SF/PF

In terms of striking? Absolutely.

Because refusing outright to answer any questions at all isn't "evading" a question. Hell, Harper didn't even have the spine to show up in the house to face the charge of contempt against his government. Anyone that isn't blinded by partisan loyalty has to admit that even though Ignatieff's answers on the coalition question have been unsatisfying to some, he has at least been willing to take questions. Harper has been shielded from the press for a few days now. Evading a question indeed.

It gets worse... Michigan to lower corporate tax, raise personal tax Of course, thats actually the "good" part of Snyder's plan:

The more I think about it, the less likely I think a coalition is. If Harper returns with another minority, I suspect that the opposition will let him govern while they focus on electing new party leaders.

It's not about you. It's just about HIM! I was going to call this high school mentality, but I realized that it isn't even that mature. Should have the talk radio folks howling with laughter, though.

Well, Harper obviously can't run on ethics and accountability. Its tough to sell anyone on his accomplishments, as he really has none. The economy is the only thing Harper has going for him, and thats the result of regulations put in place and maintained by those who came before him. Regulations that Harper railed against during his time with the NCC. So "Co-a-lition!!" is about all he has.

The 2004 or 2008 version??

Typically, the wrestlers aren't going for submissions in the first place. Its pretty common to lose dominant position if the sub attempt fails. The ref does stand them up if there is a complete lack of action, but its pretty common for a fight to stay on the ground for the entire round, even though the guy in top control makes no attempt to pass guard or throw more than a few token punches/elbows per minute. Fair enough. Yeah, though if we're talking about submissions, we're not typically talking about wrestlers. My main criticism is that the rules and scoring in the UFC currently favour wrestlers, not grapplers in general. Calling it 2nd rate is very charitable. Yeah, I know. My pleading ignorance had a lot to do with the fact that I rather like Hendo and rather despise Bisping. I don't buy at all that Penn has anywhere near the athleticism of GSP. Penn is a natural when it comes to technique, but I don't believe he has the same freak genetic ability of GSP.

So in your view, government does not answer to parliament?

So lets hear a compelling defense against the contempt charge that isn't based on political bias. It should be pretty easy, seeing as this is all the result of party hacks and a Liberal speaker..

Wow.... where do you even begin to respond to this? Lets start with the obvious... being related to something is not the same thing as being descended from it. If I had a daughter I would be related to her, but I sure as hell wouldn't be descended from her. If I was descended from her, I would have to also be descended from myself (??). But we all know that only Jesus is descended from Himself. So are we related to chimpanzees and monkeys? Yes, of course we are. In fact, we're probably related to every living thing on the planet, we just happen to be more closely related to apes and monkeys. Will you find any rational person with even a modest understanding of biological taxonomy that disputes that claim. Nope! Again, only Jesus can be the same thing as something that isnt the same thing. Well, maybe God and Jesus? Wait... Shit, I'm so confused.. .So now we have "related to," "descended from," and "share a common ancestor." I understand that you believe these are all synonymous, but they're really not. I'm sure if you think really hard about your living relatives you can understand the important differences amongst those phrases. So I'll try to spell this out for you as simply as possible: (1) You are related to, and share a common ancestor with, chimps and monkeys. However, you are not descended from them. (2) You are related to, share a common ancestor with, and are descended from the common ancestor in (1). I honestly can't believe that needed to be clarified.

Are the Conservative MP's that released the dissenting opinion a bunch of partisan hacks too, or are they noble defenders of the truth?

I guess ultimately because it isn't safe. Anyway, the UFC never was anything resembling a real fight, even in the early days. The BJJ guys did really well early on, but pulling guard isn't such a good idea when theres broken beer bottles on the ground, and possibly bottles laying around for the guy on top to bludgeon you with.

I like a good ground fight more than a good stand up fight, but there are instances when a fighter gets top control and just lays there for 3-5 rounds, not attempting to pass guard or do any significant ground n pound. They do just enough to keep the ref from standing them up. GSP had a string of fights like that in which he made no attempt to finish the fight, and didn't do anything that might cost him top position. He seems to have picked it up as of late, as has Silva. Silva recieved a pretty public bashing from Dana White on his antics, and I suspect GSP got a little talking to as well: "Look guys, your fights are becoming boring..." I can agree with this.

Lytle, Hardy, Condit, Alves, Fitch (maybe), Kampmann, Swick.

I don't think you can fully evaluate GSP's jab without conceding that his wrestling makes it look better than it is. Sometimes GSP throws a stiff jab, but as often as not, he throws a quick jab to cover a shot for the takedown. I maintain that the threat of the cover jab-takedown makes GSP's stiff jab look far better than it actually is. Most of his opponents eat the jab and try to prepare for the shot, instead of avoiding what is really a pretty average jab. Thats what makes it effective. I agree that his striking style makes the overall package more threatening. But thats quite a bit different than the claim that his striking is fantastic. Its really not. I said that Koschek is a pretty one dimensional wrestler (which he is) and that GSP physically dominated Penn in every sense (which he did). Neither fight speaks volumes about the quality of GSP's striking.

Whaaaaaaa....tf?

I wonder if the tele-prompter went wonky or if he has some sort of medical condition. Poor guy.

I propose a coalition between Red doors and Blue doors. I think we can all get behind the Purple Door.

By the end of the day, more likely.

Harper taught him that, I think.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I think. Of course. I meant it more as a thought experiment on how much his wrestling makes his striking look better.

How much popular vote does a party have to be recieve to not be "overwhelmingly rejected?" It would be suicide during an election for sure. But suppose the election returns another Conservative minority, and the opposition brings them down over the thrown speech. A coalition formed at that point wouldn't be all that damaging to any of the parties, provided that they managed to govern effectively for a reasonable amount of time. If things had been running smoothly for a year or two, I seriously doubt that very many would still care about the coalition. But not more than all of the other parties. A coalition would be the only government that could rightly claim to represent the will of the people. They would look to pick up votes from the people that aren't firmly attached to one party or another.

My first reaction to seeing that plan for PR was the same as yours. But after mulling it over for a while, I don't think it would be all that different than our current system. In a lot of ridings, the real election is the race to see who wins the right to represent the dominant party in that riding. In the riding I live in, Edmonton-Sherwood Park, the Conservative association could proffer a lukewarm corpse and they'd win the seat. I suppose I agree with your objection in principle, but see no practical difference. A coalition government is often the most in-line with majority rule. The attempted Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition of 2008 included the majority of the popular vote, and the majority of the seats. The Conservative minority government included neither.

So was this act "barbaric" or "totally unacceptable?" Sickening.