Wild Bill

Again, if she made the choice for the country and handed the government to the Liberals the talking heads like Mike Duffy and the crew of CBC NW would be all over it! Governments are supposed to be chosen by the people, not by a figurehead. If she did such a thing I'd bet on two consequences. One is that the Liberals would get beaten up by the time voting day finally did arrive, for benefiting from a rigged situation. The other is that there would be serious call to cancel the position of Governor General, or at least seriously limit it's power.

Interesting viewpoint. I WAS a Reformer for years and I see little or nothing of Reform in today's CPC. Virtually everything Manning campaigned with has been dropped, down the memory hole. They look like a clone of the PC's from the Mulroney years. And that was the style that drove me to Reform!

Agreed. It is the nature of our country to have large regional differences in our wants and needs from confederation. Rarely is it possible to please everybody. I guess this is true of most democracies. Where it can fester is when one region perpetually gets the shaft, like western Canada with things like the Crow Rate or the NEP. Or Ontario with its transfer payment burden that seems to be a fixed fee, regardless of its own economic health. Or the Maritimes, where Regional Disparity Programs can stifle real employment, leaving the people caught in a perpetual "10-42" situation. Maybe some day we'll elect a genius who will make EVERYONE prosper at the same time! Cue the John Lennon song and start the "Little Orphan Annie" video...

I was referring as to how in Cheyenne Mountain, the HQ of NORAD, they alternate with an American and a Canadian in command. It would just be the luck of the draw as to who was the commanding officer if there was a foreign attack. That's the way NORAD was set up, from the beginning. It is a joint Canada-USA deal, even if the Americans kicked in most of the money for all the hardware.

Actually, if the NORAD rotation held a Canadian general at that specific time, would it not be Canada's decision? Maybe not Ottawa's. There's limited time, after all. Still, I would expect a Canadian officer would make the same response as his American counterpart. Soldiers of all countries tend to be more practical than many of their leaders.

Geez, more clear thinking! Don't ever try to debate over at "rubble.ca", Rue. Their brains would melt from trying to follow you or more likely they'd call you a lot of very bad names and then throw you out! Some folks give us Moody Blues and others give us Bobby Sherman. Thanks for feeding this old hippy's head!

Eurasia? Oceania? What was the other one, Winston? The name escapes me. I must have lost it down the memory hole. Doubleplusungood!

We've been over this one before, I think. Alright, you've got your nukes. So, some undercover terrorists nuke Toronto. Now, what do you do? It's likely that we have no idea who they are or where they came from. Especially since we have a tendency to cheap out on foreign intel resources. Worse yet, maybe they frame a different country and we blow up the wrong one! Or we find out that they're not actually a country. They may be sheltered by a sympathetic government, like the Taliban or the Saudis but they are not officially a country. Who do you nuke? I'd assume you'd want to nuke governments instead of ordinary people. So the emirs all leave the capital and hide in the various hills. Should you nuke their capital anyway? It's not nearly as simplistic an option as you make it out to be. It takes feet on the ground to defend against these kind of threats. It's not 1939, you know. What's more, even if we do find ourselves at war with a specific country, modern wars are "come as you are" wars. They can be over in weeks, if not days. If you don't have the resources at the start you will never have the time to develop them. No time for recruitment and training. No time to build a plane or a tank. If you haven't got good ones or enough of them then you lose. Your nukes were almost certainly destroyed in their silos before you even had a clue what was going on. Or maybe I missed something. Perhaps you could explain it to me.

Yes, you have indeed! You've also been more objective that some as to the chances of a majority win for either party. There you are, jdobbin! Me and you, back to back against the whole horde!

Hey. the new Tories are actually just clones of the old Tories! Compare how they have governed with Mulroney and co. Can anyone tell me any big philosophical differences, except that Mulroney had the two biggest majorities Canada has ever seen? Mulroney just had more power, that's all. That being said, at least they've never robbed us and handed out the loot in Montreal restaurants. It will take a loong time for many of us to forgive the liberals for that! Politicians are like puppies. They must be punished or they will continue to mess on your floor. After another term or two in the wilderness we might be willing to give them another chance. Right now they would need a leader with the charisma of Trudeau and sadly for them, there's not a single member of their caucus who would even outshine Ralph Benmergui or George "Snuffleupagus" from the CBC! I mean, these are people who would think that live music could only mean Walter Ostenek playing a polka! Compared to Trudeau who jetsetted with royalty and rock stars, they are lame, lame, lame.

Ok, if you say so. Now, who specifically do you mean by "the current liberals and social democrats"? What can you give us as proof that they are not fiscally irresponsible? Are you talking only about the Chretien regime? Or have you other examples? A bit of substance here might give us something to chew on...

Well, the construction industry still isn't all that high tech. You still need back hoes and you still need saws and hammers. I wonder if perhaps the licensing of trades might be part of the problem. It seems today that not only do you have to have a six month course and a certificate before you can be licensed to wipe your own butt but if you don't have that certificate then it's assumed you can't possibly know how to do it and could never be trained! It's becoming a red tape jungle. Things that us older folks used to take for granted to learn on our own as no big deal are now mandatory accredited programs. No certificate to hang drywall or whatever and you may not be allowed to work. Employs a lot of teachers, though. My wife has told me many times of how at her work when someone had a computer terminal placed on their desk they immediately demanded the company send them on training course, on full pay of course. I remember with relish how we handled that at a company I worked for in the early 80's. We just came in on a weekend and put ALL the manual paperwork and stuff in a locked room. We installed a terminal on everyone's desk. When the staff arrived on Monday morning we told them the simple truth: if they couldn't learn the computer then they could no longer do their job, as the old manual system was GONE! They screamed and they cried but you know, by Friday things were working fine and no one wanted to go back to the old way!

You may prove to be right. He has hardly been inspiring in Ontario. The PC's had all but disappeared in Ontario when the parties merged so not much legacy vote there. There were over a million or two Reform/Alliance voters but as I've constantly harped, the new CPC has little or nothing recognizable from the old party except a few names of MP's. Quebec might be better for him. Sure the BQ will take the lion's share but there are still an awful lot of Liberal seats where they haven't at all forgotten about AdScam. As for the Maritimes, who knows? Still, just because Harper hasn't inspired us folks from Ontario doesn't mean he won't pick up a few more seats. His biggest advantage is still Dion, after all. It's not enough to have a poor choice if the other one is worse! And of course, money will be a big factor. The Liberals are not only broke but deep in debt. They used to just hit up the corporations for donations and loans but Chretien made that illegal. Now they have to depend on attracting more donations from ordinary folks and frankly, they're just not used to that! The Tories have a rich tradition of fundraising from their Reform days. Perhaps that's the only tradition the new party kept! Anyhow, if signs and money are really that important then the Liberals will have some challenges.

Knew I'd find it! It's kinda dry of course but it seems quite clear that Harper is within his rights. Here's a link to a columnist's slant that says it all in plain English: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/colu...39-047ffc239fc9 Note this excerpt in particular: This means that while Bill C-16 is now the law of the land, it is only a parliamentary statute, and clearly does not effect constitutional convention. And in the Westminster tradition, the governor-general can dissolve Parliament any time at the request of the prime minister. In other words, if Stephen Harper wants an election, all he needs to do is walk from 24 Sussex Dr. across the a street to Rideau Hall and ask her excellency for a cup of tea and an election writ. Seems pretty clear to me that this is all perfectly within the PM's power. Whether or not it would be an issue against him in the ensuing election is a matter for voters to decide.

From what I heard, Harper's Bill NEVER removed the right of a sitting PM to ask to dissolve a parliament IF IT BECAME INEFFECTIVE! So if he chooses to do so it might be hypocritical but not illegal. Quelle surprise! Is politics not full of lawyers? You know, I'm gonna hit google and actually read this damn Bill! I keep hearing quotes about it that don't always make sense. I realize that it's a terribly objective and thoroughly unpopular thing to do around here but hey, that's just me!

I find this most curious. I'm wondering if there is an age factor here. Are you ignoring the history that began with Pearson and Trudeau? I would agree that Mulroney didn't do much to correct the situation but it started LONG before his time! I lived it! I watched it happen. It was pretty obvious to many as to how things were going to end up if nobody paid attention but no one had any power to affect governments. It was Manning who made not just the deficit but the overall sky-rocketing national debt a key platform of his party. I never heard boo out of Turner about it. Chretien just stole some of Manning's thunder, for two reasons. One is that the gnomes in Zurich were ready to blacken our national credit rating. The other is that's what smart Liberals have always done! If another party's platform plank looks really popular, steal it! Then voters can get it without having to vote against the "Natural Governing Party". You seem to be painting a total reversal of the historical record. Sorry, but without more evidence this seems to me like just more partisan Harper bashing.

Well, that might satisfy your own personal dream and that of some others like you but what effect do you think such an action might have on all the others? No Governor General in our history has ever done such a thing. Basically because it would be totally arbitrary. At least if an election is called we get to vote on how we feel about the next government. If Harper offended us by calling an early election we could pay him back at the polls. You are advocating that Micky-Jean would make our choice for us. SHE would choose the next government! In effect, no more democracy. Just some royal fiat from some elitist, appointed figurehead. I think that this would be political suicide for any GG and any party that profited by such action. If it wasn't, then as a country we would deserve every negative consequence that any such silly-assed action caused to happen.

Well, I would say that shutting down pipelines to Europe as a lever on a "vassal" state is hardly a way to earn a rep as a reliable supplier...

Ya know, after the election it's gonna be great fun to look back through this thread! Bold predictions of Liberal sweeps! Or Harper sweeps, for that matter. Canadians rising up and realizing that one or two particular posters in this forum were absolutely right! Then voting en masse for the choice of those posters! We will see who is objective and who is merely partisan. What's more, whatever the outcome, the sun will still rise in the east the next morning.

Well, if I consider ALL of the parties to be my opponents then at least I'm an "equal opportunity demonizer"! That being said, I try not to be blind to the faults of my (default) choice or oblivious to any virtues of the others. Somebody has to be objective. Otherwise getting what you thought you wanted can prove disappointing.

You know, this sort of thing is an old game. A government lets out a tender but it comes back and the best deal is not what they really wanted, like a foreign firm would win or even a Winnipeg outfit instead of one in Quebec. So you put the tender out again with some revisions. It might take a couple of tries but eventually you get who you want to win. Even better in this case, if the Liberals go ape over the idea of not supporting the navy then when they DO get an acceptable tender the Liberals will be in no position to criticize. I'm willing to see how this one plays out! It may well prove interesting...

Well, if that's the new Russian attitude then those wonderings will become reality! There's that Slavic warrior mentality again. Pride and arrogant strutting. A bit of oil money and they think they're "cock of the walk". It may often take a while but sooner or later everyone needs a friend. Russia should have learned from the breakup of the USSR. Conquered vassals aren't the same as friends. The Baltics, East Germany and all the others couldn't get away from Russia fast enough. Someday Russia may need a friend and not another vassal. She may find she has only street bums like North Korea and no one with any resources to come to her aid. America can be a bit of a brute once in a while but it can't hold a candle to the likes of Russia! At least Uncle Sam can offer candy bars, blue jeans and rock and roll. The only things Russia makes of any worth are guns!

Angus has a point. This is essentially an anglo forum, after all. Posting in french of course will mean that very few will understand it. So why bother? Most anglos have absolutely no reason to bother to learn french. Rubbing their noses in it is hardly a way to garner respect or to encourage any change. All they know is that if they have to drive through Quebec the signs on the major highways are all a PITA for being unilingual francais, whereas in the rest of Canada they are bilingual. This simple difference in approach by the Pequistes has done more to foster resentment against Quebec than perhaps any other political action. As my former boss in Pointe Claire used to tell me at sales meetings: "You get less flies with vinegar!"

Yeah...but! I'll bet that only a few political junkies like us even know about the new fixed election date Bill, much less understand it and give a damn. There's a lot of emotional rhetoric in this thread. People seem to project their wishes as reality, without much to back them up. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own set of facts, after all. Demonizing your opponent is also a waste of time. Canadians NEVER get perfect choices! They ty to go for the best fit they can. Otherwise, if even a fringe party like the Libertarians would get in simply because they champion legalizing pot. No, it's been my observation over the years that Canadians vote parties out, not in. They only do this if two simultaneous conditions are being met. One is if they are very dissatisfied with the state of their lives at the time of election. If we are in a bad recession like when the Mulroney/Campbell government fell, together with high unemployment and valid fears of losing jobs then people want to go with the choice that looks most competent to correct the situation. The other is that there must be a good-looking option! This is where things like leadership and not looking like an elitist come into play. Maybe the reason the polls are so even for the Libs and Tories has been that to the average citizen there has been little or no reason to pay attention! Neither choice has been thrilling or inspiring between the two major parties. This all changes the moment the election is called. People begin to pay attention. This is where I believe that Harper has the edge. He comes across as a cold fish. People might not prefer that but polls also show they believe him to be a more COMPETENT cold fish! Dion on the other hand comes across too much like a professor. Few folks believe teachers to be practical, real world people. They are academics, with all that implies. You can like a teacher but even if he teaches you autoshop you're still likely to want to take your car to a professional. It's been a while since AdScam. The average joe is beginning to forget. He's also unlikely to remember Harper's fixed election law since he never noticed it in the first place! So what is he going to see? I think that when voters begin to wake up they will notice that the economy is shaky. Polls consistently show that Harper is considered the better choice in this area. They will also notice Dion's "NewGST" with its Carbon Tax. Assuming they even understand the Carbon Tax it's not likely it will be appealing. Maybe in flush times when nobody is hurting they might take a chance for the egoboo of helping to "save the planet". To campaign with it when people are hurting or scared is much more of a challenge. People are worried about surviving TODAY and that, coupled with fear and a lack of confidence in any more taxes and parties to make them painless by being "revenue neutral", likely means that Dion will lose some seats overall. Perhaps not enough to give Harper his majority but if the overwhelming difference in the size of the campaign party war chests means anything even a majority is possible. It's hard to buy enough signs when you're broke with bad credit, after all. Or maybe that's where all those missing millions from AdScam ended up? In a secret Liberal election war chest! Man, you gotta admire that Chretien! What foresight!

There is an old, old joke that might lighten things up: An American comes to Montreal for a business trip and books a room at a local hotel. In the morning he marches straight up to the front desk, mad as hell! "What kind of hotel is this? I turned on the tap clearly marked "C" and nearly scalded myself!" "I'm so sorry, sir, but you must understand, this is Montreal, Quebec! We are in the main a french-speaking part of Canada. In french 'C' stands for chaud, which means 'hot' ". The American is immediately mollified. He apologizes for his error and leaves to greet his business day. The next morning he's back at the front desk, angrier than ever! "For Pete's sake!" he cries. "Yesterday you told me that 'C' means chaud, that being french for 'hot'. I inadvertently turned the other tap. it was also marked 'C' and I damn near froze to death!" "Well, certainly, sir!" the desk clerk calmly replied. "In English 'C' stands for 'cold'. Montreal is a bilingual city in a bilingual nation!" Sorry. I haven't had my coffee yet!