Leafless

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...ad-01cf84c6ae51 I thought it was only Canada with English/French problems but apparently not. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4545433.stm Seems Canada is not the only country to be de-unified by the French.

I hope Mr. harper knows what he is doing relating to this proposed meeting with the Dalai Lama, who is not only a spiritual leader but one who is involved with secessionist activities. One would assume Mr. Harper is very well aware of the serious problems in his own country involving secessionist and why he would want to risk offending China over this matter does not make any sense. Thoughts. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...2a-20683fb0a8ab

Your self righteous condescending teaching mode and personal criticism is becoming intolerable and it seems you refuse to debate properly thus I will be no longer wasting my time with a pin head. READ AND HEAD- You said it, why don't you be cordial and include it since you like teaching so much. Stop trying to cover for a total lack of democratic rights and safeguards against democratic rights because Canadians don't have any. Our only democratic government right is the right to vote for our member of parliament our SO CALLED representative. It is less valid as we have no real 'CHECKS AND BALANCES' and we have no separate provincial Charters like the states do with their state constitutions. We are an OPPRESSED PEOPLE at the mercy of the federal government. Read and Heed When voters choose a presidential ticket including the presidential and vice presidential candidate, they are actually voting for electors pledged to this ticket. In all but two states, the ticket that wins a plurality of the votes - in other words, more votes than any other candidate-- wins all of that state's electors. If Canada had any kind of safeguards to protect Canadian national interest, 'NO PM' from the province of Quebec would be accepted. This would be virtually impossible as it presents a national conflict of interest. No, I do not despise the Constitution but it could stand with improvement. I despise the ammendment that includes the Charter. The federal government is totalitarian as it does not recognize that Canada and Quebec represent two separate interest and does not serve the interest of the MAJORITY in a Canadian nationalistic manner. IOW, the federal government is UNDEMOCRATIC and flaunts its authority as it chooses in a similar fashion to a 'BANANA REPUBLIC'.

I cannot comprehend what you are trying to say or what your point is. The Charter is not an explicit document and it takes courts to figure out if a right is applicable to a certain situation, NOT PARLIAMENT. You still have not shown me where it says in our constitution that parliament can pass laws that do not violate our constitution. Where is it written????? If it so obvious cite where all the safeguards are written in Canadian law? This is a pre-selection process to ensure the country won't get stuck with a tyrant. Citizens still get to exercise their democratic right and vote. All states have agreed to the electoral college or state electors voting this way. If that process was utilized here I am certain PM's like Trudeau and Chretien would have been rejected initially as unstable and dangerous or any PM coming out of Quebec. Again you fail to grasp its preliminary objective relating to the electoral college. They are equal and gives proper representation to all states big or small. You are confusing two separate voting processes, one to give all states the same advantage relating to the number of votes cast and the citizen's (popular vote). Bottom line is all states like the system. I harbour no hate for Canada but admire the protection relating to abuse of power and the much more democratic system the U.S. offers along with individual state constitutions giving its citizens a much more democratic involvement in government decisions that affect them. The U.S. is not perfect but IMO is SUPERIOR compared to the alternatives offered by other countries.

LOL, I doubt if the electorate would have any success manipulating polls as the dirty work could already be carried out in the wording of the poll itself by corporate media propaganda and poll manipulation. If the originators of the poll don't like the results, that poll simply will never be made public and only replaced with another poll of different wording to obtain the desired results.

You are being silly. They used the PRINCIPLES of the 'Charter of rights and Freedoms' to create the the 'Civil Marriage Act'. Where is this written as part of Canada's democratic process. In the U.S. it is part of democratic 'checks and balances'. What democratic 'checks and balances does Canada employ??? Well first you have to understand the reason for the electors (electoral college). Firstly electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Secondely-The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states. One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a recipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century. While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constituitional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing. Electoral Votes by State 2001 - 2010 State Votes State Votes State Votes State Votes Alaska 3 Nebraska 5 South Carolina 8 Virginia 13 Delaware 3 Nevada 5 Alabama 9 Georgia 15 Montana 3 New Mexico 5 Colorado 9 North Carolina 15 North Dakota 3 Utah 5 Louisiana 9 New Jersey 15 South Dakota 3 West Virginia 5 Arizona 10 Michigan 17 Vermont 3 Arkansas 6 Maryland 10 Ohio 20 Washington, D.C. 3 Kansas 6 Minnesota 10 Illinois 21 Wyoming 3 Mississippi 6 Wisconsin 10 Pennsylvania 21 Hawaii 4 Connecticut 7 Missouri 11 Florida 27 Idaho 4 Iowa 7 Tennessee 11 New York 31 Maine 4 Oklahoma 7 Washington 11 Texas 34 New Hampshire 4 Oregon 7 Indiana 11 California 55 Rhode Island 4 Kentucky 8 Massachusetts 12 This is democracy in action.

I find it amazing members on this site are so trusting of media and polls when they can be used as a tool of deception, manipulation and propaganda and are in denial this is happening in Canada. http://americanendeavor.blogspot.com/2007/...erica-pt-1.html

Was it not Liberal David Peterson who created legislation to make the Lord's day Sunday a day of work, depriving workers a day of rest with their families. And then Mc.Guinty proposes 'family day' after Peterson destroys the Lord's day with wide open Sunday shopping. What Liberal hypocrisy. http://www.ontla.on.ca/house-proceedings/t....htm#P341_83211

Isn't it nice to know the Conservatives have enough support to win a majority as indicated by a poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid, showing the Conservatives holding steady at 40%. http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArtic...OLITICS-COL.XML But this same poll indicates that the majority of Canadians do not want an election now. And this is where the problem lies. What could be the possible reason for the AVERAGE Canadian to determine that they do not want an election now, as the average Canadian would not be able to compute properly the proper reasons to determine this, as there really are none outside of the fact the Liberals, most likely, are going to lose. My gut feeling is this is the workings of the biased Liberal media trying to buy time for the Liberals to try to recoup to regain some type of political momentum, in order to try to gain political advantage over the Conservatives. I think the media is out of order in an obvious attempt to try to stall elections to give liberals some time to recover. Thoughts.

Isn't guyser who is a minority, always or mostly trying to protect other minority concerns from what he or she views as unwarranted attacks from the horrible 'White' majority or others, with an array of mostly unwarranted senseless or tit for tat replies. Is this not an instance where a minority is trying to control and protect minority interest on this board and shame the majority from speaking out with cheap shots. We do not need nor want 'guyser' censorship interfering with others free speech relating to patriotic majority concerns.

Are you realy as thick as you are letting on? http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2005/doc_31376.html Not quite, as the president can veto bills passed by Congress, thus preventing them from becoming law. In turn, by a two-thirds vote, Congress can override the president’s veto. The president would really have to pull a bummer for this to happen. Canada is still a 'banana republic' in comparison. I have not heard of any improvement in such basic education. Have you and if you did please cite them.

Can you quote or supply the list of Canadians who support it? Vote against the Charter? It is up to the federal government to call a national referendum on the issue, then we can vote on the issue. For all practical purposes relating to federal politics we have two parties that only matter, the Conservatives and the Liberals, the others are political nobody's that only slightly complicate politics in Canada. Relating to conventional politics this probably will never happen since Canadian politicians currently continue to believe Quebec is part of Canadian confederation despite Quebec's hateful attitude towards federal government control and English speaking domination of Canada. But, for instance if Harper or any other PM of the day believes Quebec can no longer be tolerated in in our confederation the PM simply has to revoke the Charter and presto--its gone and along with it probably Quebec. But probably within a few short months we would have 8-million Quebec refugees sitting on the borders of Canada, since federal hand outs would cease to exist. But nevertheless this is a real problem and one that should have been solved by the Brotish at the time by shipping all Francophones back to France where they belong. Who is everyone YOU and bk59, LOL. I fully realize many minorities try to dominate political sites like this one in an effort to convince Canadians most agree with their socialist, dictatorial views and opinions. Most Canadians don't even bother to get worked up over Quebecers and Francophones who want to dominate federal jobs because the English are capable of working elsewhere and don't need the services of government to create employment for them. But nevertheless the twisted politics that created this federal bilingual misfit policies out of the confines of the province of Quebec so racially discriminates that it is beyond comprehension that a federal government would politically and racially discriminate against its own majority English speaking population. On the other hand most people I know or DON"T KNOW, make my opinions look pretty lame compared to what they have to say about politics in Canada, although out of courtesy I purposely limit and partially censor my own opinions relating to Canadian politics.

French propagandist would love that. It seems you have the qualities as a future dictator, here or elsewhere.

More arrogance from a self-righteous French propagandist backed mainly by by a double crossing federal Liberal government out to destroy the ruling English majority with an oppressive, undemocratic language laws and a racist Charter. Thank God for the British. The standard a government uses to establish an authorized legitimacy to a word, a bill or whatever they choose it for. I.E.. Official Multiculturalism, Official Languages. I think it is, as government clearly knows what the feedback is relating to important issues that affect this country via the press and citizens of Canada. But of course this is only the preliminary step. The government must the compile this information and present it to the people of Canada to let them determine what the priority or importance of issues are via a referendum or mini referendum every federal election. Of course I am not talking EVERY problem but especially the more serious constitutional, immigration issues that have a direct impact on the lives of all Canadians in a detrimental way or a way that unfairly burdens or discriminates against the lives of law abiding, tax paying Canadians. Nope. I mentioned that the federal government cited its own Charter to back the Civil Marriage Act, but do not agree with the Charter and feel it should be scrapped as it is to powerful of a document in the hands of a power seeking corrupt government and could be used to adversely align society to that governments corrupt ideologies. That statement clearly describes the actions of a Banana republic. I would be worried to about Ontario's education system. And I am glad premier Mc.Guinty is taking steps to boost the literacy rate in Ontario schools. It appears Ontario's highly paid school teachers are currently incapable of teaching children to read and premier Mc.Guinty is going to throw in millions of dollars more at the system to accomplish this. And more highly paid teachers that obviously whose only worries are their over stuffed bank accounts. http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2004/...mp;lang=_e.html I mean is this not the MAIN function of any school is to teach children to read and write along with a little math and why Ontario cannot accomplish this without an army of more teachers and money boggles the mind.

Well we don't have any democratic rights concerning Canadian citizens and democratic participation affecting our lives. MP representation is a joke. It seems your happy with the federal government basically controlling all aspects of politics in Canada, even intruding into provincial affairs but allows Quebec to have its own Charter and to control its French identity and even immigration to that province. If you don't consider these few points alone grounds enough for a revolution then you don't understand the dynamics of democracy and probably don't care. Reminds me of 'What is the definition of a Canadian'? Answer- 'A Canadian is one who lives in Canada'. This is an absolutely amazing description of a Canadian and tags them what they really are----NOTHING. Well look what the cost factor is now throwing money around like water , supporting all these costly socialist cultural initiatives. This is the thing with federal politics in Canada, we basically have two federal parties the Conservatives who want to run Canada like any other country and the Liberals who want to run Canada on the bases of French power and culture and phoney Charter rights that back many of their cultural iniatives all there for one purpose, to preserve the political influence of Quebec and advance their political ideologies. What country in the world would tolerate this kind of politics, outside of wimpy Canada? The real solution is to clamp down on undesirable immigration to Canada and promptly deport the troublemakers. Harper has the right idea but mandatory jail sentences for handguns should have been implemented years ago with much tougher sentencing for manslaughter and murder with no parole.

How can you have direction when the politcal system that creates the fabric of Canadian politics is dysfunctional. I agree we may spend ourselves broke but what makes you think a majority is going to save the day and further spending. It cost money to keep all our dysfunctional fragmented societies happy, Quebec, Aboriginals, immigrants and the ROC. Remember Ontario's Mike Harris and his 'common sense revolution'. It didn't work. I think frequent elections of 'opportunism' will become the norm in Canada.

Don't use the word 'complain' you lackey socialist 'oink'. I have every right to voice my concerns in this totalitarian country. I will tell you, a referendum is the only official, democratic way to find out what Canadians want. Polls do not reflect any level of officially or offer the standard referendums do. Prove that polls are valid official option relating to the democratic right of Canadians to be heard and represented by their MP as policy of the federal government of Canada? Then what Charter rights is the 'Civil Marriage Act'based on? The only proof would be to supply publicly the names and addresses of those polled. All socialist are satisfied with the corrupt system we currently have in place they like it that ways because it fills their pockets with dollars just like how Quebec have manipulated the system in their favour with socialist ideologies that have never been democratically approved by the citizens of Canada. For instance if referendums were incorporated initially on whether or not to keep Quebec in confederation and the referendum indicated no, Canada could have saved an amount surpassing to-days national debt. What is more important than innocent citizens being shot dead by gangs having shoot outs in crowded public places or having so many deaths in TO relating to handguns?

Children learn from being taught abnormal rights of degenerates and subsequently opens the gates for them to follow their degenerative lifestyles. I think it is time society impose restrictions or ban extended rights that interfere with the functioning of what majority interest consider 'normal'.

Supporting degenerates only proves the unrealistic, unnatural aspirations you obviously harbour in your own little perfect, little world. If we were all like you, the only society to exist would be a totally dysfunctional one.

The majority citizens of the country who want the country to be a nice place to live in and who are responsible for making the country what they would like it to be, relating to traditional social standards and keep it that way. The country is still traditionally entact, (proof), although crumbling quickly due to lack of protest by the majority interest to protect what was a stable traditional society. Teaching unacceptable adult life styles, sexual depravities, to mere children who are the off spring in a large percentage of cases of majority interest parents. The whole legal text is nonsense and overemphasizes a tiny deranged minority lost in a sea of unnatural sexual practices. Yes. But I do think most people would consider it harmful if the are of the traditional majority interest type. I will ask you a question. How many rights to you think weird minorities are reasonably entitled to?

I would agree with you if to-day was pushed back to the 1950's. Society is crumbling quickly due to lack of majority interest.

The law is also an ass, sexually speaking.

In this country our only democratic right is MP representation. In fact how does government tabulate which issues are partially important, semi-important, very important? No one ever polled me on the subject and if one did over the telephone or coming to my door, I would not respond as it is a question of total privacy. In saying this I doubt very much if very many Canadians would divulge concerns relating to potentially volatile or incriminating issues. This is why we must do this in the secrecy of a polling booth every federal election where a series of questions would identify important or constitutional issues that affect all Canadians. How else can the federal government 'read' what Canadians consider important outside of their usual way, telling them what the issues are with no proof those are indeed the issues of the day. This is what makes it totalitarian. You only wanted a cite , proof, a link, right. You got it. I cannot prove polls are manipulated and you cannot prove polls actually were undertaken. Polls do not constitute any kind 'official proof' unless names, addresses and telephone numbers are also released. Even then there is room for fraud. The only way is federal government mini-referendums or referendums to determine that Canadians are indeed receiving proper representation and being democratically served. I don't care who you are. I am talking about the way you reply to me. You are not my superior, so reply like an adult instead of a drama queen. Serious volatile problems in Ontario, yes there are. I will give you two, (1) Politicians that are totally unaccountable for their actions. (2) Gangs and Crime in Toronto.

We are talking about 'third world have nots' who have never experienced the better life, power, or anything else associated with civilized countries. Sort of like greedy wild animals wanting it all but have no idea how to go about it, but try to forcefully take it by impressing their outdated culture and primitivism.

Those are words coming out of your mouth, not mine or perhaps you can quote where I supposedly said "our government is totalitarian because our politicians do not do everything that I want." It was not ratified by Canadians, so Canadians never had the opportunity to explore its concept and our federal government don't pursue or make those kind of statistics public, that is why it is totalitarian. "Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Marriage_Act I don't have to. Since it is your claim, the burden of proof lies with you to prove that the polls were NOT manipulated. You sound like your in a position of authority, when your not. Either contribute in a meaningful way or don't post. All Canadians are supposed to have the same rights but to steal majority interest under the guise of rights is totally corrupt and fraudulent and that is what Canadians are living with in Canada, a corrupt, fraudulent, totalitarian Charter not worth the paper it is written on.