Pellaken

and how did babies get into this conversation, I thought we wera talking about featuses.

"Person" is a legal term, and at one time, it didn't apply to blacks or women. If a fetus is not a person, at what point does it become a person, and why? it becomes a person once it's able to biologically self-sustain itself. why? simple. This is one of the key requirements of life. what about vegetables? they are already aboted. ever hear of pulling the plug? whats the difference between that and a feauts?

someone once called me the anti-muslim hitler. I have some MAJOR issues with the islamic religion, but I would never go NEAR as far as our friend here has. if someone wanted to, he could be sued for ... something I'm sure. This is among the most ignorant things I've ever come across... which is why I'm ignoring this thread for the most part.

if he does it, turnout for teenagers will jump 70%, as they all vote liberal cause "its cool"

I'm speaking of the 2nd paragraph of his message if its true, then he's may have destroyed the process. saying "I'm not susposta say anything, but..." in a place where the media can go, it not a good idea

more: if the CA wants grandfathered MP's then give that to em, IMHO. The PC's are close on how the new leader should be chosen though. OMOV will not work in this instance. if it DID work, then the parties would have merged in the 1990's

Here's what I noticed. the PC's want equal representaiton per riding. wont work. The Alliance will be outvoted. here is my suggestion for what would work best I like the PC party's 100 point system. Unfortunatly, I think each party MUST have some sence of equality... here is my idea: use a 50-50 system. each riding gets 50 points, automatically. each riding then gets a certain number of points, based on its membership. This makes sure the smaller ridings are still represented, but also makes sure more members are better represented. ridings in PEI, or the territories will likely have few "points", but Albertan ridings will likely average 150 points each. how the points will be distributed is like so: the total number of members will be totaled also 50 X ___ (number of ridings) will be added those 2 numbers divided, so we find out how many points each voter has. then, each riding is divided, and points distributed (rounding to the nearest whole number) that numbe (which could be as low as 5, or as high as 100... or more) is then added to the 50 that each riding gets. This system will work. the one the PC Party wants will not.

if you want the talks to go through, you should delete part of your post. the media does surf these forums.

killing babies is murder thats why we dont do it

a featus is a featus, a living being, is a living being. they are 2 different things. "but a featus will be a living being" might not, miscarrage? and by that logic, then I could saying that living beings will be dead beings. should I therefore say that everyone is dead? no thats just stupid.

Springer, the NDP is no longer socialist. they are just very left wing. we want a social-welfare state, not a socialist state. and they ARE different things just as different as Stockwell Day, and Joe Clark.

social issues should be seperate from economic ones. Tommy had the right ideas when it came to the economey... but social progression is only natural.

http://erg.environics.net/news/default.asp?aID=531 " True, in the 1990s, Canada witnessed the election of governments dedicated to an agenda of fiscal prudence: Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin in 1993, Mike Harris and his Conservatives in Ontario in 1995, and recently, Jean Charest's Liberals in Quebec. But the appeal of these governments was due to their promises to restore fiscal integrity to public spending and actually preserve the social welfare state by making it financially sustainable." "Tommy Douglas's CCF, which seized power in Saskatchewan in 1944 to become Canada's first socialist government, rightly prided itself on balancing its budgets while blazing the trail to a universal system of public health insurance." " But in the 1970s and 1980s Canadian governments of all parties departed from the Canadian norm by spending more money on public programs than was justified by their tax revenues, ultimately pushing the public debt to 64 per cent of GDP in 1993. Canada was threatened with Third World status as some of our governments faced difficulty floating their debt on the international money markets and were forced to pay unusually high interest rates for sovereign debt. Now, after a decade of cutbacks in public spending to restore the fiscal balance, our polling is showing increasing concern over the neglect of the public services people so cherished. " This is where we, as the NDP, should be This is where our founder, Tommy Douglas was. This is where I am economically.

anything manditory should be made by government companies

I dont know how that would work. but it would be a good idea

Lib-71 PC-25 NDP-7 looks like that's official. 8 needed for party status

LIB-70 PC-24 NDP-9

in order for someone to be a failure, they must fail at thier goal. sicne the goal of islam is to warship the right god, and since they are right, islam is a sucess, and christianity is a failure.

you read this thread and wonder why the musims are not friendly towards the west.

you are not "alive" untill you are capable of biological self-sustaining yourself.

here is how the leadership race should work, IMHO. we can use OMOV, but only if we do it this way: first off, the ballot should look like so: 1st choice for leader________ 2nd choice for leader________ 3rd choice for leader________ etc... After the votes have been counted, you will find that no one has 50%+1. therefore, you must drop the last place candidate, and vote again... or do you? no! since you ALREADY voted for who you wanted 2nd, if your candidate, in the #1 slot is dropped, your ballot is just re-counted! we do this untill someone wins by 50%+1 now here's the difficult part not only must they win by 50%+1 of the new party, but they must take at least 40, or perhaps 45% of EACH of the old party's membership votes. if the leading contender has not done so, then he is dropped, and the process starts again from the first count. Eventually, you'll find someone acceptable to both sides. then, the floor is asked to "approve" the new leader if 50%+1 of them vote yes, then the new leader is installed. if 50%+1 vote no then your skrewed, and we will have one party rule forever, and ever, and ever.... waddya think? edit- I think I'm hitting on a good idea, but I'm missing a few points. please dont throw my idea out, tinker with it. also there should be a provision that this leader will lead the party through 2 electons before resigning. if he resigns before that, then the same process is repeated to pick a new leader, untill you have someone that leads the party either through 2 elections, or for 8 years or something like that. This makes sure the alliance dosent pick some token tory as leader using this process, then throw's him out the door the next day.

your right, the PC's are stupid... stupid for accepting what they did. here are the problems: Caucus will elect an interim leader immediately and draft a statement of principles by Dec. 31. The interim leader will be the leader of the Opposition, but may not be a candidate in the leadership race. Leadership vote will be conducted by mail-in ballot on the basis of one-member, one-vote. Membership cut-off will be Nov. 17. The convention will amend and adopt a constitution and a statement of principles and policies. frist of all, interm leader this is, in short, how it should read: Mr.MacKay will agree not to run for the leader of the new party, and on return, will get to be leader of the oppo for a month or so on the leaderhip vote, and convention: a convention will be called which guarentee's equalish representaiton of the parties. the CA has more members, and would probably make up 66% of the new party, the convention shoudl therefore only have 60% or even 55% alliance members, to even things out. it should be this convention, using a system somewhat similar to the liberals system, that elects the new leader.

78 votes 3.07% of the vote 11th best new democrat not bad for a first "shot in the dark" eh? I only canvassed poll 1 (twise) and a small bit of poll 9 which, when compared to the 2000 results, were where I held on to the most votes, I actually GAINED votes in poll 1!!

craig, you are so short-sighted, its not funny. you guys have 13/14ths of a deal worked out. you have to say, and I dont care HOW right wing you are, that the NDP has been consistant at about 15% in the polls, and if they draw enough votes away from the libs, they very well could become the official opposition. now THAT would unite the right, and with 95% of a deal already done, it wouldent take that long, now would it?

polls are open I cast my ballot, despite the facts that the power's out, pretty well city-wide. I was debating directing traffic in an intersection, but it aint THAT bad. now, how many people can say the first time they voted that they voted for themselvs!