What Canadians want


Nuggler
#1
pretty good read


http://www.straight.com/article-1631...-really-want?#
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#2
Yep pretty good read. So if we fixed that little problem we would possibly never have a conslobative government again.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#3
Book 'im Dano....
 
Socrates the Greek
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Nuggler View Post

pretty good read


http://www.straight.com/article-1631...-really-want?#


Yes, that is an excellent read...............and that is precisely what Canada must end up with,
a Government that will do all that........................
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
#5
The solution seems so obvious, but the clock is ticking. In the next few weeks, the four
left leaning leaders (Dion, May, Duceppe, and Layton) need to be locked in a room with
four broadswords....one in each corner. It's a fight to the death and the winner takes the
total power of the left in one massive voting block. My money is on Jack Layton. Just a
gut feeling based on the choice of weapons and the situation. That sounds democratic.

This would leave Alberta and Saskatchewan in an awkward situation, but the fact that
they must believe that the Conservative Party was the closest to the political center must
be irrelevant as 61-64% of other Canadians managed to spread their votes over several
other parties leaving the Conservatives as the party with the most votes...but that article
says it's bull**** so it must be so. I'm just offering some balance to this thread....
 
Socrates the Greek
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

The solution seems so obvious, but the clock is ticking. In the next few weeks, the four
left leaning leaders (Dion, May, Duceppe, and Layton) need to be locked in a room with
four broadswords....one in each corner. It's a fight to the death and the winner takes the
total power of the left in one massive voting block. My money is on Jack Layton. Just a
gut feeling based on the choice of weapons and the situation. That sounds democratic.

This would leave Alberta and Saskatchewan in an awkward situation, but the fact that
they must believe that the Conservative Party was the closest to the political center must
be irrelevant as 61-64% of other Canadians managed to spread their votes over several
other parties leaving the Conservatives as the party with the most votes...but that article
says it's bull**** so it must be so. I'm just offering some balance to this thread....

I can't wait it is entertaining, I hope Canada will not suffer from the next PM even if it happened to be Harper with a minority.......................
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Socrates the Greek View Post

I can't wait it is entertaining, I hope Canada will not suffer from the next PM even if it happened to be Harper with a minority.......................

With the current crop to choose from, I think we're pooched regardless as to who wins. This
next couple of years might just be the stimulus to make someone come out of the woodwork
on a grassroots level (Hell, it might even be the Green Party for all I know) that really inspires
Canada to unite under one party that'll really satisfy a majority without alienating any specific
region and lead the country forward.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#8
Harper with a minority will be another four years of dodge, weave and non-government - unless the Opposition can hog-tie him to the chair.
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

Harper with a minority will be another four years of dodge, weave and non-government - unless the Opposition can hog-tie him to the chair.

Wolf, won't that just leave us with more wasted time paying bloated pay to a bunch of MP's that won't be able to accomplish much of aything...forward or backward? We'll stagnate as a country and inspire no change at all. Their pay is earned (OK, justified) when
they are able to do something.
 
Socrates the Greek
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in Regina View Post

With the current crop to choose from, I think we're pooched regardless as to who wins. This
next couple of years might just be the stimulus to make someone come out of the woodwork
on a grassroots level (Hell, it might even be the Green Party for all I know) that really inspires
Canada to unite under one party that'll really satisfy a majority without alienating any specific
region and lead the country forward.

Ye, Green is a color able to unite humanity on environment no doubt...............I agree..............
Last edited by Socrates the Greek; Sep 22nd, 2008 at 12:28 AM..
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#11
Let me see: Harpy seems to do whatever the hell he wants whether anyone likes it or not, Gliberals have a history of being crooks and populists, Layton took Martin's bribe to help Martin desperately cling to power and then did a switcheroonie when it was obvious Martin was going down the tube, the Greens have some good ideas but I fear that what they would do would result in economic plunges, the Bloc ..... aaaaaaaaaahahahahahhaha, .........
As far as the editorial goes, it is an OPINION based on statistics. Not sure if anyone else here does what I do, but I love misleading pollsters. And as for his idea of rearranging the electoral system, I am all for that. That's why I will vote yes for BC's STV voting when I next get the chance. Our system sucks, too.
I really would like to see some AVERAGE people get into some of the higher positions in gov't, because I think these rich a$$e$ haven't a clue what life is like for us peons. But us peons can't afford to do a lot of campaigning from one end of Canuckville to the other..
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Let me see: Harpy seems to do whatever the hell he wants whether anyone likes it or not, Gliberals have a history of being crooks and populists, Layton took Martin's bribe to help Martin desperately cling to power and then did a switcheroonie when it was obvious Martin was going down the tube, the Greens have some good ideas but I fear that what they would do would result in economic plunges, the Bloc ..... aaaaaaaaaahahahahahhaha, .........
As far as the editorial goes, it is an OPINION based on statistics. Not sure if anyone else here does what I do, but I love misleading pollsters. And as for his idea of rearranging the electoral system, I am all for that. That's why I will vote yes for BC's STV voting when I next get the chance. Our system sucks, too.
I really would like to see some AVERAGE people get into some of the higher positions in gov't, because I think these rich a$$e$ haven't a clue what life is like for us peons. But us peons can't afford to do a lot of campaigning from one end of Canuckville to the other..

Really, I think anyone who earns more than the mean annual income shouldn't be allowed to run for government office because they do NOT represent the majority of PEOPLE in this country
 
TenPenny
#13
Now there's a truly Canadian viewpoint.

'My son, never aspire to be above average'
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

Now there's a truly Canadian viewpoint.

'My son, never aspire to be above average'

Now ... how did you arrive to that conconclusion?
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

Now there's a truly Canadian viewpoint.

'My son, never aspire to be above average'

So it doesn't matter that someone can have the Order of Canada, or have discovered the cure for some disease, or have saved a few lives, as long as they are CEOs, smooth talkers, charismatic, larcenist, and have lots of money, they can be tagged as being "above average"?
 
TenPenny
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

Now ... how did you arrive to that conconclusion?

Oh, I was just reading the following:
Quote:

Really, I think anyone who earns more than the mean annual income shouldn't be allowed to run for government office because they do NOT represent the majority of PEOPLE in this country.

I don't think income is the measure of a person's worth. But if you decide that anyone who makes more than the mean annual income shouldn't be allowed to run for gov't office, then what's the next step? Having above the mean IQ should disqualify you as well? What about being able to run a marathon in a time better than the mean? Shouldn't that disqualify you?

Someone is suggesting that being better than the mean in one area of your life should disqualify you from running for office - so what is the justification for limiting that to one particular part of your life? Why income only?

I'm not saying that having a higher income makes you better than average IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN INCOME.
I am saying that limiting election to people of average or less income would logically lead to the same requirement in other aspects of life.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

Oh, I was just reading the following:

I don't think income is the measure of a person's worth. But if you decide that anyone who makes more than the mean annual income shouldn't be allowed to run for gov't office, then what's the next step? Having above the mean IQ should disqualify you as well? What about being able to run a marathon in a time better than the mean? Shouldn't that disqualify you?

Someone is suggesting that being better than the mean in one area of your life should disqualify you from running for office - so what is the justification for limiting that to one particular part of your life? Why income only?

I'm not saying that having a higher income makes you better than average IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN INCOME.
I am saying that limiting election to people of average or less income would logically lead to the same requirement in other aspects of life.

I don't think so, because all aspects of life aren't equal. How can you compare high income with high IQ or good marathon time?
The point is that just because Fred has gobs of money and Sam doesn't, Sam shouldn't necessarily be omitted from the chance at PMO. Yet here we are in an oligarchy.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

Oh, I was just reading the following:

I don't think income is the measure of a person's worth. But if you decide that anyone who makes more than the mean annual income shouldn't be allowed to run for gov't office, then what's the next step? Having above the mean IQ should disqualify you as well? What about being able to run a marathon in a time better than the mean? Shouldn't that disqualify you?

Where did you read "better"? What it says is "mean income". The much smaller percentage above that mean really don't know what it's like to do without.

Someone is suggesting that being better than the mean in one area of your life should disqualify you from running for office - so what is the justification for limiting that to one particular part of your life? Why income only?

Answer is above. Better grasp on reality.

I'm not saying that having a higher income makes you better than average IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN INCOME.
I am saying that limiting election to people of average or less income would logically lead to the same requirement in other aspects of life.

Maybe according to your logic. Money is the madness that runs the country so money already is its limiting factor.
Last edited by lone wolf; Sep 22nd, 2008 at 12:08 PM..
 
ottawabill
#19
so keep the conservatives and the ndp srap the rest and we will see who wins!
 

Similar Threads

0
Why Canadians ?
by akritas | Sep 20th, 2007
16
Who Are The Canadians
by Paranoid Dot Calm | Jan 28th, 2006