Bryan

Madmax, Good points about wondering how long this has been going on... I wonder if this is documented at Elections Canada? I gave it a cursory glance, but their site is a mess, and it gives me headaches trying to sift through their clutter. At least in the Conservative Party of Canada's case, we do know they are seeking to return all of the money they ever received from these rebates.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

I'm always surprised that the military is able to get as many recruits as they get. I don't mean that as a slight towards the military or anyone who serves, I just have not known very many people who actually aspired to join, and I always wondered where they got enough people from.

Absolutely, significantly so.

That's the funny part. He could easily drum up thousands of supporters who would be willing to be rent-a-protesters for rallies during class time, but it won't translate into one dollar of donations or a single vote.

Depends on the University. When I went to University of Winnipeg, the only debating I ever saw was far left vs extreme far left.

Polling had Conservative support surging into the mid 50's when the idea of the coalition was raised last year. Do it again, and not only will the Conservatives be guaranteed get a huge majority, it will probably be the permanent end of the Liberal Party.

Not to mention, some of the ones the Senate messed with were passed unanimously by the House.

That's ridiculous. Clearly the number one reason is to just press the mute button on the screamers in opposition during the Olympics. Their continuous side-show of mock-outrage over faux-scandals is tired, and the country should be allowed to just showcase the positives of Canada while the world is watching. That it will result in a plurality in the Senate when they return is just a nice bonus... something that was going to happen soon either way.

I'm not certain that a ranking of "most honest" is applicable to politicians of any stripe. More appropriate might be "least dishonest". In that respect, Harper's goverment gets high marks in my books. Least dishonest in my lifetime anyway.

Parliament can vote all they want, they're not getting unredacted documents, full stop.

So do I.

I disagree. When the opposition is using the Senate to block the will of parliament, and that plurality is about to shift soon, taking a break until that time is a pragmatic move.

+1 The rationale for the current prorogation aside, I often wonder why it is that Liberals and Liberal supporters constantly cry foul when the current government does things that that they themselves had no problems with when they were in power.

You really have to take Keddy's remarks out of context and fill in the blanks with things he DIDN'T say to come away with something offensive. He was referring to people who refuse to work, not anyone who finds themselves out of a job by no fault of their own. He even made specific reference to it being such a problem that farmers need to hire from out of country because the locals won't do the work. Sounds like that is a legitimate concern to me.

This thread is giving me a headache. Can I change my title to throbbing member? Seriously though, having the ranks be just post count based is odd. I've been around these forums for several years, but I only post when I have something to actually discuss. That makes me a "junior" to someone who joined this year, but starts multiple threads on the same topic and continues rambling on long after anyone is listening anymore?

I don't doubt that those are the ones being recorded as such, I just don't believe that those are the actual totals. If there's one thing the Liberals have never been good at, it's keeping things on the books in an upfront fashion. Elections Canada is still trying to get many LPC candidates to properly document their expenses from the last election.

So lying is the American way then?

There's a reason King-Byng was a huge scandal. It's the exception that proves the rule. There's protocol, then there's the way things really work.

I got 100%, but I also saw some of the same problems with the wording of the answers where I was left thinking along the lines of "well, I know that "b" is the correct answer, but I bet they are looking for me to answer "a"..." Some of the discrepancies revolve around how things actually work compared to how they officially work. The Queen appointing the PM is a good example of this. She appoints the PM officially, but the reality is the person she appoints is the leader of the party with the most seats, so the one with the most seats does become PM. Tautology reigns supreme!

I don't believe it is. You're saying we should place our trust and ultimate power in someone whose only qualification is having been born to the right family. A position that does have a history of tyranny. And you're claiming that the reason for that is to AVOID such tyranny. I'm saying that power rightfully belongs to someone the people actively decide to give it to.

Right. Because Monarchs have never been dictatorial.

I reject that very concept. Keep the people as the people, and take the Royal(s) out of the equation.

That contradictory opinion is pretty much in line with how I look at it too though. I recognize the importance of tradition, and I firmly believe that we should embrace the monarchy as one of our traditions. I just think it should be strictly ceremonial with no real power whatsoever. Our elected government should not need Royal "permission" for anything, ever.