What did we do? Harper Majority!!

[mentalfloss]

Stephen Harper Seeks Majority to Dissolve Canada in Favor of North American Union


Thursday, 05 May 2011 09:05

'Mel Hurtig, the former elected leader of the National Party of Canada, a noted Canadian author and publisher, and the founder of the Council of Canadians has revealed that senior elected representatives and advisors to the Conservative Party, are currently planning a scheme to dissolve Canada in favor of North American Union. Harper is seeking a majority government (for the 4th time) in order to implement this treasonous agenda.'
Read more: Stephen Harper Seeks Majority to Dissolve Canada in Favor of North American Union

 

[petros]

How can he do what has already been done?

 

[ironsides]

How can a majority government be treasonous, it is those who oppose the majority who are treasonous by your rule of thinking which of course in most cases is not true either. Hey I don't like Obama, but calling what he does treasonous would be out of line. Canada wants Harper and the majority have spoken. You have another few years to have someone to pick on, you should be happy.

 

[Mowich]

I am amazed at how upset people are suddenly, when the Liberals ruled through two majorities with significantly LESS than 40%.......but I would be very happy to see a preferential ballot in place.

And the award for most insipid insight of the election goes to… | Full Comment | National Post


"It’s early yet, but easily the most annoying post-election theme to date is the complaint that “60 per cent of Canadians voted against the Conservatives.”


Please people.


Since 1867, only five elections have ended with the winner attracting more than 50% of the vote. In other words — now write this down rabble fans — the majority of Canadians almost [FONT=&quot]always[/FONT] vote against the winner.


The only prime ministers to ever top 50% (and they managed it only once each) were Mulroney, Diefenbaker, King, Borden and Laurier (note, that’s three Tories and just two Liberals.)


The majority of Canadians voted against Pierre Trudeau every time he ran, i.e. five times out of five. Lester Pearson never came close to 50%. Mackenzie King ran the country for more than 20 years and only topped 50% once (in 1940). Sir John A. Macdonald’s best campaign was his last, when he attracted 48.6% of the votes. Jean Chretien’s best was just over 41% in 1993, even though the Conservatives were in the process of being destroyed.


So you could hardly make a more meaningless, insipid, unoriginal point than the fact that “60% of the country voted for someone else.” That’s what happens when you have more than two parties. Tell us something we don‘t know."


National Post

 

[coldstream]

We should remember that the Conservative Party is a product of a shotgun wedding between the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservatives. There are seething tensions within that union, that have been held in check, by both sides in the interests of gaining a majority. But it is the Reformers who are holding the gun. And Harpers style.. intimidating, dictatorial, secretive, exclusive.. is going to do nothing but exacerbate those.

It'll take a year or so to develop, for factions to form, but form they will.. because Harper is a radical NEO conservative, a libertarian, an anti-nationalist, and anti-federalist. That is antithetical to the roots of the Conservative policies in John A. MacDonald's national and federal policies.

I remember how Maggie Thatcher was unceremoniously dumped by her party, or BC Premier Gordon Campbell recently when they decided to rule by fiat rather than consent of their caucuses. I think it'll happen again.. not on long gun registration or the omnibus crime bill.. but on fundamental issues of the economic integrity of Canada, and of an equitable sharing of the nation's wealth. These are anathemas to Harpers agenda.

 

[mentalfloss]

YouTube - Cleese on PR (full length)

 

[Taxx]

Since 1867, only five elections have ended with the winner attracting more than 50% of the vote. In other words — now write this down rabble fans — the majority of Canadians almost [FONT=&quot]always[/FONT] vote against the winner.

The only prime ministers to ever top 50% (and they managed it only once each) were Mulroney, Diefenbaker, King, Borden and Laurier (note, that’s three Tories and just two Liberals.)

This is why noone ever seems happy with the results.

So you could hardly make a more meaningless, insipid, unoriginal point than the fact that “60% of the country voted for someone else.” That’s what happens when you have more than two parties. Tell us something we don‘t know."

As long as we have "first past the post" we will have this issue.

 

[JLM]

This is why noone ever seems happy with the results.


As long as we have "first past the post" we will have this issue.

"First past the post" is the only method that works properly.

 

[TenPenny]

"First past the post" is the only method that works properly.

Exactly. I don't know why people can't grasp that concept. If other parties want to win big, they need to run candidates, and campaigns. that get the voters behind them.

 

[mentalfloss]

"First past the post" is the only method that works properly.

I'd rather have proportional representation as its more democratic. It forces the parties to make compromises, and better reflects the voters who put them into power.

That Cleese video pretty much outlines all the detriments of the existing system. The perfect example is gun laws - which will be rebuked, then enacted, then rebuked, etc. This because both parties will continue to want it exactly their way.

And that kind of defiance a wastes our time and money.

But like me and Colpy agreed, guns for blow and everyone's happy. You'll never get that kind of collaboration with the existing system.

 

[Goober]

I'd rather have proportional representation as its more democratic. It forces the parties to make compromises, and better reflects the voters who put them into power.

That Cleese video pretty much outlines all the detriments of the existing system. The perfect example is gun laws - which will be rebuked, then enacted, then rebuked, etc. This because both parties will continue to want it exactly their way.

And that kind of defiance a wastes our time and money.

But like me and Colpy agreed, guns for blow and everyone's happy. You'll never get that kind of collaboration with the existing system.

The only prob with prop rep is that parties always have and always will maintain a list of at large, based on the region etc - Guess who appoints those - No convention - no party ridings to run in - That is a major failure with prop rep.

 

[mentalfloss]

A list of at large?

 

[Goober]

A list of at large?

Yes a fitting statement - when captured they will be ?????

A list of at large?

Many Prop Reps have seats that are awarded based on votes received in a region - Prov- also you still have ridings - percentage of votes in a region split fairly between the parties based upon all votes received, seat are then assigned from a listing provided by the parties -

Israel i believe has a similar system. Other countries may have similar systems.

 

[mentalfloss]

I'm confused.

 

[cranky]

The only prob with prop rep is that parties always have and always will maintain a list of at large, based on the region etc - Guess who appoints those - No convention - no party ridings to run in - That is a major failure with prop rep.

a good prop rep system starts with each riding electing a local rep, then parliment is topped up with additional seats until the correct proportions are established.

 

[Jack_Of_Spade]

No I was disgusted that after the budget was balanced in 97 that Chretien along with a few other things did as follows

Still kept on cutting medical and trades support

Denied - covered up that Canadian Soldiers were fighting in the Medak Pocket

Sent troops to War without the kit

Used the RCMP to investigate the Can Bus Dev Bank - ruined a mans career - he sued and won

Patronage appts by the boat load

Still slashed and burned with cuts and who pays the price today - Go looking for a Doctor

He was as crooked as a dogs hind leg

As to the economy - Look to Reagan - Bush who changed their economy - our largest trade partner and we benefit from that.

Free Trade - Mulroney
Acid Rain Treaty - Mr M again

Lead the fight against Apartheid - Again Mr M

Shut down - never before in Canada - The Royal Commission investigating the Military - stated it was demoralizing the soldiers - what demoralized the troops was how some Senior Officers ran their units like little kingdoms. It would have put paid to many Officers careers due to their total incompetence and outright terrorizing troops. Bad CO`s were not uncommon - and if you went against one - you were fuked-

One example -

We had one General who when inspecting Combat Troops on parade would always ask to see what underwear they had on - If they did not have the Arny Issue on they were charged - a Private in 2 PPCLI refused - they tried to charge him - but could not figure out what to charge him with - and they tried - The General who had practiced this behavior was informed to stop - only after many years

I was in the miltairy and I charged a warrent officer and won ! So yes you can get justice in the militairy! As for the army issued undeware I belive that was a femal soldier your speaking about and NO a thong is not militairy dress code. LOL Besides befor you join regular army you have a few weeks on boot camp . The rules are made clear then ! If you dont like em your free to leave! So anyone contesting the dress code later is a trouble maker .

 

[YaYiP]

This thread is funny...

Stop littering.No, the Conservatives won. You and your family were relegated to 'also rans'.

So you sold out for a quick buck. I got ya.

What I gave you?
Sounds like a culot.

Ya, I think I already mentioned, my family is more important than your ideology.

I agree, which is why I won't sell out like you.

Because that's all your sulking rant deserves.

LOL
Your funny Bear
You can frame my choices however you like (I sold out, hahahahah, re-read the post, change happens best from the inside)
My ideology IS FOR your family, but also for your desendants (like your grandkids, and great grandkids and so on and so on....)
-my "ideology" is not so short sighted as to just look out for the here and now (ie. CEO's look at quarterly profits, govs at 4 year terms). It plans for the future indefinately with growth and change built into it

Bear
What would you do for your family?
Better yet, what wouldn't you do? (Consume more then your fair share)
What would you give up?
Who do you consider your family?
Kids?
Grandkids?
How far down the line are you preparing and planning for?
How would you change a system you determine to be miss guided and that has all the power to defend against intrusion? (Corporations have money, lawyers, lobbiest groups (ie politians))

 

[mentalfloss]

LOL
Your funny Bear
You can frame my choices however you like (I sold out, hahahahah, re-read the post, change happens best from the inside)
My ideology IS FOR your family, but also for your desendants (like your grandkids, and great grandkids and so on and so on....)
-my "ideology" is not so short sighted as to just look out for the here and now (ie. CEO's look at quarterly profits, govs at 4 year terms). It plans for the future indefinately with growth and change built into it

Also bear in mind (oh the puns today), that all political movements - even conservatism - stem from an ideology of sorts. The words 'ideology' and 'intellectualism' are being twisted in a manner that implies they are inherently evil concepts. That is not the case.

 

[YaYiP]

Hey Bear
I also live in Ontario, Hamilton actually... I would love to get together with you and hear your opinions. They are so opposite to what I believe a human being should strive for, I would just like to know what kind of human being you are and how I can address people of your mind set. Do not take anything I say to you personally or offensive. Think of me as using you as a sample poll, if that is okay. Please understand that everything said is completely non-personal and if I insult you I would like to apologize in advance, as that is not my intention. I am just curious what people think (especially those who are so different for me) and how we (human beings) can interact and co exist with such differences.
Thank you for your responses
YaYiP

 

[captain morgan]

My ideology IS FOR your family, but also for your desendants (like your grandkids, and great grandkids and so on and so on....)
-my "ideology" is not so short sighted as to just look out for the here and now (ie. CEO's look at quarterly profits, govs at 4 year terms). It plans for the future indefinately with growth and change built into it

.. And who is to say that your ideology is parallel to anyone else's? Bottom-line, if and only if, your ideology is compatible with that of society can you claim to be representing any benefit to me or any other generations. On that note, unless you can see the future, your ideology is no more long-term than quarterly profits or gvt terms.

What would you do for your family?
Better yet, what wouldn't you do? (Consume more then your fair share)
What would you give up?
Who do you consider your family?
Kids?
Grandkids?
How far down the line are you preparing and planning for?

So... Will you be the authority that establishes what a "fair share" is?