Shwa

Geez, not only did you not bother to read the article, but you didn't even bother to read the frickin' thread title.

So gather you actually didn't read the article including the parts about Ontario, Alberta & BC gaining seats, the sense that Quebec will agree to lose seats and no constitutional amendment being required for this type of rearrangement.

According to the article, PM Harper can redistribute the presently allocated seats and keep the rep by pop in firm view while costing very little in comparison to adding more seats. You haven't presented any sort of evidence or commentary that would prove that wrong so I'll assume your post was more ideologically conservative rather than fiscally conservative.

The one that was firmly in my cheek when I wrote the post?

These types of comments against a protest movement have been heard before in different ages; a sort of naive 'let them eat cake' sort of thing. If you understood the concept of 'the medium is the message' and how culture jamming works, you would likely understand a little better.

So you admit your ability to argue is below the level of 1st year philosophy. On this we agree.

Rep by pop is a good thing and no doubt there could be reform with the seat distribution in Parliament. But what I don't get, in these tough economic times, why the government would want to add seats and the resultant costs to Parliament. The article below shows that the Harper Government wants a bigger, more expensive government. Whatever happened to the fiscal conservatives? Liberal seat-distribution formula takes three away from Quebec Not to mention the costs in pensions. Larger governments, larger deficits, is this the new conservative way?

Are they the same ones that have overrun our country with broken English, illegal medicines and flooded our markets with cheap goods?

Except now Jim 'Right Hand' Flaherty is suggesting some heavy duty trade with them. I am sure glad they have cleaned up all those Human Rights issues. I bet you we helped them by giving them bags of foreign aid money.

Right. Without politicians there is no... Parliament.

No you whine and cry like a little pussy about all the bad lefties while enjoying all the benefits they have brought to the country. Like welfare. Pathetic non-argument of the typical nonsensical righty.

Straw man and a red herring. Absolutely no argument whatsoever. Not surprising coming from the right.

The Harper government's new best friends: Mao's heirs I am glad that Minister Flaherty sees the benefits of doing some hard core business with a hard core country such as China. They'll take the oil, no doubt. Perhaps ol' Jim will include it in one of our foreign aid money bags we give to China every year? Or maybe we could swap some of that bitumen for a couple dozen of those Chendu J-20's? (providing they can actually stay in the air of course)

In Toronto that would be Queens Park Designated Protest Area. Oh wait, different protest.

You mean politicians right?

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! There's your choice right there. Practically everyone in Canada has this choice. If it's good enough for Danny Williams, it's good enough for anyone. But it doesn't have to be just medical, it could be EI, parental benefits, family allowance, welfare, Canada Pension Plan, OAS, GIS, disability, apprenticeship grants, war vets allowance, or any other of those evil lefty perks.

Really? Another strawman? If anything, rather prolific with the strawman argument. Where - in any MLW thread - have a stated that "they can live anywhere they wish?" Go ahead, find the post and provide a link. I'll wait. And I will remind you too, just in case you think you can weasle your way out of it. Go ahead grogy, provide the cite.

Really? How so? Are you saying it is merely the devil in the details then?

Complete strawman, do you want to try again?

The City is probably recommending Downsview I bet.

Well then, tell us who did.

Well, they are just following PM Harper's example then aren't they? However, unless you can find some legality as to why they shouldn't represent their constituents - a considerable sum of them too - outside of the country, then the issue is a moral one buffered by opinion only. And on that stand, again, refer to the example given by PM Harper in 2003. I mean, what is the goverment afraid of? That someone in the US might listen to those minority reasons?

Who is the Commander-in-Chief in the US? Who called the shots for Canada and Britain in WWII? Who made the ulitmate decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima? They call 'service' for a reason son. To serve. And to serve whom exactly? Here, let me help you out: Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Forces Hopefully that will clear things up for you.

That is all the argument required to address your particular brand of backwater simplism. It really is quite easy. The "right" constaintly whining all the time about the "left" and how they are taking us to ruin, while at the same time enjoying the endless supply of benefits the "left" has brought to this country like government medical insurance. It is noted that you admit to enjoying the benefits of our 'leftist' health care when you had options, but were to weak minded to follow through on your lofty principles.

So representing the interests of their constituents is not democracy? Oh dear. How are the NDP "not respecting the wishes of the majority of Canadians" on this issue? Has the government offered to put themselves on the line with a national referendum on the matter?