overthere

The Angels look pretty good.

That is an overly familiar form of address. He prefers Brother Hardner or Comrade.

right back at you- the only clamour I hear in Canada for a change from FPTP is from chronic losers unable to rally significant support for their cause. Lemme see- FPTP in the seat of our system- UK- and many others including really big ones like the US and the biggest of them all chose FPTP - India.

Instead, you wish to have a multiparty fractured assembly with every party manouvering nonstop- not just at election campaigns but all the time- to improve their position for the next election, which will inevitably come very soon.

Argus, are you posting on your own time here or at work for the federal govt?

In the last same sex marriage vote, which passed the legislation: the NDP whipped all members to vote for and expelled Bev Desjarlais when she did not - the Liberals under Martin whipped the Cabinet to vote for and allowed the rest of caucus to vote their conscience without consequence -the Tories were allowed to vote their consicence Both Chretien and Martin voted against SSM in previous votes.

There, I've got that all ready for one of us to use in Canada after the next election.

They did not lose because of team play, the captain or his choices, the wrong ball or any factor except being outplayed shot by shot. Better golfers playing better golf won. Blaming the captain is just avoiding responsibility.

These are pro players that can shape shots in ways we can only dream of doing. the golf pro at a local course shoots around 80 playing the entire round with a 7 iron, and he is not close to being in the league of the worst PGA golfer. Using a different ball than the one you normally used might have an effect of .00001% on a golfer of that caliber. Maybe. The choice of golf balls by PGA pros has little to do with the game itself and a whole lot to do with endorsement money paid by ball manufacturers to the golfers. The actual ball is strictly regulated and differences are minimal. The only strategy during the match is shoot the very best shot, every time. The only time you change that strategy is when you are going to lose the hole, then you try to hole out. Your captain or pairing makes not a whit of influence on that. Hit it long, hit it straight, hit it close.

Every player with every shot is trying to do exactly the same thing every single time, and it makes absolutely no difference who you are playing with or who you are playing against. You're trying to get the ball into the best position for the next shot, almost always closest to the hole. I understand the first players shot dictates the next shot. It makes absolutely no difference in what the first player does, or what the second guy does. They both hit as long and as in the middle and as close to the hole as possible with their skill set. please.

The wonderful 2nd season of Ray Donovan ended on Sunday. Sadness.....

'bum boy'. I invite you to take your homophobic slurs and go ___ yourself. Reported.

The reasons were explained simply in the OP linked article. Here it is again To help those unfamiliar with Euro politicians, Van Rompuy is the President of the European Council, former President of Belgium. Barroso is the Presdient of the European Commission, former President of Spain. These are not low level mutts.

You don't play against the other team. You play against the course. There is nothing the opposing player or team can do to change how you hit your ball, it's not like tennis or hockey. Your score or ability to make shots has nothing to do with your teammates or the other team. That is baloney about alternating shots too, you cannot play to your own teams weaknesses or strengths either. Say you have one big hitter and one short game whiz. You're playing alternate shots, how on earth can you possibly ensure that one guy hits to his strengths only? You can do it on the first tee. For one shot. So does the other team. Advantage? None. Its just marketing. Who gets all the loot generated by this event, who profits?

but every party had dissenting opinions on same sex marriage. I see you don't have the courage to answer my question.

it wasn't a right for Bev Desjarlais

It does not matter what you say, these minds slammed shut in 2006.

"Team" golf is a made for TV concept, a marketing ploy. No more.

golf is not a team game. You play the course. Nothing that your buddy does makes any difference to what you do, which is try to get the wee ball in the hole. Your buddy or captain has no influnce on that. In what SPECIFIC way?

oh, and no changing the goalposts to answer other issues.

Choose one and only one, just one vote per MP permitted: your conscience, the wishes of your constituents assuming they can be determined precisely, or whatever the Party tells you to do. Remember, choose only one, no waffling.

Considering the entire situation, I reckon it would be better for Harper not to call a snap election for a couple of reasons. First, the unions are not that influential any more in Canada. The public sector unions never vote Tory anyway. The private sector unions are shrinking and represent fewer Canadians all the time. They are also morte likely to follow the money. I can promise you that trades unions in AB and SK won't be voting for Libs or NDP who will be perceived as taking away their jobs. The Cons have plenty of $ and plenty of experience duking it out in the media. They'll take on the unions head on. Second, sooner or later Trudeau will have to say something, anything. And when he does...... The Cons will crank up the fog machine to 11. No rush.

Extreme in what way? Trudeau Sr was far more than a 'bit player' in the economy, so it is false to say govt always plays a small part in the economy.. He was the Prime Minster, and what he wanted happened whenever he had a majority govt. Exactly like today. Far different results though, wouldn't you agree? For the record, Trudeau flip flopped a couple times on wage and price freezes, which caused big damage. By that I mean both the controls and the flip flopping caused mayhem in the markets, none of which bettered Canadians.

Good point. It creates some real dilemmas on Can Con. For example, is Pamela Anderson Canadian content? I know she was born in Canada, but she is at least 40% composed of pure silicon. That silicon is manufactured by the Dow Corning Corp, HQ in New York state. Does she qualify as Canadian under CRTC regs? Big bucks hinge on this kind of puzzle.

When majority govt is the norm, it is also impossible to topple the govt. Obviously, if the situation is one where -as you say- coalitions form and reform on every issue, toppling the govt is quite easy. It may be pointless, but clearly far from impossible Is that your objective, to make it easier to topple a govt?