Do you have some recently tender nerves or something Robman?
Or maybe your blood sugar is just low, so why dont you go eat out for some tossed salad.
Gnome-Interruptus on
MWO: Adamski
0
Options
JeanHeartbroken papa bearGatineau, QuébecRegistered Userregular
edited March 2011
Thank you for putting it more diplomatically than I could've, Gnome.
Jean on
"You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
I can personally tell you that Mike Schreiner, the leader of the Ontario Green Party, is an awesome guy.
The professionalism shown by him in our personal conversations has been nothing short of amazing.
Ontario will become a much better province to live in if he is elected into the Legislative Assembly. The Ontario Greens have won my vote (unless the Liberals hire me).
This'll be the first federal election that my wife gets to vote in, so that's exciting. Now we can both feel disenfranchised. Keep rockin' it blue, Perth County.
I can personally tell you that Mike Schreiner, the leader of the Ontario Green Party, is an awesome guy.
The professionalism shown by him in our personal conversations has been nothing short of amazing.
Ontario will become a much better province to live in if he is elected into the Legislative Assembly. The Ontario Greens have won my vote (unless the Liberals hire me).
Too bad they have 0 chance of getting elected. Strategic voting, GO!
I can personally tell you that Mike Schreiner, the leader of the Ontario Green Party, is an awesome guy.
The professionalism shown by him in our personal conversations has been nothing short of amazing.
Ontario will become a much better province to live in if he is elected into the Legislative Assembly. The Ontario Greens have won my vote (unless the Liberals hire me).
Haha your so funny! I, personally, have more chance of being elected then he does. And I live in Calgary.
What really needs to happen to see an end to the Conservative minorities is the same thing that happened to the Liberals. The Conservatives didn't really "win" in 2006, rather the Liberals suffered a collapse of their Quebec wing that totally changed the political landscape in that province and marked an end of "the Big Red Machine". The only thing that is going to upset the current balance is if something similar happens to the Conservatives and their support either in the West or Ontario is undermined and those seats go into play. So far that hasn't happened.
The Liberals haven't won Quebec since Trudeau in 1980. Their "Quebec wing" collapsed after 1984 and Mulroney's huge win, followed by all of the constitutional discord of the 1980s and 1990s. In fact, the last party before the Bloc to win a majority of Quebec seats was the PCs in 1988.
It's not a question of winning Quebec as a whole, it is a matter of having a core of safe seats in the province. As it stands now, they don't. The Quebec wing also doesn't simply refer to MPs who are elected from that province, but also the party organizers, fundraisers, etc.
I know what you mean. And it's wrong to say that the Liberals have a "core of safe seats" in the province. They don't. They have Montreal, and areas where there are concentrations of Anglos and non-Francophones.
Really, the Liberals only have three areas where they are strong in the country: Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. You can't form a national government that way.
I think we are talking past each other. Ten of the dozen seats they currently have in Montreal are the ones I'm referring to, just as I don't mean to suggest that their safe seats in Ontario are scattered across the province. If you look at the results from 2008, which is a pretty low point for the Liberal party, you'll see that in most of those Montreal seats, they got more votes than the next two most popular parties put together. That's a pretty safe seat, as there would need to be a major change in voting patterns within those ridings for the other party to win.
I haven't made my mind up federally yet. However, I have proposed four amendments to the Pirate Party platform.
1) Amending the Telecommunications Act to forbid any telecommunication network owner/operator from being a retailer on their own network. This is the core guideline of an open access network. Net neutrality, meaning freedom to open communication, would be made a requirement for any telecommunication network and would be defined using the language of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2) Replacing the 20 year patent length with "variable patent lengths" that are calculated from the expected time until the device's break-even point. The time until the break-even point would be calculated using a constant assigned to the device's intended industry. These constants would be determined yearly. This would make patents more inline with their original intention.
3) Explicitly excluding all forms of pure information from patents, as this is the domain of copyright. Examples of pure information would be given as mathematical algorithms, business methods, computer software, and DNA.
4) Aligning the terms of crown copyright with the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. This would grant all citizens the right of use, modification, and publication of government documents and data (once made publicly available) while protecting the government from any possible issues surrounding their third-party use. All government trademarks and branding would be placed under a separate, traditional license forbidding unauthorized use and publication.
I try to lobby all parties relevant to the issues I care about, regardless of size. My support/vote is mostly dependent on who is willing to talk to me personally (or hire me).
I haven't made my mind up federally yet. However, I have proposed four amendments to the Pirate Party platform.
1) Amending the Telecommunications Act to forbid any telecommunication network owner/operator from being a retailer on their own network. This is the core guideline of an open access network. Net neutrality, meaning freedom to open communication, would be made a requirement for any telecommunication network and would be defined using the language of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2) Replacing the 20 year patent length with "variable patent lengths" that are calculated from the expected time until the device's break-even point. The time until the break-even point would be calculated using a constant assigned to the device's intended industry. These constants would be determined yearly. This would make patents more inline with their original intention.
3) Explicitly excluding all forms of pure information from patents, as this is the domain of copyright. Examples of pure information would be given as mathematical algorithms, business methods, computer software, and DNA.
4) Aligning the terms of crown copyright with the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. This would grant all citizens the right of use, modification, and publication of government documents and data (once made publicly available) while protecting the government from any possible issues surrounding their third-party use. All government trademarks and branding would be placed under a separate, traditional license forbidding unauthorized use and publication.
I try to lobby all parties relevant to the issues I care about, regardless of size. My support/vote is mostly dependent on who is willing to talk to me personally (or hire me).
The Liberals, Greens, and Pirates all have.
Ok so your willing to vote for anyone that will give you a job. Glad to see you have principals.
The only thing we should be really sad about regarding the end of this Parliamentary session, and the upcoming election, is the loss of Peter Milliken as Speaker.
Farewell sir, you've done the office a great service.
I think I need to step back. I've become so devoted to the stuff around me that I'm afraid I'll give myself away in the process. Physically and ideally. Mostly, the first but partly the second.
There are a ton of NDP MPs that I like... Jack Harris, Thomas Mulcair, Paul Dewar, Pat Martin and of course Jack Layton. I'm just not totally sold on some of their positions. I will likely try and volunteer with Mr. Harris though, as he is an awesome dude and a real constituents man.
Anyway, in other news, rumour is that Fabian Manning will step down from the Senate to run in Avalon. Not sure how that will play out for him, but it's going to make that one a close race and a possible COnservative pickup.
So what are the odds of anything actually changing?? If anything, we are probably creeping closer to Conservative majority, right?
Well, there's a lot that could potentially change.
First, as you say, the Conservatives could win a majority. That would be a huge change. There actually hasn't been much legislation in the last few years. I personally think it's more likely they'll lose a few seats, mostly in Quebec.
Second - there are going to be new leaders as a direct result of this election. Theoretically, you could see the last of Harper, Ignatieff and Layton. Harper may resign as party leader if he is unable to secure a majority and party insiders judge that he's the boat anchor preventing that from happening. Ignatieff is guaranteed one election as leader by the Liberal party's constitution. After that, there's going to be a leadership review if he isn't PM, and he'll probably be gone. Layton has health issues and, if he's planning to retire from the leadership on that basis, the time to do so is right after an election so the party can organize behind the new leader before the next election.
Third - there's a small possibility that we could get a Liberal-NDP coalition as a result. This is likely if the two parties combined have a majority of the seats. The issue of the Conservatives, contempt of parliament, and a no confidence vote is significant because the Governor General must select as Prime Minister the person most likely to command the confidence of the House of Commons. Since the whole election is predicated on the House of Commons not having confidence in Harper, the logical result is that some one else will be PM if they can demonstrate they do have the confidence of the House. This could occur with the leaders of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc all showing up to indicate who they have confidence in, but a tripartite coalition would be pretty unstable, so it's less likely to happen unless there's a viable coalition with only two partners. Theoretically, it could even be the Liberals and the Bloc (it would be much easier to reach the magic number that way), but for a variety of reasons that's a fairly unlikely outcome.
Second - there are going to be new leaders as a direct result of this election. Theoretically, you could see the last of Harper, Ignatieff and Layton. Harper may resign as party leader if he is unable to secure a majority and party insiders judge that he's the boat anchor preventing that from happening. Ignatieff is guaranteed one election as leader by the Liberal party's constitution. After that, there's going to be a leadership review if he isn't PM, and he'll probably be gone. Layton has health issues and, if he's planning to retire from the leadership on that basis, the time to do so is right after an election so the party can organize behind the new leader before the next election.
Have there not also been rumblings about Duceppe going back to the PQ?
Second - there are going to be new leaders as a direct result of this election. Theoretically, you could see the last of Harper, Ignatieff and Layton. Harper may resign as party leader if he is unable to secure a majority and party insiders judge that he's the boat anchor preventing that from happening. Ignatieff is guaranteed one election as leader by the Liberal party's constitution. After that, there's going to be a leadership review if he isn't PM, and he'll probably be gone. Layton has health issues and, if he's planning to retire from the leadership on that basis, the time to do so is right after an election so the party can organize behind the new leader before the next election.
Have there not also been rumblings about Duceppe going back to the PQ?
I honestly don't know, I'm not very familiar with the Bloc, the PQ and the interaction between the two.
Second - there are going to be new leaders as a direct result of this election. Theoretically, you could see the last of Harper, Ignatieff and Layton. Harper may resign as party leader if he is unable to secure a majority and party insiders judge that he's the boat anchor preventing that from happening. Ignatieff is guaranteed one election as leader by the Liberal party's constitution. After that, there's going to be a leadership review if he isn't PM, and he'll probably be gone. Layton has health issues and, if he's planning to retire from the leadership on that basis, the time to do so is right after an election so the party can organize behind the new leader before the next election.
Have there not also been rumblings about Duceppe going back to the PQ?
Duceppe is, at the moment, the most popular sovereigntist in Quebec. During the last PQ leadership race, he was a candidate for literally one day, until Pauline Marois declared. Last I checked, despite the Charest government being mired in all sorts of scandals, Ms. Marois personally was still quite unpopular with Quebeckers.
There's going to be a Quebec provincial election soon. Either this autumn or next spring. If Marois fails to win a majority government, it's likely that she will be ousted and Duceppe will make an attempt for the leadership.
Of course, if the Bloc gets more than 54 seats in this election and the PQ forms government in the next provincial election, shit will get real very quickly. A third referendum wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility, especially given some of Ms. Marois' past statements on the matter.
Second - there are going to be new leaders as a direct result of this election. Theoretically, you could see the last of Harper, Ignatieff and Layton. Harper may resign as party leader if he is unable to secure a majority and party insiders judge that he's the boat anchor preventing that from happening. Ignatieff is guaranteed one election as leader by the Liberal party's constitution. After that, there's going to be a leadership review if he isn't PM, and he'll probably be gone. Layton has health issues and, if he's planning to retire from the leadership on that basis, the time to do so is right after an election so the party can organize behind the new leader before the next election.
Have there not also been rumblings about Duceppe going back to the PQ?
Duceppe is, at the moment, the most popular sovereigntist in Quebec. During the last PQ leadership race, he was a candidate for literally one day, until Pauline Marois declared. Last I checked, despite the Charest government being mired in all sorts of scandals, Ms. Marois personally was still quite unpopular with Quebeckers.
There's going to be a Quebec provincial election soon. Either this autumn or next spring. If Marois fails to win a majority government, it's likely that she will be ousted and Duceppe will make an attempt for the leadership.
Of course, if the Bloc gets more than 54 seats in this election and the PQ forms government in the next provincial election, shit will get real very quickly. A third referendum wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility, especially given some of Ms. Marois' past statements on the matter.
This is something that bothers me about our system.
Last election the Liberals mostly failed in Quebec. If the Liberals gain steam, and the Conservatives do o.k. then they'll split the federalist vote and a whole lot of Bloc will get elected.
Not that I hate the Bloc, like... if you're a regional party do what you want. But I don't like the idea of the Bloc staying steady in popular support and gaining separatist power. I prefer the Bloc as Quebec-advocates as nothing else. Because what will we do with Eastern Canada if Quebec separates?
If the Conservatives acted like conservatives and handed lots of decision power and taxing power to the provinces (and cities) this wouldn't be such a big deal.
Alberta and Quebec are strange places. We should let those strange people make their own way within our great country. Let Charet and Stelmach fuck up their own provinces (or make them awesome). They have unique needs that are not well done by federalism.
I dont think he meant to literally insert phalluses into the province of Alberta or its residents as some sort of semen stimulus.
But I can agree that the only arguments I have heard that make a case for greater independance for Alberta from Federal interference are all to do with royalties and equalization payments, and those do not stand on their own as good reasons to reduce federal involvement.
The Wild Rose Alliance has not defeated the Alberta Conservatives in the slightest.
A number of Conservative ministers have changed parties because they are silly gooses though or as an attempt to protest the party proper. When the next provincial election rolls around, we will see the gooses get bumped for other politicians with the proper blue colours.
I dont see how 'Will of the People' comes into this at all, since it has only ever been a small minority that has agitated towards seperation / independance.
To say that Alberta and Quebec have the same case for sovereignty is like saying ...
Hell, I can't even think of what it's like saying. It's just really reminiscent of a younger brother being bothered by the "special" treatment an older brother is getting when the older brother actually is "special". What are these special needs Alberta has, other than the need to drill baby drill?
Posts
Or maybe your blood sugar is just low, so why dont you go eat out for some tossed salad.
MWO: Adamski
I can personally tell you that Mike Schreiner, the leader of the Ontario Green Party, is an awesome guy.
The professionalism shown by him in our personal conversations has been nothing short of amazing.
Ontario will become a much better province to live in if he is elected into the Legislative Assembly. The Ontario Greens have won my vote (unless the Liberals hire me).
Too bad they have 0 chance of getting elected. Strategic voting, GO!
Haha your so funny! I, personally, have more chance of being elected then he does. And I live in Calgary.
I think we are talking past each other.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Also with Robman...rape metaphors are rarely fitting, and when they are, they're still insensitive.
2) Replacing the 20 year patent length with "variable patent lengths" that are calculated from the expected time until the device's break-even point. The time until the break-even point would be calculated using a constant assigned to the device's intended industry. These constants would be determined yearly. This would make patents more inline with their original intention.
3) Explicitly excluding all forms of pure information from patents, as this is the domain of copyright. Examples of pure information would be given as mathematical algorithms, business methods, computer software, and DNA.
4) Aligning the terms of crown copyright with the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. This would grant all citizens the right of use, modification, and publication of government documents and data (once made publicly available) while protecting the government from any possible issues surrounding their third-party use. All government trademarks and branding would be placed under a separate, traditional license forbidding unauthorized use and publication.
Forum post: https://www.pirateparty.ca/forum/index.php?topic=970.0
Current Platform: http://wiki.pirateparty.ca/index.php/Platform
=====
Suggested readings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Access_Network
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break-even_(economics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#History
http://www.fsf.org/news/uspto-bilski-guidance
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
Note: 4) would be essentially the same (in terms of software licenses) as licensing all government documents and data under the BSD license (or MIT license).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_free_software_license
Mozilla deals with the trademark issue by putting their branding under a different license.
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_rebranded_by_the_Debian_project
I try to lobby all parties relevant to the issues I care about, regardless of size. My support/vote is mostly dependent on who is willing to talk to me personally (or hire me).
Ok so your willing to vote for anyone that will give you a job. Glad to see you have principals.
Farewell sir, you've done the office a great service.
I hope Mulcair wins it. One of the only NDP guys I like.
Anyway, in other news, rumour is that Fabian Manning will step down from the Senate to run in Avalon. Not sure how that will play out for him, but it's going to make that one a close race and a possible COnservative pickup.
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
Well, there's a lot that could potentially change.
First, as you say, the Conservatives could win a majority. That would be a huge change. There actually hasn't been much legislation in the last few years. I personally think it's more likely they'll lose a few seats, mostly in Quebec.
Second - there are going to be new leaders as a direct result of this election. Theoretically, you could see the last of Harper, Ignatieff and Layton. Harper may resign as party leader if he is unable to secure a majority and party insiders judge that he's the boat anchor preventing that from happening. Ignatieff is guaranteed one election as leader by the Liberal party's constitution. After that, there's going to be a leadership review if he isn't PM, and he'll probably be gone. Layton has health issues and, if he's planning to retire from the leadership on that basis, the time to do so is right after an election so the party can organize behind the new leader before the next election.
Third - there's a small possibility that we could get a Liberal-NDP coalition as a result. This is likely if the two parties combined have a majority of the seats. The issue of the Conservatives, contempt of parliament, and a no confidence vote is significant because the Governor General must select as Prime Minister the person most likely to command the confidence of the House of Commons. Since the whole election is predicated on the House of Commons not having confidence in Harper, the logical result is that some one else will be PM if they can demonstrate they do have the confidence of the House. This could occur with the leaders of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc all showing up to indicate who they have confidence in, but a tripartite coalition would be pretty unstable, so it's less likely to happen unless there's a viable coalition with only two partners. Theoretically, it could even be the Liberals and the Bloc (it would be much easier to reach the magic number that way), but for a variety of reasons that's a fairly unlikely outcome.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Have there not also been rumblings about Duceppe going back to the PQ?
I honestly don't know, I'm not very familiar with the Bloc, the PQ and the interaction between the two.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Duceppe is, at the moment, the most popular sovereigntist in Quebec. During the last PQ leadership race, he was a candidate for literally one day, until Pauline Marois declared. Last I checked, despite the Charest government being mired in all sorts of scandals, Ms. Marois personally was still quite unpopular with Quebeckers.
There's going to be a Quebec provincial election soon. Either this autumn or next spring. If Marois fails to win a majority government, it's likely that she will be ousted and Duceppe will make an attempt for the leadership.
Of course, if the Bloc gets more than 54 seats in this election and the PQ forms government in the next provincial election, shit will get real very quickly. A third referendum wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility, especially given some of Ms. Marois' past statements on the matter.
This is something that bothers me about our system.
Last election the Liberals mostly failed in Quebec. If the Liberals gain steam, and the Conservatives do o.k. then they'll split the federalist vote and a whole lot of Bloc will get elected.
Not that I hate the Bloc, like... if you're a regional party do what you want. But I don't like the idea of the Bloc staying steady in popular support and gaining separatist power. I prefer the Bloc as Quebec-advocates as nothing else. Because what will we do with Eastern Canada if Quebec separates?
If the Conservatives acted like conservatives and handed lots of decision power and taxing power to the provinces (and cities) this wouldn't be such a big deal.
Alberta and Quebec are strange places. We should let those strange people make their own way within our great country. Let Charet and Stelmach fuck up their own provinces (or make them awesome). They have unique needs that are not well done by federalism.
Sure. Fuck Alberta. They're as Canadian as the CN tower.
But I can agree that the only arguments I have heard that make a case for greater independance for Alberta from Federal interference are all to do with royalties and equalization payments, and those do not stand on their own as good reasons to reduce federal involvement.
MWO: Adamski
A number of Conservative ministers have changed parties because they are silly gooses though or as an attempt to protest the party proper. When the next provincial election rolls around, we will see the gooses get bumped for other politicians with the proper blue colours.
I dont see how 'Will of the People' comes into this at all, since it has only ever been a small minority that has agitated towards seperation / independance.
MWO: Adamski
Hell, I can't even think of what it's like saying. It's just really reminiscent of a younger brother being bothered by the "special" treatment an older brother is getting when the older brother actually is "special". What are these special needs Alberta has, other than the need to drill baby drill?
Liberal ideology in a nutshell.
I say we dip them in chocolate and delete the "n" at the end of "Eastern".
Libertarian special needs editing in a nutshell.
MWO: Adamski