Goat Boy©

The body of the message can be interpreted to whatever the receiver wishes it to be. Nonsense ad, and nonsense controversy. Regardless though, supreme arrogance on their part. This interests me: Publications with her name on it that she is 'not aware of?' Election advertising makes me sick.

Come on......360 hours. A little bit much maybe?

I agree, but shameful of all. Harper alone, is not guilty. And the coalition was certainly not a popular alternative. The disposing of Stephane Dion is evidence enough of this to those who choose to disregard the rest.

I see. So Harper is clearly lying, and misleading all those innocent Canadians who can't think for themselves. No free thinking Canadian did not want the Coalition to succeed. A majority of Canadians also wanted somebody other than Dion, Layton & Duceppe. I see, so if acting within the guidelines of government is undemocratic, what then is the current action of the Liberals attempting to dissolve parliament for no apparent reason? And why, should a coagulation that the majority of the Country disproved of be given a chance to govern? By the polls, Canadians preferred: A) Status quo Election C) Coalition Overwhelmingly against another election, the figure was something like 73%, yet still preferable to a coalition. If the country was so in favor of this, why was Dion removed for executing it? Why is Ignatieff against it, after all, it should still be a viable alternative correct? By our own, CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/1069-cbc-results-dec4-final.pdf CON support peaks at 44% due to coalition. CON - 44% LIB - 24.1% NDP - 14.5% BQ - 9.2% GREEN - 8.1% Q. The Conservative government of Stephen Harper will likely be defeated when Parliament next has an opportunity to vote. The opposition parties want to replace the Conservatives with a coalition made up of Liberals and New Democrats led on an interim basis by Stéphane Dion. Based on this, which of the following is closest to your view? -Parliament taking a break for a month or so to see whether the Conservatives can get the confidence of parliament when it comes back into session 37% -The proposed coalition of Liberals and New Democrats replacing the Conservative government within the next few weeks 28% (Only received 56% from LPC, shocking) An election to be called within the next few weeks to break the impasse -19%

More like head clansman, or the guy responsible for mixing the blue kool-aid. I just can't see a sheltered, spoiled, egotistical elitist, arrogant a$$hole being called a leader. That's not leading, I don't know what to call it, but it sure ain't leading.

Trudeau was a leader? I would have selected a phrase more like, perhaps, Minister? Perhaps Abbot, or Bishop?

I don't see why the Bloc would, they're gaining ground in the polls are they not? The NDP, a precarious position. Prop up the government that you've been speaking out against for years, probably an internal backlash, possible loss of support, or face an election with an empty bank and low polling figures.

The same Liberals that failed to stand for debate on the '06 budget? Nah, they'd never do anything that dumb.

Young Gordy lived in Vancouver and bought a donkey from a farmer for $100. The farmer agreed to deliver the donkey the next day. The next day he drove up saying, 'Sorry son, but I have some bad news, the donkey died.' Gordy replied, ’Well, then just give me my money back.' The farmer said, 'Can't do that. I went and spent it already.' Gordy said, 'Ok, then, just bring me the dead donkey. the farmer asked, 'Wat ya gonna do with a dead donkey? Gordy said, 'I'm going to raffle him off.' The farmer said, you can't raffle off a dead donkey!' Gordy said, 'Sure I can, I just won't tell anybody he's dead.' A month later, the farmer met up with Gordy and asked, 'What happened with that dead donkey?' Gordy said, 'I raffled him off. I sold 500 tickets at $2 each and I made a profit of $898.' The farmer said, 'Didn't anyone complain?' Gordy said, 'Just the guy who won, so I gave him his $2 back.' Gordy now works for the government.

Max, do I know you from another forum?

This appears to be excellent news. I really admire Gilles Duceppe, with his gall to tell the truth, even when screwing the rest of the country. I think him the most fit leader of the 4, and were he to erase 'Quebec,' and pencil in 'Canada,' and run candidates in the entire country I think he would win a record landslide.

Here is an example: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/07/17/census-canada.html Lots and lots of reports such as this showing up. Addressed above. Not playing fear-mongering here, but it is going to be some type of problem. Not irrelevant at all. The standards that immigration are based on are not static. Just because this is the case now, does not mean that it will not be for the future. I quite agree, immigration is not required to sustain pop growth. And I am not trying to sell pro-immigration here as I believe you have inferred. I have no position on it, although I believe the system is being heavily abused at present. What I was saying is that the level of service we receive from the government of Canada needs to be paid for, and a lot of those that pay are going to disappear in the coming future, and even worse, start drawing on the contributions. Just how many, and what the impact will be is up for debate. Again, you base the argument on current standards of immigration. Those standards are dynamic. I only offered immigration as one possible solution to a potential major problem, of which there don't appear to be many. I'm on the fence here. On the one hand, domestically born children represent direct benefits to the country over immigration, on the other hand exponential population growth is a problem for the entire world. Something of a quagmire.

I also think the voters ballot should not have a party affiliation next to the name. Voters should at least know enough to know whom is which, which I don't see to be the case. Just consider the Obama campaign, when Howard Stern went to the streets of New York showing McCains platform with Obama's name.....people were overwhelmingly in favor, regardless of what he was selling.

Can the formula be executed to derive an acceptable answer? I believe, no. Thus, it may as well not exist. So long as the Quebec question hangs in the air, I do not believe our constitution will ever be amended.

I find myself wondering these days, where we will be in 10 years. We're facing record immigration rates right now, and their are a lot of thoughts against this. However I see nothing but continuing reports, that it is expected as many as 30% of the workforce is expected to retire in the next decade, as the baby boomers call it quits. Who is going to pay for all of this? CPP, EI, Universal Health Care......can these services survives this? I don't believe so, going from this entire population paying dues, to them all drawing benefits. So who pays? The way I see it, their are two choices: Immigration en masse that makes today look like a camp out, or state sponsored programs actively encouraging Canadians to have more kids. I believe that this will actually turn into a crisis, it's going to be interesting to see where we end up. Also, it will rather ironic watching the dogmatic anti-immigration crowd receiving services that wouldn't be possible, without immigrants. Anybody have any thoughts? This is all theory, how wrong am I? Let's have the monkey wrenches in the wheels.

I would argue that Meech Lake & Charlottetown represent a strong argument that this is not correct.

Hey, I'm non-partisan, I criticize all parties equally. As a Neo-Libertarian, the NDP is something of my arch nemisis, but I can appease with their raison d'etre, and they do, from time to time, do us some favors. I just wish they could pull their F'ing pants up out here in BC, get rid of that psychopathic woman, and at the very least run some sort of platform.

Yes, because of all those Liberal & NDP voters, just drooling over all of the absolute truths coming out of Harper's mouth. Come, the coalition was BS, the country didn't want it.

+1

A majority also did not want Stephanie Dianne to be PM either, Ignatieff, Jack as well. Not at all, the coalition polled absolutely terrible. Canadians wanted the member of government they voted for, not '+ 2 additional.' Harper's policy on the last election was bull$hit, and the current crop of Liberals is doing, exactly the same thing. I guess the Liberals can pay for this election too eh? And pay back AdScam? All of it.... They're all crooks, order of priorities: 1) My seat 2) My Parties status 3) My pension 4) The voters

I was of the impression that it required a consensus majority, just to legislate the formula for constitutional reform? Actually executing said reform, another tiger to fight all together? Is this not correct?

It means the opposition sees a chance to gain grounds, and advance their own position.

Does this not also include services rendered in the party's favor in return for cash, as well as votes purchased?

All you have to say to a swing voter is that George W. Bush also pushed Cap & Trade. NDP instantly scandalized. Not too mention with the minuscule %, and smaller consumption by the poor, the wealthy actually do end up paying far more. But don't count on BC NDP policy to make sense or be truth.

It was me actually. I haven't been here for some time.