seen in the financial crisis, there will be HUGE change. I do not know. I have been saying from the beginning that this is not all the fault of big business and Wall Street. People make their own beds, my friend. Buying things you know you cannot afford on credit is stupidity and you get what you deserve. That is how I see it but I fear we are venturing into yet another topic and I must go make breakfast for the Princess!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 20, 2008 10:28:47 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 20, 2008 10:28:47 AM | |
|
Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, December 19, 2008 6:20:33 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Saturday, December 20, 2008 9:58:13 AM | |
|
So, someone else chooses to be a businesman. Why should he/she be valued more than me, or you (whatever the proffesion you are in is)?
Well, as I mentioned yesterday, I do not believe there is any more "value" as a person but, if what you mean is why do you get paid more in one profession as opposed to another, it all goes back to basic economics. What the buying public is willing to spend. It is not really up to your employer in that regard. If the public will pay more for certain services, there is more to pay employees. Fairness is a subjective term as well. |
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, December 20, 2008 8:17:23 AM | |
|
not to mention trying to eliminate accountability. if an individual screws up, he needs to be taught, if he persists, then it needs to become a diciplinary issue. Unions dont want any of that, let the peers screw up, that way everyone can.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Friday, December 19, 2008 9:10:35 PM)| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | | I believe that unions should accept a large part of the decline of American life. They have become the very evil they were created to fight and have driven most of the quality manufacturing jobs out of the U.S. I don't have the patience to explain it all, but I hold the unions responsible for the current condition of the automotive industry. How do you make an affordable car of any quality when you pay some lazy asshole over $25 an hour plus benefits and vacations to insert the left door panel of a single model of car ! That costs the company over $75 per hour to get that job done. This does not include the retirement packages. These are rumored to be in the range of 75% of their wages ! It's like paying multiple work forces for the production of one ! I say let them file for bankruptcy and bust the unions ! |
|
|
| [TIMBONI] Friday, December 19, 2008 9:38:12 PM | |
|
Well, I've just read your post on the Blah and the one I'm quoting and you've managed to cover so many points that I don't know if it's actually possible to respond to each of them in a complete and intelligent manner. I guess the first thing that one must assess is " what is a decent life for me ?" I have opted to concentrate less on the job and more on my family for now. Given that, I have to disagree with your assertion that the employer has the power of choice.
As for what qualifies a person for a managers position, I agree with most of what you have to say but you leave out one important point. You must prove that you can do it and earn the position. Just because an employee may have more job experience and may possibly make a better manager it does not mean that they should just assume the position and displace a person who has put in the time and earned that position as the best choice at the time the choice was made.
Your comment about social equality just scares me and I don't want to sidetrack into a conversation about the pros and cons of a socialist system.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 19, 2008 5:37:41 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
| [TIMBONI] Friday, December 19, 2008 9:10:35 PM | |
|
| I believe that unions should accept a large part of the decline of American life. They have become the very evil they were created to fight and have driven most of the quality manufacturing jobs out of the U.S. I don't have the patience to explain it all, but I hold the unions responsible for the current condition of the automotive industry. How do you make an affordable car of any quality when you pay some lazy asshole over $25 an hour plus benefits and vacations to insert the left door panel of a single model of car ! That costs the company over $75 per hour to get that job done. This does not include the retirement packages. These are rumored to be in the range of 75% of their wages ! It's like paying multiple work forces for the production of one ! I say let them file for bankruptcy and bust the unions ! |
|
| [Head banger] Friday, December 19, 2008 6:20:33 PM | |
|
Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 19, 2008 5:37:41 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 19, 2008 5:49:56 PM | |
|
That bible thumping redneck? Dont even mention him. He will be on our backs soon enough, when he stops the days work of lynching and shotgun polishing.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, December 19, 2008 5:46:23 PM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes. Yes I do! Its just one of your endearing qualities, my friend! Not like that nasty guido that I loathe!!!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Id sooner convert than stop arguing, as you know very well.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Religion??!?!?!? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where's the fun in that?? We actually agree. Don't tell me you are tired of arguing?? HAAAAHAHAHHAA!!! Oh man! That will be the day!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 19, 2008 5:46:23 PM | |
|
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes. Yes I do! Its just one of your endearing qualities, my friend! Not like that nasty guido that I loathe!!!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 19, 2008 5:44:42 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Id sooner convert than stop arguing, as you know very well.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Religion??!?!?!? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where's the fun in that?? We actually agree. Don't tell me you are tired of arguing?? HAAAAHAHAHHAA!!! Oh man! That will be the day!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 19, 2008 5:44:42 PM | |
|
Id sooner convert than stop arguing, as you know very well.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, December 19, 2008 5:40:50 PM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Religion??!?!?!? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where's the fun in that?? We actually agree. Don't tell me you are tired of arguing?? HAAAAHAHAHHAA!!! Oh man! That will be the day!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 19, 2008 5:40:50 PM | |
|
Religion??!?!?!? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where's the fun in that?? We actually agree. Don't tell me you are tired of arguing?? HAAAAHAHAHHAA!!! Oh man! That will be the day!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 19, 2008 5:37:41 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 19, 2008 5:37:41 PM | |
|
You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, December 19, 2008 5:14:18 PM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 19, 2008 5:14:18 PM | |
|
OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
| [Palmer Griffiths] Saturday, December 06, 2008 11:36:17 PM | |
|
I won't comment on Politics it just makes me too angry !       |
|
| [Deep Freeze] Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:47:52 AM | |
|
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *ouch* Touche!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:46:00 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok... I will try to remember that. Which means ill probably forget it. In any case, I had a feeling that you are not entirely serious about it. But the "council of elders" was an idea that I thought was too good not to use on an... well... elder.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! facetious (adj) : joking or speaking in jest
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Fecetiwhatious?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Council of Elders??!??!? BWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!! Oh strat, of course I was being facetious! Relax! I just knew you would get riled up over that!! HHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Perhaps that is the business of the afore mentioned population, and not of the council of elders?
That and, you dont seriously expect people to stay in school till 35? 23 or 24, ok, but by 35 people are expected to have at least ten years of work behind them. Its not like Im saying that people are supposed to have a job and a family at 15.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Perhaps the aforementioned section of the "active population" would be far better off staying in school and getting a good education rather than making babies?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, weve been through that, and Im still against it. Even as it is, the common citizens arent involved in the politics enough. Raising the age even further will make less people involved it, and whats worse it would take away the political power from a very threatened part of the active population that is seeking their first jobs and starting their families.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, in their defense they get bombed a lot too. finding the inital comon direction would be a good start. I like the idea DF had of voting age of 35.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
 The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
 I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:46:00 AM | |
|
Ok... I will try to remember that. Which means ill probably forget it. In any case, I had a feeling that you are not entirely serious about it. But the "council of elders" was an idea that I thought was too good not to use on an... well... elder.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:40:30 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! facetious (adj) : joking or speaking in jest
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Fecetiwhatious?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Council of Elders??!??!? BWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!! Oh strat, of course I was being facetious! Relax! I just knew you would get riled up over that!! HHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Perhaps that is the business of the afore mentioned population, and not of the council of elders?
That and, you dont seriously expect people to stay in school till 35? 23 or 24, ok, but by 35 people are expected to have at least ten years of work behind them. Its not like Im saying that people are supposed to have a job and a family at 15.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Perhaps the aforementioned section of the "active population" would be far better off staying in school and getting a good education rather than making babies?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, weve been through that, and Im still against it. Even as it is, the common citizens arent involved in the politics enough. Raising the age even further will make less people involved it, and whats worse it would take away the political power from a very threatened part of the active population that is seeking their first jobs and starting their families.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, in their defense they get bombed a lot too. finding the inital comon direction would be a good start. I like the idea DF had of voting age of 35.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:40:30 AM | |
|
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! facetious (adj) : joking or speaking in jest
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:38:04 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Fecetiwhatious?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Council of Elders??!??!? BWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!! Oh strat, of course I was being facetious! Relax! I just knew you would get riled up over that!! HHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Perhaps that is the business of the afore mentioned population, and not of the council of elders?
That and, you dont seriously expect people to stay in school till 35? 23 or 24, ok, but by 35 people are expected to have at least ten years of work behind them. Its not like Im saying that people are supposed to have a job and a family at 15.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Perhaps the aforementioned section of the "active population" would be far better off staying in school and getting a good education rather than making babies?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, weve been through that, and Im still against it. Even as it is, the common citizens arent involved in the politics enough. Raising the age even further will make less people involved it, and whats worse it would take away the political power from a very threatened part of the active population that is seeking their first jobs and starting their families.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, in their defense they get bombed a lot too. finding the inital comon direction would be a good start. I like the idea DF had of voting age of 35.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:38:04 AM | |
|
Fecetiwhatious?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:36:31 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Council of Elders??!??!? BWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!! Oh strat, of course I was being facetious! Relax! I just knew you would get riled up over that!! HHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Perhaps that is the business of the afore mentioned population, and not of the council of elders?
That and, you dont seriously expect people to stay in school till 35? 23 or 24, ok, but by 35 people are expected to have at least ten years of work behind them. Its not like Im saying that people are supposed to have a job and a family at 15.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Perhaps the aforementioned section of the "active population" would be far better off staying in school and getting a good education rather than making babies?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, weve been through that, and Im still against it. Even as it is, the common citizens arent involved in the politics enough. Raising the age even further will make less people involved it, and whats worse it would take away the political power from a very threatened part of the active population that is seeking their first jobs and starting their families.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, in their defense they get bombed a lot too. finding the inital comon direction would be a good start. I like the idea DF had of voting age of 35.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:36:31 AM | |
|
Council of Elders??!??!? BWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!! Oh strat, of course I was being facetious! Relax! I just knew you would get riled up over that!! HHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:34:36 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Perhaps that is the business of the afore mentioned population, and not of the council of elders?
That and, you dont seriously expect people to stay in school till 35? 23 or 24, ok, but by 35 people are expected to have at least ten years of work behind them. Its not like Im saying that people are supposed to have a job and a family at 15.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Perhaps the aforementioned section of the "active population" would be far better off staying in school and getting a good education rather than making babies?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, weve been through that, and Im still against it. Even as it is, the common citizens arent involved in the politics enough. Raising the age even further will make less people involved it, and whats worse it would take away the political power from a very threatened part of the active population that is seeking their first jobs and starting their families.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, in their defense they get bombed a lot too. finding the inital comon direction would be a good start. I like the idea DF had of voting age of 35.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:34:36 AM | |
|
Perhaps that is the business of the afore mentioned population, and not of the council of elders?
That and, you dont seriously expect people to stay in school till 35? 23 or 24, ok, but by 35 people are expected to have at least ten years of work behind them. Its not like Im saying that people are supposed to have a job and a family at 15.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:26:38 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Perhaps the aforementioned section of the "active population" would be far better off staying in school and getting a good education rather than making babies?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, weve been through that, and Im still against it. Even as it is, the common citizens arent involved in the politics enough. Raising the age even further will make less people involved it, and whats worse it would take away the political power from a very threatened part of the active population that is seeking their first jobs and starting their families.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, in their defense they get bombed a lot too. finding the inital comon direction would be a good start. I like the idea DF had of voting age of 35.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:26:38 AM | |
|
Perhaps the aforementioned section of the "active population" would be far better off staying in school and getting a good education rather than making babies?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:19:59 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, weve been through that, and Im still against it. Even as it is, the common citizens arent involved in the politics enough. Raising the age even further will make less people involved it, and whats worse it would take away the political power from a very threatened part of the active population that is seeking their first jobs and starting their families.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, in their defense they get bombed a lot too. finding the inital comon direction would be a good start. I like the idea DF had of voting age of 35.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:19:59 AM | |
|
Well, weve been through that, and Im still against it. Even as it is, the common citizens arent involved in the politics enough. Raising the age even further will make less people involved it, and whats worse it would take away the political power from a very threatened part of the active population that is seeking their first jobs and starting their families.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, December 05, 2008 4:55:42 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, in their defense they get bombed a lot too. finding the inital comon direction would be a good start. I like the idea DF had of voting age of 35.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 05, 2008 5:03:39 PM | |
|
Thank you. Thankyouverymuch......
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, December 05, 2008 4:55:42 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, in their defense they get bombed a lot too. finding the inital comon direction would be a good start. I like the idea DF had of voting age of 35.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Friday, December 05, 2008 4:55:42 PM | |
|
well, in their defense they get bombed a lot too. finding the inital comon direction would be a good start. I like the idea DF had of voting age of 35.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 4:10:39 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 05, 2008 4:10:39 PM | |
|
Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, December 05, 2008 11:36:44 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Friday, December 05, 2008 11:36:44 AM | |
|
thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 7:33:09 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Friday, December 05, 2008 10:13:39 AM | |
|
533,000 jobs lost.. last month alone in the US.. How sad.. Now even if Obama Can pass his plan for the inferstructure, and to create jobs, building roads ect.. It will not create enough jobs to keep up with the job losses.
IDK.... I hope things turn around...
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 05, 2008 8:21:35 AM | |
|
HA!!!!!!!!!! Good Day, my friend!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 8:20:05 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, that is interesting. Even though I hate physics. But maybe thats just high school speaking of me..
In any case, time to leave now. I will try to be on in the evening.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Amazingly enough, I am not reading it to find anything "new". I like Prof. Stenger's approach. He is a physicist and uses phyisics in his arguments. He discusses the fact that the universe is really what one would expect it to be after a "big bang" and people and the earth are just as we should expect , etc. Not so much arguing faith and religion as the scientific aspects, which I find refreshing.
In all honesty, the last thing I want around here is another religious debate!!!
(Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 8:09:30 AM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
A-HA!! So besides being a witch you are also an atheist! Lads, bring the cushions!
Seriously though, Ive been over and over the god argument with many people. For me its a fairy tale and thats the end of it. I will remember the title, but I guess that even if by some stroke of luck I find it, I wont learn anything really new.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
| HA!!!!!!!!!!! Oh man, strat! That is really disgusting!! HAHAHAHAAA!!!!! really though, you are a thought-provoking young lad! Always engaging. I am currently reading a book that may interest you. It is called, "God; The Failed Hypothesis. How science shows God does not exist." Ripping good stuff!
|
|
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 8:17:12 AM |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 05, 2008 8:20:05 AM | |
|
Well, that is interesting. Even though I hate physics. But maybe thats just high school speaking of me..
In any case, time to leave now. I will try to be on in the evening.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, December 05, 2008 8:15:21 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Amazingly enough, I am not reading it to find anything "new". I like Prof. Stenger's approach. He is a physicist and uses phyisics in his arguments. He discusses the fact that the universe is really what one would expect it to be after a "big bang" and people and the earth are just as we should expect , etc. Not so much arguing faith and religion as the scientific aspects, which I find refreshing.
In all honesty, the last thing I want around here is another religious debate!!!
(Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 8:09:30 AM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
A-HA!! So besides being a witch you are also an atheist! Lads, bring the cushions!
Seriously though, Ive been over and over the god argument with many people. For me its a fairy tale and thats the end of it. I will remember the title, but I guess that even if by some stroke of luck I find it, I wont learn anything really new.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
| HA!!!!!!!!!!! Oh man, strat! That is really disgusting!! HAHAHAHAAA!!!!! really though, you are a thought-provoking young lad! Always engaging. I am currently reading a book that may interest you. It is called, "God; The Failed Hypothesis. How science shows God does not exist." Ripping good stuff!
|
|
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 8:17:12 AM |
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 05, 2008 8:15:21 AM | |
|
Amazingly enough, I am not reading it to find anything "new". I like Prof. Stenger's approach. He is a physicist and uses phyisics in his arguments. He discusses the fact that the universe is really what one would expect it to be after a "big bang" and people and the earth are just as we should expect , etc. Not so much arguing faith and religion as the scientific aspects, which I find refreshing.
In all honesty, the last thing I want around here is another religious debate!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 8:09:30 AM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
A-HA!! So besides being a witch you are also an atheist! Lads, bring the cushions!
Seriously though, Ive been over and over the god argument with many people. For me its a fairy tale and thats the end of it. I will remember the title, but I guess that even if by some stroke of luck I find it, I wont learn anything really new.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
| HA!!!!!!!!!!! Oh man, strat! That is really disgusting!! HAHAHAHAAA!!!!! really though, you are a thought-provoking young lad! Always engaging. I am currently reading a book that may interest you. It is called, "God; The Failed Hypothesis. How science shows God does not exist." Ripping good stuff!
|
|
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 8:17:12 AM |
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 05, 2008 8:09:30 AM | |
|
A-HA!! So besides being a witch you are also an atheist! Lads, bring the cushions!
Seriously though, Ive been over and over the god argument with many people. For me its a fairy tale and thats the end of it. I will remember the title, but I guess that even if by some stroke of luck I find it, I wont learn anything really new.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, December 05, 2008 8:04:51 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | HA!!!!!!!!!!! Oh man, strat! That is really disgusting!! HAHAHAHAAA!!!!! really though, you are a thought-provoking young lad! Always engaging. I am currently reading a book that may interest you. It is called, "God; The Failed Hypothesis. How science shows God does not exist." Ripping good stuff!
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 05, 2008 8:04:51 AM | |
|
HA!!!!!!!!!!! Oh man, strat! That is really disgusting!! HAHAHAHAAA!!!!! really though, you are a thought-provoking young lad! Always engaging. I am currently reading a book that may interest you. It is called, "God; The Failed Hypothesis. How science shows God does not exist." Ripping good stuff!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 8:01:01 AM) |
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 05, 2008 8:01:01 AM | |
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 05, 2008 7:58:13 AM | |
|
NOOOOO!!!! Not the "comfy chair"!!!!! I was under a spell! It was her, not me!!! EEEEEEEEEKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 7:55:52 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Dont make us use this!!!
 |
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 05, 2008 7:55:52 AM | |
|
Dont make us use this!!!
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 05, 2008 7:54:33 AM | |
|
Aha... No comment on that.
HOW DO YOU PLEAD, HERETIC?!?!?!?!??!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, December 05, 2008 7:52:40 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | That was no pig! That was my wife!! HAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Oh, definatly. Screw the lawyers and juries, what we need is some good old fashioned witch burning...
So, defendand Deep Freeze, you are hereby accused of flying a pig to a witches Sabbath, where you fornicated with the devil. How do you plead?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | I suppose. I should say that the church has always confounded me. Their teachings and actions seem to have been in direct contradiction for centuries. On the bright side, it did keep the troublemakers in line... HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Lol, yeah I guess you could say that Papa Joe pretty much runs things over there...
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | You mentioned Italy and it was the first thing that popped to mind! HA!!!!!!!!!!! We could always go to the Education Thread!! HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | The last time we let that happen it was World War 2 and they promptly sold us to the Germans. So, no thank you.
Where did you get the Catholic Church reference anyway?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Could always have the Catholic Church running things........ HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 05, 2008 7:52:40 AM | |
|
That was no pig! That was my wife!! HAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 7:50:22 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Oh, definatly. Screw the lawyers and juries, what we need is some good old fashioned witch burning...
So, defendand Deep Freeze, you are hereby accused of flying a pig to a witches Sabbath, where you fornicated with the devil. How do you plead?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | I suppose. I should say that the church has always confounded me. Their teachings and actions seem to have been in direct contradiction for centuries. On the bright side, it did keep the troublemakers in line... HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Lol, yeah I guess you could say that Papa Joe pretty much runs things over there...
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | You mentioned Italy and it was the first thing that popped to mind! HA!!!!!!!!!!! We could always go to the Education Thread!! HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | The last time we let that happen it was World War 2 and they promptly sold us to the Germans. So, no thank you.
Where did you get the Catholic Church reference anyway?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Could always have the Catholic Church running things........ HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 05, 2008 7:50:22 AM | |
|
Oh, definatly. Screw the lawyers and juries, what we need is some good old fashioned witch burning...
So, defendand Deep Freeze, you are hereby accused of flying a pig to a witches Sabbath, where you fornicated with the devil. How do you plead?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, December 05, 2008 7:47:30 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | I suppose. I should say that the church has always confounded me. Their teachings and actions seem to have been in direct contradiction for centuries. On the bright side, it did keep the troublemakers in line... HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Lol, yeah I guess you could say that Papa Joe pretty much runs things over there...
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | You mentioned Italy and it was the first thing that popped to mind! HA!!!!!!!!!!! We could always go to the Education Thread!! HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | The last time we let that happen it was World War 2 and they promptly sold us to the Germans. So, no thank you.
Where did you get the Catholic Church reference anyway?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Could always have the Catholic Church running things........ HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 05, 2008 7:47:30 AM | |
|
I suppose. I should say that the church has always confounded me. Their teachings and actions seem to have been in direct contradiction for centuries. On the bright side, it did keep the troublemakers in line... HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 7:42:48 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Lol, yeah I guess you could say that Papa Joe pretty much runs things over there...
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | You mentioned Italy and it was the first thing that popped to mind! HA!!!!!!!!!!! We could always go to the Education Thread!! HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | The last time we let that happen it was World War 2 and they promptly sold us to the Germans. So, no thank you.
Where did you get the Catholic Church reference anyway?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Could always have the Catholic Church running things........ HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 05, 2008 7:42:48 AM | |
|
Lol, yeah I guess you could say that Papa Joe pretty much runs things over there...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, December 05, 2008 7:41:18 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | You mentioned Italy and it was the first thing that popped to mind! HA!!!!!!!!!!! We could always go to the Education Thread!! HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | The last time we let that happen it was World War 2 and they promptly sold us to the Germans. So, no thank you.
Where did you get the Catholic Church reference anyway?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Could always have the Catholic Church running things........ HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 05, 2008 7:41:18 AM | |
|
You mentioned Italy and it was the first thing that popped to mind! HA!!!!!!!!!!! We could always go to the Education Thread!! HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 7:37:51 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | The last time we let that happen it was World War 2 and they promptly sold us to the Germans. So, no thank you.
Where did you get the Catholic Church reference anyway?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Could always have the Catholic Church running things........ HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 05, 2008 7:37:51 AM | |
|
The last time we let that happen it was World War 2 and they promptly sold us to the Germans. So, no thank you.
Where did you get the Catholic Church reference anyway?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, December 05, 2008 7:35:21 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Could always have the Catholic Church running things........ HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 05, 2008 7:35:21 AM | |
|
Could always have the Catholic Church running things........ HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 7:33:09 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 05, 2008 7:33:09 AM | |
|
Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, December 05, 2008 7:19:30 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Friday, December 05, 2008 7:19:30 AM | |
|
Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 1:51:28 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 05, 2008 1:51:28 AM | |
|
Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
| [WhiskeyWoman] Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM | |
|
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM
Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
|
| [Head banger] Thursday, December 04, 2008 9:36:58 AM | |
|
no, they can go, wont bother me much. them running the rest of the country, or getting more cash from my part is what pisses me off.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Thursday, December 04, 2008 7:34:51 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I see. So, whats the fuss? I thought that you were all so upset at the thought that Quebec might seccede?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | its like the kid who threatens to run away from home if mom doesnt buy him a new CD. he doesnt want to go, even if the vote came down in their favour, what they want is more money and truth be told, they wouldnt realy separate, they would renegotiate the constitution, ask for money and special rights.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yeah, but how can they leave Canada if the people dont want it?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, they have it figured out, threaten to leave and the govt tosses them cash to stay. its an industry now.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Beats me. Whats with this Quebec anyway? Ive heard that there were a couple referendums already, and always failed. Dont they know when to give up?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Ha. these idiots are trying to install themselfs as a coalition, its a meeting of left wing, left/center, and the quebec party that wants to separate from canada. how can you have a coalition with a separatist party?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I take it you finaly got a decent government over there? How much does a plane ticket to Canada cost?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Thursday, December 04, 2008 7:34:51 AM | |
|
I see. So, whats the fuss? I thought that you were all so upset at the thought that Quebec might seccede?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Thursday, December 04, 2008 7:22:41 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | its like the kid who threatens to run away from home if mom doesnt buy him a new CD. he doesnt want to go, even if the vote came down in their favour, what they want is more money and truth be told, they wouldnt realy separate, they would renegotiate the constitution, ask for money and special rights.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yeah, but how can they leave Canada if the people dont want it?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, they have it figured out, threaten to leave and the govt tosses them cash to stay. its an industry now.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Beats me. Whats with this Quebec anyway? Ive heard that there were a couple referendums already, and always failed. Dont they know when to give up?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Ha. these idiots are trying to install themselfs as a coalition, its a meeting of left wing, left/center, and the quebec party that wants to separate from canada. how can you have a coalition with a separatist party?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I take it you finaly got a decent government over there? How much does a plane ticket to Canada cost?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Thursday, December 04, 2008 7:30:06 AM | |
|
from what i read, we are screwed. by law if harper asks for a postponement of parliment, the GG is obliged to ask another party to try to form govt. if he asks for an election, dito. if they lose a confidence vote, dito. so, unless a few members of the three parties vote with their brains and not their party, given that they all stand to gain personaly, god help us. we will have a party with its stated intention to break up canada in charge. briliant
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Wednesday, December 03, 2008 1:11:52 PM)| | | WhiskeyWoman wrote: | |
HB... this is awesome! Thanks... have sent it to a few protesters I know who are going to the Rallies in BC and SK. Are you going to the one in Calgary on Saturday? (I can bring that magazine & meet up, if you like... Do you want me to make up a poster for you!?)
I, for one, am making that lovely little symbol above into a placard and crashing the PRO-Coalition rally in Edmonton tomorrow night ... enemy territory, and Edmonton being what it is ... we'll just try not to get arrested, or further maimed in any way!
I'm sure they won't appreciate this sign, nor the other one with a Maple Leaf and "RIP" on a tombstone... But, we will be there to throw a wrench into their joyous little pirate party -- rolling up with JP's "Revolution" blasting away...
Have pm'd you our phone numbers, as don't know when I'll be back to check on your possible attendance.
"All it takes for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
-Plato
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Thursday, December 04, 2008 7:22:41 AM | |
|
its like the kid who threatens to run away from home if mom doesnt buy him a new CD. he doesnt want to go, even if the vote came down in their favour, what they want is more money and truth be told, they wouldnt realy separate, they would renegotiate the constitution, ask for money and special rights.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:50:26 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yeah, but how can they leave Canada if the people dont want it?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, they have it figured out, threaten to leave and the govt tosses them cash to stay. its an industry now.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Beats me. Whats with this Quebec anyway? Ive heard that there were a couple referendums already, and always failed. Dont they know when to give up?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Ha. these idiots are trying to install themselfs as a coalition, its a meeting of left wing, left/center, and the quebec party that wants to separate from canada. how can you have a coalition with a separatist party?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I take it you finaly got a decent government over there? How much does a plane ticket to Canada cost?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:51:06 AM | |
|
THIS really made my day.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Wednesday, December 03, 2008 3:11:01 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | Judy Wallman, a professional genealogical researcher, discovered that Canadian Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion’s great uncle, Robert Dion, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Quebec in 1889. The only known photograph of Dion shows him standing on the gallows. On the back of the picture is this inscription:
“Robert Dion; horse thief, sent to Quebec Provincial Prison 1883, escaped 1887, robbed the Canadian Pacific Railway six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted, and hanged in 1889.”
Judy e-mailed Stephen Dion for comments. Dion’s staff sent back the following biographical sketch:
“Robert Dion was a famous horseman in Quebec . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Canadian Pacific Railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to service at a government facility, finally taking leave in 1887 to resume his dealings with the railroad. Subsequently, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Dion passed away during an important civic function held in his honour, when the platform on which he was standing collapsed.” |
|
|
| [_strat_] Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:50:26 AM | |
|
Yeah, but how can they leave Canada if the people dont want it?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Wednesday, December 03, 2008 12:22:02 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, they have it figured out, threaten to leave and the govt tosses them cash to stay. its an industry now.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Beats me. Whats with this Quebec anyway? Ive heard that there were a couple referendums already, and always failed. Dont they know when to give up?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Ha. these idiots are trying to install themselfs as a coalition, its a meeting of left wing, left/center, and the quebec party that wants to separate from canada. how can you have a coalition with a separatist party?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I take it you finaly got a decent government over there? How much does a plane ticket to Canada cost?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Wednesday, December 03, 2008 10:22:14 PM | |
|
typical of politicians
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Wednesday, December 03, 2008 6:31:13 PM)| | | guidogodoy wrote: | | I liked that one!
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Judy Wallman, a professional genealogical researcher, discovered that Canadian Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion’s great uncle, Robert Dion, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Quebec in 1889. The only known photograph of Dion shows him standing on the gallows. On the back of the picture is this inscription:
“Robert Dion; horse thief, sent to Quebec Provincial Prison 1883, escaped 1887, robbed the Canadian Pacific Railway six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted, and hanged in 1889.”
Judy e-mailed Stephen Dion for comments. Dion’s staff sent back the following biographical sketch:
“Robert Dion was a famous horseman in Quebec . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Canadian Pacific Railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to service at a government facility, finally taking leave in 1887 to resume his dealings with the railroad. Subsequently, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Dion passed away during an important civic function held in his honour, when the platform on which he was standing collapsed.” |
|
|
|
| [SkyRideR] Wednesday, December 03, 2008 8:57:50 PM | |
|
| i heard that obama may not be a us citizen and his certificate of live birth was a counterfiet...what gives? |
|
| [guidogodoy] Wednesday, December 03, 2008 6:31:13 PM | |
|
I liked that one!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Wednesday, December 03, 2008 3:11:01 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | Judy Wallman, a professional genealogical researcher, discovered that Canadian Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion’s great uncle, Robert Dion, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Quebec in 1889. The only known photograph of Dion shows him standing on the gallows. On the back of the picture is this inscription:
“Robert Dion; horse thief, sent to Quebec Provincial Prison 1883, escaped 1887, robbed the Canadian Pacific Railway six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted, and hanged in 1889.”
Judy e-mailed Stephen Dion for comments. Dion’s staff sent back the following biographical sketch:
“Robert Dion was a famous horseman in Quebec . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Canadian Pacific Railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to service at a government facility, finally taking leave in 1887 to resume his dealings with the railroad. Subsequently, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Dion passed away during an important civic function held in his honour, when the platform on which he was standing collapsed.” |
|
|
| [Head banger] Wednesday, December 03, 2008 3:11:01 PM | |
|
Judy Wallman, a professional genealogical researcher, discovered that Canadian Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion’s great uncle, Robert Dion, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Quebec in 1889. The only known photograph of Dion shows him standing on the gallows. On the back of the picture is this inscription:
“Robert Dion; horse thief, sent to Quebec Provincial Prison 1883, escaped 1887, robbed the Canadian Pacific Railway six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted, and hanged in 1889.”
Judy e-mailed Stephen Dion for comments. Dion’s staff sent back the following biographical sketch:
“Robert Dion was a famous horseman in Quebec . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Canadian Pacific Railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to service at a government facility, finally taking leave in 1887 to resume his dealings with the railroad. Subsequently, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Dion passed away during an important civic function held in his honour, when the platform on which he was standing collapsed.” |
|
| [Deep Freeze] Wednesday, December 03, 2008 2:15:06 PM | |
|
UP THE IRONS!!!!!!!!!!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good luck, WW!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Wednesday, December 03, 2008 1:11:52 PM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
|
HB... this is awesome! Thanks... have sent it to a few protesters I know who are going to the Rallies in BC and SK. Are you going to the one in Calgary on Saturday? (I can bring that magazine & meet up, if you like... Do you want me to make up a poster for you!?)
I, for one, am making that lovely little symbol above into a placard and crashing the PRO-Coalition rally in Edmonton tomorrow night ... enemy territory, and Edmonton being what it is ... we'll just try not to get arrested, or further maimed in any way!
I'm sure they won't appreciate this sign, nor the other one with a Maple Leaf and "RIP" on a tombstone... But, we will be there to throw a wrench into their joyous little pirate party -- rolling up with JP's "Revolution" blasting away...
Have pm'd you our phone numbers, as don't know when I'll be back to check on your possible attendance.
"All it takes for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
-Plato
|
Edited at: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 2:15:55 PM |
|
| [WhiskeyWoman] Wednesday, December 03, 2008 1:11:52 PM | |
|
HB... this is awesome! Thanks... have sent it to a few protesters I know who are going to the Rallies in BC and SK. Are you going to the one in Calgary on Saturday? (I can bring that magazine & meet up, if you like... Do you want me to make up a poster for you!?)
I, for one, am making that lovely little symbol above into a placard and crashing the PRO-Coalition rally in Edmonton tomorrow night ... enemy territory, and Edmonton being what it is ... we'll just try not to get arrested, or further maimed in any way!
I'm sure they won't appreciate this sign, nor the other one with a Maple Leaf and "RIP" on a tombstone... But, we will be there to throw a wrench into their joyous little pirate party -- rolling up with JP's "Revolution" blasting away...
Have pm'd you our phone numbers, as don't know when I'll be back to check on your possible attendance.
"All it takes for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
-Plato
|
|
| [Head banger] Wednesday, December 03, 2008 12:22:02 PM | |
|
well, they have it figured out, threaten to leave and the govt tosses them cash to stay. its an industry now.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, December 03, 2008 11:51:56 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Beats me. Whats with this Quebec anyway? Ive heard that there were a couple referendums already, and always failed. Dont they know when to give up?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Ha. these idiots are trying to install themselfs as a coalition, its a meeting of left wing, left/center, and the quebec party that wants to separate from canada. how can you have a coalition with a separatist party?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I take it you finaly got a decent government over there? How much does a plane ticket to Canada cost?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Wednesday, December 03, 2008 12:07:34 PM | |
|
LMAO... Iam trying to figure all this out myself???? Canadas politics ect.. Iam a newbe to this country.. Just when I think I have the go with the flow of it... Something else happens...LOL I have given up... what ever may be.. will be..
American politics.. well that will always be a mess to I guess.. LOL
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Wednesday, December 03, 2008 9:24:56 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | Ha. these idiots are trying to install themselfs as a coalition, its a meeting of left wing, left/center, and the quebec party that wants to separate from canada. how can you have a coalition with a separatist party?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I take it you finaly got a decent government over there? How much does a plane ticket to Canada cost?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | |
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Wednesday, December 03, 2008 11:51:56 AM | |
|
Beats me. Whats with this Quebec anyway? Ive heard that there were a couple referendums already, and always failed. Dont they know when to give up?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Wednesday, December 03, 2008 9:24:56 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | Ha. these idiots are trying to install themselfs as a coalition, its a meeting of left wing, left/center, and the quebec party that wants to separate from canada. how can you have a coalition with a separatist party?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I take it you finaly got a decent government over there? How much does a plane ticket to Canada cost?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | |
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Wednesday, December 03, 2008 9:24:56 AM | |
|
Ha. these idiots are trying to install themselfs as a coalition, its a meeting of left wing, left/center, and the quebec party that wants to separate from canada. how can you have a coalition with a separatist party?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, December 03, 2008 7:36:56 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I take it you finaly got a decent government over there? How much does a plane ticket to Canada cost?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Wednesday, December 03, 2008 9:10:11 AM | |
|
Putin is just about to get crowned as a new Russian Tsar. I dont think that Canada interests him that much.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Darth_Painkiller_0870 from Wednesday, December 03, 2008 7:43:53 AM)| | | Darth_Painkiller_0870 wrote: | | I believe Vladimir Putin wants to emigrate to Canada.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I take it you finaly got a decent government over there? How much does a plane ticket to Canada cost?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | |
|
|
|
|
| [Return_of_Darth_Painkiller_0870] Wednesday, December 03, 2008 7:43:53 AM | |
|
I believe Vladimir Putin wants to emigrate to Canada.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, December 03, 2008 7:36:56 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | I take it you finaly got a decent government over there? How much does a plane ticket to Canada cost?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Wednesday, December 03, 2008 7:36:56 AM | |
|
I take it you finaly got a decent government over there? How much does a plane ticket to Canada cost?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Wednesday, December 03, 2008 7:26:22 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | |
|
|
| [Head banger] Wednesday, December 03, 2008 7:26:22 AM | |
|
|
| [Return_of_Darth_Painkiller_0870] Wednesday, November 26, 2008 4:46:50 AM | |
|
Not to seem disparaging or self-centered, Kendall....but like a great many Americans, all I want is what I see as fair to me. And please, spare me the hocus pocus conspiracy theories. It's actually starting to become borish and redundant.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Kendall aka JudasRyche from Wednesday, November 19, 2008 3:11:40 PM)| | | Kendall aka JudasRyche wrote: | | Darth... Yes it's fact, and great analogy to an authorized author such as Dan Brown and his fiction. Like all culture creation(books fictiion and non, music, movies, theatre, etc.), it is all Predictive Programming. All of these big boys like Dan Brown. Lucas, Speilberg,Arthur C. Clarke,etc. are given themes and real information by the think tanks of the foundations, such as the CFR, to include in their heavily funded and distributed works.
People must read the works of the major players for the elite's foundations, such as:
Bertrand Russell, Zbigniev Brezinzski, Alvin Toffler, Carol Quigley,Charles Galton Darwin,Arthur Keostoler,etc. And you will get the agenda and the methods that are carried out. You will not get this from your TV! But you can do your own research. Don't let others do your thinking for you. Fact is given to you by those who are doing all of this. Very simple.
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, November 21, 2008 4:22:55 PM | |
|
Why, anyone that has interests that have connection to the state. It can be a religious organization (like the Catholic Church) that wants more influence over the educational system or organs of repression and aims for a legislation that would allow it. It could be a weapons manufacturer that wants to make a bussines deal with the military that is under government control and resorts to bribery or personal contacts. It could be a lot of things.
The influence and power of politicians differs from country to country, from system to system, and of course it depends on the function of an individual politician. But the politicians do hold the power over legislature, budget and spendings, organs of repression, etc.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Kendall aka JudasRyche from Wednesday, November 19, 2008 10:33:17 AM)| | | Kendall aka JudasRyche wrote: | |
| stratlover wrote: |
| |
| I quite agree. While it is obvious that in any capitalist country big buisinesses are in bed with politics, I dont think that the Orwellian scenario is the right one to describe the situation. I think its more the case that politicians will offer their power and influence to the highest bidder. |
Who are the "highest bidder"(s)? And what would these "bidders" do with this influence and power? And what power and what influence so politicians have?
we're on a real roll now, into this increasing totalitarianistic society and we're hearing the terms used of ‘a world of service’. Obama had it, on his website in fact, one of his speeches, that's now been pulled, just prior to the Election. Bring in a 'world of service', a 'country of service'. The same terminology, in fact, he uses as the Cecil Rhodes Foundation for global governance and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, or the CFR, which are both the same thing. The “global citizenship” etc.
All of these terms came from the Royal Institute of International Affairs and they're on a roll now, to bring in this global society and most people think 'Well, what's wrong with that? We're all people, we're all decent people aren't we?' and we've had 40 years of indoctrination into multicultural agenda, to try not to make people really, as much accept multiculturalism, but to make them become less nationalistic, that was the real purpose of it. As I say, we're decent people, why not have this global society? Well, it's not going to be the kind of fairyland society that people imagine. In fact it could be a prison, your own country with its borders could be a prison because, you see, in the Brave New World scenario, according to Jacques Attali and other authors, who work now with the United Nations, the one who said that the next boat people leaving the American shores will be Americans, looking for work abroad, in his book Millennium. You find that they can keep you inside the border electronically, when we're all electronically-tagged.
The push is on now, for the chipped passport, for all Canadians and U.S. citizens, Mexicans and so on. Eventually, it will be extended all through the Americas, all Latin America, because they're all scheduled to come in to the system, in the same fashion that they brought in all the other countries into the E.U. (Economic Union of Europe). When it's time for them and they've had enough work done on them, and the same system has been introduced and accepted, then they bring them in. Long-term strategy, long-long-term strategy; and, I mentioned when this last farce of an economic bubble, not quite burst, it sort of bubbled a bit and floundered but really, they could have pulled that bubble one anytime they wished because the Stock Market has always been rigged, from its very inception. They could have kept the same con game going for another 50 years, if they wanted to; so, why did they do it now? Well, it's time you see, to bring in the new economic society, where money and the 'power of the purse' will be used to control every single person and make you behave and accept your new indoctrination of political correctness and, just like a computer program, every week, you'll have a new version of political correctness. The 'double think' that I mentioned last week, of George Orwell and the ability to hold two opposing opinions in your head, at the same time, and believe in both of them. The schizoid system that they're bring in ....
This is from Reuters UK News and how they're going to use this crisis, you see, to bring in their system; and, this is from November the 10th 2008:-
Brown says time to build global society
The Prime Minister of Britain, Mr. Brown, says:-
Time to build a global society. The international financial crisis has given world leaders a unique opportunity to create a truly global society, Prime Minister Gordon Brown will say, in a keynote policy speech on Monday
You understand these men are just front men, they read speeches written by professional script writers. There was even a scandal in Canada recently, where the Prime Minister had read a script and it came out in the mainstream media that they borrowed most of it from the Prime Minister of Australia, in one of his speeches. They're just front men you see. So, he will say this you see, I guess they hand it out to all the major newspaper companies, before he gives a speech.
In his annual speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet, Brown who has spearheaded calls for the reform of international financial institutions will say Britain...
Will say huh!
... Britain, the United States and Europe are key to forging a new world order
Something they can say, without being conspiracy nuts; but if you mention it, you're a conspiracy nut.
“The alliance between Britain and the U.S. -- and more broadly between Europe and the U.S. -- can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order," an excerpt from the speech says.
Why not just print the speech up and they could save some bucks, he wouldn't have to go and attend this thing?
Brown and other leaders meet in Washington next weekend to discuss longer term solutions for dealing with economic issues following a series of coordinated moves on interest rates and to recapitalise banks in the wake of the financial crisis. Uniquely in this global age, it is now in our power to come together so that 2008 is remembered not just for the failure of a financial crash that engulfed the world but for the resilience and optimism, with which we faced the storm,
Oh, the poor script writer, you know, a 'B' grade movie one.
Brown will say in his speech on Monday evening "...And if we learn from our experience of turning unity of purpose into unity of action
Where have we heard these terms before?
we can together seize this moment of change in our world to create a truly global society. According to a summary of the speech released by his office, Brown will set out five great challenges the world faces
They always love 'Five', for the five points in Masonry.
These are terrorism and extremism and the need to reassert faith in democracy
They should invent democracy because we've never had it
He said "the global economy; climate change; conflict and mechanisms for rebuilding states after conflict;
This, after they go and flatten what's already there. You understand that war is a renovation job; do you understand that's what it is? When they blasted all of the infrastructure out of Afghanistan, their water supplies, the factories that made the baby food, they were flattened too, they claimed they were making chemicals there, until they found nothing but, well, powdered baby food. They flattened everything and they also demolished all the old oil refineries, they said they were obsolete, therefore it was better to bomb them from the air, using U.S. tax money, and they would rebuild new ones, for Halliburton and so on, which they've done. War is a renovation job. They did the same thing in Japan at the end of World War Two, flattened, burned out Tokyo and the big boys, the Halliburtons of their day get the big contracts to go in and rebuild them. Here he goes on here:
I'm "meeting goals on tackling poverty and disease
Well these are the guys, these are the guys who want to bring the population down, by using disease; and, as they say: 'well the poor will always be with us', and they make sure of that. They've got to have the poor, you see, because you can always get one half of the poor to kill the other half. That's what the military is all about, that's how it works this way, and they can always create class distinction and conflict when it suits them.
Brown will also identify five stages for tackling the economy, starting with recapitalising banks so they can resume lending to families
Ha ha
and businesses, and better international co-ordination of fiscal and monetary policy.
Then it goes on and on and on, this handout that they give about the speech, before anyone else actually gives the speech! It's quite a joke isn't it?
| | | stratlover wrote: | | I quite agree. While it is obvious that in any capitalist country big buisinesses are in bed with politics, I dont think that the Orwellian scenario is the right one to describe the situation. I think its more the case that politicians will offer their power and influence to the highest bidder.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well guys, I hate to sound like one of those "mindless drones" but I'm afraid this is where I must jump off. I mean, ALL of them are Free Masons?? ALL of them are psychopaths?? I am SO sorry but that is a bit more than I am able to handle! I am up for a good conspiracy theory the same as the next guy but, to me , this is just too much about generalizing. The paranoia here is so thick you can actually cut it!
Now, I may be an old man and I may be one of those that you claim is being "led" like a sheep to the slaughter but I simply cannot put "all" of anything into one, subversive group and call it by one name! FAR too Orwellian for me, guys. I don't know just how much of your "Big Brother" theory is true , Kendall but I do not even have ONE credit card. Not one! I do not believe in them as credit is the problem, not some spy network. Advertisers are trying to sell goods. Yes, they make credit easy to obtain. I agree. THAT is why we have the financial situation we do in this country! People buying things they cannot afford! I guess you could call that mind control but I do not see it as such. I call it stupidity.
Debt is the real problem in society. One cannot create wealth so long as one has debt. Advertisers sell us more debt. The public licks it up because, as you so eloquently said, it is easy. Getting more crap that you really do not need is the enemy. Creating mountains of debt that drain your wealth and mortgage your future AND your children's future is the real problem. The solution is not some kind of "revolt". The solution is simple; live within your means. |
|
|
|
|
| [Kendall aka JudasRyche] Wednesday, November 19, 2008 3:11:40 PM | |
|
Darth... Yes it's fact, and great analogy to an authorized author such as Dan Brown and his fiction. Like all culture creation(books fictiion and non, music, movies, theatre, etc.), it is all Predictive Programming. All of these big boys like Dan Brown. Lucas, Speilberg,Arthur C. Clarke,etc. are given themes and real information by the think tanks of the foundations, such as the CFR, to include in their heavily funded and distributed works.
People must read the works of the major players for the elite's foundations, such as:
Bertrand Russell, Zbigniev Brezinzski, Alvin Toffler, Carol Quigley,Charles Galton Darwin,Arthur Keostoler,etc. And you will get the agenda and the methods that are carried out. You will not get this from your TV! But you can do your own research. Don't let others do your thinking for you. Fact is given to you by those who are doing all of this. Very simple.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Darth_Painkiller_0870 from Thursday, November 13, 2008 6:19:36 AM) |
|
| [Kendall aka JudasRyche] Wednesday, November 19, 2008 10:33:17 AM | |
|
| stratlover wrote: |
| |
| I quite agree. While it is obvious that in any capitalist country big buisinesses are in bed with politics, I dont think that the Orwellian scenario is the right one to describe the situation. I think its more the case that politicians will offer their power and influence to the highest bidder. |
Who are the "highest bidder"(s)? And what would these "bidders" do with this influence and power? And what power and what influence so politicians have?
we're on a real roll now, into this increasing totalitarianistic society and we're hearing the terms used of ‘a world of service’. Obama had it, on his website in fact, one of his speeches, that's now been pulled, just prior to the Election. Bring in a 'world of service', a 'country of service'. The same terminology, in fact, he uses as the Cecil Rhodes Foundation for global governance and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, or the CFR, which are both the same thing. The “global citizenship” etc.
All of these terms came from the Royal Institute of International Affairs and they're on a roll now, to bring in this global society and most people think 'Well, what's wrong with that? We're all people, we're all decent people aren't we?' and we've had 40 years of indoctrination into multicultural agenda, to try not to make people really, as much accept multiculturalism, but to make them become less nationalistic, that was the real purpose of it. As I say, we're decent people, why not have this global society? Well, it's not going to be the kind of fairyland society that people imagine. In fact it could be a prison, your own country with its borders could be a prison because, you see, in the Brave New World scenario, according to Jacques Attali and other authors, who work now with the United Nations, the one who said that the next boat people leaving the American shores will be Americans, looking for work abroad, in his book Millennium. You find that they can keep you inside the border electronically, when we're all electronically-tagged.
The push is on now, for the chipped passport, for all Canadians and U.S. citizens, Mexicans and so on. Eventually, it will be extended all through the Americas, all Latin America, because they're all scheduled to come in to the system, in the same fashion that they brought in all the other countries into the E.U. (Economic Union of Europe). When it's time for them and they've had enough work done on them, and the same system has been introduced and accepted, then they bring them in. Long-term strategy, long-long-term strategy; and, I mentioned when this last farce of an economic bubble, not quite burst, it sort of bubbled a bit and floundered but really, they could have pulled that bubble one anytime they wished because the Stock Market has always been rigged, from its very inception. They could have kept the same con game going for another 50 years, if they wanted to; so, why did they do it now? Well, it's time you see, to bring in the new economic society, where money and the 'power of the purse' will be used to control every single person and make you behave and accept your new indoctrination of political correctness and, just like a computer program, every week, you'll have a new version of political correctness. The 'double think' that I mentioned last week, of George Orwell and the ability to hold two opposing opinions in your head, at the same time, and believe in both of them. The schizoid system that they're bring in ....
This is from Reuters UK News and how they're going to use this crisis, you see, to bring in their system; and, this is from November the 10th 2008:-
Brown says time to build global society
The Prime Minister of Britain, Mr. Brown, says:-
Time to build a global society. The international financial crisis has given world leaders a unique opportunity to create a truly global society, Prime Minister Gordon Brown will say, in a keynote policy speech on Monday
You understand these men are just front men, they read speeches written by professional script writers. There was even a scandal in Canada recently, where the Prime Minister had read a script and it came out in the mainstream media that they borrowed most of it from the Prime Minister of Australia, in one of his speeches. They're just front men you see. So, he will say this you see, I guess they hand it out to all the major newspaper companies, before he gives a speech.
In his annual speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet, Brown who has spearheaded calls for the reform of international financial institutions will say Britain...
Will say huh!
... Britain, the United States and Europe are key to forging a new world order
Something they can say, without being conspiracy nuts; but if you mention it, you're a conspiracy nut.
“The alliance between Britain and the U.S. -- and more broadly between Europe and the U.S. -- can and must provide leadership, not in order to make the rules ourselves, but to lead the global effort to build a stronger and more just international order," an excerpt from the speech says.
Why not just print the speech up and they could save some bucks, he wouldn't have to go and attend this thing?
Brown and other leaders meet in Washington next weekend to discuss longer term solutions for dealing with economic issues following a series of coordinated moves on interest rates and to recapitalise banks in the wake of the financial crisis. Uniquely in this global age, it is now in our power to come together so that 2008 is remembered not just for the failure of a financial crash that engulfed the world but for the resilience and optimism, with which we faced the storm,
Oh, the poor script writer, you know, a 'B' grade movie one.
Brown will say in his speech on Monday evening "...And if we learn from our experience of turning unity of purpose into unity of action
Where have we heard these terms before?
we can together seize this moment of change in our world to create a truly global society. According to a summary of the speech released by his office, Brown will set out five great challenges the world faces
They always love 'Five', for the five points in Masonry.
These are terrorism and extremism and the need to reassert faith in democracy
They should invent democracy because we've never had it
He said "the global economy; climate change; conflict and mechanisms for rebuilding states after conflict;
This, after they go and flatten what's already there. You understand that war is a renovation job; do you understand that's what it is? When they blasted all of the infrastructure out of Afghanistan, their water supplies, the factories that made the baby food, they were flattened too, they claimed they were making chemicals there, until they found nothing but, well, powdered baby food. They flattened everything and they also demolished all the old oil refineries, they said they were obsolete, therefore it was better to bomb them from the air, using U.S. tax money, and they would rebuild new ones, for Halliburton and so on, which they've done. War is a renovation job. They did the same thing in Japan at the end of World War Two, flattened, burned out Tokyo and the big boys, the Halliburtons of their day get the big contracts to go in and rebuild them. Here he goes on here:
I'm "meeting goals on tackling poverty and disease
Well these are the guys, these are the guys who want to bring the population down, by using disease; and, as they say: 'well the poor will always be with us', and they make sure of that. They've got to have the poor, you see, because you can always get one half of the poor to kill the other half. That's what the military is all about, that's how it works this way, and they can always create class distinction and conflict when it suits them.
Brown will also identify five stages for tackling the economy, starting with recapitalising banks so they can resume lending to families
Ha ha
and businesses, and better international co-ordination of fiscal and monetary policy.
Then it goes on and on and on, this handout that they give about the speech, before anyone else actually gives the speech! It's quite a joke isn't it?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by stratlover from Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:22:55 AM)| | | stratlover wrote: | | I quite agree. While it is obvious that in any capitalist country big buisinesses are in bed with politics, I dont think that the Orwellian scenario is the right one to describe the situation. I think its more the case that politicians will offer their power and influence to the highest bidder.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well guys, I hate to sound like one of those "mindless drones" but I'm afraid this is where I must jump off. I mean, ALL of them are Free Masons?? ALL of them are psychopaths?? I am SO sorry but that is a bit more than I am able to handle! I am up for a good conspiracy theory the same as the next guy but, to me , this is just too much about generalizing. The paranoia here is so thick you can actually cut it!
Now, I may be an old man and I may be one of those that you claim is being "led" like a sheep to the slaughter but I simply cannot put "all" of anything into one, subversive group and call it by one name! FAR too Orwellian for me, guys. I don't know just how much of your "Big Brother" theory is true , Kendall but I do not even have ONE credit card. Not one! I do not believe in them as credit is the problem, not some spy network. Advertisers are trying to sell goods. Yes, they make credit easy to obtain. I agree. THAT is why we have the financial situation we do in this country! People buying things they cannot afford! I guess you could call that mind control but I do not see it as such. I call it stupidity.
Debt is the real problem in society. One cannot create wealth so long as one has debt. Advertisers sell us more debt. The public licks it up because, as you so eloquently said, it is easy. Getting more crap that you really do not need is the enemy. Creating mountains of debt that drain your wealth and mortgage your future AND your children's future is the real problem. The solution is not some kind of "revolt". The solution is simple; live within your means. |
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Thursday, November 13, 2008 7:50:01 AM | |
|
HA! It does, doesn't it Darth?
You know, I do not mean to disparage the thoughts, ideas and beliefs of anyone. You are all entitled to your opinions. I simply do not go for those kind of theories. Doesn't mean that there is no validity to them. As I have mentioned often in the past, I have never really been the "benevolent" type. You will not see me at a "March of Dimes" rally or a GreenPeace convention. I just do not have it in me to be that philanthropic. Likewise, I do not have any desire to "change the world" and usurp the powers that be. I understand that there are elements in the world that go beyond simple politics. I realize there are a "select" few that seem to make more than their fair share of the decisions and have most of the cash. So be it. All I have ever wanted is my small piece of it.
The old "suffering of my fellow man" bit is just too much for me. I have said this often as well; it was happening LONG before I came along and will continue LONG after I am gone. World keeps spinning, my friends. I do what I can to take care of my own. I see to it that I get my "piece". May sound terribly self-serving because, honestly, it is. |
|
| [Return_of_Darth_Painkiller_0870] Thursday, November 13, 2008 6:19:36 AM | |
|
Ummmm...Yea. That sounds more like a Dan Brown novel than actual fact to me.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:43:24 PM)| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | The Free Masons. The Priory of Sion and Opus Dei. There lies the power that controls the world!
a. Hammerstein |
|
|
| [BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:43:24 PM | |
|
The Free Masons. The Priory of Sion and Opus Dei. There lies the power that controls the world!
a. Hammerstein |
|
| [_strat_] Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:22:55 AM | |
|
I quite agree. While it is obvious that in any capitalist country big buisinesses are in bed with politics, I dont think that the Orwellian scenario is the right one to describe the situation. I think its more the case that politicians will offer their power and influence to the highest bidder.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Wednesday, November 12, 2008 7:59:53 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well guys, I hate to sound like one of those "mindless drones" but I'm afraid this is where I must jump off. I mean, ALL of them are Free Masons?? ALL of them are psychopaths?? I am SO sorry but that is a bit more than I am able to handle! I am up for a good conspiracy theory the same as the next guy but, to me , this is just too much about generalizing. The paranoia here is so thick you can actually cut it!
Now, I may be an old man and I may be one of those that you claim is being "led" like a sheep to the slaughter but I simply cannot put "all" of anything into one, subversive group and call it by one name! FAR too Orwellian for me, guys. I don't know just how much of your "Big Brother" theory is true , Kendall but I do not even have ONE credit card. Not one! I do not believe in them as credit is the problem, not some spy network. Advertisers are trying to sell goods. Yes, they make credit easy to obtain. I agree. THAT is why we have the financial situation we do in this country! People buying things they cannot afford! I guess you could call that mind control but I do not see it as such. I call it stupidity.
Debt is the real problem in society. One cannot create wealth so long as one has debt. Advertisers sell us more debt. The public licks it up because, as you so eloquently said, it is easy. Getting more crap that you really do not need is the enemy. Creating mountains of debt that drain your wealth and mortgage your future AND your children's future is the real problem. The solution is not some kind of "revolt". The solution is simple; live within your means. |
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Wednesday, November 12, 2008 7:59:53 AM | |
|
Well guys, I hate to sound like one of those "mindless drones" but I'm afraid this is where I must jump off. I mean, ALL of them are Free Masons?? ALL of them are psychopaths?? I am SO sorry but that is a bit more than I am able to handle! I am up for a good conspiracy theory the same as the next guy but, to me , this is just too much about generalizing. The paranoia here is so thick you can actually cut it!
Now, I may be an old man and I may be one of those that you claim is being "led" like a sheep to the slaughter but I simply cannot put "all" of anything into one, subversive group and call it by one name! FAR too Orwellian for me, guys. I don't know just how much of your "Big Brother" theory is true , Kendall but I do not even have ONE credit card. Not one! I do not believe in them as credit is the problem, not some spy network. Advertisers are trying to sell goods. Yes, they make credit easy to obtain. I agree. THAT is why we have the financial situation we do in this country! People buying things they cannot afford! I guess you could call that mind control but I do not see it as such. I call it stupidity.
Debt is the real problem in society. One cannot create wealth so long as one has debt. Advertisers sell us more debt. The public licks it up because, as you so eloquently said, it is easy. Getting more crap that you really do not need is the enemy. Creating mountains of debt that drain your wealth and mortgage your future AND your children's future is the real problem. The solution is not some kind of "revolt". The solution is simple; live within your means. |
|
| [Kendall aka JudasRyche] Tuesday, November 11, 2008 1:34:28 PM | |
|
I totally agree! Remember the politicians are for the show to the public. And they themselves the politicians are chosen. It is a fact that I will go into later, that all those that seek these offices start on the psychiatric scale, if you will, of psychopathy. Also those that seat higher positions are ALL in masonry. No if and or buts about it. They all Serve orders of an agenda that does NOT serve the commons or as they like to say," the herd".
We're in 2008 and on a roll into the big totalitarian society, which is really all around us right now, but the velvet glove is off the iron fist and we're beginning to see it – at least those who are awake. So much catching up to do, especially when those who rule us are on such a roll as they are today, massively, massively so, every day. More laws across the world, same laws, because we're already global. We have been for a long, long time in fact and now they're going for the big kill, which is to make sure that everyone on the planet is predictable by having all data 24 hours a day on your every move. That includes what you eat. What you buy. Who you talk to. What you say. That's the totalitarian system that's meant to keep us safe from ourselves, because you see we the people are the enemy. That's the big joke. You see the joke's on us.
We the people are the enemy. We were declared the enemy a long time ago and if you even read the charter and the various charters of the subdivisions of the United Nations, you'll find it in there that the people themselves are the enemy. Look to the psychiatric and psychology associations. Look at the big players. Read what they've printed in their own big magazines and they've said it, that everyone who is alive today is mentally ill according to their documentation. Mentally ill means having opinions derived from previous societies, old-fashioned ideas, and following rules are old-fashioned rules meant for a different era and if you pass them on to your children you "contaminate" them. That's the language they use and you're all mentally ill and so you'll have to be reconditioned or eliminated. That's the real world.
Meanwhile everyone is playing themselves and playing massively so with all their free programs on the internet and giving all their data out to all the different little things that appear asking them very intimate questions to create complete profiles on them. They're doing it because it's free and it's so convenient, so convenient and they've never had a time when they can have so much free sex, for instance. It's so readily available anywhere you go. It has been for a long time and we're playing ourselves like never before, a world of children, while our betters, you know those people "up there," take care of the big problems including us ourselves.
We're the big problem because it's not intended that we go on playing for very long and use up what they call the world's resources, and sure enough, they've trained us you see to go out and work and reward ourselves at least once a month. That's not much, once a month. Most folk want to do it all the time with credit cards and they're constantly rewarding themselves for putting up with boring, depressing repetitive jobs and Pavlovian style, sure enough, they reward themselves with buying some trivia or junk or something that's supposed to satisfy a need and make you happy for five minutes before you become fed up with it and want to buy something else. That's what advertising is based on is creating dissatisfaction and they don't have far to go because all they sell you are lies in advertising. That's what advertising is about – selling you a complete fiction.
However, because we live in an unhappy society, a society which is stressful, a society that very few people understand in fact, everyone wants to fit into something that's really artificial. That's why they kind of feel on edge all the time. It's not a natural system. It's not meant to be natural in this system and those who run it have decided as I say we're using up too much of the world's resources by rewarding ourselves and they're going to cut back on us, you know the ones who are mentally ill, meaning the ordinary people.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Justin Kenny from Tuesday, November 11, 2008 1:17:51 PM)| | | Justin Kenny wrote: | | | See Kendall...that's what bothers me too....the fact that there are people in 'control' who were NOT elected to be in that position, and seem to hold more sway over what goes on than what we're privy to. I've often wondered just how some of these high-falutent government officials (elected or otherwise) would take to living on a fixed income of less than $18,000 a year, or; they were the sole bread winner of the household with 'wolves' at the door because the one income just doesn't cover all the expenses and their spouse(s) were simply unable to find quick, sustainable employment anywhere. I'm not the least bit convinced that people seeking political favor are in touch whatsoever with the WORKING class....never mind the middle class for a moment...because when someone talks to me about the "middle class," I get the picture of a double income totalling more than $75,000 annually, which could easily float a family of three or even four if they live within their means. To me, it's the WORKING class and those who bust their humps earning maybe a buck more an hour than minimum wage...these are the groups of people that most politicos are extremely out of touch with. While I do agree that anyone less than happy with their circumstances ought to do whatever they can to try and improve their own status, it's not always feasible when choices are so limited...and when those already limited choices are made more so due to program cuts and other "..money-saving" maneuvers, just how much improvement can one procure? Most times, people of the poor/working class are relegated to working more hours or more days instead, which compromises time with their families; a factor which gets brought up often in divorce proceedings! A mere example, to be sure...but it's nonetheless negative and counterproductive, and it doesn't stop there. Honestly...how do you think Newt Gingrich or any of the Kennedy family would do were they to find themselves in any of those situations? I'll tell you....they'd sink before they took one stroke to swim. Maybe it's unrealistic to assume any of the political bigwigs out there could ever even think along those lines or imagine themselves in more dire straits, but is it any MORE realistic to assume that these politicians should acquire so much support and exercise those of society they're so out of touch with to actually go forth and VOTE?? It's like my father used to say whenever anyone would ask him if he was going to vote.... "....for what?" I didn't always understand that sentiment growing up...but now I kinda do! |
|
|
| [Justin Kenny] Tuesday, November 11, 2008 1:17:51 PM | |
|
| See Kendall...that's what bothers me too....the fact that there are people in 'control' who were NOT elected to be in that position, and seem to hold more sway over what goes on than what we're privy to. I've often wondered just how some of these high-falutent government officials (elected or otherwise) would take to living on a fixed income of less than $18,000 a year, or; they were the sole bread winner of the household with 'wolves' at the door because the one income just doesn't cover all the expenses and their spouse(s) were simply unable to find quick, sustainable employment anywhere. I'm not the least bit convinced that people seeking political favor are in touch whatsoever with the WORKING class....never mind the middle class for a moment...because when someone talks to me about the "middle class," I get the picture of a double income totalling more than $75,000 annually, which could easily float a family of three or even four if they live within their means. To me, it's the WORKING class and those who bust their humps earning maybe a buck more an hour than minimum wage...these are the groups of people that most politicos are extremely out of touch with. While I do agree that anyone less than happy with their circumstances ought to do whatever they can to try and improve their own status, it's not always feasible when choices are so limited...and when those already limited choices are made more so due to program cuts and other "..money-saving" maneuvers, just how much improvement can one procure? Most times, people of the poor/working class are relegated to working more hours or more days instead, which compromises time with their families; a factor which gets brought up often in divorce proceedings! A mere example, to be sure...but it's nonetheless negative and counterproductive, and it doesn't stop there. Honestly...how do you think Newt Gingrich or any of the Kennedy family would do were they to find themselves in any of those situations? I'll tell you....they'd sink before they took one stroke to swim. Maybe it's unrealistic to assume any of the political bigwigs out there could ever even think along those lines or imagine themselves in more dire straits, but is it any MORE realistic to assume that these politicians should acquire so much support and exercise those of society they're so out of touch with to actually go forth and VOTE?? It's like my father used to say whenever anyone would ask him if he was going to vote.... "....for what?" I didn't always understand that sentiment growing up...but now I kinda do! |
|
| [Kendall aka JudasRyche] Tuesday, November 11, 2008 12:32:20 PM | |
|
| As I say, it's a shame, it's very sad when you realize that the world isn’t real as it's presented to us and that the game of politics (that's why they call it the game) of politics at the top. It's just a game for the public and how democratic can it be when you need millions of dollars for the supposed ordinary person to run and get in. The whole idea under democracy was that someone from your area, your little town or whatever, would go off and represent you. Well, when has that ever happened? Once they created the party system your politician would turn back to his constituents and say well I couldn't really go along – they wouldn't go along with it and I have to go along with my party.
Why do you bother voting for them if they have to go with their party and make little laws that affect you to your detriment? What's the point in voting for them?
See, the whole thing is a con, but they realized back in Britain, the home of this whole democratic business, and they learned it from their ancient records. The Greeks talked about it copiously how they go through these different systems of democracy and republicanism and fascism and so on, and the tyrant dictator and all the rest of it. It had all been tried out before and they knew how the game was played. Britain realized that if they didn't have a vote every few years then the public would have insurrections and so you wait for four or five years and suffer more misery and then you vote the last bunch of crooks out. That's how politics and democracy works. You don't really vote a new party in. You're so sick of the last bunch of crooks and yet you still haven't caught on. It’s not that they're just crooks. They all work for the one big institution, the World Corporation, and it's a supra-government that's above all national governments, always has been. These characters that you vote in are generally millionaires and most of them are lawyers who've dealt with real estate and big business and they've been CEOs of corporations.
What on earth do they have in common with you?
Nothing. That's the bottom line and Quigley said it. He said, "we always, we always make sure that the top people on all sides, all parties are theirs." It's like the politburo. Which politburo member are you going to vote for, A, B, C or D? That's the old Soviet Union. Here you just give them different names for parties, the left wing, right wing, but they don't tell you they're both attached to the body of the same bird. The real head of the bird, the real power behind it, is behind that shield there. You'll never see it and that's what it stands for.
However, you'd have insurrections every few years and Jefferson was quite right. He told us – they do tell us how the game is played. If you listen to the illumined ones carefully they'll tell you how it's played. He said when you see an agenda, an agenda going forth between exchanges of houses (meaning the different parties getting voted in and out) the same agenda being carried forward you will know you're under tyranny. That's your symptom and you look at all the UN laws they put out and sign into the books every year and then the global treaties they sign every year in every country all joining us all together closer and closer with the same multinational and international corporations at the top, then you see this agenda rolling forward regardless of the change of parties in a Parliament building or a Congressional Hall. It doesn't matter.
The same agenda steamrolls and I've been watching this for a very long time. We're dealing with most people who still live in the belief of the world that they've swallowed as it has been presented to them. It's a con game, a con game and as I say a few people like Quigley have told us so and they worked for the ones who really run the world; and Quigley was all for this global elite, by the way. He thought it was a swell idea and that the elite and intelligentsia had the right to rule the world on behalf of the dull and ignorant beneath them, the profane as they call them. |
|
| [BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Monday, November 10, 2008 1:11:46 PM | |
|
Given the circumstances.....is the fact that a Negro now holds the highest office in your country such a big deal? 50 years ago, definetely. 20-25 years ago, absolutely. 10 yeras ago, perhaps. But now? The world is becoming more pluralised in so many different ways. Once race, one government, one religion, one people. Maybe John Lennon was right?
a. Hammerstein |
|
| [Deep Freeze] Monday, November 10, 2008 12:51:17 PM | |
|
Actually, I believe it was Socrates that used "dialectic procedure", but I am not really all that good with that kind of thing! HA!!!!!!!! Man Kendall, you are such a unique individual.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Kendall aka JudasRyche from Monday, November 10, 2008 12:03:30 PM)| | | Kendall aka JudasRyche wrote: | | Justin....well said. As for this "assination plot", you must see this is just a propaganda game for the dialetic. The real "plots" are seized and you will never hear of them. And actually real plots are carried out by the CIA, etc.
It's the dialectic, the dialectical procedure has been understood since the days even before Plato existed but it's a technique of using, always, you see, to change society in any direction, you must have a conflict so you must create another. You must create one group which comes out with proposals to change society. That will automatically foment a group that will oppose them and through their conflicts and resolutions - and resolutions are the key, that means things like treaties for instance and laws, signed into law - then you are guiding both of them along a pre-planned path and that's how you get it. Now, most folk will choose one side or another, that's the nature of humanity, and, through the use of politics and sides, you're being conned; because, eventually, the two paths end up on the same road. I always say there's two wings on the bird there, on the emblem of the U.S. and they're both joined to the same body and the body is hidden behind a shield that's not for public view. Those that really run the Government are not elected.
It's the big foundations and the think tanks that work with them, this parallel government, that's really what it is. It also consists of ex prime ministers and presidents that work in the C.F.R. and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, all working together, globally, on a long-term strategy. I mean, for instance, when they set up the C.F.R., in the U.S., it's a branch of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. They also set up specialised departments, the Institute for Pacific Relations was one of them and their job was to work, 80 years ago, and getting the Asian, the Far Eastern States, to come in under a bloc, a trading bloc. That's how long they've been working on all of this, inter-generationally, towards the same goal.
They gave us a thing called democracy, which was a good panacea, because the idea of democracy is you can always vote this bunch out; that's what you do in democracy, you don't vote a new bunch in, you're really so sick of the last bunch, you're voting them out. So, they play this ping-pong game and that stops people from having revolutions every four or five years. That's why they gave us democracy; but, all along, as I say, the parallel government has run since the birth of so-called democracy, this parallel government has been here, under many different names and, now, it's so well-funded and organized and funds their NGO groups that create policy for the public. This is all documented fact. But no one looks, by choice.
These made administrations are nothing but managers that are given the orders to carry out agenda set up by the foundations. Very simple. This is why we have this "show" called politics.
| | | Justin Kenny wrote: | | | My God...the man has only won the election less than a week ago...and already, there have been plots to assassinate him. Two youths (ages 20 and 18) have been arrested for plotting an assassination hit on Obama, as well as a few other local people within their neighborhood or some shit. I haven't seen/heard all the details...but there it is...quick as history (of sorts) has been made, is as quick as someone or another is hot to try and end it before it's begun.
I'd like to say I did my part and voted...but I gotta tell you...I haven't voted since I was legally old enough to take part in the privilege. All told, I'm about as political as a cardboard box, and I can't say I'm hip to every issue that there is...I have enough to do and more than enough to worry about, and most--if not all of that--is under the very roof I live in. From where I sit, it's pretty difficult to be civic when I've become such a cynic to what goes on within the political system. So many people are quick to blame the presidents we elect when shit goes wrong...and while I'm sure there have been presidents who've used their position for their own gains (as well as the gains of those with their fingers in the proverbial till), what a lot of people seem to forget is that the president is nothing more than a figurehead. I mean...presidents have all these advisors...their Cabinet, speech-writers, et, al...who basically spell it all out for him before he makes a speech, arrives at a foreign country, addresses the nation, appears before the media...what have you. When you also consider the checks and balances system between the two major parties (Democrats and Republicans, natch), and the wealth of power as distributed between the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and Congress...is it any wonder so many once good ideas suddenly seem to get all but forgotten about??
Every new candidate that comes along seems to offer the same speech...the same promises...the same glib layouts and plans. What they too forget is everything I spelled out already. Seems once they're in office, they quickly realize that there's many more chefs stirring the pot already, and have that much more work to do to try and change the way the pot gets 'stirred.'
I'll admit...it's been a while since I've actually read any books that divulge an honest sense of how things are done in D.C., and because of that, I do have a certain naivete when it comes to all things politics...but, if there's something I'm missing here or there's something vast I've left out in this equation...by all means...educate me...inform me of something I've not given any thought or credence yet. I'll impart an honest set of eyes, at least...lol. |
|
|
|
| [Kendall aka JudasRyche] Monday, November 10, 2008 12:03:30 PM | |
|
Justin....well said. As for this "assination plot", you must see this is just a propaganda game for the dialetic. The real "plots" are seized and you will never hear of them. And actually real plots are carried out by the CIA, etc.
It's the dialectic, the dialectical procedure has been understood since the days even before Plato existed but it's a technique of using, always, you see, to change society in any direction, you must have a conflict so you must create another. You must create one group which comes out with proposals to change society. That will automatically foment a group that will oppose them and through their conflicts and resolutions - and resolutions are the key, that means things like treaties for instance and laws, signed into law - then you are guiding both of them along a pre-planned path and that's how you get it. Now, most folk will choose one side or another, that's the nature of humanity, and, through the use of politics and sides, you're being conned; because, eventually, the two paths end up on the same road. I always say there's two wings on the bird there, on the emblem of the U.S. and they're both joined to the same body and the body is hidden behind a shield that's not for public view. Those that really run the Government are not elected.
It's the big foundations and the think tanks that work with them, this parallel government, that's really what it is. It also consists of ex prime ministers and presidents that work in the C.F.R. and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, all working together, globally, on a long-term strategy. I mean, for instance, when they set up the C.F.R., in the U.S., it's a branch of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. They also set up specialised departments, the Institute for Pacific Relations was one of them and their job was to work, 80 years ago, and getting the Asian, the Far Eastern States, to come in under a bloc, a trading bloc. That's how long they've been working on all of this, inter-generationally, towards the same goal.
They gave us a thing called democracy, which was a good panacea, because the idea of democracy is you can always vote this bunch out; that's what you do in democracy, you don't vote a new bunch in, you're really so sick of the last bunch, you're voting them out. So, they play this ping-pong game and that stops people from having revolutions every four or five years. That's why they gave us democracy; but, all along, as I say, the parallel government has run since the birth of so-called democracy, this parallel government has been here, under many different names and, now, it's so well-funded and organized and funds their NGO groups that create policy for the public. This is all documented fact. But no one looks, by choice.
These made administrations are nothing but managers that are given the orders to carry out agenda set up by the foundations. Very simple. This is why we have this "show" called politics.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Justin Kenny from Monday, November 10, 2008 10:45:10 AM)| | | Justin Kenny wrote: | | | My God...the man has only won the election less than a week ago...and already, there have been plots to assassinate him. Two youths (ages 20 and 18) have been arrested for plotting an assassination hit on Obama, as well as a few other local people within their neighborhood or some shit. I haven't seen/heard all the details...but there it is...quick as history (of sorts) has been made, is as quick as someone or another is hot to try and end it before it's begun.
I'd like to say I did my part and voted...but I gotta tell you...I haven't voted since I was legally old enough to take part in the privilege. All told, I'm about as political as a cardboard box, and I can't say I'm hip to every issue that there is...I have enough to do and more than enough to worry about, and most--if not all of that--is under the very roof I live in. From where I sit, it's pretty difficult to be civic when I've become such a cynic to what goes on within the political system. So many people are quick to blame the presidents we elect when shit goes wrong...and while I'm sure there have been presidents who've used their position for their own gains (as well as the gains of those with their fingers in the proverbial till), what a lot of people seem to forget is that the president is nothing more than a figurehead. I mean...presidents have all these advisors...their Cabinet, speech-writers, et, al...who basically spell it all out for him before he makes a speech, arrives at a foreign country, addresses the nation, appears before the media...what have you. When you also consider the checks and balances system between the two major parties (Democrats and Republicans, natch), and the wealth of power as distributed between the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and Congress...is it any wonder so many once good ideas suddenly seem to get all but forgotten about??
Every new candidate that comes along seems to offer the same speech...the same promises...the same glib layouts and plans. What they too forget is everything I spelled out already. Seems once they're in office, they quickly realize that there's many more chefs stirring the pot already, and have that much more work to do to try and change the way the pot gets 'stirred.'
I'll admit...it's been a while since I've actually read any books that divulge an honest sense of how things are done in D.C., and because of that, I do have a certain naivete when it comes to all things politics...but, if there's something I'm missing here or there's something vast I've left out in this equation...by all means...educate me...inform me of something I've not given any thought or credence yet. I'll impart an honest set of eyes, at least...lol. |
|
|
| [Justin Kenny] Monday, November 10, 2008 10:45:10 AM | |
|
| My God...the man has only won the election less than a week ago...and already, there have been plots to assassinate him. Two youths (ages 20 and 18) have been arrested for plotting an assassination hit on Obama, as well as a few other local people within their neighborhood or some shit. I haven't seen/heard all the details...but there it is...quick as history (of sorts) has been made, is as quick as someone or another is hot to try and end it before it's begun.
I'd like to say I did my part and voted...but I gotta tell you...I haven't voted since I was legally old enough to take part in the privilege. All told, I'm about as political as a cardboard box, and I can't say I'm hip to every issue that there is...I have enough to do and more than enough to worry about, and most--if not all of that--is under the very roof I live in. From where I sit, it's pretty difficult to be civic when I've become such a cynic to what goes on within the political system. So many people are quick to blame the presidents we elect when shit goes wrong...and while I'm sure there have been presidents who've used their position for their own gains (as well as the gains of those with their fingers in the proverbial till), what a lot of people seem to forget is that the president is nothing more than a figurehead. I mean...presidents have all these advisors...their Cabinet, speech-writers, et, al...who basically spell it all out for him before he makes a speech, arrives at a foreign country, addresses the nation, appears before the media...what have you. When you also consider the checks and balances system between the two major parties (Democrats and Republicans, natch), and the wealth of power as distributed between the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and Congress...is it any wonder so many once good ideas suddenly seem to get all but forgotten about??
Every new candidate that comes along seems to offer the same speech...the same promises...the same glib layouts and plans. What they too forget is everything I spelled out already. Seems once they're in office, they quickly realize that there's many more chefs stirring the pot already, and have that much more work to do to try and change the way the pot gets 'stirred.'
I'll admit...it's been a while since I've actually read any books that divulge an honest sense of how things are done in D.C., and because of that, I do have a certain naivete when it comes to all things politics...but, if there's something I'm missing here or there's something vast I've left out in this equation...by all means...educate me...inform me of something I've not given any thought or credence yet. I'll impart an honest set of eyes, at least...lol. |
|
| [Kendall aka JudasRyche] Monday, November 10, 2008 10:29:10 AM | |
|
Thanks Freeze!!! I just think it's really time for people to see through this huge scam of control. and the control is from those that NO one in the public even consider.
The future is here and things are happening and things are sliding rather quickly, and the last ones to really want to know it are those who are living through it. They look for leaders, look for people who will be their champions. The feudal system gave the common people champions because they used to have jousts – that's where justice comes from, joust, it's on a court. A court, a big lawn where they'd ride their horses at each other with lances and battle axes and swords in front of the king or the queen for an afternoon's sport. A commoner was not allowed to fight on that field because you were a commoner. You were unclean. If there was enough of a grievance for the commoners, they could ask a knight (the holy elevated knights) to fight for them to be a champion for them and that's where the idea of politics came from. They would give the public people to vote for, who would go off and champion for them and that's how we've been conned all down this path in politics.
They always make sure that certain factions are given the particular champion, without telling you the rest of the story; and the fact is the whole system in politics and bureaucracies is so interwoven now that no one party could ever unravel it unless they threw it all out and started again. This was even stated in Canada by a Premiere, that's like a governor of Ontario, Bob Rae, who at the end of his tenure stated that we have so interwoven all the laws that we've made it would take years for lawyers and bureaucrats to unravel them and alter them. That's what's happened in federal governments too, because they've been interweaving them in preparation for a world state since before World War II. Therefore, no one party could possibly go in and change it; and apart from that, Professor Carroll Quigley(insane proud official historian of the CFR, and author of"Tradgey and Hope") told us they always have the leaders of the parties in their pocket. They train them. The vet them and allow them to run and however you're inclined by habit or nature, they have a champion for you who will say all the rights things but go along with the system once he's in it because the system is totalitarian in structure. The bureaucracies know the agenda more so than politicians. All the lower politicians are allowed simply to compete for higher brownie points amongst each other, opposing parties, but the guys at the top in all parties belong to the same group. Any man who tried to change it would be 'Kennedied' very quickly and that's just the way it is. So if people believe this Obama person has real say and is anything more than a sock puppet then they are literally in the Dark. The Agenda goes on....as for U.S. "policy" that the last administration represented is simply being continued. This is ALL the agenda of the elite foundations that rule the globe. All published and proven.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Monday, November 10, 2008 10:10:56 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Interesting read as usual, Kendall. Hope you are well.
| | | Kendall aka JudasRyche wrote: | | The feudal system that the Normans ruled with and used over the public has never disappeared. They knew that they'd have to give the populace an idea that they were somehow running things or had a hand in things by creating this thing called democracy. A democracy is what they call a "feint" in boxing. It's a con. It's not really there. It's an illusion but it tricks the public into believing they have some kind of rights and that they're involved in the way that the future is going to end up, because if they didn't give the public this particular system they knew that there'd be revolutions every few years, so they give you elections every few years instead. In democracies, no one votes in the new guys because they like them. They vote the old guys out because they've had time to see how corrupt they are and you live in hope, so you vote in the new champion who always end up doing the same thing as the last champion. Something that some people never ever wake up to their whole lives long. I've heard people in their 80's when they send vans around to pick them up to go and vote telling you that they've always voted. Yeah, they're the first to complain how bad things are getting and when you try and ask them "haven't you noticed that regardless of what party, what person you vote for, over the last 80 years an agenda is going forward and it seems to be getting worse?" They'll agree with you but then they go back in that double-think they still have to vote. They just can't quite catch on – too far gone.
Thomas Jefferson talked about that because the whole concept of democracy was not new to the Founding Fathers of the U.S. These characters had great educations and they studied and read. They read the Greek Classics and they read the histories of the world. They knew how the systems had worked and how tyrants ruled under the guise of benevolent dictators. They knew what democracy was supposed to end up with, because Plato when through all the systems including democracy, which ends up in a form of socialism, which always ends up in dictatorship. It's all been done before.
Ancient China, if you go into their histories, had done all of these. Republicanism, they tried that. They tried democracy. They tried fascism thousands of years ago, all well documented, all experimented with. The Founding Fathers of the U.S., Thomas Jefferson said "when you see an agenda carrying onwards between the different changes in Congress (meaning the different parties who get in and out), when you see a single agenda obviously carrying through from one to the other," he says, "you know you're under tyranny." What we've had since the League of Nations is this amazing step by step into the United Nations program to bring about a totalitarian world governmental system, where even in the 1800's Karl Marx talked about the unification of Europe and unification of the Americas that would come and then the Far Eastern and Pacific Rim unification. The three trading blocks which would have a form – they'd be demoted to a form of local government, a provincial government, so your federal government becomes a provincial government under a supergovernment, a world government, written all that time ago and most people today live in ignorance of all of that. It's been taken out of the school books for them and they have no inclination, most people, to go and find out; because, after all, today is not too bad, is it? Today will always be here. Tomorrow will be the same as today for ever and ever; and that's infantile thinking. That's how they're trained.
They do believe that their betters, those people on television, those famous faces will tell them all they have to know for their own good and all of those people who come out of the special wombs and run the world, you know the superior types, will just do everything for them and deal with all their heavy and weighty problems of the world. That's socialism. That's infantile thinking. That's what it was designed to do. Most people do not think through problems. They adopt their customs, their religion, the changes in the system and the religion through a form of osmosis. They don't think it through. If everyone else is going off in a direction, they will go in that direction too without question and will think they're quite normal because everyone else is going there too. That's a simple as it is and they could never believe even when it's happening and this is the strange thing about human nature. Even when the worst eventually comes down on their heads, right to the end, if they're put to the wall to be shot, they would still believe it's impossible, this cannot happen in my world. That's why they go passively. They do what they're told. They're ordered to the very end and they obey to the bitter end because they cannot believe its happening.
What's happening across the world to other countries in this perpetual war, physical war too that we've seen going on. We've had 50 years of war on the Latin American countries. All quiet wars kept from the public in the North and over in Europe, but people schooled in the School of the Americas, they changed their name but they're still operating. We don't mind other people being killed as long as it's not us. |
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Monday, November 10, 2008 10:10:56 AM | |
|
Interesting read as usual, Kendall. Hope you are well.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Kendall aka JudasRyche from Monday, November 10, 2008 9:59:17 AM)| | | Kendall aka JudasRyche wrote: | | The feudal system that the Normans ruled with and used over the public has never disappeared. They knew that they'd have to give the populace an idea that they were somehow running things or had a hand in things by creating this thing called democracy. A democracy is what they call a "feint" in boxing. It's a con. It's not really there. It's an illusion but it tricks the public into believing they have some kind of rights and that they're involved in the way that the future is going to end up, because if they didn't give the public this particular system they knew that there'd be revolutions every few years, so they give you elections every few years instead. In democracies, no one votes in the new guys because they like them. They vote the old guys out because they've had time to see how corrupt they are and you live in hope, so you vote in the new champion who always end up doing the same thing as the last champion. Something that some people never ever wake up to their whole lives long. I've heard people in their 80's when they send vans around to pick them up to go and vote telling you that they've always voted. Yeah, they're the first to complain how bad things are getting and when you try and ask them "haven't you noticed that regardless of what party, what person you vote for, over the last 80 years an agenda is going forward and it seems to be getting worse?" They'll agree with you but then they go back in that double-think they still have to vote. They just can't quite catch on – too far gone.
Thomas Jefferson talked about that because the whole concept of democracy was not new to the Founding Fathers of the U.S. These characters had great educations and they studied and read. They read the Greek Classics and they read the histories of the world. They knew how the systems had worked and how tyrants ruled under the guise of benevolent dictators. They knew what democracy was supposed to end up with, because Plato when through all the systems including democracy, which ends up in a form of socialism, which always ends up in dictatorship. It's all been done before.
Ancient China, if you go into their histories, had done all of these. Republicanism, they tried that. They tried democracy. They tried fascism thousands of years ago, all well documented, all experimented with. The Founding Fathers of the U.S., Thomas Jefferson said "when you see an agenda carrying onwards between the different changes in Congress (meaning the different parties who get in and out), when you see a single agenda obviously carrying through from one to the other," he says, "you know you're under tyranny." What we've had since the League of Nations is this amazing step by step into the United Nations program to bring about a totalitarian world governmental system, where even in the 1800's Karl Marx talked about the unification of Europe and unification of the Americas that would come and then the Far Eastern and Pacific Rim unification. The three trading blocks which would have a form – they'd be demoted to a form of local government, a provincial government, so your federal government becomes a provincial government under a supergovernment, a world government, written all that time ago and most people today live in ignorance of all of that. It's been taken out of the school books for them and they have no inclination, most people, to go and find out; because, after all, today is not too bad, is it? Today will always be here. Tomorrow will be the same as today for ever and ever; and that's infantile thinking. That's how they're trained.
They do believe that their betters, those people on television, those famous faces will tell them all they have to know for their own good and all of those people who come out of the special wombs and run the world, you know the superior types, will just do everything for them and deal with all their heavy and weighty problems of the world. That's socialism. That's infantile thinking. That's what it was designed to do. Most people do not think through problems. They adopt their customs, their religion, the changes in the system and the religion through a form of osmosis. They don't think it through. If everyone else is going off in a direction, they will go in that direction too without question and will think they're quite normal because everyone else is going there too. That's a simple as it is and they could never believe even when it's happening and this is the strange thing about human nature. Even when the worst eventually comes down on their heads, right to the end, if they're put to the wall to be shot, they would still believe it's impossible, this cannot happen in my world. That's why they go passively. They do what they're told. They're ordered to the very end and they obey to the bitter end because they cannot believe its happening.
What's happening across the world to other countries in this perpetual war, physical war too that we've seen going on. We've had 50 years of war on the Latin American countries. All quiet wars kept from the public in the North and over in Europe, but people schooled in the School of the Americas, they changed their name but they're still operating. We don't mind other people being killed as long as it's not us. |
|
|
| [Kendall aka JudasRyche] Monday, November 10, 2008 9:59:17 AM | |
|
The feudal system that the Normans ruled with and used over the public has never disappeared. They knew that they'd have to give the populace an idea that they were somehow running things or had a hand in things by creating this thing called democracy. A democracy is what they call a "feint" in boxing. It's a con. It's not really there. It's an illusion but it tricks the public into believing they have some kind of rights and that they're involved in the way that the future is going to end up, because if they didn't give the public this particular system they knew that there'd be revolutions every few years, so they give you elections every few years instead. In democracies, no one votes in the new guys because they like them. They vote the old guys out because they've had time to see how corrupt they are and you live in hope, so you vote in the new champion who always end up doing the same thing as the last champion. Something that some people never ever wake up to their whole lives long. I've heard people in their 80's when they send vans around to pick them up to go and vote telling you that they've always voted. Yeah, they're the first to complain how bad things are getting and when you try and ask them "haven't you noticed that regardless of what party, what person you vote for, over the last 80 years an agenda is going forward and it seems to be getting worse?" They'll agree with you but then they go back in that double-think they still have to vote. They just can't quite catch on – too far gone.
Thomas Jefferson talked about that because the whole concept of democracy was not new to the Founding Fathers of the U.S. These characters had great educations and they studied and read. They read the Greek Classics and they read the histories of the world. They knew how the systems had worked and how tyrants ruled under the guise of benevolent dictators. They knew what democracy was supposed to end up with, because Plato when through all the systems including democracy, which ends up in a form of socialism, which always ends up in dictatorship. It's all been done before.
Ancient China, if you go into their histories, had done all of these. Republicanism, they tried that. They tried democracy. They tried fascism thousands of years ago, all well documented, all experimented with. The Founding Fathers of the U.S., Thomas Jefferson said "when you see an agenda carrying onwards between the different changes in Congress (meaning the different parties who get in and out), when you see a single agenda obviously carrying through from one to the other," he says, "you know you're under tyranny." What we've had since the League of Nations is this amazing step by step into the United Nations program to bring about a totalitarian world governmental system, where even in the 1800's Karl Marx talked about the unification of Europe and unification of the Americas that would come and then the Far Eastern and Pacific Rim unification. The three trading blocks which would have a form – they'd be demoted to a form of local government, a provincial government, so your federal government becomes a provincial government under a supergovernment, a world government, written all that time ago and most people today live in ignorance of all of that. It's been taken out of the school books for them and they have no inclination, most people, to go and find out; because, after all, today is not too bad, is it? Today will always be here. Tomorrow will be the same as today for ever and ever; and that's infantile thinking. That's how they're trained.
They do believe that their betters, those people on television, those famous faces will tell them all they have to know for their own good and all of those people who come out of the special wombs and run the world, you know the superior types, will just do everything for them and deal with all their heavy and weighty problems of the world. That's socialism. That's infantile thinking. That's what it was designed to do. Most people do not think through problems. They adopt their customs, their religion, the changes in the system and the religion through a form of osmosis. They don't think it through. If everyone else is going off in a direction, they will go in that direction too without question and will think they're quite normal because everyone else is going there too. That's a simple as it is and they could never believe even when it's happening and this is the strange thing about human nature. Even when the worst eventually comes down on their heads, right to the end, if they're put to the wall to be shot, they would still believe it's impossible, this cannot happen in my world. That's why they go passively. They do what they're told. They're ordered to the very end and they obey to the bitter end because they cannot believe its happening.
What's happening across the world to other countries in this perpetual war, physical war too that we've seen going on. We've had 50 years of war on the Latin American countries. All quiet wars kept from the public in the North and over in Europe, but people schooled in the School of the Americas, they changed their name but they're still operating. We don't mind other people being killed as long as it's not us. |
|
| [Deep Freeze] Sunday, November 09, 2008 11:02:50 AM | |
|
| Hey gang! I received a Private Message this morning from a member I do not know. I ACCIDENTALLY deleted it before I read it. Could the person that sent this to me PLEASE re-send it? It was regarding the Project and the band. I apologize for this but I am an old man and often have trouble with this diabolical machine!! Please forgive my stupidity and re-send your message!!!! |
|
| [Craig Wagenhoffer] Saturday, November 08, 2008 4:21:16 PM | |
|
Deep "The New Dealer" Freeze!!!??? Hahahaha!!! Thank you for the warm welcome, dude!
How are you, man? As for me: I could be better. I still have a hard time to accept that Barack Hussein Obama is our next president. Ah well, there's nothing I can do about it and I don't want a server ban, so I will keep my rants to myself.
I'll catch you later.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Saturday, November 08, 2008 2:58:21 PM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | | Craig!!!!!!!! GREAT to see you again!!!!!! |
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Saturday, November 08, 2008 2:58:21 PM | |
|
| Craig!!!!!!!! GREAT to see you again!!!!!! |
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, November 08, 2008 2:30:17 PM | |
|
Well, we will see, because Russia is technicaly still a democracy. But I dont doubt that if Putin comes back that he will be re-elected.
In any case, Medvedjev, Putin = Nationalist douchebags. Whichever one is in the Kremlin is bad.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Craig Wagenhoffer from Saturday, November 08, 2008 1:38:05 PM)| | | Craig Wagenhoffer wrote: | | Now that we're talking about Russia: I just read that Vladimir Putin will probably return as Russia's president in early 2009. Rumour has it that Putin would then stay president until 2021 or even become "president for life"! This is the period Putin needs to complete his "Putin Plan". The appointment of Dmitri Medvedev as Russia's president earlier this year seems to be part of a calculated plan. Right now Medvedev is pushing through some unpopular social reforms and reforms to pave the way for an easy return of Vladimir Putin.
| | | stratlover wrote: | | Lol, no I think that your next president should be allright... As much as a politician can ever be "allright". If it was Sarah Palin as the Vicepresident, I guess that Russian missiles would already be flying towards her belowed Alaska.
| | | DemonCat wrote: | | I'm sure it'll work out somehow. I wish you the best next year in getting into college. Sorry you didn't get in this year.
So what do you think...have we taken a closer step towards armageddon?
| | | stratlover wrote: | | Well, Im sorry to hear that. I hope you get through allright.
Well, Im fine. Graduated, failed to get into a college, so Im working for a year and trying again next year.
| | | DemonCat wrote: | | Nah, too much worry. I simply couldn't stop wondering how I'm going to pay my bills this month. How have you been?
| | | stratlover wrote: | | Aha, to much coffee? Well, its good to be back, and good to see you again as well.
| | | DemonCat wrote: | | I wasn't up early, but rather...I was awake late. 'Til 4 a.m. Good to see you again Strat!
| | | stratlover wrote: | | Wow! Youre up early!
| | | DemonCat wrote: | | "As I have said over and over the last year or two, this is what happens when we have a voting public that looks to the likes of someone that calls himself "P Diddy" or "Snoop" for their direction. This is NOT Obama's fault, this is the fault of allowing idiots and children to vote."
I know plenty of intelligent, elderly, white folk that voted for Obama ( who never heard of P Diddy, or Snoop Dog), but rather, because they were sick-and-tired, of Republican "answers" to the U.S.'s problems! It was proven across this great Nation by the number of Senate leaders, and Congressmen that were voted in to the appropriate offices. People over the age of 18 aren't considered "children"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give Obama his CUDOS for bringing young MEN, and WOMEN to realize their worth at the voting booth, and proving that their voice/vote DOES count!
Reguardless of what any of us think at this juncture in time,...we will ALL have to take a "wait, and see" mentality...to see, if any of the campaign promises will become reality. Let us all just take the moment to embrace to significant historical step this Nation has taken towards the future of true democracy, and the dream that many of us hold dear to our hearts as to what it means for ALL humans regardless of color, and background!
Now enough of the "racial" bullshit. I, and many voted for Obama, because he was the better candidate! NUFF SAID!!!!! (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:49:38 AM)
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
I realize there will be wide and varied opinon regarding the result of this election. You all know where I stand and I make no bones about it. Having said this, I also realize that this Thread is for discussion. It was created to inspire debate. Darryn fully intended to challenge us as thinking individuals, not just "Metal-heads". Sometimes we rant here, sometimes we muse. Sometimes we argue, sometimes we agree. But this room always gives me something to ponder when I am done.
I feel this morning alot like I did when Clinton was first elected. I am disappointed, surely. I am not angry. I am a bit sad and I am certainly concerned but not angry. The real problem this morning is, the new president has not done anything to warrant debate yet! All we are able to do now is offer conjecture. What might happen. I guess that is a reason to chat but I do not see much debate in it at this point.
I will not rail against the other party. I do not believe that will be constructive and I am not a poor loser. More importantly, I do NOT knock the captain of the team on which I play. I may not have voted for him, but you will never hear me make nasty comments about the US President while he is in office. I did not do it to Carter nor Clinton and Iwon't do it now. I do not see that as productive and certainly not wise. We as a country should always stand as one. That is something the "other side" has never learned.
As for why I am sad, there is a very good reason. John McCain is an American hero. A real-live hero. He was captured by the enemy, tortured. Refused to be a tool for propaganda (Right, Jane??) and endured hell for love of this great nation. And what did this country do? They turned their collective backs on him and picked a "rock star". So be it. As I have said over and over the last year or two, this is what happens when we have a voting public that looks to the likes of someone that calls himself "P Diddy" or "Snoop" for their direction. This is NOT Obama's fault, this is the fault of allowing idiots and children to vote.
|
Edited at: Saturday, November 08, 2008 2:35:13 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Craig Wagenhoffer] Saturday, November 08, 2008 1:38:05 PM | |
|
Now that we're talking about Russia: I just read that Vladimir Putin will probably return as Russia's president in early 2009. Rumour has it that Putin would then stay president until 2021 or even become "president for life"! This is the period Putin needs to complete his "Putin Plan". The appointment of Dmitri Medvedev as Russia's president earlier this year seems to be part of a calculated plan. Right now Medvedev is pushing through some unpopular social reforms and reforms to pave the way for an easy return of Vladimir Putin.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by stratlover from Saturday, November 08, 2008 11:25:35 AM)| | | stratlover wrote: | | Lol, no I think that your next president should be allright... As much as a politician can ever be "allright". If it was Sarah Palin as the Vicepresident, I guess that Russian missiles would already be flying towards her belowed Alaska.
| | | DemonCat wrote: | | I'm sure it'll work out somehow. I wish you the best next year in getting into college. Sorry you didn't get in this year.
So what do you think...have we taken a closer step towards armageddon?
| | | stratlover wrote: | | Well, Im sorry to hear that. I hope you get through allright.
Well, Im fine. Graduated, failed to get into a college, so Im working for a year and trying again next year.
| | | DemonCat wrote: | | Nah, too much worry. I simply couldn't stop wondering how I'm going to pay my bills this month. How have you been?
| | | stratlover wrote: | | Aha, to much coffee? Well, its good to be back, and good to see you again as well.
| | | DemonCat wrote: | | I wasn't up early, but rather...I was awake late. 'Til 4 a.m. Good to see you again Strat!
| | | stratlover wrote: | | Wow! Youre up early!
| | | DemonCat wrote: | | "As I have said over and over the last year or two, this is what happens when we have a voting public that looks to the likes of someone that calls himself "P Diddy" or "Snoop" for their direction. This is NOT Obama's fault, this is the fault of allowing idiots and children to vote."
I know plenty of intelligent, elderly, white folk that voted for Obama ( who never heard of P Diddy, or Snoop Dog), but rather, because they were sick-and-tired, of Republican "answers" to the U.S.'s problems! It was proven across this great Nation by the number of Senate leaders, and Congressmen that were voted in to the appropriate offices. People over the age of 18 aren't considered "children"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give Obama his CUDOS for bringing young MEN, and WOMEN to realize their worth at the voting booth, and proving that their voice/vote DOES count!
Reguardless of what any of us think at this juncture in time,...we will ALL have to take a "wait, and see" mentality...to see, if any of the campaign promises will become reality. Let us all just take the moment to embrace to significant historical step this Nation has taken towards the future of true democracy, and the dream that many of us hold dear to our hearts as to what it means for ALL humans regardless of color, and background!
Now enough of the "racial" bullshit. I, and many voted for Obama, because he was the better candidate! NUFF SAID!!!!! (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:49:38 AM)
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
|
I realize there will be wide and varied opinon regarding the result of this election. You all know where I stand and I make no bones about it. Having said this, I also realize that this Thread is for discussion. It was created to inspire debate. Darryn fully intended to challenge us as thinking individuals, not just "Metal-heads". Sometimes we rant here, sometimes we muse. Sometimes we argue, sometimes we agree. But this room always gives me something to ponder when I am done.
I feel this morning alot like I did when Clinton was first elected. I am disappointed, surely. I am not angry. I am a bit sad and I am certainly concerned but not angry. The real problem this morning is, the new president has not done anything to warrant debate yet! All we are able to do now is offer conjecture. What might happen. I guess that is a reason to chat but I do not see much debate in it at this point.
I will not rail against the other party. I do not believe that will be constructive and I am not a poor loser. More importantly, I do NOT knock the captain of the team on which I play. I may not have voted for him, but you will never hear me make nasty comments about the US President while he is in office. I did not do it to Carter nor Clinton and Iwon't do it now. I do not see that as productive and certainly not wise. We as a country should always stand as one. That is something the "other side" has never learned.
As for why I am sad, there is a very good reason. John McCain is an American hero. A real-live hero. He was captured by the enemy, tortured. Refused to be a tool for propaganda (Right, Jane??) and endured hell for love of this great nation. And what did this country do? They turned their collective backs on him and picked a "rock star". So be it. As I have said over and over the last year or two, this is what happens when we have a voting public that looks to the likes of someone that calls himself "P Diddy" or "Snoop" for their direction. This is NOT Obama's fault, this is the fault of allowing idiots and children to vote.
|
Edited at: Saturday, November 08, 2008 2:35:13 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
