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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
