| [Deep Freeze] Monday, December 22, 2008 9:58:40 AM | |
|
I thought we had dropped this one? Darn! I hate missing out on all the fun. Sharing the power, huh? Jeeze, strat. You're killing me! Fairness, fairness, fairness. Life is not fair, dude! It's not. Besides, I have said this MORE than once; do we really want certain people having the power of decision?? I mean, there are certain folks that simply are not capable of such things. Not to mention they are not trained properly NOR could they understand the training in the first place! A terrible FACT of life is that NOT EVERYONE has the mental capacity to do certain things...even with the training!
I like to consider myself a fairly bright guy. I am capable of doing many things. However, even with training, I could not be a surgeon, for example. I do not have the aptitude. I sure as hell do not want "power sharing" in MY operating room!! Passing around power and socializing everything is a great argument for your world politics theories (although even there I must say it falls embarrassingly short) but it is simply not feasible to operate business as you suggest. As I said to guido, "The world needs ditch-diggers, too." (R.I.P Ted) |
|
| [Head banger] Monday, December 22, 2008 7:53:14 AM | |
|
yep, the mechanic went to school for 4 years, and takes upgrading courses every year. The other thing with a mechanic that you have to recognize is that your paying for him (or her) and his tools. a mechanic has to own basic hand tools, my mechanic figures he owns $20,000 worth. now, the education of a mechanic is thru aprentiship, where he is paid a bit while he is learning, not like getting a degree. but in value of those 2 comitments, a mechanic is paid quite well. a general labourer, well, might work hard, but anyone is capable of that, paid less. you value the work the person does, the effort, and the skill, and the comitment to learning that skill.
if the power is more equaly shared, how do you make decisions? when henry ford started producing the model T, it came in black, and in one configuration. there were no diferences. that car is what made ford a major player today. now he owned the company, took the risk of spending all his money, but the decision making process was the same as if he was a CEO, he decided. what if everyone decided? design would take longer, costing money in lost sales. what if such a simple decision as to sell 5 colours instead of 1? well the cost of the car would have gone up $50, moving it out of many peoples range. why? you would need equipment to paint different colors, or if you decided to paint each days production one colour, you would have to move the production slower 4 days a week, because the reason he used black is it dried the fastest. colaborative decision making is fine, but when said company is losing ,money and has to lay off people, you wont find people laying themselfs off, and you create conflict or ineficiencys. can top down be too dictatorial, sure, but its the fastest method of decision making. politicaly, even though we are in a democracy, our head of government can make decisions without consultation, because if he had to determin what everyone wanted, then do it, it would be to late. and what if what the people wanted wouldnt work? after all, the people here might want to invade the USA, but he could quickly determine that we would get killed. should he do a bad thing because the people want it? if decisions were colaborative, blacks in the states might still be slaves.
sure, we can research that wine, but how does it taste? after all, a beter tasting wine should cost more no? what if the store is staffed by wine experts, that can help you make choices, food pairings, etc? they should be able to charge more, right, after all, they are selling their expertise, not just wine. if you want expertise, you go there, if you know what you want, you go to the store that has a 19 year old kid and a cash register, find what you want and get out.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, December 22, 2008 4:23:48 AM)| |  | _strat_ wrote: | | True, but that mechanic also had to learn some things he needs. A modern internal combustion engine is complicated as fuck. Just like I had to learn my work, and just like a (for example) an IT guy has to learn all sort of shit about computers, before he can do his job properly. The question here would again be: why does one guy earn 500€/month, and someone else 5000 or more? And we ve been through that... The problem is really the hierarchical structure of bussineses. I know, someone has to organise things, someone has to decide about this and that... But all that could be imo done without the parasites (yes, I still say that they are parasites) at the top. Not to mention that if power would be more equaly shared, more people would need to fuckup to have the same result as a fuckup of one person has now.
We can always do a little research "behind the scenes" of that bottle of wine. How much did the materials cost (from grapes, glass, the label, etc.), how much did the store pay for it, and was that fair in respect to how much did it cost to produce the bottle, how much of the final price did the store take for themselves, and is that in accordance to the expenses they had with it... Its complicated, but we can quickly determine if someone is taking more than his/her fair share of it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | yes their starting point may be higher than ours. I guess I dont compare well, because I started with my company before I went to school, so, 9 promotions and one graduation later, I am here, second in comand over three provinces and a few hundred employees. yay. not!!
the starting point is higher because they have learned some things they need. they dont need to actualy know how to screw in said taillight. I supervised a mechanic, I dont know how to re build an engine, nor do I care. I know how to supervise people, manage costs, build business, find efficiencies. thats what I did then.
fair is a point of view. is the price of that botle of wine fair? if you think so, you buy it, if you dont, you dont. you might think it fair, but not be able to aford it. then you make a new decision, can I borow the money and what will it cost me. now personaly, I think that borowing for wine is idiocy, but thats my value judgment.
companies lose money and continue for a few reasons. they made money in the past and have savings.
they think they can make money again, so borow to get to the good times again. the cost to disolve the company could be more than the yearly opperating losses.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Or more likely, he would stay there. The fact is that the high positions are a the dominion of the elites. And I would bet a lot that there are a lot of managers that get to their position straight from schools. Maybe they dont become CEOs right away, but their starting point is way higher than ours.
If people pay for it, that doesnt automaticaly mean that its fair.
If these companies lose money, why do they still exist?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | they probably dont start out as the guy screwing in the tail light. he would start in sales, accounting, lower managment, enginering, and rise from there. depending on the industry, and his individual skills, he would need some level of schooling, and the drive, then he has to get in the door, and show what he can do. I bet that no one goes straight from school to the CEO chair of any company of any size.
the guys who can and will put in that effort are rare, and those with the skills to match are more rare, so they get to demand more. same as pro athletes. fair? well, people pay it, therefore its fair.
your right, the owners hire thwm, most companies are owned by shareholders, like me, and
the $75 is a historical bit of foolishness. but, the labour costs to build a car are only a minor part of it. disigning it costs billions, the parts, tooling and factories billions more. fact is that most cars sold by these companies lose money. have for years.
and three on one isnt unfair, its just the way it is.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, December 22, 2008 4:25:45 AM | |
|
LOL. If you think THIS is ugly, you aint seen nothing yet.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by MG_Metalgoddess from Sunday, December 21, 2008 6:45:25 PM)| | | MG_Metalgoddess wrote: | |  |
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, December 22, 2008 4:23:48 AM | |
|
True, but that mechanic also had to learn some things he needs. A modern internal combustion engine is complicated as fuck. Just like I had to learn my work, and just like a (for example) an IT guy has to learn all sort of shit about computers, before he can do his job properly. The question here would again be: why does one guy earn 500€/month, and someone else 5000 or more? And we ve been through that... The problem is really the hierarchical structure of bussineses. I know, someone has to organise things, someone has to decide about this and that... But all that could be imo done without the parasites (yes, I still say that they are parasites) at the top. Not to mention that if power would be more equaly shared, more people would need to fuckup to have the same result as a fuckup of one person has now.
We can always do a little research "behind the scenes" of that bottle of wine. How much did the materials cost (from grapes, glass, the label, etc.), how much did the store pay for it, and was that fair in respect to how much did it cost to produce the bottle, how much of the final price did the store take for themselves, and is that in accordance to the expenses they had with it... Its complicated, but we can quickly determine if someone is taking more than his/her fair share of it.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Saturday, December 20, 2008 12:24:49 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | yes their starting point may be higher than ours. I guess I dont compare well, because I started with my company before I went to school, so, 9 promotions and one graduation later, I am here, second in comand over three provinces and a few hundred employees. yay. not!!
the starting point is higher because they have learned some things they need. they dont need to actualy know how to screw in said taillight. I supervised a mechanic, I dont know how to re build an engine, nor do I care. I know how to supervise people, manage costs, build business, find efficiencies. thats what I did then.
fair is a point of view. is the price of that botle of wine fair? if you think so, you buy it, if you dont, you dont. you might think it fair, but not be able to aford it. then you make a new decision, can I borow the money and what will it cost me. now personaly, I think that borowing for wine is idiocy, but thats my value judgment.
companies lose money and continue for a few reasons. they made money in the past and have savings.
they think they can make money again, so borow to get to the good times again. the cost to disolve the company could be more than the yearly opperating losses.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Or more likely, he would stay there. The fact is that the high positions are a the dominion of the elites. And I would bet a lot that there are a lot of managers that get to their position straight from schools. Maybe they dont become CEOs right away, but their starting point is way higher than ours.
If people pay for it, that doesnt automaticaly mean that its fair.
If these companies lose money, why do they still exist?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | they probably dont start out as the guy screwing in the tail light. he would start in sales, accounting, lower managment, enginering, and rise from there. depending on the industry, and his individual skills, he would need some level of schooling, and the drive, then he has to get in the door, and show what he can do. I bet that no one goes straight from school to the CEO chair of any company of any size.
the guys who can and will put in that effort are rare, and those with the skills to match are more rare, so they get to demand more. same as pro athletes. fair? well, people pay it, therefore its fair.
your right, the owners hire thwm, most companies are owned by shareholders, like me, and
the $75 is a historical bit of foolishness. but, the labour costs to build a car are only a minor part of it. disigning it costs billions, the parts, tooling and factories billions more. fact is that most cars sold by these companies lose money. have for years.
and three on one isnt unfair, its just the way it is.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Sunday, December 21, 2008 6:45:25 PM | |
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, December 20, 2008 12:24:49 PM | |
|
yes their starting point may be higher than ours. I guess I dont compare well, because I started with my company before I went to school, so, 9 promotions and one graduation later, I am here, second in comand over three provinces and a few hundred employees. yay. not!!
the starting point is higher because they have learned some things they need. they dont need to actualy know how to screw in said taillight. I supervised a mechanic, I dont know how to re build an engine, nor do I care. I know how to supervise people, manage costs, build business, find efficiencies. thats what I did then.
fair is a point of view. is the price of that botle of wine fair? if you think so, you buy it, if you dont, you dont. you might think it fair, but not be able to aford it. then you make a new decision, can I borow the money and what will it cost me. now personaly, I think that borowing for wine is idiocy, but thats my value judgment.
companies lose money and continue for a few reasons. they made money in the past and have savings.
they think they can make money again, so borow to get to the good times again. the cost to disolve the company could be more than the yearly opperating losses.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 20, 2008 12:02:29 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Or more likely, he would stay there. The fact is that the high positions are a the dominion of the elites. And I would bet a lot that there are a lot of managers that get to their position straight from schools. Maybe they dont become CEOs right away, but their starting point is way higher than ours.
If people pay for it, that doesnt automaticaly mean that its fair.
If these companies lose money, why do they still exist?
| | | Head banger wrote: | | they probably dont start out as the guy screwing in the tail light. he would start in sales, accounting, lower managment, enginering, and rise from there. depending on the industry, and his individual skills, he would need some level of schooling, and the drive, then he has to get in the door, and show what he can do. I bet that no one goes straight from school to the CEO chair of any company of any size.
the guys who can and will put in that effort are rare, and those with the skills to match are more rare, so they get to demand more. same as pro athletes. fair? well, people pay it, therefore its fair.
your right, the owners hire thwm, most companies are owned by shareholders, like me, and
the $75 is a historical bit of foolishness. but, the labour costs to build a car are only a minor part of it. disigning it costs billions, the parts, tooling and factories billions more. fact is that most cars sold by these companies lose money. have for years.
and three on one isnt unfair, its just the way it is.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 20, 2008 12:02:29 PM | |
|
Or more likely, he would stay there. The fact is that the high positions are a the dominion of the elites. And I would bet a lot that there are a lot of managers that get to their position straight from schools. Maybe they dont become CEOs right away, but their starting point is way higher than ours.
If people pay for it, that doesnt automaticaly mean that its fair.
If these companies lose money, why do they still exist?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Saturday, December 20, 2008 11:50:17 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | they probably dont start out as the guy screwing in the tail light. he would start in sales, accounting, lower managment, enginering, and rise from there. depending on the industry, and his individual skills, he would need some level of schooling, and the drive, then he has to get in the door, and show what he can do. I bet that no one goes straight from school to the CEO chair of any company of any size.
the guys who can and will put in that effort are rare, and those with the skills to match are more rare, so they get to demand more. same as pro athletes. fair? well, people pay it, therefore its fair.
your right, the owners hire thwm, most companies are owned by shareholders, like me, and
the $75 is a historical bit of foolishness. but, the labour costs to build a car are only a minor part of it. disigning it costs billions, the parts, tooling and factories billions more. fact is that most cars sold by these companies lose money. have for years.
and three on one isnt unfair, its just the way it is.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 20, 2008 11:58:25 AM | |
|
I know that I wont change the world. I know that very well. I also know that my posts wont bring down the current world order, just as yours wont protect it. We are debating, thats all. Not changing the world. Hell, I work most of the week, and sleep or geek out my spare time. Not much time left to change the world.
BUT... The system... Maybe at your end, IDK, youve had it long enough, and maybe youll keep it for a lot longer. We on the other hand... In the 20th century alone we went through such massive changes, that it would be absolutely foolish to say that the current system will last till long after Im gone. We started the century as a part of an empire, then joined a monarchy that later became a socialist republic, that in term disolved into many smaller bourgeois democracies. We were through three wars on our soil, we had two emperors, a king, a socialist leader, and a number of government coalitions. To say that it ends with what we have now, is extremely short-sighted. So is claiming that for the entire world, actualy. Many nations have been through much more turmoil and have gone through much more changes in a shorter period of time than we did. And things will change, and they will change very soon, Im sure. With or without the help of the two of us.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Saturday, December 20, 2008 11:18:50 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
You're right, it doesn't. However, it is what it is and although I can remember a time in my life when I wanted to "change the world", I eventually realized that I will not. My suggestion is that you start your own country. The "system" is far older than the two of us put together and will be around LONG after we are both gone. You may not like it, but that is the fact. Personally, I found that I was FAR more successful in my professional life by accepting it and "playing the game", as you say. ( Selling out?) Fighting may feed your 'soul' but it doesn't buy much in the way of food, clothing and whatnot. I hate to be a spoiler but that is also fact.
There is always a "better" way. Perhaps, with all we have seen in the financial crisis, there will be HUGE change. I do not know. I have been saying from the beginning that this is not all the fault of big business and Wall Street. People make their own beds, my friend. Buying things you know you cannot afford on credit is stupidity and you get what you deserve. That is how I see it but I fear we are venturing into yet another topic and I must go make breakfast for the Princess!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, December 20, 2008 11:50:17 AM | |
|
they probably dont start out as the guy screwing in the tail light. he would start in sales, accounting, lower managment, enginering, and rise from there. depending on the industry, and his individual skills, he would need some level of schooling, and the drive, then he has to get in the door, and show what he can do. I bet that no one goes straight from school to the CEO chair of any company of any size.
the guys who can and will put in that effort are rare, and those with the skills to match are more rare, so they get to demand more. same as pro athletes. fair? well, people pay it, therefore its fair.
your right, the owners hire thwm, most companies are owned by shareholders, like me, and
the $75 is a historical bit of foolishness. but, the labour costs to build a car are only a minor part of it. disigning it costs billions, the parts, tooling and factories billions more. fact is that most cars sold by these companies lose money. have for years.
and three on one isnt unfair, its just the way it is.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 20, 2008 10:28:47 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Saturday, December 20, 2008 11:18:50 AM | |
|
The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
You're right, it doesn't. However, it is what it is and although I can remember a time in my life when I wanted to "change the world", I eventually realized that I will not. My suggestion is that you start your own country. The "system" is far older than the two of us put together and will be around LONG after we are both gone. You may not like it, but that is the fact. Personally, I found that I was FAR more successful in my professional life by accepting it and "playing the game", as you say. ( Selling out?) Fighting may feed your 'soul' but it doesn't buy much in the way of food, clothing and whatnot. I hate to be a spoiler but that is also fact.
There is always a "better" way. Perhaps, with all we have seen in the financial crisis, there will be HUGE change. I do not know. I have been saying from the beginning that this is not all the fault of big business and Wall Street. People make their own beds, my friend. Buying things you know you cannot afford on credit is stupidity and you get what you deserve. That is how I see it but I fear we are venturing into yet another topic and I must go make breakfast for the Princess!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 20, 2008 10:28:47 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 20, 2008 10:28:47 AM | |
|
Maybe. Or maybe they start out in such positions. The thing is, not all people start at the bottom, and it would be interesting to see how many corporate leaders started out as "the guy that screws on the tail light". And even if all people would start out at the bottom and rise to the top, would it still justify all their privileges? The high wages and the insane amount of power they hold in a company? I dont think so. And even if a CEO runs the company for a year and fails... With all the rewards and bonuses he gets, he has enough money that would suffice you or me for years.
And just a note, CEOs that rise to that position dont own the company in most cases, but are employed by the owners of the company to lead it. As for the owners... Well, dont even get me started on them.
Over here the rights and duties of the employer and the employee are clearly defined by law. If an employee screws up bad enough that the employer has a valid reason to fire him/her, that will happen and the unions cant do shit. Unfortunately, the unions cant do shit about other things as well, like an employer getting outside his/her rights and demanding more from employee than is allowed.
Ok, moving on to Tim...
I was actualy shocked to hear that a factory worker over there gets 75 $ per hour. Thats the amount of money that I make in two days of work. But that aside, I hardly think that the guy who gets 75$ per hour would be a bigger reason for the high prices of cars than the guy that gets a couple of thousand $ per month + all the insanely high rewards. I mean, if we put all those numbers that we saw in the Blah thread together... A CEO gets more money than all the factory workers put together! Maybe if a CEO would get a regular wage, the cars could be much more affordable, without having to make cuts at the bottom, where it most hurts. Not to mention that 75$ is not a lot in a car that may cost a few thousand $ as a finished product. If it is 75$ per car anyway, because I can hardly imagine that screwing on a single component (like the now infamous "tail light") would take an entire hour. Havent you guys heard of norms?
Employment. Well, yes, you have to prove it. And you can work hard and try hard, but so can the other guy. Its a competition where there are few winners but many losers. And of course, the employer is the one that will ultimately decide who gets the job. And of course, I agree that we shouldnt go firing people because a new candidate has been found after the old one was already employeed. That is a matter of job security, and with it social security.
Social equality is in my opinion definately something that we should work for. From experiences in my country, social equality is a quarantee of a peacefull society, with considerably lower crime rates, suicide rates, ect. A society like we have now, with competition on every corner, and massive class divisions does completetly the opposite.
As for the pros and cons of a socialist system... Well, as far as Im concerned the worst kind of socialism is better than the best kind of capitalism. Its not all crazy Ivans with nukes, you know.
Moving on to Freeze... (3 on 1! It aint a fair fight! :D)
Ot goes back to basic capitalist economics. Thats not the only kind of economics, and as I said a lot of time before, it is not without alternatives. The thing is, that people of all proffesions contribute to the wealth of a society, and even though someones work might be valued less in terms of money, it doesnt mean that we can do without it.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, December 19, 2008 6:20:33 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Saturday, December 20, 2008 9:58:13 AM | |
|
So, someone else chooses to be a businesman. Why should he/she be valued more than me, or you (whatever the proffesion you are in is)?
Well, as I mentioned yesterday, I do not believe there is any more "value" as a person but, if what you mean is why do you get paid more in one profession as opposed to another, it all goes back to basic economics. What the buying public is willing to spend. It is not really up to your employer in that regard. If the public will pay more for certain services, there is more to pay employees. Fairness is a subjective term as well. |
|
| [Head banger] Saturday, December 20, 2008 8:17:23 AM | |
|
not to mention trying to eliminate accountability. if an individual screws up, he needs to be taught, if he persists, then it needs to become a diciplinary issue. Unions dont want any of that, let the peers screw up, that way everyone can.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Friday, December 19, 2008 9:10:35 PM)| | | TIMBONI wrote: | | | I believe that unions should accept a large part of the decline of American life. They have become the very evil they were created to fight and have driven most of the quality manufacturing jobs out of the U.S. I don't have the patience to explain it all, but I hold the unions responsible for the current condition of the automotive industry. How do you make an affordable car of any quality when you pay some lazy asshole over $25 an hour plus benefits and vacations to insert the left door panel of a single model of car ! That costs the company over $75 per hour to get that job done. This does not include the retirement packages. These are rumored to be in the range of 75% of their wages ! It's like paying multiple work forces for the production of one ! I say let them file for bankruptcy and bust the unions ! |
|
|
| [TIMBONI] Friday, December 19, 2008 9:38:12 PM | |
|
Well, I've just read your post on the Blah and the one I'm quoting and you've managed to cover so many points that I don't know if it's actually possible to respond to each of them in a complete and intelligent manner. I guess the first thing that one must assess is " what is a decent life for me ?" I have opted to concentrate less on the job and more on my family for now. Given that, I have to disagree with your assertion that the employer has the power of choice.
As for what qualifies a person for a managers position, I agree with most of what you have to say but you leave out one important point. You must prove that you can do it and earn the position. Just because an employee may have more job experience and may possibly make a better manager it does not mean that they should just assume the position and displace a person who has put in the time and earned that position as the best choice at the time the choice was made.
Your comment about social equality just scares me and I don't want to sidetrack into a conversation about the pros and cons of a socialist system.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 19, 2008 5:37:41 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
| [TIMBONI] Friday, December 19, 2008 9:10:35 PM | |
|
| I believe that unions should accept a large part of the decline of American life. They have become the very evil they were created to fight and have driven most of the quality manufacturing jobs out of the U.S. I don't have the patience to explain it all, but I hold the unions responsible for the current condition of the automotive industry. How do you make an affordable car of any quality when you pay some lazy asshole over $25 an hour plus benefits and vacations to insert the left door panel of a single model of car ! That costs the company over $75 per hour to get that job done. This does not include the retirement packages. These are rumored to be in the range of 75% of their wages ! It's like paying multiple work forces for the production of one ! I say let them file for bankruptcy and bust the unions ! |
|
| [Head banger] Friday, December 19, 2008 6:20:33 PM | |
|
Strat, your right in the difference between decent wage and decent life. A wage may help make a decent life, but its not the end all. your right too that education by itsself doesnt qualify you for any job. the work a person is willing to do is a part of them, and their character, but its sure not the only thing. but, rarely do people rise to leadership positions, and hold them for any length of time without leadership skills. some are learned, mistakes get made, but if you dont have the basic skills, you either own the company, or your daddy does. and in those cases, if you dont know your shit, you fail, and the company does too.
unions, question, do your unions defend all workers who recieve dicipline? even if they did do the wrong thing? ours do. they take dues and contribute them to political causes, without asking the membership, spend money on the leaders trips, not that they help the workers any. today, a union is just like any business, selling a "service" not a physical product. but they just sell, and are just there to make money, just as a business is. in fact, the unionized office workers of a union near here went on strike to complain about the way they were treated there.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 19, 2008 5:37:41 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 19, 2008 5:49:56 PM | |
|
That bible thumping redneck? Dont even mention him. He will be on our backs soon enough, when he stops the days work of lynching and shotgun polishing.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, December 19, 2008 5:46:23 PM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes. Yes I do! Its just one of your endearing qualities, my friend! Not like that nasty guido that I loathe!!!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Id sooner convert than stop arguing, as you know very well.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Religion??!?!?!? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where's the fun in that?? We actually agree. Don't tell me you are tired of arguing?? HAAAAHAHAHHAA!!! Oh man! That will be the day!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 19, 2008 5:46:23 PM | |
|
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes. Yes I do! Its just one of your endearing qualities, my friend! Not like that nasty guido that I loathe!!!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 19, 2008 5:44:42 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Id sooner convert than stop arguing, as you know very well.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Religion??!?!?!? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where's the fun in that?? We actually agree. Don't tell me you are tired of arguing?? HAAAAHAHAHHAA!!! Oh man! That will be the day!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 19, 2008 5:44:42 PM | |
|
Id sooner convert than stop arguing, as you know very well.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, December 19, 2008 5:40:50 PM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Religion??!?!?!? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where's the fun in that?? We actually agree. Don't tell me you are tired of arguing?? HAAAAHAHAHHAA!!! Oh man! That will be the day!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 19, 2008 5:40:50 PM | |
|
Religion??!?!?!? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where's the fun in that?? We actually agree. Don't tell me you are tired of arguing?? HAAAAHAHAHHAA!!! Oh man! That will be the day!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 19, 2008 5:37:41 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 19, 2008 5:37:41 PM | |
|
You can open up another window, go to JP.com and have it right there... But anyway, I wanted us to relocate here, because this is the thread for it, and we were going on in a general discussion one.
Ok, to the point:
Value as a human being was not my point either. The point was that the education you need to have to do a certain job, does not automaticaly make you fit for that job. If we take a CEO, a manager, or even an ordinary boss, whats the thing you would expect from them? Well, expertise is one, and I grant you that can be pretty much learned. But what about the things like leadership abilities, organisational abilities, being a responsible person... etc.? Those things are a matter of character if they are of anything. And as I said the ONLY thing that a good education proves about you, is that you are willing to learn and work. There is MUCH more to a person, and much more to the work that the person does.
The pros and cons of capitalism are actualy very much connected to the entire issue that we have been discussing lately. And it is connected to the next point as well: unions.
Now, I dont know how your unions work, so I can speak for our unions, and say that they do a very good job, within their abilities in the current socio-economic system. They are always the first to point out corruption, and the first ones to defend the rights of the working class. I think that we would have it a lot worse, if it wasnt for our unions.
As for life... We have choices, sure. But the thing is that in any society, our choices collide with the choices of others. The example that I gave earlier about five people applying for a job and only one getting it is perfect for this. All want it, but only one gets it. The choice is in the hands of the employer, not the candidate. Tho my comment was of course on how to value decent life, when I pointed out that we value it by the lives of the people around us, and that is also my argument for promoting social equality.
Oh, and mybe we should talk about religion? We agree on that.
Ok, now, ill probably stick around for awhile, but dont be surprised to have me MIA until next morning. Its pretty damn late here.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, December 19, 2008 5:14:18 PM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 19, 2008 5:14:18 PM | |
|
OK strat, I will try to comment on your Blah post but, as you well know, I have a rather feeble mind and I cannot recall everything you mentioned.
I agree that a degree does not automatically make you intelligent. I have met some "dumb-ass" college people, too. As for your value as a human being, I do not remember EVER saying anything about value. If I did, I need to apologize NOW because value was never my point. The pros and cons of capitalism are ANOTHER issue all together. I am aware of your opinion. I respect it. Don't agree with it, but then you and I rarely agree. That is OK.
I do not care for unions. They had their time and did what they needed to do MANY years ago. They are as corrupt as the high-level corporate managers you so despise, in my humble opinion. And as for having a decent life, I believe your life is what you make of it. I do not expect any corporation to do anything more than let me try my best and get as far as I can. I do not wish to be a CEO, either! WAY too much work and responsibility for me! As I said, I like my weekends. |
|
| [Palmer Griffiths] Saturday, December 06, 2008 11:36:17 PM | |
|
I won't comment on Politics it just makes me too angry !       |
|
| [Deep Freeze] Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:47:52 AM | |
|
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *ouch* Touche!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:46:00 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok... I will try to remember that. Which means ill probably forget it. In any case, I had a feeling that you are not entirely serious about it. But the "council of elders" was an idea that I thought was too good not to use on an... well... elder.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! facetious (adj) : joking or speaking in jest
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Fecetiwhatious?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Council of Elders??!??!? BWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!! Oh strat, of course I was being facetious! Relax! I just knew you would get riled up over that!! HHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Perhaps that is the business of the afore mentioned population, and not of the council of elders?
That and, you dont seriously expect people to stay in school till 35? 23 or 24, ok, but by 35 people are expected to have at least ten years of work behind them. Its not like Im saying that people are supposed to have a job and a family at 15.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Perhaps the aforementioned section of the "active population" would be far better off staying in school and getting a good education rather than making babies?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, weve been through that, and Im still against it. Even as it is, the common citizens arent involved in the politics enough. Raising the age even further will make less people involved it, and whats worse it would take away the political power from a very threatened part of the active population that is seeking their first jobs and starting their families.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, in their defense they get bombed a lot too. finding the inital comon direction would be a good start. I like the idea DF had of voting age of 35.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
 The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
 I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:46:00 AM | |
|
Ok... I will try to remember that. Which means ill probably forget it. In any case, I had a feeling that you are not entirely serious about it. But the "council of elders" was an idea that I thought was too good not to use on an... well... elder.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:40:30 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! facetious (adj) : joking or speaking in jest
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Fecetiwhatious?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Council of Elders??!??!? BWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!! Oh strat, of course I was being facetious! Relax! I just knew you would get riled up over that!! HHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Perhaps that is the business of the afore mentioned population, and not of the council of elders?
That and, you dont seriously expect people to stay in school till 35? 23 or 24, ok, but by 35 people are expected to have at least ten years of work behind them. Its not like Im saying that people are supposed to have a job and a family at 15.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Perhaps the aforementioned section of the "active population" would be far better off staying in school and getting a good education rather than making babies?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, weve been through that, and Im still against it. Even as it is, the common citizens arent involved in the politics enough. Raising the age even further will make less people involved it, and whats worse it would take away the political power from a very threatened part of the active population that is seeking their first jobs and starting their families.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, in their defense they get bombed a lot too. finding the inital comon direction would be a good start. I like the idea DF had of voting age of 35.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:40:30 AM | |
|
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! facetious (adj) : joking or speaking in jest
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:38:04 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Fecetiwhatious?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Council of Elders??!??!? BWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!! Oh strat, of course I was being facetious! Relax! I just knew you would get riled up over that!! HHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Perhaps that is the business of the afore mentioned population, and not of the council of elders?
That and, you dont seriously expect people to stay in school till 35? 23 or 24, ok, but by 35 people are expected to have at least ten years of work behind them. Its not like Im saying that people are supposed to have a job and a family at 15.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Perhaps the aforementioned section of the "active population" would be far better off staying in school and getting a good education rather than making babies?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, weve been through that, and Im still against it. Even as it is, the common citizens arent involved in the politics enough. Raising the age even further will make less people involved it, and whats worse it would take away the political power from a very threatened part of the active population that is seeking their first jobs and starting their families.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, in their defense they get bombed a lot too. finding the inital comon direction would be a good start. I like the idea DF had of voting age of 35.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:38:04 AM | |
|
Fecetiwhatious?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:36:31 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Council of Elders??!??!? BWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!! Oh strat, of course I was being facetious! Relax! I just knew you would get riled up over that!! HHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Perhaps that is the business of the afore mentioned population, and not of the council of elders?
That and, you dont seriously expect people to stay in school till 35? 23 or 24, ok, but by 35 people are expected to have at least ten years of work behind them. Its not like Im saying that people are supposed to have a job and a family at 15.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Perhaps the aforementioned section of the "active population" would be far better off staying in school and getting a good education rather than making babies?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, weve been through that, and Im still against it. Even as it is, the common citizens arent involved in the politics enough. Raising the age even further will make less people involved it, and whats worse it would take away the political power from a very threatened part of the active population that is seeking their first jobs and starting their families.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, in their defense they get bombed a lot too. finding the inital comon direction would be a good start. I like the idea DF had of voting age of 35.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:36:31 AM | |
|
Council of Elders??!??!? BWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!! Oh strat, of course I was being facetious! Relax! I just knew you would get riled up over that!! HHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:34:36 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Perhaps that is the business of the afore mentioned population, and not of the council of elders?
That and, you dont seriously expect people to stay in school till 35? 23 or 24, ok, but by 35 people are expected to have at least ten years of work behind them. Its not like Im saying that people are supposed to have a job and a family at 15.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Perhaps the aforementioned section of the "active population" would be far better off staying in school and getting a good education rather than making babies?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, weve been through that, and Im still against it. Even as it is, the common citizens arent involved in the politics enough. Raising the age even further will make less people involved it, and whats worse it would take away the political power from a very threatened part of the active population that is seeking their first jobs and starting their families.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, in their defense they get bombed a lot too. finding the inital comon direction would be a good start. I like the idea DF had of voting age of 35.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:34:36 AM | |
|
Perhaps that is the business of the afore mentioned population, and not of the council of elders?
That and, you dont seriously expect people to stay in school till 35? 23 or 24, ok, but by 35 people are expected to have at least ten years of work behind them. Its not like Im saying that people are supposed to have a job and a family at 15.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:26:38 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Perhaps the aforementioned section of the "active population" would be far better off staying in school and getting a good education rather than making babies?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, weve been through that, and Im still against it. Even as it is, the common citizens arent involved in the politics enough. Raising the age even further will make less people involved it, and whats worse it would take away the political power from a very threatened part of the active population that is seeking their first jobs and starting their families.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, in their defense they get bombed a lot too. finding the inital comon direction would be a good start. I like the idea DF had of voting age of 35.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:26:38 AM | |
|
Perhaps the aforementioned section of the "active population" would be far better off staying in school and getting a good education rather than making babies?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:19:59 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, weve been through that, and Im still against it. Even as it is, the common citizens arent involved in the politics enough. Raising the age even further will make less people involved it, and whats worse it would take away the political power from a very threatened part of the active population that is seeking their first jobs and starting their families.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, in their defense they get bombed a lot too. finding the inital comon direction would be a good start. I like the idea DF had of voting age of 35.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Saturday, December 06, 2008 9:19:59 AM | |
|
Well, weve been through that, and Im still against it. Even as it is, the common citizens arent involved in the politics enough. Raising the age even further will make less people involved it, and whats worse it would take away the political power from a very threatened part of the active population that is seeking their first jobs and starting their families.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, December 05, 2008 4:55:42 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, in their defense they get bombed a lot too. finding the inital comon direction would be a good start. I like the idea DF had of voting age of 35.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 05, 2008 5:03:39 PM | |
|
Thank you. Thankyouverymuch......
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, December 05, 2008 4:55:42 PM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | well, in their defense they get bombed a lot too. finding the inital comon direction would be a good start. I like the idea DF had of voting age of 35.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Friday, December 05, 2008 4:55:42 PM | |
|
well, in their defense they get bombed a lot too. finding the inital comon direction would be a good start. I like the idea DF had of voting age of 35.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 4:10:39 PM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 05, 2008 4:10:39 PM | |
|
Well, if you have so many individuals with the right to vote, theres bound to be some who will want to go one way, and some who will want to go the other. And after you get somewhere, some will want to go back again or somewhere else. Though it must be understood that some directions are clear to everyone. Take Israel. Interior politics have never bothered them when it came to bombing the shit out of their neighbours.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, December 05, 2008 11:36:44 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Friday, December 05, 2008 11:36:44 AM | |
|
thats right.
and your right about italy, in 59 years they have had 58 elections. thats a lot. Isreal is worse. hard to make progress in any direction if you keep changing drivers. Perfect would be eliminating a few parties, but that wouldnt be democratic, would it?>
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 7:33:09 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Friday, December 05, 2008 10:13:39 AM | |
|
533,000 jobs lost.. last month alone in the US.. How sad.. Now even if Obama Can pass his plan for the inferstructure, and to create jobs, building roads ect.. It will not create enough jobs to keep up with the job losses.
IDK.... I hope things turn around...
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 05, 2008 8:21:35 AM | |
|
HA!!!!!!!!!! Good Day, my friend!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 8:20:05 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, that is interesting. Even though I hate physics. But maybe thats just high school speaking of me..
In any case, time to leave now. I will try to be on in the evening.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Amazingly enough, I am not reading it to find anything "new". I like Prof. Stenger's approach. He is a physicist and uses phyisics in his arguments. He discusses the fact that the universe is really what one would expect it to be after a "big bang" and people and the earth are just as we should expect , etc. Not so much arguing faith and religion as the scientific aspects, which I find refreshing.
In all honesty, the last thing I want around here is another religious debate!!!
(Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 8:09:30 AM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
A-HA!! So besides being a witch you are also an atheist! Lads, bring the cushions!
Seriously though, Ive been over and over the god argument with many people. For me its a fairy tale and thats the end of it. I will remember the title, but I guess that even if by some stroke of luck I find it, I wont learn anything really new.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
| HA!!!!!!!!!!! Oh man, strat! That is really disgusting!! HAHAHAHAAA!!!!! really though, you are a thought-provoking young lad! Always engaging. I am currently reading a book that may interest you. It is called, "God; The Failed Hypothesis. How science shows God does not exist." Ripping good stuff!
|
|
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 8:17:12 AM |
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 05, 2008 8:20:05 AM | |
|
Well, that is interesting. Even though I hate physics. But maybe thats just high school speaking of me..
In any case, time to leave now. I will try to be on in the evening.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, December 05, 2008 8:15:21 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Amazingly enough, I am not reading it to find anything "new". I like Prof. Stenger's approach. He is a physicist and uses phyisics in his arguments. He discusses the fact that the universe is really what one would expect it to be after a "big bang" and people and the earth are just as we should expect , etc. Not so much arguing faith and religion as the scientific aspects, which I find refreshing.
In all honesty, the last thing I want around here is another religious debate!!!
(Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 8:09:30 AM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
A-HA!! So besides being a witch you are also an atheist! Lads, bring the cushions!
Seriously though, Ive been over and over the god argument with many people. For me its a fairy tale and thats the end of it. I will remember the title, but I guess that even if by some stroke of luck I find it, I wont learn anything really new.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
| HA!!!!!!!!!!! Oh man, strat! That is really disgusting!! HAHAHAHAAA!!!!! really though, you are a thought-provoking young lad! Always engaging. I am currently reading a book that may interest you. It is called, "God; The Failed Hypothesis. How science shows God does not exist." Ripping good stuff!
|
|
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 8:17:12 AM |
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 05, 2008 8:15:21 AM | |
|
Amazingly enough, I am not reading it to find anything "new". I like Prof. Stenger's approach. He is a physicist and uses phyisics in his arguments. He discusses the fact that the universe is really what one would expect it to be after a "big bang" and people and the earth are just as we should expect , etc. Not so much arguing faith and religion as the scientific aspects, which I find refreshing.
In all honesty, the last thing I want around here is another religious debate!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 8:09:30 AM)
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
A-HA!! So besides being a witch you are also an atheist! Lads, bring the cushions!
Seriously though, Ive been over and over the god argument with many people. For me its a fairy tale and thats the end of it. I will remember the title, but I guess that even if by some stroke of luck I find it, I wont learn anything really new.
| |
|
Deep Freeze wrote: |
| |
| HA!!!!!!!!!!! Oh man, strat! That is really disgusting!! HAHAHAHAAA!!!!! really though, you are a thought-provoking young lad! Always engaging. I am currently reading a book that may interest you. It is called, "God; The Failed Hypothesis. How science shows God does not exist." Ripping good stuff!
|
|
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 8:17:12 AM |
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 05, 2008 8:09:30 AM | |
|
A-HA!! So besides being a witch you are also an atheist! Lads, bring the cushions!
Seriously though, Ive been over and over the god argument with many people. For me its a fairy tale and thats the end of it. I will remember the title, but I guess that even if by some stroke of luck I find it, I wont learn anything really new.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, December 05, 2008 8:04:51 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | HA!!!!!!!!!!! Oh man, strat! That is really disgusting!! HAHAHAHAAA!!!!! really though, you are a thought-provoking young lad! Always engaging. I am currently reading a book that may interest you. It is called, "God; The Failed Hypothesis. How science shows God does not exist." Ripping good stuff!
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 05, 2008 8:04:51 AM | |
|
HA!!!!!!!!!!! Oh man, strat! That is really disgusting!! HAHAHAHAAA!!!!! really though, you are a thought-provoking young lad! Always engaging. I am currently reading a book that may interest you. It is called, "God; The Failed Hypothesis. How science shows God does not exist." Ripping good stuff!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 8:01:01 AM) |
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 05, 2008 8:01:01 AM | |
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 05, 2008 7:58:13 AM | |
|
NOOOOO!!!! Not the "comfy chair"!!!!! I was under a spell! It was her, not me!!! EEEEEEEEEKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 7:55:52 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Dont make us use this!!!
 |
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 05, 2008 7:55:52 AM | |
|
Dont make us use this!!!
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 05, 2008 7:54:33 AM | |
|
Aha... No comment on that.
HOW DO YOU PLEAD, HERETIC?!?!?!?!??!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, December 05, 2008 7:52:40 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | That was no pig! That was my wife!! HAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Oh, definatly. Screw the lawyers and juries, what we need is some good old fashioned witch burning...
So, defendand Deep Freeze, you are hereby accused of flying a pig to a witches Sabbath, where you fornicated with the devil. How do you plead?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | I suppose. I should say that the church has always confounded me. Their teachings and actions seem to have been in direct contradiction for centuries. On the bright side, it did keep the troublemakers in line... HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Lol, yeah I guess you could say that Papa Joe pretty much runs things over there...
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | You mentioned Italy and it was the first thing that popped to mind! HA!!!!!!!!!!! We could always go to the Education Thread!! HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | The last time we let that happen it was World War 2 and they promptly sold us to the Germans. So, no thank you.
Where did you get the Catholic Church reference anyway?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Could always have the Catholic Church running things........ HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 05, 2008 7:52:40 AM | |
|
That was no pig! That was my wife!! HAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 7:50:22 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Oh, definatly. Screw the lawyers and juries, what we need is some good old fashioned witch burning...
So, defendand Deep Freeze, you are hereby accused of flying a pig to a witches Sabbath, where you fornicated with the devil. How do you plead?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | I suppose. I should say that the church has always confounded me. Their teachings and actions seem to have been in direct contradiction for centuries. On the bright side, it did keep the troublemakers in line... HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Lol, yeah I guess you could say that Papa Joe pretty much runs things over there...
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | You mentioned Italy and it was the first thing that popped to mind! HA!!!!!!!!!!! We could always go to the Education Thread!! HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | The last time we let that happen it was World War 2 and they promptly sold us to the Germans. So, no thank you.
Where did you get the Catholic Church reference anyway?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Could always have the Catholic Church running things........ HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 05, 2008 7:50:22 AM | |
|
Oh, definatly. Screw the lawyers and juries, what we need is some good old fashioned witch burning...
So, defendand Deep Freeze, you are hereby accused of flying a pig to a witches Sabbath, where you fornicated with the devil. How do you plead?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, December 05, 2008 7:47:30 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | I suppose. I should say that the church has always confounded me. Their teachings and actions seem to have been in direct contradiction for centuries. On the bright side, it did keep the troublemakers in line... HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Lol, yeah I guess you could say that Papa Joe pretty much runs things over there...
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | You mentioned Italy and it was the first thing that popped to mind! HA!!!!!!!!!!! We could always go to the Education Thread!! HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | The last time we let that happen it was World War 2 and they promptly sold us to the Germans. So, no thank you.
Where did you get the Catholic Church reference anyway?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Could always have the Catholic Church running things........ HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 05, 2008 7:47:30 AM | |
|
I suppose. I should say that the church has always confounded me. Their teachings and actions seem to have been in direct contradiction for centuries. On the bright side, it did keep the troublemakers in line... HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 7:42:48 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Lol, yeah I guess you could say that Papa Joe pretty much runs things over there...
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | You mentioned Italy and it was the first thing that popped to mind! HA!!!!!!!!!!! We could always go to the Education Thread!! HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | The last time we let that happen it was World War 2 and they promptly sold us to the Germans. So, no thank you.
Where did you get the Catholic Church reference anyway?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Could always have the Catholic Church running things........ HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Friday, December 05, 2008 7:42:48 AM | |
|
Lol, yeah I guess you could say that Papa Joe pretty much runs things over there...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Friday, December 05, 2008 7:41:18 AM)| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | You mentioned Italy and it was the first thing that popped to mind! HA!!!!!!!!!!! We could always go to the Education Thread!! HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | The last time we let that happen it was World War 2 and they promptly sold us to the Germans. So, no thank you.
Where did you get the Catholic Church reference anyway?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Could always have the Catholic Church running things........ HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Deep Freeze] Friday, December 05, 2008 7:41:18 AM | |
|
You mentioned Italy and it was the first thing that popped to mind! HA!!!!!!!!!!! We could always go to the Education Thread!! HAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAA!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, December 05, 2008 7:37:51 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | The last time we let that happen it was World War 2 and they promptly sold us to the Germans. So, no thank you.
Where did you get the Catholic Church reference anyway?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Could always have the Catholic Church running things........ HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Aha, I see. Basicly you have the same principal as we do.
But in any case, it is actualy down to the number of MPs are for or against the proposed government, since they decide wheter they will vote for it in the parliament or no... Right?
But yeah, it is weird that the government is composed of parties that are against each other. I dont know much about the Canadian political situation, but those sort of governments usualy dont last long. In our case we had a government of left parties loose the confidence vote because there was a "Trojan horse" among them, i.e. a centre right party that left the government halfway through the term.
But I guess that both of us could be worse. In Italy since WW2, there was only one government that lasted an entire term, and that was Berlusconis. Or so Ive heard. But it wouldnt surprise me the least bit if it were true.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Strat, thats basicly how it works. we vote for an individual MP, and whoever has the most MP's in the house of comons forms the govt, with their leader as prime minister. Minority governments are still relativly new for us, as we have added a few political parties recently. We havent had a government lose a confidence vote and then a new party be asked to form the govt yet. its always been an option, but never excercized. the things in this one that are iritating, is that the liberal party leader has resigned, saying that its clear canadians dont want him as PM, and they are planing a leadership review in may, but this makes him pm. He also said that the new democratic party (the ones more liberal than liberal) were bad for canada, but this is a coalition with them. make sense? and the third party in this triad is the one that wants to break up the party.
and yes, they arent comunist, however they are a lot closer to socialism than I want
]
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, sticking the Hammer&Sickle to some liberals counts as B.S. with me... But that aside, I still have some questions (I hope youll forgive me... This was not on our news, so the only source of information is you and HB).
First of all, do you directly vote your PM (which I suppose stands for "prime minister")? With us its usualy the president of the party that gets the highest percentage on the elections that gets the mandate to form a government coalition. Its not unprecedented that a government gets a non-confidence vote from the parliament later on, and a new candidate gets the mandate to form a new government without an election, just through vote in the parliament. So, is it like that with you guys too? (Quoting Message by WhiskeyWoman from Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:08:51 AM)
| |
|
WhiskeyWoman wrote: |
| |
Strat ... this is for you. To clear up a bit of the unprecedented political B.S. that's going on up here.
Even though I didn't vote for Harper and his PC's, it is the democratic principle of the whole thing that matters more. We just had an election, and the people spoke! He was elected and now, what the hell?
We now have the three loser parties banding together to overthrow our democratically elected government. There's the NDP (Ontario union/auto-workers...), there's the Liberals (headed by a French, least popular leader they have ever had, even within his own party!), and then the BQ - the Bloc Quebecois (who, as HB said, always threaten to take their greedy ways someplace else but never seem to grow the balls to actually leave -- but who are quite content to take equalization payments & money from the West provinces for their "have-not" french province...)
As far as I'm concerned, they would do us a big financial favour if they separated. Don't let the door hit their arrogant, lazy french asses on the way out... About the only thing Quebec gives us is some runny maple syrup and the occasional Olympic athlete. IMHO...
(Now, my attitude usually sits on the back-burner about this BQ thing... but this is an example of what these three goons have done by forming this ridiculous coalition. They are ripping the country apart and dividing it once and for all. No unity here!)
It is outrageous and presumptous of those three to think they have our best interests at heart by tearing the country apart. (Did you see them on the news, signing the Coalition Agreement? The word, vultures, came to mind... and it's exactly what they looked like too...)
My guess is this: they may have a sneaky suspicion the PC's won't 'stimulate' the auto-industry (specifically), and the NDP being what it is with unions, have probably been under all kinds of pressure from the CAW to get help. Bullshit. The NDP wrecked BC with all that, which is why they can't get back in there...
Yeah, well those three couldn't stimulate the economy with their dicks.
Does this mean we have an untimely eco-tax thing imposed by that idiot freakin' Dion!? This country is going to be destroyed by that snivelling twit. One NDP from Manitoba said, "We will be working separately, but together." Yeah, that's got success written all over it. I can see this is *so* NOT going going to go well...!!!
And, to forge an alliance with the Bloc!? Quebec, who wants to separate, but still get their "have-not" cheques from Alberta!? Holy hell, I'm so pissed by all of this.
And, they wonder why people don't care to vote!? Because it makes not one iota of a difference, that's freakin' why. It's putting Canada into a coup, nothing short of a third-world country or banana republic. Disgusting, and embarrassing.
Now, to put this into better perspective.... If this coalition govt. overthrows our elected Prime Minister, Alberta's representation in the House of Commons (like your senate in the US), we go from 28 seats to 1. Yes, ONE! The richest province in Canada, who pays all of Quebec's and Ontario's bills, gets nothing -- well, except more bills...
The word, "Revolution" comes to mind... with Ian banging that bass around ... If there is any wind of a protest, anywhere ... let me know. We are so "there", and I'm not usually prone to that kind of thing. But this is not something Canadians should let happen.
If it does, they can't let it go.
There is a saying here in Canada, that "Alberta could live without Canada, but Canada could not live without Alberta".
There is talk of the West separating (again), as so many people have had enough. To fully understand this, you must know that Harper is a PM from the West. For the first time, we have a PM from our part of the country, but these three stooges can't stand it and just have to take over power from the West, for the East. So, we are divided. Quebec, the East, the West, Pro-Coalition, Pro-Democracy ... and Canada is angry. Usually, that only happens when they lose their beer or hockey games, but nobody has ever seen anything quite like this, and I wonder how easy it will be for people to control their passion at these rallies.
I have poster with that on it.... with 'SHAME' underneath, and a cool one with a Maple Leaf on a tombstone that says, simply "RIP". (Notice the emblem says "Central Canadian"? It does not include the west.) I have a feeling the protests are going to be very heated... especially when we show up with our Anti-Coaltion signs at the PRO-Coalition rally in red-neck central, Edmonton, tonight.
HB, too bad you can't make it.... You're gonna miss some kind of fun. Watch the news... Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:18:34 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:22:38 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:23:23 AM Edited at: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:25:49 AM |
Edited at: Friday, December 05, 2008 1:59:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
