CKA Forums
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/

Harper calls election, ignores own fixed-election date law
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/federal-elections-f43/harper-calls-election-ignores-own-fixed-election-date-law-t67563-60.html
Page 5 of 5

Author:  KyleEverett [ Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Harper calls election, ignores own fixed-election date law

My looking it up says the NDP lost official party status once since its formation in 1961, and that was in 1993. They came close in 2000 with only 13 seats.

Author:  Reverend Blair [ Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Harper calls election, ignores own fixed-election date law

Not exactly what Apollo has been claiming then, is it?

He doesn't get into the reasons for it either...not least of which was people voting Liberal to get rid of an incompetent, secretive, and dishonest Conservative government.

Author:  KyleEverett [ Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Harper calls election, ignores own fixed-election date law

I still say that given how unimportant individual representatives are to their ridings, that Canada should go with a proportional representation government to prevent a party with 40% support getting a huge majority in parliament.

Right now it seems you vote for the party and leader rather then your candidate, so lets make it fair.

Author:  RUEZ [ Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Harper calls election, ignores own fixed-election date law

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
See, I'd define fringe as the party full of racists, homophobes, fundamentalists, and men who favour high heels and broad-brimmed hats. That'd be the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives.

When you say things like that, it kind of takes the legitimacy out of your arguments. Funny thing is you said you wanted to discuss the issues.

Author:  Apollo [ Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Harper calls election, ignores own fixed-election date law

Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
$1:
When a party goes in and out of official party status as many times as Liz Taylor changes husbands then I would consider it a fringe party.


See, I'd define fringe as the party full of racists, homophobes, fundamentalists, and men who favour high heels and broad-brimmed hats. That'd be the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives.

How many times has the NDP lost official party status anyway, Apollo? Give an HONEST answer, if you're capable of such a thing.


My interpretation of fringe party is one that is
Full of welfare cases
Swill beer while comparing Harper to Bush, Hitler, the devil etc.
Welcoming known terrorists with open arms while spitting on our soldiers. Attending peace rallies and subsequently trashing the place.
Wanting the government to provide everything for them from cradle to grave.
Not willing to take on any semblance of personal responsibility.
Letting child rapists off with a warning because we wouldn't want to hurt their feelings.
Income redistribution from joe Canadian to welfare joe.
Want to get paid $40 per hour plus benefits to screw the same nut into the same bolt 30 times per hour forever.
Tax everything that moves so that we can socialize everything.
Celebrate when they get 13 seats, all in central Toronto.

Like I said previously, as the Greens gain support, the NDP will be marginalized to the point of non existance.

Author:  KyleEverett [ Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Harper calls election, ignores own fixed-election date law

Perhaps they'd be willing to move to Denmark or anywhere else in Scandinavia where thats commonplace?

Author:  Reverend Blair [ Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Harper calls election, ignores own fixed-election date law

$1:
I still say that given how unimportant individual representatives are to their ridings, that Canada should go with a proportional representation government to prevent a party with 40% support getting a huge majority in parliament.


Actually, a mixed system that provides both local representation and overall proportional representation would work better for us. It can be set up a number of ways to provide representation for under-represented areas or groups as well. At it's very base though you vote for your local candidates and a party, seats are then topped up so that each party gets the same percentage of seats as indicated by the popular vote.

$1:
Funny thing is you said you wanted to discuss the issues.


I'd love to. Unfortunately the Conservatives here would rather we didn't. That's fine, I can play their game too.

How about that Gerry Ritz, Eh? Looks like he's got some issues. :lol:

Page 5 of 5 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB ©