Canadian Federal Conservatives may trigger another election

[Next of Kin]

Why is Ignatieff, who has spent less than a decade in Canada, now the leader of the Opposition?

Riiiiight....we all know that to be a worthy leader of the opposition that one must have spent, at the very minimum, 11 years in Canada.

[TheKwas]

Not to mention that Ryan can't even bother to get his facts straight. If you count up all the years Ignatieff has spent in Canada (he moved around a lot throughout his life), the figure comes out around 20 years, including most of his childhood.

[Ryan Thunder]

Why is Ignatieff, who has spent less than a decade in Canada, now the leader of the Opposition?

Riiiiight....we all know that to be a worthy leader of the opposition that one must have spent, at the very minimum, 11 years in Canada.

If it wasn't good enough for him to live here before he decided to come back and run for leadership, it shouldn't be good enough for him now.

Not to mention that Ryan can't even bother to get his facts straight. If you count up all the years Ignatieff has spent in Canada (he moved around a lot throughout his life), the figure comes out around 20 years, including most of his childhood.

Recently, you twat, and consecutively.

At the very least he should've spent longer IN the country than out.

[TheKwas]

Don't call me a twat you go around making misleading and outright false statements. You're supposed to add qualifiers to statements while you actually make that statement, not afterwards.

Besides, considering the fact that most of Ignatieff's time abroad was spent at Oxford and Harvard, exactly why does he need to have lived in this country for x% of his life in order to be an effective leader? Is teaching at Oxford unpatriotic or something?

[Ryan Thunder]

Don't call me a twat you go around making misleading and outright false statements. You're supposed to add qualifiers to statements while you actually make that statement, not afterwards.

Sorry, I'll retract that statement. You aren't a twat, and I shouldn't have called you one.

Besides, considering the fact that most of Ignatieff's time abroad was spent at Oxford and Harvard, exactly why does he need to have lived in this country for x% of his life in order to be an effective leader? Is teaching at Oxford unpatriotic or something?

Living in another country would qualify, I think. Especially when the first thing he did when he came back was make a beeline for the party leadership. It's like me using my first post to ask Mike if I could be a Mod.

[TheKwas]

Living in another country would qualify for... being unpatriotic?


Also, the Liberal party (or rather, certain members of the Liberal Party) reached out to him in England and asked him to come back to Canada as a leadership canidate. Rather than your comparison, it's more like Mike, in need of a new Mod, goes and finds one from off-site who is widely recognized as intelligent and in possession of the qualities that would make for a good addition to Mike's moderater team. Sure, it would perhaps be nice if we could find someone of his quality among the ranks of local posters, but ultimately it has little impact on his ability to be an effective Moderater.

[Ryan Thunder]

Living in another country would qualify for... being unpatriotic?

Yes. Anybody else who lives in Canada has been contributing to Canada by being here, working here, etc.

Also, the Liberal party (or rather, certain members of the Liberal Party) reached out to him in England and asked him to come back to Canada as a leadership canidate. Rather than your comparison, it's more like Mike, in need of a new Mod, goes and finds one from off-site who is widely recognized as intelligent and in possession of the qualities that would make for a good addition to Mike's moderater team. Sure, it would perhaps be nice if we could find someone of his quality among the ranks of local posters, but ultimately it has little impact on his ability to be an effective Moderater.

Maybe so, but why would Mike go off to Vaul knows where to get a Moderator when he has a legion of good candidates here who are already familiar with the forum?

[TheKwas]

Living in another country would qualify for... being unpatriotic?

Yes. Anybody else who lives in Canada has been contributing to Canada by being here, working here, etc.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this one. I actually threw out the line about patriotism mostly for giggles rather than expecting it as a serious argument. Seems really silly to me to judge the man's patriotism by how many years he lived in Canada, or even judging his ability to be leader by patriotism in the first place. Do you doubt that he will defend Canada's interests or try his best to improve conditions for most canadians?

Maybe so, but why would Mike go off to Vaul knows where to get a Moderator when he has a legion of good candidates here who are already familiar with the forum?

Why not? Why can't just Mike think that this character has the intellect and personality that would make him a better Mod than anyone currently on the board?

Or, assuming that there are just as good candidates on the board, should he also favour whatever candidate happens to have the highest post count? Should post count be on an equal footing to intellect and Moderator ability?

[Ryan Thunder]

Living in another country would qualify for... being unpatriotic?

Yes. Anybody else who lives in Canada has been contributing to Canada by being here, working here, etc.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this one. I actually threw out the line about patriotism mostly for giggles rather than expecting it as a serious argument.

Oh? My sarcasm metre must be broken today.

Seems really silly to me to judge the man's patriotism by how many years he lived in Canada, or even judging his ability to be leader by patriotism in the first place. Do you doubt that he will defend Canada's interests or try his best to improve conditions for most canadians?

I don't doubt that he'll try to, no.

Maybe so, but why would Mike go off to Vaul knows where to get a Moderator when he has a legion of good candidates here who are already familiar with the forum?

Why not? Why can't just Mike think that this character has the intellect and personality that would make him a better Mod than anyone currently on the board?

Or, assuming that there are just as good candidates on the board, should he also favour whatever candidate happens to have the highest post count? Should post count be on an equal footing to intellect and Moderator ability?

I would favour the candidates who are already on the board. It's like a slap in the face to them otherwise.

The fact that they called him out of another country just makes it worse in my opinion. Would you be comfortable having a foreigner for your head of state? Somebody who wasn't even a citizen? Because as far as I'm concerned, he spent the majority of his life out of the country paying taxes to other governments, and that makes him a citizen in name only. If he wants to run for office, he should come live here for a few years and get acclimatized before he even considers it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

"Contributing to Canada"!?

Parliamentary system is broken because it allows coalitions?

Jesus, you've just condemned about 80% of the world's governments.... I guess the influence of "we want to be just like America" is too damned strong in western Canada, another reason for me to focus heavily on Quebec as a place to live.

Let me assure you, our government is worse than your's, and as an American living in America, we could use some coalition governments like the one that Harper just used a parliamentary manoeuvre to keep from happening.

[Adrian Laguna]

It simply boggles the mind how anyone could possibly say a coalition government is a bad thing.

"Oh no! The politicians are getting toguether, reaching across the aisle, and agreeing to spend more time running the country and less engaging in vicious infighting! What are we going to do!?"

[Ryan Thunder]

Parliamentary system is broken because it allows coalitions?

Yeah. Voting together is one thing. Randomly deciding to act like a party without having to go through the hassle of getting elected so you can change the ruling party without consulting the population is another.

On the other hand, I'd rather we didn't have political parties to begin with. Representatives would vote with their interests in mind and not how the Party Whip told them to. The functions of the Prime Minister would be carried out by the representatives, etc.

It simply boggles the mind how anyone could possibly say a coalition government is a bad thing.

"Oh no! The politicians are getting toguether, reaching across the aisle, and agreeing to spend more time running the country and less engaging in vicious infighting! What are we going to do!?"

They don't need a not-party to do that.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yeah. Voting together is one thing. Randomly deciding to act like a party without having to go through the hassle of getting elected so you can change the ruling party without consulting the population is another.

No, that's the way it happens. The population was consulted when it elected the officials--the members parliament--into office, and if they believe it is in the best interest of their constituents, then they have the right, nay, the duty to enter into a coalition!

On the other hand, I'd rather we didn't have political parties to begin with. Representatives would vote with their interests in mind and not how the Party Whip told them to. The functions of the Prime Minister would be carried out by the representatives, etc.

But in most Parliamentary democracies the whole point of voting is to vote for the party, and this is the accepted way that democracy works; the Anglosphere is the odd man out there, and not even in countries like Australia where party choice voting is the norm, for instance. You're simply completely wrong. And the idea that the Prime Minister of a parliamentary democracy could be replaced by a couple hundred people collectively is the silliest idea I've ever heard in my entire life.

[Adrian Laguna]

They don't need a not-party to do that.

What is that even supposed to mean? I honestly can't make heads or tails of what you're arguing other than the fact that you don't like coalitions because you just don't. I suspect it is because there is nothing else besides.

[Phantasee]

People in Western Canada don't like the coalition because they've finally got a Conservative gov't in place after all these years of Liberal gov't. They don't like that the NDP and Liberals can come together to govern again, because for some reason it's against everything they believe in (which is retarded, but whatever).

It's almost irrational hatred of the Liberals and a definite irrational hatred of the EVIL SOCIALIST NDP! Last night I was commenting on how nice Jack Layton's mustache was, GROOMIN' STANDARDS be damned. The response? "Yeah, the 1970s called, they want their mustache back! Damn socialists, always taking things that aren't theirs..."

This left me with on my face for a few minutes (we were having a conversation about facial hair styles).

So go easy on poor Ryan, he doesn't know why he hates this "undemocratic" idea the Liberals and NDP came up with. He just does.


I am opposed to the Coalition because it gives the Bloc power, which I am opposed to no matter what. I did hear an interesting perspective on it, though: apparently, one should consider that the Bloc, a seperatist party, is supporting two federalist parties in gov't. SHOCKING! And apparently a win for federalism.

I suppose it is, if you look at it that way, but how accurate of a picture is it, really?

[SCRawl]

I am opposed to the Coalition because it gives the Bloc power, which I am opposed to no matter what. I did hear an interesting perspective on it, though: apparently, one should consider that the Bloc, a seperatist party, is supporting two federalist parties in gov't. SHOCKING! And apparently a win for federalism.

For the umpteenth time, this coalition does not give the Bloc any power -- it potentially gives them influence, which is another thing again. There's also talk that some extra tax dollars will find their way into their coffers (to the tune of a billion of them), if the leader of the PQ can be believed. I personally wish that all regional parties -- especially those with a separatist agenda -- could be outlawed, but that's a topic for another time.

[Ryan Thunder]

They don't need a not-party to do that.

What is that even supposed to mean? I honestly can't make heads or tails of what you're arguing other than the fact that you don't like coalitions because you just don't. I suspect it is because there is nothing else besides.

I don't like coalitions because they change the ruling party while pretending not to be a new party (and thus bypassing all that fun electoral shit everybody else has to go through) and acting like a new party.

It's really not that complicated. I don't know why you people seem to have such extreme difficulty understanding that.

[Graeme Dice]

I don't like coalitions because they change the ruling party while pretending not to be a new party (and thus bypassing all that fun electoral shit everybody else has to go through) and acting like a new party.

Have you not listened to any of the dozen times that it's been explained to you why you are wrong on this issue? They aren't acting like a new party, they are acting like a coalition.

It's really not that complicated. I don't know why you people seem to have such extreme difficulty understanding that.[/quote]

Partly because what you expect us to "understand" doesn't match reality. The fact that you are being willfully ignorant about the nature of parliamentary democracies also doesn't help.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I am opposed to the Coalition because it gives the Bloc power, which I am opposed to no matter what. I did hear an interesting perspective on it, though: apparently, one should consider that the Bloc, a seperatist party, is supporting two federalist parties in gov't. SHOCKING! And apparently a win for federalism.

For the umpteenth time, this coalition does not give the Bloc any power -- it potentially gives them influence, which is another thing again. There's also talk that some extra tax dollars will find their way into their coffers (to the tune of a billion of them), if the leader of the PQ can be believed. I personally wish that all regional parties -- especially those with a separatist agenda -- could be outlawed, but that's a topic for another time.

The Bloc could just reform as a national French Language Party, though, so banning regional parties would accomplish nothing, even if the branches outside of Quebec would all be bad jokes they could keep them running to keep up appearances.

[Ryan Thunder]

I don't like coalitions because they change the ruling party while pretending not to be a new party (and thus bypassing all that fun electoral shit everybody else has to go through) and acting like a new party.

Have you not listened to any of the dozen times that it's been explained to you why you are wrong on this issue? They aren't acting like a new party, they are acting like a coalition.

Coalitions are treated like a single party so they can overthrow the government and install one of their members as the Prime Minister.

[WARNING: OPINION FOLLOWS! THIS POSTER DOES NOT BELIEVE THE SYSTEM WORKS LIKE THIS!]
This is something that I believe is only properly done by either A: impeachment, followed by an election, or B: an election.

[Graeme Dice]

This is something that I believe is only properly done by either A: impeachment, followed by an election, or B: an election.

Have you yet realized that your opinion isn't really relevant? And that stating that something is "only your opinion" doesn't make it immune to criticism?

[SCRawl]

I personally wish that all regional parties -- especially those with a separatist agenda -- could be outlawed, but that's a topic for another time.

The Bloc could just reform as a national French Language Party, though, so banning regional parties would accomplish nothing, even if the branches outside of Quebec would all be bad jokes they could keep them running to keep up appearances.

Oh no, my idea to do away with regional parties involves party subsidies, or rather the withholding and distribution of them. I posted something about it elsewhere, I think, but in brief:

- require any party which gets federal funds to run at least one candidate in each province
- require that any funds get allocated (approximately) by province by population. For example, if Quebec has 35% of Canada's population, then you can spend, say, 30-40% of your federal funds there, however they like.

This wouldn't eliminate regional parties, but would effectively cripple them, or at least diminish their ability to play to their market. There are at least two problems with this plan: it would create a backlash against the party or parties that implemented it; and it would become a rallying cry for the types of party that would be affected by it.

It isn't that I don't like Quebec, it's that I don't like federal parties that are beholden to only one region of the country. We have provincial governments to look after provincial interests.

[Ryan Thunder]

This is something that I believe is only properly done by either A: impeachment, followed by an election, or B: an election.

Have you yet realized that your opinion isn't really relevant? And that stating that something is "only your opinion" doesn't make it immune to criticism?

Of course it isn't immune to criticism. Last time I stated my opinion of how I thought it should work, people beat me over the head with it as if I actually thought that was how it worked. Then I made it clear this was not the case, and they continued to "correct" me. This time, I decided to made it painfully obvious as a preventative measure.

[Graeme Dice]

Of course it isn't immune to criticism.

Then stop complaining when you get criticized for having ignorant opinions.

Last time I stated my opinion of how I thought it should work, people beat me over the head with it as if I actually thought that was how it worked. Then I made it clear this was not the case, and they continued to "correct" me.

That's only because you continue to post, and continue to claim that your uneducated opinion on these issues matters.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Of course it isn't immune to criticism. Last time I stated my opinion of how I thought it should work, people beat me over the head with it as if I actually thought that was how it worked. Then I made it clear this was not the case, and they continued to "correct" me. This time, I decided to made it painfully obvious as a preventative measure.

Explain why the Canadian government would work better with an American-style system like that which you are proposing, or concede.

Consider yourself called out, good Sir. Now is the time to concisely and rationally explain the advantages of your proposal over the current government... Or admit that there are none, concede, and acknowledge that the current Canadian government is the best option for Canada.