lol
There’s something about the liberal party’s logo that makes me want to eat KFC.
Worse thing in that is that is it going to be the upcoming reality.
Yeah. Doh! 
One dictator to another (sigh)
I hate Quebec.
“One dictator to another (sigh)”
Partially true, & it’s only true if there’s a majority government. The Prime Minister is just another MP when it comes to voting (PM only gets 1 vote) & there’s only one person in the system who has a veto on anything parliament does & it’s the Governor-General. + the government has to get interrogated by the opposition every day. (something the President of the USA doesn’t have to deal with if you want to compare, the prez can also veto what the legislative branch does) There has been a motion by the NDP to hold a national referendum on introducing proportional representaion (1% of the vote = 1% of the seats) which would make it harder for a party to get a majority & represent the way people voted more accurately. Canada, the USA & Britain are the only 3 (western?) democracies that don’t have some form of this.
It wouldn’t be so bad if the offical opposition could come up with some good ideas of there own instead of their current blanket policy of disagreeing with the liberal party. If there was competent leadership and a real vision of where the party and country were to head it might make a difference.
Nice system. Add to that the fact that you have an aging population, that people are scared of change (read alternatives), and you`ve got, at best 2 historically strong parties always shifting between one or the other.
People SAY they want change. BLEAH. The facts just dont say so. They get what they deserve. Ill believe them the day they walk their talk, until then their are all dreamers.
Representative voting is a MUST. How can you call a process DEMOCRATIC without it?
And, at the same time, throw away the line of party concept too, which is the equivalent of many clowns all repeating what line-of-party-man barks. In short, makes seats useless when you have majority.
Everyone I’ve talked to says everyoe they’ve talked to wants change because what we’ve got now isn’t good for us & will get worse with Mulroney-wannabe Martin about to take over. I think the Liberals got in again because, as bad as they are, they’re better than the Alliance which gets all their Americanizing ideas from the lunatics from the Fraser Institute & the PCs (until the last election) were a bunch of Mulroney worshippers who wanted to dismantle all the public institutions, like the Canadian Wheat Board, etc.
The Wheat Board IS a crock, not all institutions, but the Wheat Board, yes.
The Wheat Board guarantees business for every farmer in the country! I’ve heard of the (so-called) Canadian farmers who want to help the USA dismantle it so the farmers of the country have no protection, but I don’t think their views are widely held. I can’t understand why anyone wouldn’t want a guaranteed buyer. If something similar existed in BC for logging 20000 loggers wouldn’t have lost their jobs over the last 15yrs or so.
Funny mq…
Here you are defending the wheat board, yet on the same hand you will also hack at the usa for trying to defend their farmers/loggers at canada’s expense.
Make up your mind will ya?
By the way, the reason 100000 loggers in canada are out of work is because the usa has a “logging board” type of thing going on and are supporting the local loggers first, even though canada can offer a lower price.
I hacked the USA because it’s the USA that’s been trying to bust the Canadian & (I bet) the Australian Wheat Board(s) for the last 10 years or so. It’s the USA that wants to get rid of the Wheat Board & those farmers who complain about the price the government pays are only helping the USA to bust it.
Dude, are you really from quebec, or are you trying to give us a bad image.
BTW: It’s spelled ‘monsieur’ haha
“And, at the same time, throw away the line of party concept too, which is the equivalent of many clowns all repeating what line-of-party-man barks.”
LOL Under MacKenzie & Laurier the Liberal Party stood for low (or no) tariffs & free trade, King stood for the welfare state, Pearson’s & Trudeau’s Liberals wated to deal with poverty & Chretien’s Liberals have stood for cuts to social programs & allowing the infrastructure to crumble. What’s the party line? Besides the party name, the only thing those Prime Ministers seem to have in common is a really long time in office (except MacKenzie & Pearson I guess), Laurier was in office for 15yrs, King for 22 & Trudeau for almost 16. LOL some party line…
MON Q: Sometimes I wonder on which intellectual planet you live.
FYI, party line: If Chretien and his gang are a total of 100 seats, and opposition is, lets say 75 seats total (all parties confounded), then when Chretien uses the line-of-party button, he automatically has 100 votes in his favor, and NO SUCKER IN HIS RANKS CAN HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION. Therefore, the 75 opposers are useless. So, the minute you have the majority, you can always use line-of-party tactics to enforce whatever you want. Mathematically, you win everytime. A nice mechanism to dictate your will when the numbers are on your side.
And after that, you wonder why representative voting did not pass? Johnny Boy would surely not want to dilute his power-base. That would make the line-of-party possibly useless, and, GASP, would start to look like a democracy. Fugeddaboutit.
FYI, in the States, there are very few (if at all) similar processes. Each time a bill needs to pass, its each seat for his own, and its far more probable to see free-willed alliances, even amongst opposite seats. Now thats democracy in action. Common sense before party.
You didn’t say what you meant by party line. If you meant Liberal Party line over the years, then what I said was accurate, even during the same administration. Like the same-sex marriage thing came up in 1999 & the government reaffirmed their opposition to it & now they’re saying the opposite. So the ‘party line’ changed. There’s also a movement for a minimum number of free votes in parliament so that’s being taken care of slowly but surely.