Derek 2.0

You're paranoid Waldo.......I'm not holding you to anything, as I said, I wasn't aware (until ~ 1hour ago with your mention) the extent of Provincial support required for the NDP's plan......If one were to assume and place bets, would you not think it reasonable to assume, as I do, that an NDP Provincial party would fully support a federal NDP Government........IIRC, only BC is in surplus at the Provincial level, I can't envision a Clark Government agreeing to any NDP plan that require the Province to spend more money...... IOW, I'd be more surprised if the Alberta NDP Government didn't support Mulcair.........as mentioned by Argus, if Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec didn't support a Federal NDP's daycare plan, what are the chances of it coming to fruition? I'd think not likely.......

Not playing at anything, other than noting the many, many flaws of the NDP's promises.......though I wouldn't vote LPC, I give Trudeau credit for his honesty encompassing his many proposals......he admits that he won't have a balanced budget for years........Mulcair's promises don't add up when put against his suggestion to maintaining a balanced budget.

Could not many of those same charges not be leveled against Mulcair too?

Where did I invent positions? As I said, I had no idea the level of support needed from each Province.......as to Notley, I'd have assumed, based on said required support from the Provincial level, Provincial NDP Governments would march to the same beat as the Federal parent..........they are one in the same no?

And I agree on your conclusion as to what a Neocon is.......

Ahh, not quite.......the current Canadian conservative movement came about well George H Bush was seeking the Republican nomination (which he lost to Reagan), Joe Clark was getting tossed after his first tenure as PCP leader (which he snatched from Mulroney on a second ballot) and Prime Minister, the Federal Social Credit party had yet to blend with the Progressive Conservatives, and Thatcher was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom..... The apt description (among ourselves anyways) for the movement is 1980 Conservative.......even though the movement had its first rumblings going back to the 1960s with Barry Goldwater, and its first winner in the Spring of 1979: But, I do agree fully with parallel movements......you're just not going back far enough

How so? By what measure are you using? Social Conservatives can still voice their opinions, but their social agenda is marginalized by the party for the most part......

Why would you buy Brookfield? They're under investigation by the SEC and the Brazilian Government........ Funny enough, and I'm sure unrelated to the above, a goodly percentage of Justin's speaking engagements were held at Brookfield properties.......furthermore Brookfield had a business relationship with Heenan Blaikie, the now defunct law firm that PET and Chretien joined after leaving their PM gigs........even more so, on Brookfield's Board sits Frank McKenna, the former Ambassador to the United States under PM PM.......And you called me a Liberal? I'd think I'd hold off on buying BAM until after they fend off the bribery charges (As I'm sure they will).......

Furthermore, another demonstration of NDP math.......they promise to let taxpayers pay for 10k more affordable rentals over the next ten years, yet they also promise to increase the family class of immigrants......So Canadians get to pay more so immigrants have cheap rentals in our largest cities......seems legit

I didn't know that.....no support from Notley? I suppose, sans said support, the NDP's childcare plan is stillborn....

Interesting commentary on Mulcair's proposed magical budget.......has a running tally of costed promises and proposed additional revenue streams......summed up nicely here: Trudeau has come clean and admitted to fulfill his promises that he will run into the red for several years.......Harper's promises, like before, are based on a balanced budget with a hefty surplus, as such, wouldn't come to fruition for several years at best.......It will be interesting to see Mulcair's magic further investigated in the coming weeks.....likely by the CPC, LPC and the MSM.

Exactly, within the past weeks several NDP candidates were tossed for voicing their opinions which run counter to their party, Likewise, the two past NDP MPs that left the party after voting with the Government on the removal of the LGR..........the meme of Harper's trained seals is rich when all parties that want to form Government require message control.......

Indeed, or the Conservatives to an extent, with their proposed law requiring any proposed changes be put before Canadians first. I seem to remember, to past proposed changes in Ontario and British Columbia were rejected........

No, as the NORAD-NATO relationship is codependent with the senior partners allowance of information/intelligence sharing, further compounded with the Post 9/11 US-Canada Combined Defence Plan...... Perhaps you'd best explain that to Putin.......whose air force has been conducting near monthly mock nuclear attacks along our coastlines (and our NATO allies in Europe, in addition to the non-NATO Swedes), with several months ago the largest in over 40 years, conducting simulated cruise missile attacks along the West Coast, from Alaska down to California. Furthermore, by all means, you can also explain to Putin that he has no requirement to return such a large military footprint to the Russian Arctic, a military force in size or scope that hasn't been bested by the Russians since the Cold War..... The only thing that doesn't make sense is your reasoning for wanting Canada to depart NATO, an alliance that affords far greater protection then Canada could afford on its own......

My question, if the NDP and Liberals feel changing our voting system will make us more democratic, why are they adverse to having a national referendum on the topic?

So Team Mulcair will decide the parties forthcoming policies........And I thought NDP supporters were opposed to a powerful PMO

Huh?

And the ongoing context of the member's post, and intent of the OP, is what? And no, I very much replied earlier in somewhat agreeing fashion....... As I said Waldo, its all context......funny enough, your reply to the above post: You started with an adversarial dig, followed up by suggesting I stated such rulings as fact/resolved....

Not simplistic at all, more realistic........the Russians couldn't have afforded their level of research and resources at their disposal post 1991......furthermore, as I've said countless times, the Russians have forgotten more on the Arctic then US/Canada/Denmark/Finland/Sweden could hope to learn in a century........When the British, French, Dutch and Spanish were dividing the World centuries ago, Tsars Ivan the Terrible, followed by Peter the Great, were exploring the Arctic.....

Oh well.......I'm still wondering your point of response in the first place.

Russia was "the most active and engaged country working to substantiate its claim" because of the vestiges leftover from the Soviet Union: and already existing infrastructure within its own Arctic region........

I read his post as Canadian sovereignty as a whole, with the suggestion that we don't require a military because the United States and Danes pose no threat, leaving reasonable Russia as a potential threat, of which we could only challenge with our own nuclear weapons, as such, no point in having a military......... If you require one, I'm certain the member could provide a formula for your consumption.

Context Waldo, my statement was in reply to a suggestion that we couldn't fend off a Russian threat to our sovereignty, sans our own nuclear arsenal.

I never suggested otherwise....