Moonlight Graham

No it isn't. You don't devote 18,000 posts here to show irony. There's nothing strange about Canadians, or any other country, focusing closely on what the global superpower does. Would seem a logical thing to do. What is strange is you focusing so closely on what people in another country think of yours, when, as you love to remind people, we have a very moderate-if-minimal impact on US and world affairs, and thus your life. Would seem a better allocation of your time to focus more on what is happening in your country and in international affairs since it has a far larger impact on your life. Thanks Omarosa, but what exactly is racist about it?

Strict party discipline is one of the biggest problems in the way our system currently seems to work. It is undemocratic. But constituencies in Atlantic Canada get the shaft in this department no more than any other constituencies in Canada that don't have the PM, party leaders, or very influential cabinet ministers as their MP's.

I agree mostly, but the big difference between PBS and CBC (not sure about BBC) is that the CBC is owned by the govt and PBS is not (though it is partially funded by a private corp Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which receives funding by the US gov). I don't mind keeping the CBC a Crown corp, though i would sell off or eliminate CBC News because i dislike the idea of the gov operating a major news outlet.

The irony of all your ranting about Canadians watching Americans "so damn closely" is that 18,000+ posts and a significant portion of your waking hours (and probably some of your sweet dreams too) are dedicated to caring obsessively about what us wee Canadians think about America/Americans. Pot calling the kettle black.

Good luck to your party APC. Though you will never escape the influence that Ontario and Quebec have based on sheer population #'s, maybe a party like this will give your region a bit more pull.

fixed.

He's absolutely insane to remove himself from the senate job. It's easily one of the best jobs in Canada.

What exactly in the video makes you doubt its authenticity?

Alberta does it yet again!

well, i suppose our understandings are a bit different then. I know what you're trying to say. To me, what you're saying sounds closer to a social contract. I don't know why you think that just because people are willing to live with or accept a governing system, that there is nothing wrong with it. There are many flaws with our system of government, unfortunately the problems are so fundamental to the system that changing them is not very realistic. They care, just not enough to risk the insane mess that occurred in the 80's and 90's re: opening the Constitution, and opening old/new wounds in Quebec.

What did Harper do that was similar to this a few years ago? He brought in some kind of law, i believe it was an election law, then drove over it himself.

I'm starting to feel like this. material things dont mean as much to me any more. Maybe it's because i can download a lot of cool things off the internet i used to buy. HA! I think people have their priorities shoved so far up their behinds these days. They slave away at work to pay for their nice new cars and giant plasma TV's yet they shuffle their kids off to daycare so a stranger can raise them. Nice priorities. I'd live in a timber box with a kitty litter tray before i'd send any kids i had away to be raised by others. Not even animals do that.

fascism is considered an far right-wing ideology.

The Senate was meant to be a place of "sober second thought", to debate bills, suggest revisions etc. However, it still has the power of "rash action" as seen by the snap vote by Conservative Senators to block a climate change bill passed by the House, upon which there was no debate in the Senate on the matter. That is undemocratic and illegitimate. The system doesn't work well. Look at what just happened with the blocked bill without debate. To claim the system works well or that the system would be changed if it was thought by the House that the Senate didn't work properly is just not true. There has been great debate over Senate reform almost since the time the country was formed, similar debates and reforms implemented in similar systems ie: the UK/Australia. Some Cnd policy makers want an elected Senate (ie: Triple-E), many others want it abolished altogether. Much of the reason these reforms haven't been been instituted is due to the fact that such a major change in the Senate would mean that it would need the approval of the provinces and therefore the Constitution would need to be re-opened and debated. And we all know what happened the last time the Constitution was reopened for debate...the country was came a splinter away from literally falling apart. Here's the dictionary definition of democracy: Sounds to me like you've been sucked in to some twisted belief of what democracy is based on your faith in the hodge-podge frankenstein of a democratic government that is the Canadian system. Canada's system is not 100% democratic, neither is the US or UK system. They are flawed in their own unique ways. Hell, Canada couldn't even sign its own laws without the Brit Empire until 1931, or amend its own Constitution until 1982. When Canada was formed in 1867 they chose to institute the Westminster model. The Westminster system was not derived from scratch via purely democratic ideals like the US Constitution, it has evolved over many centuries into a more democratic form of what was a controlling, undemocratic monarchy. Remnants of this remain today in both Canada/UK via the monarchy and House of Lords/Senate, but the powers and the legitimately of using their historic powers have been reduced because it has come to be seen that use of these powers if they went against the will of the elected House (except in cases on extreme circumstance) would be undemocratic and illegitimate. The Senate isn't a powerful lawmaking institution. It's dysfunctional, increasingly irrelevant, and is a great at wasting taxpayer money. It serves some useful functions, but one of its most important functions is to serve as a sweet place to chill for old farts who want to have a fantastic salary, great job security, and only work a few days a week.

Which is much other reason why it was such a controversial story.

Not in the Constitution? Not written, so call it a Constitutional convention. The Senate lack legimacy? For similar reasons that the GG is basically a rubber stamp. The GG is appointed, not elected. The GG lacks the democratic legitimacy to use its power in deciding policy decisions. You can go back to the Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolition/English Bill of Rights etc. for this. The Senate lacks the power that other upper chambers may have, like say that of the US or other presidential/congressional systems, because it is not elected and not seen as democratically legitimate to make policy decisions as compared to the House. My view of democracy is just fine, and most others seem to agree with me due to the way the system works.

Then ban homosexual conduct, along with heterosexual conduct. Both can be distracting. I would say females in the military would be a significant distraction for men also, possibly on par or even greater than gays. So what are they afraid of? 2 guys falling in love and disrupting conduct in the field? Homophobe hetero guys getting distracted by homos? Homos getting distracted by staring at some other dude's package?

does it really matter what colour of underwear is worn by rubber stampers who work 3 days a week, and whose most important work is done in committees. The alarm bells this sounds off is if Harper/CPC continues to use the Senate to squash legislation that they have extremely little legitimacy to overturn.

welcome to the 21st century America! DADT is incredibly stupid. It's ok for women to serve, even side-by-side men, but not gay people? Moronic. But i still feel a bit sorry for those openly gay people, especially men, who have to deal with working in what is one of the most homophobic institutions in western society. But it's their choice to serve i suppose, but that still doesn't make it right.

If you keep the debate to western democracies and not totalitarian regimes, my logic is backed up many research studies. Here's a peer-reviewed scholarly journal Canadian research study on voter turnout: “Accounting for the Age Gap in Turnout.” Another study by Elections Canada researchers: Political Engagement Factors: There is a clear trend in how much one is politically informed and their likelihood of voting, at least in Canada. i'd imagine the trend is very similar in other western democracies. Though it would be a leap in logic to say that just because country A has a slightly better turnout rate than country B, that country A is more informed. There are likely other factors/variables to consider.

I used to arrive a bit early for my appointments (maybe 10 minutes), like any courteous person does. But then i finally figured out a few years ago that it was a waste of my time. i'd wait, and then they'd make me wait an extra 10-20 minutes to get called, then wait another 5-10 minutes in the office before doc came in. Now i arrive either right when my appointment starts or even a bit late. When i arrive late i find i get called in very quickly.

I love Monica Belluci. Beautiful gal

Why does he write his emails like he's a robot? Maybe he is a robot!

disprove the things Tim said then, oh wise one.

AGW is a hypothesis. It is a theory. Fourth graders know that virtually any phenomena in natural science, no matter how much supportive empirical evidence exists, are theory, not fact.