lost&outofcontrol

Just like on the right, there's a whole spectrum of philosophies on the left. Being from the left doesn't make you a communist.

Sweet ! What part of Canada do you give us

Going from social Democrat to communism is one heck of a jump. The NDP is definitely not a communist party. It doesn't advocate the abolition of private property or inheritance nor does it want to nationalise big business. Read their platform, thread over.

Right here

Ya I meant right on economic issues. sorry Social Libertarian **edit** another quiz

Wow dude, there isn't anything more right (economically speaking) than a Libertarian. The should be two scales, one social and one economic. Political spectrum Found this neat quiz ealier; a bit long but fun.

Thx for the info guys. It's interesting if not odd that the party which has been in power for most of this century is getting contributions from less people than even the NDP ! It's also great to know that at least the conservatives and the ndp are getting most of their funds from the actual people they represent.

Does anybody have a % breakdown of donations from individuals/corporations/etc.. I've been trying to find that info for a while. The elections Canada website only give the breakdown per donation. Cheers

I guess the .gov canada website is into spreading lies. argh ! I've already answered this twice before. **edit** I promise, this is my last post in this thread.

I completely agree with you on this point. It is still true today. Taken from the government Relations website. Taken from wikipedia. I mean, what other proof do I need. All it took was 2 mins of goggling to find this information. I'll go back to "mentally masturbate" now. We would have alot less barking on these forums if people would just research before posting.

It has happened before !! William Lyon Mackenzie King asked the GG in 1926, Lord Byng, to dissolve Parliament. The GG refused since the government had been in power for less than 6 months. The GG asked Arthur Meighen to form the government which he did. I don't know what else to say. There's no "hypocrisy" in my last post or anything, I'm just posting the fact that it has happened before in Canada. Read a book, any book if you get a chance.

Well said and I prefer white chocolate and macadamia nut cookies. By the way, what are you taking at Ottawa U ?

You don't need to have a possible majority to form a government. Heck you don't even need to be the party with the most seats in the house. Just ask Arthur Meighen, didn't work out so well for him though. If the conservatives truly mess up (institute mandatory pink shirts on Tuesdays ), which I think they won't, no matter who's got how many seats, the government is going down. The liberal can even try to form a government without the assistance of the NDP and this would be based on precedent, this is called a Constitutional convention. See, researching your position isn't that hard; try it sometime. I even ask a teacher( a leading constitutional lawyer) here at Ottawa U about this very subject. Told me the same thing, if Harper falls within the next few months, the GG will ask Billy if he wants a go at it. And where did I ever say if the conservatives fall the liberals would not be the official opposition ?! If the conservatives fall in the next few months, the liberals form the next government ! Seriously buddy, why does every post look like an attack on the conservatives to you ? We're all civilized here, let's act like it.

Nice, first reply you start off with an insult. If the Harper government falls within the next 10 months, the GG will ask whoever the future liberal party leader will be if he thinks he can form an alliance with the NDP. There is precedent on this subject. If the Liberal can't form an alliance, the NDP wins more seat during the next elections due to the disorganized state the liberals are in, if they do form an alliance, the NDP gets to call the shots on social programs, either way they win.

I don't think the CPC is wrong here, this has happened before and will happen again. What bugs me is; wasn't this guy telling us before the election how Harper was evil and ate babies etc..(not that I agree with any of his(Emerson's) crap) The guy could of taken the high road and denounced the advances of the CPC but he acted like a true politicians and sold himself out.

And that's the problem Sam, you can't just fartup ideas out of your mind. Just because someone might think pink elephants are real doesn't make it true. I state my opinions and base them on research done by other people; they're still opinions but at least I didn't fart them up. At the very least read the links given to you then state your opinion on them. If you don't want to read up on the positions others take against yours that's fine, but don't reply with drivel taken from your "mind". Cheers

They can produce enough food, look at Kenya which was self sufficient until the 80s. Taken from here Basically what this means is that once you dump large amounts of food on countries for a almost nothing, these countries become depend on these food "dumps". To pay back the exporting country, they have to sell off their own production. The IMF/WB has being doing the exact same thing with loans for the past 30 years. It isn't complicated really, it's a matter of control. A massive pyramyd scheme we're all part of. I strongly recommend people read a few pages from that website. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that.

Great idea, now how about telling government and international organizations this. We keep dumping grain/food products on countries in need so as to force their farmers to become more efficient and competitive on the world stage. Open up your markets we say.... all in the name of free globalized markets.... I'm not questioning your willingness to donate your money. I'm questioning why do a very small minority control the interest of billions of people including you and me. (which is basically what Marx asked) *edit* sorry, I went off topic there.

Quick reply cause I have a class in a few mins but, why do thousands of people die everyday of malnourishment if the top 450 richest people in the world own 53% of the capital ? We can produce more than enough food for the whole population of this planet and have some left over. Just because you're born in a "developed" country doesn't entitle you to not care ! You've been made to think that whats best for transnational corporations is also whats best for you. Pick up a book from Leslie Sklair. You'll thank me when you're done. I'll reply to your other insightful comments later.

Odd, I voted for the NDP hoping they would get into power. Then again, I'm a pinko commie. Oh and I'm an idiot according to SamStrange too.

This just in : if you don't agree with SamStranger that it's time to get rid of the NDP then you're a pinko commie idiot. News at eleven...

Who cares really if they had WMD or not. Why is invading a sovereign state on the pretext that they may have WMDs acceptable ? Many countries have WMDs and we're not invading them. All it takes to make a WMD is a depleted uranium rod and a couple of sticks of dynamite, leukemia for all. The US sold weapons to Iraq for years, as long as Iraq and Iran killed each other it was perfectly acceptable selling weapons to Saddam. History is always written by the victorious....

I hate having to quote myself... The best deterrent to crime is guaranteeing criminals will be caught. (**rant** or increasing the standard of living for all)

Read my reply to speaker. The severity of sentences has little to no effect on the possibility of a crime being committed. What does have a impact is the swiftness and certainty of capture and punishment. If the chances of being caught are near 100% then the crime rate will fall to near zero. Why use up precious resources by locking up criminals for overly long periods of time (more time in prison so they learn from other inmates how to be better criminals) when you could be using the same resources to prevent crime from happening in the first place. Attack the root of the problem, not the symptoms.