CPCFTW

You'll get no defense from me for marketing/advertising. I think it's an unnecessary added cost in a world with the internet (where detailed product reviews and comparisons can be readily researched by the consumer).

You know who else is? Unions. Gross.

I'll give Harper the benefit of the doubt until he has a majority government. We'll see what happens now, but in 4 years I may have to hold my nose too.

Maybe you just like to be angry and object to everything possible. You should watch the south park episode "T.M.I." for some insight into why you may do this.

I don't think that unions do a more effective job (and certainly not a cost-effective one) at bringing any unknown concerns to light. What concerns does the CUPW bring to light? That "Canada Post management does not listen to fresh ideas such as offering banking services". Unions are a relic of past injustices that don't serve much of a purpose anymore.

As we are free to laugh at the 'dufusses' who buy into articles lamenting Harper taking advantage of the taxpayer by going to a hockey game.

Stakeholder concerns are balanced by the media and market since the market will respond negatively to companies receiving bad press. For example, lets say there was no minimum wage and the media reported that McDonald's had cut wages to $0.05/hr or that they had dumped a bunch of radioactive waste from their burger production process () into nearby lakes. The market would anticipate a change in consumer behaviour (boycotting) and the sales, share price, and capital raising ability of McDonald's would be impacted.

Boohoo Harper makes a lot of money, he should buy a private plane for himself and learn to fly and buy a bullet proof vest with all of his money like the rest of the PMs!!!

Are you sure you're not thinking of how Depape "punked" Parliament and effectively disenfranchised 10 million voters by claiming to represent them?

Let's start by banning sensationalized liberal media news stories like the one about Harper watching a hockey game with his family while stealing $10,000/hr from poor hungry autistic children. What do you care what parties do with the money they solicit from their supporters? There is always a disclaimer about who paid for the advertisement anyway. I take it you believe people are too stupid to exercise their judgement when watching party ads so only the "unbiased" media should be able to educate/inform us about politics?

And is it possible that research can be flawed or biased? And is it possible that the leader has to compromise within his own party against the advice of researchers and advisors to maintain his power and support? Is it possible that compromise is not necessarily the optimal solution to all problems? Or is compromise only important when conservatives are in power? Our system should be redesigned to promote compromise between parties, but Harper should not compromise within his own party by pushing through the legislation that is championed by many of his supporters? Why not just elect academics (who are ALWAYS unbiased ) to research the optimal solution to all of our problems?

Once again you turn to personal attacks. And I'm the intolerant one.

Proportional representation would be like starting a business with a bunch of partners with completely different views. One partner wants it to be a bank, one partner wants it to be a car parts manufacturer, and one partner wants it to be a biotech firm. Each partner negotiates to get some of what he wants, and in the end you wind up with a conglomerate of crappy products/services and a ton of debt. Our current system at least gives each partner a chance to run the business as he/she sees fit, and if they fail, then a new partner can take over and run it the way they think is best. I have yet to see any genuine ideas that can be demonstrated to be better than our system. We have one of the strongest economies in the developed world and a strong social safety net despite the incidences of the system "being broken" that I had previously mentioned. With this in mind, how exactly is our system broken other than that it didn't generate the winner many people wanted? I won't bother responding to the rest of your bleeding heart insinuations other than if I was intolerant of other people's views, I would be the one objecting to the results of a democratic election. Seems to me the intolerant ones are those who want to change the system and depose of a leader that was elected by 40% of voters simply because the system didn't provide them with the results they wanted.

The point of the stakeholder view is that all stakeholders (enmployees, plublic, etc.) are considered and not just investors. Public companies within a developed country are pressured to at least somewhat adopt this view as their share price will be impacted otherwise. Private companies will have difficulty raising sufficient capital to be competitive.

And the latest progressions of our society have been to instill a complete stakeholder view into corporate governance and the emergence of a competitive globalized economy in which it can be strongly argued that unionization and overtaxation destroys jobs and growth within any individual nation. When will you "progressives" join us in the 21st century?

You mean the point that's only important now that the conservative party is in power? Don't worry I have seen every possible varaiation of this "point".

Do you really think 6 weeks vacation is the norm in the private sector? You really are out of touch with reality. I don't know what your mom did to get 6 weeks vacation as a bank teller, but that can't be normal at all. In fact, I would think bank tellers generally get the minimum 4% vacation pay (or about 2 weeks). You certainly would never start with 6 weeks vacation as a bank teller... she must have been there for a LOOOONG time or she works overtime for vacation days. Try your calculations again with 2 weeks for a more accurate reflection of how inflated teacher's salaries are.

For further clarification, you should also include a hypothetical province with a heavily separatist electorate who have inflated the vote totals of the NDP by voting for children. You should also include a hypothetical group of ideologues who have suddenly concluded that proportional representation is suddenly necessary now that a conservative government is in power. Please also include hypothetical election results such as a hypothetical election in 2000 in which a hypothetical PM called "Adscam" won 172 seats with 5.2mil votes while the conservative parties combined for 4.8m votes and 78 seats. Lets not forget another hypothetical election in 1997 in which "Adscam" was again elected with 155 seats and 4.9m votes, compared to 80 seats and 4.95m votes for the conservative parties. Of course, this is all hypothetical. The only hard evidence we have is the most recent election which proves that the system is broken! And if my dad taught me anything growing up, it was that if you can't win a game, then just change the rules. I don't think American woman will need any explanation as to why our system concentrates power into the hands of the governing party given how difficult it is to get anything done in the American system. Our system attempts to avoid the incessant spending to placate opposition parties that would be the hallmark of a proportional representational system. Lets also not forget that a proportional rep system could conceivably give Quebec separatists the power to hold Canada hostage on many divisive policies (hypothetically of course).

I can't decide. There are too many new NDP MPs who I love for making the NDP look like more of a joke.

Why not start a new thread then if you're changing the topic to crying about being called a lefty, hater, or sore loser?

Even though the PM is already holding himself to a higher standard than any similar position in the public or private sector that required such security, your position is that he should be held to an even higher higher standard. Sounds reasonable. The only reason I called you a lefty is because I think the argument is so unreasonable that I can only begin to comprehend it if you were a lefty who is just trying to fling as much mud at Harper as possible and hoping that some of it sticks. Forgive me if I was mistaken. As an aside, I don't understand the indignation that many "progressives" ( ) or "liberals" or "socialists" have with being called a lefty. I certainly wouldn't take offense if you called me a righty since my views are generally right of centre. I get it, your positions cant all be categorized as "left". But since the majority of them are, some might call you a lefty.

The PM is entitled to travel for personal reasons just like the rest of us. His position requires that he take a taxpayer funded private jet for security reasons. If you can't understand why your complaint is asinine and ridiculous yet, then I don't think I can help you.

It truly is historic. We are lucky to have a PM like this. I have a hypothetical for you. Let's say you were interviewing for a position in which you were privy to top secret classified information and were paid a nice salary of $300,000. You received an offer, however, as part of your contract, you are forbidden from travelling on commercial airlines for security reasons and you have to always use a company supplied private jet. The jet would cost $10,000/hr to use. You anticipate working in this position for 15 years. Would you take the position? What if you were told that you had to pay the $10,000/hr whenever you wanted to travel for personal reasons? Your expected income could quite possibly be negative. One round trip visit to China for personal reasons might take up an entire year's salary. It's such a ridiculous argument it can only originate from a lefty.

Figures released by DND in January 2011 show that the total number of Canadian soldiers injured and wounded in more than nine years of war reached 1,859 by the end of December 2010.[173] 1,244 of these are listed as NBI (Non battle injuries) and 615 of these are listed as WIA (wounded in action). The number of Canadian Forces' fatalities resulting from Canadian military activities in Afghanistan is the largest for any single Canadian military mission since the Korean War between 1950 and 1953. A total of 156 Canadian Forces personnel have been killed in the war since 2002. Canada has suffered the third-highest absolute number of deaths of any nation among the foreign military participants, and the highest casualties per capita of all coalition members since the beginning of the war. More than 6,000 Canadian Forces members and discharged veterans who are receiving physical or psychiatric disability benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada have either served in Afghanistan or have a disability that has been related to their service in Afghanistan, the department says. Roughly 25, 000 Canadian Forces personnel have been deployed to Afghanistan at least once each since 2002. True, it's much more brave to be a senate page and hold up a sign a few weeks before your employment ends.