g_bambino
-
Posts
8,249 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by g_bambino
-
-
A party that receives less than 40% of the vote should not have a majority government...
It should when the other parties each have less than 40% of the vote.
Regardless, even if you see FPTP as unacceptable, that shouldn't equate with the idea that our methods of elective democracy are broken. Broken means they no longer function.
-
[O]ur methods of elective democracy , which are broken.
They are?
we should be looking to bring in greater levels of demarchy.
Where's responsible government?
-
Can you explain it further?
Obama is not "non-white". How that relates to a comment about non-"white" war heroes no longer being ignored because the president is now non-"white" is self-evident.
I hope that's the end of that.
-
I don't understand your point here.
.........Did you read the post I was responding to?
but he clearly has black skinNo, he doesn't.
So to say he his 'half' white is a bit silly
No, it's not. Well, if you consider the silliness of "white" and "black", then, yes, it's a bit silly. But, otherwise, no.
[ed.: +]
-
Just interesting that that is more of a fiscally conservative message than anything from the actual fiscal conservatives.
Mmm, yes.
-
I believe that the celebration was designated by the term of "war" of 1812.
Yet, the part of the (apparent, since there's no link) article you quoted spoke specifically about the 150th anniversary of Confederation and then a vague, general reference to events, including "six year's worth of military commemorations". You brought up the War of 1812. There's no way to tell yet what these "military commemorations" will be or what they'll cost. The claim they'll "have significant resource implications for DND organizations and CF units" isn't clear on how "significant" and comes from the DND, which obviously (and understandably) has self-interests.
-
Ironically, tax and spend socialist Chow is the only one to not jump on the DRL train, saying they need to figure out how to fund it first, even as Tory talks about putting shovels in the ground.
Mmm.. Wouldn't that be the "let's build subways before we know how to pay for them" train she's not jumping on, rather than the "a downtown relief line is needed" one? If she's saying one's needed but how it'll be funded must be considered, then, that makes sense to me. But, I don' t know right now that that is what she's saying. Admittedly, I haven't looked...
[ed.: c/e]
-
My bet is they've got it now.
Could be. Based on the fact Perth to Kuala Lumpur is a 5.5 hour flight, I estimate flying from where the plane did its U-turn (50 minutes into its flight) to Perth is approximately 6.5 hours; so, out to the southern Indian Ocean would be about 7. That's apparently how long the fuel that was on board would last for and how much time passed between the plane moving out of radar range and its last known communication with a satellite.
But, why fly a plane as far as it would go out into essentially nothing?
-
Here's the candidates and their platforms in a nutshell
Well, RoFo is definitely off my list. But, who among the others seems most appealing is hard to determine. I'm wary of Chow's priorities and the associated financing, but am reserving definite judgment until I see more of her platform (assuming more is coming).
That subway "relief line" is an absolute necessity, though.
-
Ford is the only one that has something about tax and controling spending and subway project
He said something, alright: "gravy train". Aaaaaannd... that was it.
No one can be trusted...
I prefer to support my son...
I don't trust your son.
[ed.: +]
-
Actually I don't know of, or have even heard of a single person who cared about these ceremonies.
You should tell that to the people who were at them.
-
Now more $millions have been earmarked to “celebrate” more war victories.
Rather than use this money to celebrate wars I think it would be better spent on those who fought those wars.
Putting aside the matter of national anniversaries, in what way was Confederation a war? Perhaps you're mixing Canada up with the US?
-
How much longer would the US have ignored their non-white war heroes if not for the fact they elected (twice) a non white president?
Well, he's actually half "white". People really seem to (want to?) forget that.
-
We (Trudeau and QE II) signed the BNA into law in 1982.
Er, no. There were many BNA acts. These (and other constitutional laws) were patriated via the proclamation of the Constitution Act 1982, which is what EIIR and PET signed on 17 April.
We are pretty much a democracy.
We are a democracy. Period.
-
Usually in democracies we grow beyond the need for a monarchy of any kind.
False.
-
Norway and Sweden, in the 19th century shared the same monarch, the same Head of State.
They shared the same person as monarch of each; it's called a personal union. That's not a synonym for colony. Unless, of course, you want to argue Great Britain/the UK was a colony of Hanover from 1714 to 1837, or England was a colony of Scotland between 1603 and 1707, or the UK is a colony of Canada now.
Perhaps a personal union with Canada is what Jacques Parizeau wants.
-
I responded to you twice already. You just don't like the answers.
No, because the responses aren't answers to the question I asked.
-
[P]acking your stuff, leaving the house...
Quebec isn't mobile. Well, beyond continental drift, I guess. At best, it could say "I hate you" and then just sit there.
-
They'll declare independence ASAP, which means they won't have any interest in the federal Clarity Act, since of course it won't apply in a sovereign nation.
Just because you declare independence doesn't mean you're independent.
-
Norway was once a colony of Sweden...
Not, it was not. It was an almost totally independent country in a form of personal union with Sweden. In comparison to Quebec, it had many more of its own powers; only Norwegian foreign relations were conducted by the king in his Swedish council.
-
Separatists have already made it clear that they don't care about the law and the only question is whether they think they can grab land without being condemned as the villains. That is where the reactions of people on the ground matter. If people in Montreal simply shrug and accept it then Canada has no leverage. The same is if the Cree choose to stay with Quebec because they are given a sweetheart deal (to be honest, the Cree could decide that they trust the separatists more than the feds and Canada should not assume they would want to stay).
Separatists say all sorts of conflicting things. They "say" they don't care about the law--federal law, anyway--by ignoring it, while openly moaning about the Clarity Act, indicating they're aware it's going to have some impact on them. The matter of the First Nations (Cree and Inuit) territory within Quebec that the Northeastern Quebec Agreement says is governed by Ottawa falls into the former camp; separatists simply pretend there's no question about it. But, that's now. If it comes to Quebec independence, I don't see what grounds the new country would have in simply taking that land as its own; the province presently governs that area as much as it governs Labrador. Taking one would be tantamount to taking the other.
Montreal is a different matter altogether. It is firmly under the control of the Crown in Right of Quebec.
[ed.: c/e]
-
That makes it delusional to believe that negotiating a deal will be any easier - especially since there will be a lot of pressure to allow parts of Quebec to secede from Quebec (I would be very surprised if the Cree did not take the opportunity to create their own autonomous territory that is loosely associated with either Quebec and Canada depending on who offers the best deal).
It's not a matter of parts of Quebec seceding from Quebec, it's that the Northeastern Quebec Agreement specifies that certain territories inhabited by First Nations are not within the legislative jurisdiction of Quebec. Simply put, if Quebec declares independence, those lands won't go with it. If Quebec negotiates independence, it will have to negotiate for those lands if it wants them. Of course, the First Nations living in those areas want to go it on their own, they can try to do so, but, that's a matter between them and the federal Crown.
-
I am not in favour of separation but I respect the views of separatists and am strongly against your calling them "ignorant blockheads".
Perhaps he meant the people leading the separatist charge, the ones who think real Quebecers are only the Catholic (even if only "traditionally"), francophone, old stock ones, the ones trying to appeal to that group with "values charters" and invasive language laws.
If it were to separate, there is no reason to believe that life in Quebec would be significantly different than what it is today. For example why would the credit rating of the "nation of Quebec" be any different than the current credit rating of the Province of Quebec?
Because the "nation of Quebec" would no longer have the economic benefit of transfer and equalisation payments. The Quebec economy is barely holding on as it is.
-
You want to know a better example of how rape culture affects men? The way we look at prison rape as perfectly normal in the US justice system.
One can only wonder why you won't answer the question.
Fair Election Act
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
What part of the bill is unconstitutional?