Wild Bill

Then what, Jerry? I would actually love to see this coalition thing come to pass! I've said many times that I don't believe that Canadians would be happy about such a thing, in a group greater than that which voted for Harper. Polls last time overwhelmingly supported this view. You and others just won't let it go! Ignatieff did. Not surprisingly, considering he's the guy who if it backfired would take the blame. If it came to pass then the idea would be tested! You seem to think that either Canadians wouldn't care or that they would be so impressed at how the coalition governed that not only would they forgive them for over-ruling a traditional choice of a minority government by taking power, they would reward them by voting against Harper (and presumably for Ignatieff!) NEXT election! In other words, taking over with a coalition would be a freebie! Most Canadians would meekly accept being told that the whole thing was completely legal and although no Canadian had ever seen it before in his lifetime nobody would get upset. There would be no downside! I'm a techie by trade. Let's test your premise!

I've been watching Joe for his entire career. In thought, word and deed he has been a liberal. He may have worn a PC jersey but so what? Do you define a man simply by what costume he wears? When a Red Tory comes to the limit of Red he's a Liberal.

So would I but there's something I don't understand. Isn't it only the party in power that has the ability to call by-elections? Last I checked Ms. Smith was leading a very small opposition party. I wouldn't think that legally she had the right to call for a coffee break! That being said, I don't believe there's anything to stop floor-crossing MPP/MLA's from resigning as a group. I would expect that would force by-elections. I'm not disagreeing with your idea, just with your methods.

Exactly! Folks like Waldo keep jamming Albertans in the eye, constantly reminding them of how they are taken for granted and openly mocked for their values. This more than anything ensures that the Liberals and the NDP don't have a hope in hell of improving their seat count in that province! I mean, you keep kicking a dog in the teeth and then you wonder why it won't lick your hand? They put Dale Carnegie back about 100 years!

Maybe yes, maybe no! Still, given the reasoning expressed by so many in this thread that Harper has committed a treasonous crime against not just Canada but the Universe, we can be sure that as soon as Parliament starts up again the Opposition parties will immediately force an election, to save us from such evil! Since Parliament resumes in March, that would have us going to the polls about the middle of April!

Well, technically I'd agree with you but in this case it might be a case of overkill. After all, the Wild Rose IS more like the Conservative Party for which they had all voted! It was the Conservative Party under Fast Eddie that dramatically changed, becoming something that all those people who worked for Conservative campaigns had NOT supported! If pinned to the wall I'd have to take your side but I rather think it would prove to be just an expensive formality.

Well, well! The opening post encourages me to tell my MP how I feel about this issue. Myself, I don't really mind what Harper did! It might be a bit of a cheap trick but compared to what I saw from Chretien and Trudeau its "mice nuts" in the scheme of things. So of course I would not support my MP taking any protest action. However, my MP happens to be NDP. Why should I bother telling him how I feel? Does anyone seriously believe that he will care at all how I think? Does anyone seriously believe that even if I went to the effort to poll my riding and found that the majority of folks agreed with me that my MP would not blindly follow his party line anyway? What the OP really means is " Tell your MP how you feel but only if you agree with my stance against Harper! If you don't then don't waste our time!" This is not an expression of democracy. It's just more partisan noise. Man, sometimes I really miss Reform!

You're not gonna imply that you can add up all the other party's votes and assume they represented one big total of people who supported a coalition? The idea of taking the votes of people who did not vote for your rival as supportive of your own favourite is absurd!

So in YOUR opinion Harper is dishonest and doesn't deserve popular support! Well, you know the old saying about opinions. Me, not really being a Conservative my only concern is that we end up with something WORSE than the CPC! I truly feel that a coalition would have hurt my country more than helped and certainly an NDP government would be the worst thing that could ever happen to us. My opinion is not a casual one. I've been watching the NDP since I was a teenager and in all these years I have never heard them express a credible theory of wealth creation. They totally take that for granted, as if capitalists are somehow genetically programmed to create wealth and all the NDP would have to do is skim it off and re-distribute it. They never seem to understand how capital can flee a country, taking jobs with it. I had hopes for them with the Laxer Report back in the 80's. Laxer was obviously a very intelligent man who warned his party that they were in danger of becoming dinosaurs as the world changed. His party couldn't shut him up fast enough! Yet it would seem Laxer was proven right. Being an Ontarioan who lived through Bob Rae's NDP government also colours my opinion, I must admit. Whatever, my primary concern is that our representation be as direct as possible. If my fellow citizens enable a Liberal or NDP win I truly wouldn't complain that much. It has been said that "democracy is a system where the 'little guy' knows what he wants and deserves to get it, good and hard!" If anything I am a populist. I want a government that truly represents the will of the people. Which is why I was totally against the proposed PR systems I've seen so far. They all seemed contrived to give more power to the parties with the least popular support. The idea always seems to dilute the power of whatever party had the majority of the votes. Still, if I absolutely had to I could have lived with that but the breaking point for me was the idea of parties choosing MP's from their own slates, rather than being directly elected by the people. There is no way I could ever respect an MP who was simply appointed by his own party. If the people never got a chance to vote him in then he should be tarred, feathered and rolled out of town in a barrel, as far as I'm concerned! An MP unelected directly by the people of a riding is simply a usurper, by my lights. If someone came up with a system where extra MP's WERE still chosen directly by the people I might actually support it but oddly, that seems to be the LAST thing the proponents of PR want to offer! I consider that suspicious in itself! Anyhow, sorry to hear some Tories called you names but I'm afraid I have little sympathy. I'm tired of being called a Tory when I'm not! If anything I'm a classic Liberal but it's one of the ironies of Canadian politics that I'm left with the CPC as the least objectionable choice. As a classic Liberal I would actually be more comfortable even with the NDP than the modern Liberal party! What's more, I spent a few days a couple of years back on "rubble.com", the home of the left wing "progressives". I've never heard a worse bunch of foul mouthed name calling ad hominem oafs in my life! I truly believe that the left is by far the worst example of name calling. From what I read you are treated far more civilly on MLW than any right wing person would be treated on a "leftie" board.

We've been round and round this point for months. It always comes back to the same thing. Yes, a coalition would have likely been legal. So what? The real question would have been how Canadians felt about it the FOLLOWING election! Polls overwhelmingly showed that a majority of Canadians did NOT like the idea of a coalition! Especially one headed by Dion, who had just been decisively rejected by the electorate. To try one now would be a new scenario. Dion is gone. Ignatieff may not be as popular as Harper but at least he doesn't seem to be considered a total idiot in the polls. Again, it all depends on the price to be paid. If enough people are unified in disliking Harper and not offended by the idea of a coalition then the Opposition parties might get away with it. However, no amount of scolding mainstream Canadians about what's legal or how our political system actually works will mean diddley-squat when they get their chance to vote! If enough of them don't like the idea then those involved may have won a battle and totally lost the war, for a few terms to come! This is the part that those calling for a coalition never seem to think about. You can achieve a coalition but if you upset Canadians by doing it then no amount of lecturing will save your ass NEXT election!

This all reminds me of Petro Canada, where by the time they paid far too much to buy up companies like BP and Gulf the world market had passed them by. Pay attention, people! SHALE GAS! It's here, it's loud and it's proud! If they build this pipeline it may well prove to be another boondoggle that takes 50 years to show a profit. Natural gas is going to be relatively cheap for decades from all the shale sources. Here's just ONE link! (a google will give you pages and pages of them!) http://www.unbridledenergy.com/gas/shale.asp "The article also reviews the historical aspects of shale developments since the late 1800’s. Suffice to say there will be many tcf’s produced from shale gas reservoirs over the next 50 years. The key to successfully unlocking the enormous gas in place in most shale resource plays consists of using cost effective, high-technology data analysis and field procedures to maximize the contacted reservoir volume." Any project or discussion that fails to include the shale gas factor is like planning a marketing campaign for typewriters in today's business world.

Hey, I was only commenting on the general situation. It is quite possible you have uncovered something hinky at a specific riding. It happens with all parties and ALL candidates should be watched! Even if the party is mostly honest doesn't mean that the odd candidate is crooked, or the odd campaign manager. The candidate may have no idea what went on! After all, he doesn't normally do that work himself. He doesn't have time. That's why we have auditors. Perhaps you've discovered a riding where we need to send some in!

And when we "question those entries" we should all keep some perspective. I've been there, accepting party donations. You have to understand that all your help is from volunteers and some are more able than others. Sometimes for the life of me I just couldn't read the handwriting on the donation slip, even though it clearly said "Please Print"! Sometimes people made errors with the slips. It's a real world and any experienced auditor understands this and makes allowances. What we should look for is not errors made from $20 donations but rather with $1000 donations! Ordinary people might make a mistake filling out a form to give $20. Nobody who can afford to give $1000 would not fill out the form clearly! No party has the time resources to try to jam a useful amount of money through a zillion $20 mistakes! So along with perspective comes some common sense, the partisanship of some anti-Harper fanatics not withstanding when they equate a $20 error with the Watergate Affair.

It seems we're all hung up on using more and more expensive machines that can't see everything anyway that are to be operated by minimum wage security guards. Now the Israelis seem to be lightyears ahead of us! They have well-trained university grad law enforcement professionals armed with Uzis that rely more on personal observations and judgement. They substitute a better calibre of personnel (that also means paid better!) who can make more intelligent observations and decisions. Perhaps we should simply pay a bit more, sub contract to the Israelis and get some REAL security instead of all this aggravating "feel good" busy work that is mostly smoke and mirrors anyway...

No problem! Just don't expect any of the profits or the aid of any new inventions, including medical. No tickee, no washee!

All of them! Except their party leader, of course. And all of his advisers should be shunned as incompetent. It also goes without saying that all who cross the floor must face open nominations for their riding come next election.

It doesn't work like that! Space is zero G. Once you give an object some thrust it just keeps going! Stronger thrust would make it go faster and less thrust slower but NOTHING short of another thrust will change its velocity! So if you fired a small rocket on the surface of the moon and it was not strong enough to overcome the Moon's gravity then your package would not leave the surface. However, if you were already in space and you fired that same rocket towards the asteroids it would get there! It might take months or even years but you would get there without having to fire one extra drop of rocket fuel! So your only real problems are ballistics and if you're running a manned mission, life support. If you've aimed right and you have enough Twinkies it's much easier to mine the asteroids! If you have smart enough robots you don't even need the Twinkies! The cost of manoeuvering in space depends only on how patient you are. Even if you prefer to mine the Moon it doesn't matter that you still have SOME cost in firing the material back to Earth! You don't need a fleet of space shuttles. Just make some 10 ton "slug" carriers from iron ore and fire them back with a mass driver or whatever. Again, it's just ballistics. Aim it right and it will plop gently down just off your coast into the sea water, where you can haul it up on land and transport it to a smelter. If your profit margin is high enough compared to your costs you win.

Yeah, it seems to be starting, Jerry. What I find interesting is that it doesn't at all seem to be a case of people getting tired of an incumbent party. Rather, an incumbent party has decided to change its philosophy in its approach to governing. It's support base seems to have said that they liked things the way they were and now are choosing another party more like the original style of the incumbent. Contrast this with what happened in Ontario with Mike Harris. As soon as he stepped down his party couldn't wait to swing more left! They were convinced that their ticket to staying in office was to be as little like Mike's style as possible. We can't tell for sure if this was the reason they promptly got their electoral asses handed to them on a platter but it does make one wonder. I find it strange that in the past few decades the spectacular voting successes have gone to more "right wing" leaders yet their parties always seem to be afraid to go that route, preferring to give us "centrist" leaders in beige suits with brown shoes. I mean, there hasn't been as successful a Liberal leader since Trudeau! They've stayed in power but never with those kinds of majorities. It's pretty obvious that NO party really wants to give the public what they want, whether it's a policy or just the integrity of committing to stick to their promises! Anyhow, I say more power to the Wild Rose! They had supported a party that tried to renege on what the people wanted. The people are kicking their asses for doing it! To a populist like me, it looks great!

Well Topaz, let's just assume you're right! So we shouldn't vote for them. However, the other parties have done worse! So just who do you think we should vote FOR? The NDP, who never knew a business they didn't want to tax to death until it left the country? The Greens? Hah! Or the Liberals, with their tradition of Adscam and Shawinigate? You love to tear Harper down. You never say anything about any real alternative.

You misunderstand. It's not that they would forgive Harper if he had done all that. Rather, they believe that the other parties (especially the Liberals!) are ALREADY REGULARLY DOING THOSE THINGS! Sheesh! Are ya new? I thought that was obvious!

Ah, but as BC2004 has pointed out, anecdotes about the weather being unusually warm will always be accepted!

Jerry, do you realize just how MUCH shale gas we're talking here? http://www.marketwatch.com/story/epa-concerned-about-ny-shale-gas-drilling-2010-01-01?reflink=MW_news_stmp "Geologists estimate that the entire Marcellus Shale formation contains between 168 trillion to 516 trillion cubic feet of natural gas," the agency's Website says. As context, the agency says that New York State uses about 1.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year." That's ONLY New York State! For 168-516 years! http://www.api.org/policy/exploration/hydraulicfracturing/shale_gas.cfm This link is more general about North America. We'll need one helluva increased demand before prices firm up!

So at what point in time do they do this? When they entered the country or when some years later they formally applied for permanent residency?

I'm still not clear here. I know from enough other posters that the Tories are bad no matter what they do and that if they discovered a cure for cancer it would only be so they can take away doctor's jobs. Still, what about the Liberals? Are they or are they not "double dipping"?

Well, here's a link about Queens University: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111907.html It talks about how they hired "thought police". Here's another from YOUR university! Apparently there is some disagreement about such issues: "April 1, 2008 To the Members of the University Community: The University’s Department of Acceptable Truths has been asked to consider changes to university policies governing permitted free speech in the light of concerns that have been raised by faculty members, alumni, and wealthy funders." Here's one that's particularly juicy about your Alma Mater: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/010761.html "As the mob did not disperse, on the third floor, a worker in the Hillel decided that it was best to lock the door of the Hillel, and only let the Jewish students inside until the crowd thinned out, just to be on the safe side. Not thinking that anything was going to happen, the students in the Hillel lounge went about there typical business, sitting around and doing school work. Ten minutes passed, and before anyone realized what was happening, the mob that was outside the press conference on the third floor was outside the Hillel office on the fourth floor. The students outside of the Hillel were shouting louder their anti-Israel slogans and banging on the floor and walls so hard that the lights outside the Hillel were flickering. As the students in Hillel began to grow uneasy and the feeling of being safe was diminishing, York security was called in to try and help break up the crowd but as any student who has been to York knows, the campus security is severely limited on the force that they can use and they were unable to break up the crowd. And, as a result we were encouraged by Hillel staff to call the Toronto Police to help disperse the crowd. Some students who had the local non-emergency number called that one but as panic was setting in with other students some called 911 as they were truly scared for their safety." A quick google had pages and pages more. I guess when you attended that school you didn't get out much. You were saying?