shoop

Instead of the lame questions, why not do the research yourself? Or maybe ask more pertinent questions. Like the value of cross-border trade? GNP per capita? Canada is far better off economically now than it was pre-NAFTA. Only irrelevant dinosaurs like John "Patty patty bum bum" Turner continue to rally against the deal. The proof really is in the pudding.

You aren't making a case for why it is unhelpful. Seriously...

There is no harm. Probly because there are no MPs who will ask suck jacka** questions as yours.

Gore is painful and a jackass. I like the Democrats. Still think Clinton was one of the best U.S. President's ever. Most Democrats I knew were turned off by Gore. He is just icky.... Clearly clueless as well. The election was about the tarsands? wtf? where did that come from?

NDP supporters who kneejerk attack anything Harper does?

Using terms like *facade of accountability* and *real power* are what makes you arrogant and the way you tried to *break it down* for me, without having taken the time to see if what you were saying was actually correct. Let's look at the term *real power*. Does that flow from consitutional power? Or power as it evolves from convention and the power that flows from the legitimacy of giving constituents a say in procedings? Remember the Canadian Senate constitutionally has a very similar amount of power to the House of Commons. However, it has no legitimacy due to the process in which Senators are selected. If we were in a system where Senate elections guaranteed those elected would become members of the Senate, and the Senators would have the legitimacy to exercise their powers than yes I believe turnout in Senate elections would be much higher. Let's be realistic about the committee that will pose questions to the prospective Supreme Court Justice. Is it *likely* that the person will perform so poorly that Harper will change his mind and not appoint him or her? No. Is it *possible*? Yes. That very possibility is enough to justify a three-hour questioning of a prospective Supreme Court Justice. What can the trying the process once hurt?

There is something wrong with Alberta because of the way it's electorate votes. Nope, don't see any arrogance on your part. Glad to see you have moved off your false talking point about the make up of the committee. Nothing wrong in admitting you made an error.

I don't think many voters are going to make that fine of a distinction. Parties can't write their policy planks in order to appeal to people who have majored in the a given field in university.

I'll let the quality of my response, and TFBs, answer why not.

That an anonymous message board on Canadian politics isn't the best place to be seeking marital and/or legal advice?

Hey, instead of being arrogant try and actually read what others post instead of going in with a made up mind based on false information. This committee will not be constructed the same way as regular standing committees. My source on that? The link *YOU* posted. Looks to me like that means *no party* will have more than half the time allotted to asking this person questions. I actually have some faith members of the committee may actually ask the appointee good questions. Why are the Senate elections in Alberta pointless? There has already been one Senator appointed from an Alberta election. If an Alberta spot opens up while Harper is in power you can sure bet there will be another? Is letting the people choose all their representatives in Parliament pointless? The arrogance. tsk tsk tsk

Why is it unnecessary? What if the nominee performs terribly under the scrutiny of questioning? This gives the government a chance to more fully vet their potential candidate? This provides more input to the people of Canada. A potential nominee who performs miserably under the glare of the television cameras just might not get in. Your obscure points about the seat of the executive and makeup of committees come across as trying to sound knowledgeable rather than having any real point.

I would love for the Liberals to have tried to force an early election. Now they can't as the block said today that they intend to keep the Conservative minority in government for a 'good while'. Link Too bad, in many respects this means that the Liberals will be forced inot noisy irrelevance until they can get a new leader. If anybody credible announces they are running for the job. They have one candidate if I recall correctly....

Nope, I find myself laughing at you all the time (kidding). I'll give you credit for having a sense of humour.

It's a good step. I found this quote in the article to be a bit strange. Why would a prospective judge refuse to answer questions? Isn't providing some transparency to the process the rationale for public questioning?

Does that include laughing at yourself? Over this tasty little morsel.

Overall, you may well be right about living in Ottawa. But weather is not a selling point over Calgary or Edmonton at all. The humidity in Ottawa makes a huge difference in the weather. -18 plus the humidity here in Ottawa definitely feels way colder than -25 to -30 in Edmonton or Calgary. You conveniently forgot to mention the brutally gross humidity in the summer. The effect of salt usage during the winter on vehicles here is another big big downside. That can cost you between five and seven years life on a new vehicle compared to Alberta. Cars also last longer in Alberta because of the lack of aforementioned humidity. Weather has to be the biggest drawback to living in Ottawa.

Shady, Call it boorish if you want, but take an actual look at the behaviour in question. Then the article goes on to talk about a few *boos* in the crowd for Trent Lott and Jesse Ventura. There was nothing more to it than that. The Republicans created a tempest in a teapot over this one. The boorish behaviour was more fairly the way in which the Republicans used the death of Wellstone to create another controversy.

Yup, general agreement that CPP is in good shape. Not really an issue because of the changes Sparhawk mentioned.

Ahhh, I'll repeat what I said in the post that got you so angry. See I wasn't just attacking you personally. Maybe if you had read past the first two lines of my post before throwing your little tantrum...

Only two of the current parties in Canada that have ever formed government. Layton really didn't accomplishm much last parliament. Can't see him doing even this much in this parliament. There are other options to vote for in the U.S., granted they are a little less likely to form government than the NDP are here. (Zero chance vs. when hell freezes over? )

... tabun.It also makes then pretty easy targets for exposing their errors. Then again, they come back much later and accuse people of *bullying* them for doing so.

Most of us *got* what you were trying to do, but why? It is painfully obvious that you agree with L&OCs position, regardless of how painfully misinformed it is. Look at the 2004 Presidential election and you will see a lot bigger policy differences between the Democrats and the Republicans than anything that came up in this election. With three national parties you end up with what happened here. The party in the middle grasping for votes from either side then governing from the right. At least a two-party system offers a much clearer choice. What was it Paul Martin identified *54* priorities? Yet people held their nose and kept the Liberals in power for 12 1/2 years...

Well my third language (or second depending on how you look at things) is pretty rare. i.e. rare enough that because I just moved to a new city I found a group online that meets ocassionally in person to speak in the language, so as not to let the skills atrophy yada yada. I would have basically no chance to practice otherwise. I only rarely talk politics with people who don't work in the field. I find it rarely is in my best interest to do so. Sometimes I will, but it is just annoying sometimes. This board gives me the chance to vent on pompous (usually silver-spoon) socialists who don't appreciate the hard work their relatives put forth to put them in the financial position to sit and tut tut a party that really stands up for working Canadians. P.S. I definitely think there are a few posters who drink (or smoke) before/while posting...

geoff, Completely agreed that people have no real clue when they throw out certain terms. I am a little odd as I *actually read a parties policies* before supporting them. I am in favour of *some* gun control (not the gun registry), against capital punishment, pro-choice (but don't really care all that much about the issue), couldn't care less one way or the other about SSM, pro-business. In the U.S. that pretty much by default made me a Democrat. Here, coupled with the Liberals corruption and arrogance, I feel much more at home in the Conservative Party of Canada. But then again, how much thought do people actually put into where there support goes???