Dave_ON

I'm inclined to agree, not to mention if you wear a cowboy hat anywhere else in Canada it's either covered in sequins or rhinestones or you're attempting to be ironic. In Calgary it's normal.

This type of post serves to demonstrate my point. You truly don't understand how the senate works. I can't believe you're advocating changing a system that has worked for over 140 years. You think the senate is bad because it's keeping the NDP down. This is not the case it's the people of Canada that are keeping the NDP down, that's why they have never come close to forming the government. You can't compare provinces to the country anymore than you can compare civic politics to provincial politics. Scale is everything and the larger the area you are governing the more government it takes. Elected commons appointed senate that is the balance and there is nothing undemocratic about that. Why? Because the appointees are appointed by an elected MP namely the PM. Could the senate use some reform? Yes absolutely, outright abolishment? Absolutely not. You've yet to give a good reason as to why we should get rid of the senate. I know you are minimizing the importance of the "sober second thought" philosophy but it absolutely does work. It's not about killing legislation or subverting the democratic process, it's about ensuring that the whims of a few elected politicians don't go unchecked. This is the same reason we have appointed, rather than elected judges. Judges and Senators should be focusing on what is constitutional and what is right for the country. Let the MP's worry about what the people want. Frankly the people are too ill informed about most issues in order to tell the government how to run the country. Besides the fact that the largest, longest lasting democracies the world over have a two body system. Clearly the US, Canada, and most of Europe is wrong simply because punked believes it to be so. Simply because the house reads a bill three times does not mean they get a fresh perspective on it. The same people reading the same document are generally going to draw the same conclusions; this is the function of the senate, a fresh perspective without the foregone conclusions. If you can't see that, I can't explain it any more clearly. As for Referendums ad nausea, no thanks, completely and utterly unnecessary. You think the democratic process is slow now, imagine how long it would take to pass referendums all the time. Both sides running election style campaigns incessantly to pass their specific bill. The people would be no better informed and no better served by such a system. All that it would provide is the illusion of choice. An ill informed vote does not serve democracy in the least, and the vast majority of people would vote for whichever side advertized the most/best.

Do you honestly believe you can equate provincial and federal politics? Apples and oranges my friend; I thought you lived in the real world, tell me what colour is the sky there? NDP Orange no doubt. Be that as it may, another important function of the Senate is to represent the regions directly. This is one of the main drivers behind senate reform and why so many, especially Westerners are so in favor of a Triple E senate. While I can agree all provinces should have equal representation in the upper house, I don't believe they should be elected. As Molly pointed out it protects the rest of us from being governed by the latest fad. We have a house that is responsible and accountable to the people and that is where the lion's share of the power resides. However, we also have the upper house which doesn't have to worry about re-election or party backlash and can vote their conscience. I'd site the equal marriage bill as a prime example of this, many of the "liberal" senators voted against it. Liberal MP's didn't get that chance as they were bound by party lines. The senate and the commons are quite separate and in all honesty, they are not beholden to the government that originally appointed them in the least. Are Liberal appointees generally liberal minded? Yes, the same can be said of the Conservative appointees; however, the beauty of the senate is there are no parties. It's essentially a number of independents voting on legislation free from outside or party interference. As a senator you’re a free agent, you can vote for or against anything you feel like and there is nothing the current PM or his party can do about it.

Hmm that's an excellent point and one I hadn't considered in its entirety. While I'm certain similar occurrences happen in our current system, they are significantly diminished by the highly regulated polling station method. Realistically the only way to reduce interference electronically would be to closely monitor it, which of course would negate the nature of the secret ballot.

Huh? Care to dedicate more than a vague, and very loosely cogent sentence to explain? I'm not quite following your point.

Well I would encourage you to do some research on the senate or perhaps watch some senate committee meetings if you don't understand their role in our parliamentary democracy. In short the Senate is a sounding board for legislation and they serve a key role in our government. You'll find many that think the senate should be triple E and many that think it should remain the same. However, you won't find many that think it should be abolished in its entirety; Those who do have probably not taken the time to understand their role. As an aside the senate is still largely controlled by Liberal apointees. This is not to say they are liberals, there are a few NDP, and independant senators that were appointed by the liberals. Honestly though, once you're appointed you're their until 75, would you really feel you needed to vote along party lines if you had that type of gig for life? I somehow doubt it.

On the contrary simple is better. Look south of the boarder for all the complexities of their system and the "directness" of their democracy the Americans are no further ahead than the rest of the world. Our system works, and has done so for 142 years and counting. The average Joe doesn't have sufficient time to adequately research or understand all issues before the house. Our MP's have an entire staff that does this for them. Don't fall into the trap that the Americans have by thinking that big and complex is better, it's not. Having a plethora of referendums and votes on issues waters down democracy rather than strengthening it. If people are voting all the time they will get to the point where they're tired of voting and aren't putting the amount of thought into it they should. Do the words "voter fatigue" mean anything to you?

Actually unless I'm very much mistaken I believe the Charlottetown accord had a referendum vote associated with it. This was non-binding as I recall. The government has it at their discretion to make both binding and non-binding referendums. I for one would hate the government to have regular referendums as they do in the states. I'm not a fan of direct democracy. I pay my MP to do the voting for me. If I wanted to vote for every single issue that went before parliament I'd run for office. As it stands I do not so I remain a constituent. You have a voice if you choose to use it, contact your MP you may do this at any time. Most choose not to avail themselves of such opportunities, and prefer to complain about how little power they have. As for the online voting issue, I think it’s something that we should work towards. I don’t feel we’re ready to implement it in the immediate future but that does not mean we shouldn’t work toward it. An important point you left out of your post CAMP is that you may also submit your tax return via the web, an excellent service which I take advantage of. It’s much faster than mailing it and it is 100% secure. This is done via the Revenue Canada website. The security and controls on the site are excellent, and I don’t see how registering to vote would be any less secure. Those who oppose these types of advances are likely still filling out paper forms for their taxes and using an abacus to help them do the math.

Wow 2006 way to keep things current. Want to bring up any old Trudeau ads while we're hitting these things at the height of their relevancy? What about some Lester B. Pearson ads? Sheesh I know the summer is lean for us political junkies but at least keep it to the last fiscal year.

I doubt that would happen in Ontario, there is a very bad stigma still pervading the provincial NDP. Many people felt the NDP provincial goverment was a disaster and if you're from around here you'll be familliar with the phrase "Rae Days". Most of Ontario isn't fond of the NDP after Rae's term. Who knows though stranger things have happened. After all Ontarians aren't much fonder of Mike Harris' conservatives but take a look at the federal cabinent and many of the former provincial PC ministers are now federal CPC ministers.

A closer approximation is the yet unresolved CPC "In and Out" Scandal.

do you have evidence to back up this claim? Evidence or even a link to support that the were writting by anti-china organizations? If not it is nothing more than you opinion. If you're anti-evil behaviour why can you not accept the evil that China has perpetrated? Is the west the sole proprieter of all things evil?

I assume you have evidence to support your suposition? I look forward to reading the evidence to back up your opinions but I doubt you'll be able to produce it. You're awefully quick to produce articles against the west. Simply stating that they are lies doesn't make it so. I have produced evidence with citation to back up my position. Can you do the same?

I'm not kidding these are not my figures, these are figures from the articles I linke which clearly you neglected to read. It's the "kindness" of China that is in question here. Care to explain why there are so many missing? 40million is a lot but in the context of roughly 1.3 billion in the country that's roughly 3% of the population. I was under the impression that China "took care" of their children better than we evil westerners do. Guess I was mistaken.

Another shining example of how well China takes "care" of it's abandoned and disabled children. Again your CAS post pale in comparison to this. http://www.achildsdesire.org/chinaadopt.htm More lies I suppose? CAS is evil but if China does it, it's either ok, or if I know you bjre "it never happened"

Of course they need to control the population but is this the proper way to go about it? Is controlling the population ok if you abandon/abort/kill the child simply because of gender? Is a male more valuable than a female? Is this the attitude that you yourself ascribe to? Here's are some articles your sure to not read. http://research-china.blogspot.com/2005/10...d-in-china.html http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5250 and here's an exerpt from it because I know you won't follow the links. Indeed China does "Take care" of these girls. 40,000,000 "missing" girls, guess that kind of dwarfs you CAS figures huh? But I'm certain you'll deny the truth and simply call this a lie even though there are by the Chinese government’s own estimates approx 30% more boys born then girls. A phenomenon that is unique to China, how very odd. You still haven't answered my question. Why do you remain in Canada since China is so perfect?

Agreed this is the scandal that wasn't. Since the in and out scandal from the CPC which is still in court, Elections Canada is scrutinizing spending more so than they have in the past.

So you deny the assistance the allies gave your country during wwii?

Again where is the substance of your post. You address nothing. Name calling is also quite immature and further serves to prove my point that you can't engage in discourse or debate without either deflecting or insulting.

I agree for the most part but I'd call it a lose-lose. Harper comes off looking like he can be cowed and Ignatieff comes off looking like he's all talk no action. Hydraboss is correct, really this "compromise" didn't achieve anything that wasn't already planned. Other than the committee which will do SFA to resolve the issue in time for the folks that need it.

1st Produce evidence and citations that demonstrate Mao did not kill people. There are a myriad of articles stating he did many have been cited. Please provide citation to back up your claim. 2nd Thousands of Chinese girls are abandoned, aborted or killed at birth each year because of the one child policy. As such many adoption agencies have been setup to rescue Chinese girls, many are adopted by Canadians. The result has been a vast gender imbalance in China which cannot occur from natural causes. 3rd War and peace times are very different. Life can't be restored no but killing someone who has an equal chance of killing you is very different than, killing a Chinese child because she is a girl or killing your own citizens to ensure obedience. Obedience it what you refer to as "peace" by the way. I await your reply which will undoubtly contain nothing but denail, deflection and statements such as "you're an evil media controlled robot".

You really are clueless aren't you? You honestly believe the drivel you type? Tell me who is controlled when you cannot even admit the atrocities your own people committed against your own people? Talking about the flaws of others doesn't negate or excuse the flaws in you or your country of origin. Have my European ancestors committed crimes against humanity and against their own people. Absolutely they have. Have they done so in modern times? Not in the least. The problems in China are STILL happening. When was the last time you heard about a European attempt to purge the natives? You bring up the war in Iraq a lot as well as Vietnam. Immaterial in this discussion as Canada was not involved in either war. Further to the point war is a completely different creature. People die on both sides in war that's the nature of the beast. Both sides are armed and able to defend themselves, yes civilians get caught in the cross fire but are rarely attacked directly. It's not natural to go about killing your own citizens. If you're citizens are afraid to speak their mind for fear of reprisal that is a crime against humanity. You mentioned in China you can argue with an officer. Tell me could you in China post all the nasty things you do if they were about China? Do you think you would even be allowed to post anything negative about China or its government? Or would you be hauled off to a "re-education" camp like so many Tibetans? In Canada you have the right to say what you want even if it is negative, you should be grateful for that right. Until you admit that your ancestors and current government have and do commit crimes against its own people you have nothing relevant to say. You can't be taken seriously or as an objective person if you can't see flaws in yourself or your people. I can see them in Canada and myself, and most people on this forum can. Many times my view has changed or been adjusted because of something another poster has said. You will not change, because you believe you are without flaw and are therefore unable to accept that fact that you are not always correct.

Once again you deflect rather than address. How is it you can live in such a state of constant denial? You're ancestors are far worse so that makes what Mao did ok. Because others have done wrong it negates what Mao did? Do you honestly think China is so very perfect and the rest of the world is so flawed? You still haven't answered my question. If China is so great and Canada is so evil why do you stay? You've already said you make $100,000.00 a year surely you can afford the move back. So what keeps you here? Other than your need to malign and harangue?

Again you're splitting hairs. Saying that the killings didn't occur in Tianamen square does negate the fact that they DID happen. Since you clearly deny facts that are put before you OR simply dismiss the source, I would proport that it is you who cannot be trusted to draw accurate conclusions. You are selective in your fact finding as is demonstrated by quoting only a part of the article. You deny ANY killings happened near or in Tianamen square, is the location really that important? Does this change the fact that they DID happen? Does it change the fact that armed military personal killed in cold blood innocent unarmed civilians at the governments behest? As mentioned this is ONE article and there are many that contradict the fact that it happened NEAR and not IN, as mentioned it doesn't matter, it STILL happened.

There's a convenient fact you left out of that article you cited. While in all technicallity you may be correct, the killings happened NEAR Tianamen square not IN it that doesn't change the fact that the Chinese goverment admits that deaths DID occur near it. This article is little more than hair splitting.