Your position is just one more way od saying political correctness. There are different kinds of political correctness, one being not bowing down to a dominant in group's pecking order. Given that none of us are perfect and on a board where there is bound to be some back and forth, you have not provided any evidence that I have attacked others without provocation. Your complaint is that I am "too new". Too new for what, to insert facts and positions into a debate that discomfort the other debater? Or replying sharply back at sharp replies? Your entire position is pecking order and in-group oriented.
Prince of Wales becomes oldest heir to the Throne for 300 years
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
Your position is just one more way od saying political correctness. There are different kinds of political correctness, one being not bowing down to a dominant in group's pecking order. Given that none of us are perfect and on a board where there is bound to be some back and forth, you have not provided any evidence that I have attacked others without provocation. Your complaint is that I am "too new". Too new for what, to insert facts and positions into a debate that discomfort the other debater? Or replying sharply back at sharp replies? Your entire position is pecking order and in-group oriented.
I could have sworn he was just 'typing'. Darn primitive computer of mine. WHERE does one get these new holograms..
Quite right .I blame the spread of literacy for the mess. Life was simpler when one just howled into the campfire...
lets get serious, folks. This is just a lot of assumption bouncing off 'nodder assumption'. My advise is walk away and enjoy a fall day .
Last edited:
Look T. You are obviously mistaking advice for attacks. What we are all trying to say is maybe get to know who each of us are a bit before you just start tossing insult and innuendo about. Karrie & SLM are probably the most moderate posters here and their present responses to you are about as heated as I have seen them in a long time. Eagle, while having the downfall of being an ex-USMC (you know I mean that in the nicest way ES) is actually quite well versed on many topics military and otherwise. Some here are pretty hard-line in their views like Gerry while others can be swayed with intelligent rebuttals or points of view they may not have seen before. So please, don't take everything said as a personal attack from the poster. Most of us just want you to be cognizant of who you are calling names that are far from the truth. All that said, feel free to argue, debate and even bash a few people but do it for the right reasons, not because you believe we are trying to stifle you.
I could have sworn he was just 'typing'. Darn primitive computer of mine. WHERE does one get these new holograms..
Quite right .I blame the spread of literacy for the mess. Life was simpler when one just howled into the campfire...
Whaddya mean when?? Welcome to the virtual campfire, lol.
Would that I could, would that I could.
The "wrong guy" elected into power? Isn't that an oxy moron, an ultimate conclusion of partisan extremism?
I have said for years that anybody who actually WANTS to run for office should be automatically disqualified as unfit. ;-)
"Krusty Clark." ROTFLMAO! ! !
I apologize if I have come across that way.
It's actually quite legitimate, Nick, if you read the rules. Premiers are NOT elected, M.L.A.s are. Premiers don't HAVE to sit in the legislature. As for Christie, it's a mistake to under estimate her. She has lots of smarts, that's why Campbell didn't like her, she was smarter than he was and he knew it. The reason she lost Vancouver - Point Grey was because she was too busy taking care of everyone else's A$$ and at the same time out smarting Dixie Cup.
I dont like the practice but dont think it should be banned. Ultimately it is still the voters who decide who wins. I am totally against allowing someone to be premier or PM without having a seat. If they dont have a seat for whatever reason the political office should go to someone else who has a seat.
I disagree. They were elected by the people who were elected. It makes them a pretty representative, well, representative for the country. Whereas, whether or not one community liked them, doesn't necessarily have a bearing on the country as a whole.
Okay, but our entire principle of government is that of being governed by elected representatives. The US has an appointed cabinet - all the president's cronies. If a PM can be appointed why not a cabinet minister? The day could come when we end up with a Parliament in which nobody is replaced if they die, quit, get pressured out or whatever; the senate is all appointed; Governor Generals (the legal CEO) are appointed; add a couple of appointed cabinet ministers and we are no longer a democracy. I don't think it is an acceptable answer to say that would never happen. We are talking about absolute national power and that kind of power is only controllable by laws, not trust. IMO anyway. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we should never forget that.
Agreed. That is too much power to be handed to unelected cronies. At some point we do have to trust, but the unelected PM has gone through no vetting, no examination and owes us no campaign promises. S/he is a total cipher. There is no way I trust politicians that much. IMO anyway.
you are - absolutely right, Tober .( Hopefully we don't get another mud sling day over this) By British tradition, the governing party was 'coalesced' from the ELECTED members AFTER the election, and the Prime Minister had to win at least a pocket Borough.
the current 'cult of personalities' giver me the shivers.
I have to say it is a bullsh*t rule then. Why the #1 head honcho of the province doesn't need to be elected is really beyond common sense of democracy. We have elections to pick representatives and an un-elected Premier represents nobody!
Have to disagree K. If a person cannot win a majority in their own riding they should not be allowed to run the entire province. It should be required that to be Premier or a cabinet Minister you be duly elected to parliament. I also think you should be required to run & win in the riding you live in. All this crap about running in 2 or 3 or more by-elections in ridings 100s of miles from your home is utter crap. It's like going to Vegas and being able to play till you win when others are footing the bill. Pure bullsh*t! Then again our entire political system is pure bullsh*t anyway. You can win without a majority and there are no laws requiring you to represent the wishes of your constituents once you get elected. It is a sham! An illusion of choice and representation put forward to appease the masses while they control & fleece us!
I agree there are a lot of things that could be fixed Nick, it's just not completely unrepresentative if they don't win but still lead. As to being able to win without a majority of votes, they can still only win with the MOST votes, and the only way to fix that would be to go to a two party system. And no offense to our American friends but I don't think that's better.
The same party would still be in power, it'd just have a different head. If a person who is not a member of parliament or the provincial legislature gets the job they cannot be held accountable by the legislature. They cannot attend question periods, take part in debates or do anything really that involves the legislature. If they cant do that part they shouldnt have the job until they can get a seat. In the meantime the ranking person gets the job. It isnt all that representative. In Canadian history there have only been two true majority governments. All the others had well under 50% of the vote. Reducing it even more and giving the job to someone who couldnt even get a seat does not sound representative to me.
Agreed. It would help if the office of prime minister actually existed in the constitution. One of the reasons why that office has gotten so powerful over the last 3-4 decades is because it has no defined limits. The whole office is one of convention. I also don't like that, it should be written. A convention can be broken and new precedents put in place at any time by any person in office. The idea that an unelected person can get that power is a bit disconcerting. In the 20s Mackenzie King both lost his seat and the election overall but remained PM because he refused to resign. His party was in second place and he was still allowed to continue. In theory that could happen again. Its unlikely but that type of result shouldnt even be a legal possibility.
You are very right on this. People confuse 'leader of the party' and' premier' In 1922, the United farmers of Alberta won the election, but had neglected to elect a leader of the party that the lieutenant Governor General could designate as 'premier'.
Truly "grass roots'.