[Sapio]

Shablabar wrote:

Sapio wrote:

CKASlacker wrote:

Germany Depression --> Rise of Hitler --> usurpation of Chancellorship --> WWII --> Auchswitz

I'm not saying that this will lead to some sort of holocaust in any shape or form as to what happened then... but the point is that a lot of bad may come of this in the long run.

Well put. I think we need to send the leaders a copy of "A Road to Serfdom".

Give me a break.

Q.V.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

Hey I'm not say that this is going to led to anything like Nazi Germany, but it starting off in a similar matter. We need to look after your individual rights.

[Psudo]

CKASlacker wrote:

Sapio wrote:

They are going to print it.

Have't we seen this movie before? Say, Germany during the 20's and 30's (*) printing money to pay off huge war reparations?

Most of the funding for the big US bailout will be paid for by a huge sum of money the Federal Reserve has been saving for decades. They may attempt the printing-money solution as part of the funding -- or use that functional equivalent, deficit spending -- but that is not going to be the primary method for paying for the bailout.

CKASlacker wrote:

Psudo: thanks for the graphic - one of most disturbing images I've seen in a long time.

Disturbing, certainly. But it's not really my picture; I just found it.

llama66's source wrote:

the government proposed eliminating taxpayer subsidies for political parties and rolling back wages for public-sector unions while taking away their right to strike. Both those measures were hastily withdrawn over the weekend, but not before they had galvanized the opposition to begin the talks that would eventually lead to the coalition accord.

Just as JJ said, the galvanizing platform issue for this coalition is the attempt to reduce the high cost of government in ways that remove the Liberals' traditional, undemocratic edge -- actually, it's a universal incumbants' edge, but historically a benefit for Liberals more than any other party. You'd think an incumbent party removing benefits for incumbent parties would be embraced as a patriotically democratic act, but the coalition has chosen to see it as an attack on their base of operations. To me, this demonstrates that their base of operations is something other than the will of the people.

[Jabrwock]

Psudo wrote:

remove the Liberals' traditional, undemocratic edge in electoral politics.

You mean the counter to the fact that the party in power gets free (as in doesn't cost the party itself) pre-election-announcement PR due to it running the government... A benefit every party abuses when it's in power to advertise it's accomplishments heavily prior to announcing an election, so they don't have to spend as much party money on doing the same.

[Shablabar]

Psudo wrote:

Just as JJ said, the galvanizing platform issue for this coalition is the attempt to reduce the high cost of government in ways that remove the Liberals' traditional, undemocratic edge -- actually, it's a universal incumbants' edge, but historically a benefit for Liberals more than any other party. You'd think an incumbent party removing benefits for incumbent parties would be embraced as a patriotically democratic act, but the coalition has chosen to see it as an attack on their base of operations. To me, this demonstrates that their base of operations is something other than the will of the people.

I'm not against removing subsidies for political parties in principle. But the timing on this one smacks of political gamesmanship. It's just Harper trying to twist the knife. This move would bankrupt the opposition. Consider that party financing was never even brought up during the last election, or in the Throne Speech. It came out of left field; Harper was banking on the Opposition being unwilling to force an election so soon in order to cement his grip on power. But he's forced them into a corner, and they've called his bluff. Much better would have been to focus on modest and measured economic bills this time around, and focus on party financing at the next election.

Still, I have a hard time believing that Harper, normally an astute tactician, would not have seen this coming. The first thing that I thought was that he was trying to engineer a constitutional crisis in order to galvanize people behind his pet project from the Reform years: constitutional reform (specifically Senate reform). Who knows...

[Jabrwock]

CBC wrote:

During question period, Harper also accused Dion, NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe of deliberately avoiding being photographed in front of a Canadian flag during Monday's signing ceremony of the agreement between the parties. Video and photographs of the event, however, clearly showed at least two Canadian flags behind the three leaders.

PM dares Dion to face voters with coalition plan

Wow, resorting to the patriotism charge. Gee, THAT'S original...

[Jabrwock]

Shablabar wrote:

It came out of left field; Harper was banking on the Opposition being unwilling to force an election so soon in order to cement his grip on power. But he's forced them into a corner, and they've called his bluff. Much better would have been to focus on modest and measured economic bills this time around, and focus on party financing at the next election.

Still, I have a hard time believing that Harper, normally an astute tactician, would not have seen this coming. The first thing that I thought was that he was trying to engineer a constitutional crisis in order to galvanize people behind his pet project from the Reform years: constitutional reform (specifically Senate reform). Who knows...

Considering how fast he backpedaled on all the controversial issues, it was clear to me it was a test to see how far he could push the Opposition. Poison pill politics. Get them all riled up, the retract everything and play victim when they refuse to support you. It's nothing new for the CPC, they've done this a few times.

I honestly don't think Harper ever believed the NDP and Liberals would work together. He probably knew about the NDP/Bloc deal, but that wouldn't have been enough, and he could have mocked them at his leisure.

[Biblesmasher]

Thanos wrote:

Biblesmasher wrote:

Thanos wrote:

Maybe you guys can bring in your beloved proportional representation in after the Dion/Layton/Duceppe take over. It should help you win by more the next time.

Ah... you mean have the representation actually reflect the will of the people?? No! Who would want that?!?

Um yah...maybe "we" can. That would be phenomenal. Then we can get some greens or some other smaller parties in there.

And maybe next all the people who don't want to live in an economically-dead burnt-out leftist hellhole should all just "get the fuck out" too?

Sorry for beating you to what you were going to say next

Dont apologize for saying clownish nonsense I couldnt come up with in the midst of my worst bender.

If youd drag your head out of that dark crevice long enough, youd realize that proportional representation would at worst keep Canada pretty much the way it is, since what we see now is largely a reflection of an almost unchecked Liberal monopoly of power(something I happen to think turned the liberals into arrogant buffoons but the liberal parties more centrist position represents most canadians) for over a decade previous to harper. In addition Prop. Representation would have the exact OPPOSITE effect that you're suggesting because citizens(you know the guys most qualified to know wether their lives are good or bad) would have more control with their votes and would more easily be able to self correct i.e. vote in more conservatives if they felt things had drifted too far to the left instead of leaving it up to the first past the post roll of the dice.

But you did get one thing correct, self hating, grass is greener Canadians CAN "get the fuck out".

[Sapio]

Psudo wrote:

CKASlacker wrote:

Sapio wrote:

They are going to print it.

Have't we seen this movie before? Say, Germany during the 20's and 30's (*) printing money to pay off huge war reparations?

Most of the funding for the big US bailout will be paid for by a huge sum of money the Federal Reserve has been saving for decades. They may attempt the printing-money solution as part of the funding -- or use that functional equivalent, deficit spending -- but that is not going to be the primary method for paying for the bailout.

That huge sum of money was also printed. In the long run (not to far of) that sum will run out and they will have to print more and more. That need to stop their massive spending, as do we.

[Biblesmasher]

Kjorteo wrote:

People seem to be under the impression that the parties that didn't win the election no longer exist. At least, that's the impression I'm getting from all this whining I'm seeing (most notably from Biblesmasher, but there are others) about how a coalition government would allow lesser parties like the NDP at least some say as opposed to none.

Um, guys? They already have a say, even right now. It's called Stephen Harper's minority government. In a minority government, the PM has to be careful because the other parties can shoot down anything he says if they agree to do so, and can non-confidence vote him if he gets too annoying. The fact that Harper hasn't really been able to do anything, as some people here (mostly Donny_Brasco, though) have been alleging? That's the say of the Liberals and NDP and Bloc right there! They don't need to band together in some sort of let's-everyone-but-Harper-be-PM coalition to be heard. They're already heard in the form of thwarting most of what Harper tries to do. They can only block the agenda and don't get to actually set it, yes, but that's apparently perfectly in line with the will of the Canadian voters, seeing as the Conservatives won the last election.

This is why the complaining about Harper having 38% of the vote and still being PM is especially ridiculous. If he had an actual 50%+1 majority, then that would be a majority government, and your beloved opposition parties really would have absolutely zero say on anything. Actually, an actual majority is where the Canadian Parliamentary process breaks down more than any other place, because that's where the only thing stopping Harper from all-out dictatorship is the possibility of being fired by a ceremonial figurehead talk show host who's mostly there because Paul Martin likes diversity.

Man you got a hard on for filibuster politics. Folding your arms and holding your breathe(what representatives of 62% of the country are reduced to)isnt exactly having a say. Its a recipe for paralyses on topics that need immediate attention(e.g.the environment) that the large majority of the Canadians agree on. Take your love of your "do nothing congress" somewhere else.

And where -in me saying that 38% of the vote shouldn't trump 44% percent of the vote(what NDP and Liberal would be under proportional representation) in the house of commons- do you get the idea that people would prefer Harper get a 50+1 majority? No, its still only under this current FPP that Harper could have concievably got that kind of majority with such a small percent of the pop. vote. So your point makes no sense.

[bootlegga]

CKASlacker wrote:

Especially when you consider the straightforward way to connect these dots:

Germany Depression --> Rise of Hitler --> usurpation of Chancellorship --> WWII --> Auchswitz

I'm not saying that this will lead to some sort of holocaust in any shape or form as to what happened then... but the point is that a lot of bad may come of this in the long run.

Given that it's Harper who's planning on asking for a suspension of Parliament, I'd say he's the problem. All we need now is a fire in the Reichstag...and yes, I know all about Godwin's law.

[terrance_s]

Who else here thinks the bloc voters shouldnt count towards the voice of CANADA.

[llama66]

terrance_s wrote:

Who else here thinks the bloc voters shouldnt count towards the voice of CANADA.

Me? Me thinks you wanna be federal party, you needs to have candidates in all provinces and territories.

[Biblesmasher]

terrance_s wrote:

Who else here thinks the bloc voters shouldnt count towards the voice of CANADA.

100%. They shouldnt be in the house of commons.

[terrance_s]

Shows what they really want then doesnt it.

[Kjorteo]

And yet you people are still excited about the coalition, even though the Bloc will be the critical keystone of it? Remember, Liberals + NDP - Bloc is still less than Conservatives.