[Patrick_Ross]

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

:roll:

Why don't you ask your poli-sci prof if he knows it all? If he's honest, he'll tell you he doesn't. Why don't you tell him that you know it all? When he's done laughing at you, I'm sure he'll tell his buddies about it so they can laugh at you too.

I'm not saying I know it all. It's just evident I know more than you.

$1:

That's good...it keeps the unemployment rate down.

Or up, depending on who's in power.

$1:

All of who are below any suggested threshold and who, should they rise above that level, do deserve a voice.

You forgot to mention the CAP, the Progressive Canadians, the Atlantica Party, the Cosmopolitan Party (I still think they should be the Neopolitan Party because everybody likes ice cream) and likely a dozen others.

I don't need to critique them all to make my point.

$1:

Would it? Every proposal I've seen requires someplace between 3% and 7% of the popular vote.

That's an interesting figure. The Green party would actually fail to acquire status in any system that requires more than 5% of the popular vote, given they had 4.4% of the national popular vote in the 2006 federal election.

$1:

Something kind of funny about Harper...his constituents in this case were aboriginal people from all over the country. He was clearly, even though he was only a provincial MLA, the voice for recognized First Nations, the Metis, and non-treaty aboriginals. By extension, he ended up representing a lot of non-aboriginals who considered themselves to represent a nation or distinct group of one sort or another.

So much for your narrow definition of accountability.

Did I miss something? He was reelected because he did the right thing. That's an accountability success story.

$1:

It still would have made a difference because it required a unanimous vote. He was already defying his party whip...something every MP, MLA, or MPP is free to do if they are willing to accept the consequences. He might have had somebody standing with him though, because there would had been more voices in the provincial legislature.

Now that you mention in it, this is a fair point -- in regards to this particular scenario.

$1:

Ever wonder why the federal NDP pushes for PR, but the NDP in Manitoba and Saskatchewan refuse to even consider it? Doer and his little undertaker buddy in Saskatchewan give all kinds of excuses, but if you happen to be in a bar (I know you don't like bars, but I find you can learn a lot there if you remember to pay for rounds, but not drink too much) when a convention is going on and randomly ask the question, what comes up time and again is that it makes it hard to maintain party discipline. MPs/MLAs/MPPs tend to understand that they can represent their constituents from those other parties.

Odds are, I spend more time in the bar room than you do. I don't necessarily always drink when I'm there, but I'm there nonetheless.

Whoever told you that is full of absolute nonsense. An MP sitting in a proportionally elected block in a parallel system has no consituents to answer to. Resultingly, he has nothing but party discipline to worry about. For other MPs, it would be business as usual.

$1:

In Alberta and south-west Saskatchewan, maybe. In Manitoba and north-east Saskatchewan, it was really the CF-18.

I doubt the hinterlands of north-east Saskatchewan cared much about the CF-18 contract. At least, not as much as anyone else in Saskatchewan.

$1:

No, it's the power of good ideas. Politicians will always do the right thing if we force them to.

No, it's the McKenzie-King model of pressure governance. You said so yourself.

$1:

No more than allowing women to vote was rhetorical and not an issue of human rights.

Allowing women to vote is also an issue of equality.

$1:

I just thought that one completely irrelevant statement deserved another.

I have a Buddy Jesus figurine from the movie Dogma. All the same, there's nothing irrelevant about what the UN declaration of human rights says when trying to frame an issue as an issue of human rights.

You can't frame marriage as a human right issue. You can only frame it as an equality issue.

$1:

They whipped the vote on the Bloc motion requiring the government to meet our Kyoto goals. That was last week, I think. It might have been the week before. The analysts on NewsWorld and NewsNet mentioned that it was thought Michael Chong wasn't happy with his party's position. Despite the whipped vote, Harper wasn't there.

There is a principle of confidence involved in a motion such as that, even if it doesn't necessarily represent a confidence vote.

$1:

For a poli-sci student, you sure don't seem to spend much time following politics. If it's a time conflict, I think you'll find that DVD recorders are cheap and VHS machines are pretty much free.

On the contrary, I watch Mike Duffy live every day, and read extensively on the subject.

$1:

The McGuinty bill? Sorry, but 288 (the Kyoto Implementation Act) is all Pablo Rodriguez...he of the thick hair and newly minted Che beard. If I was a young girl, he'd make me wet. I'm an old married man though, and he's a Liberal, so I just wonder why guys grow beards like that if they are going to spend as much time trimming as they used to spend shaving.

I do support 288, I just think it should have been passed two or three parliaments ago.

David McGuinty had something to do with it. Let's see: OK. He debated on the bill. My mistake. All the same, you're a creepy individual, and still have yet to comment on these particular agreements.

As a point of passing, one of them is with the Auto industry, a prime source of support for the NDP. Care to comment on that? Ready to screw your own in order to get Kyoto done?

$1:

About two and a half years of pissing around. Obstacles are easier to clear if you get a run at them.

Fair enough. Let's blame the Conservatives for about a year of that, and the Liberals for a year-and-a-half.

$1:

The science is solid, and has been for more than a decade, as you seem to understand...at least at some level. The politics aren't, but politics never are.

Portions of the science are solid. Some of it has been misrepresented and still more politicized in support of a political agenda.

$1:

I kind of giggle at the term "political science" in the same way I giggle when somebody suggests that eight ball is just a matter of applied geometry. I love politics and pool, but they have far more in common with the black arts or blank verse poetry than they do with science.

Political science is a social science -- barely. It depends almost entirely on interpretations of historical events. Actual experimental studies are extremely rare. I would say political science would be better passed off as a form of historyl/current events.

$1:

You want John Baird saying that it's a joke, or something more arcane?

Well, it is a joke, especially given the source of the bill, but that is hardly what has been asked of you here.

$1:

I thought that, as somebody who claims to be politically educated, you'd be above resorting to pedantry and literalism. Apparently not.

We've all seen the reactions though.

I'm not a big fan of spun comments. Show me an example of someone saying explicitly that, if you can do so without twisting their words.

$1:

Sixty days. The Harper people said they had an environmental plan when they were opposition. They said they had a plan when they were running for office. They said they had a plan after they got elected. They said they had a plan when they introduced the original hot air act. I realise that none of those alleged plans contained measures to meet Kyoto, but if they had honestly considered all of the options, they would at least know where to start. All of the opposition parties are more than happy to offer suggestions. A whack of NGOs will be more than happy to lend a hand. Hell, if they really need it, I'll show up in my bib-alls and give them a lesson on basic building science...I still have much to learn, but I do know the basics.

Clearly, you haven't taken a close look at the Clean Air Act, and compared it to Kyoto. Under the Clean Air Act, Canada would actually meet Britain's targets.

$1:

Yeah, because at 42 I have every reason to look at our politicians with optimism and wide-eyed wonder. They've never fucked up before, I haven't ever heard these lies before, and I have no reason whatsoever to look at the disappointed and say, "Told ya so, but you refused to listen...again."

That doesn't mean you can pass off cynicism as rational debate.

$1:

Don't give me that shit about just being partisan either, because if you look around you'll find that I've gone after the NDP when I disagree with them too.

If you say so.

$1:

The one requiring the government to honour Kyoto. It was kind of a silly motion, being that there was already a bill in the House, but it passed. Harper whipped the vote against it. CPAC is on channel 83 here, where is it on your dial?

94. Like I said, there is a principle of confidence attached to these votes.

$1:

I do. I am right now. You just don't like who I'm telling you to dealign from.

That's not how the process works. Besides, I guarantee I'm a lot more dealigned than you are, and my bookshelf can actually prove that.

$1:

All votes are partisan by nature.

I wonder if Carolyn Parrish took any solace in that when she was forced by her party to vote against extending compensation to all the victims of the tainted blood scandal. A personal favorite example of mine, because this is one case in which the party whip was utilized in a truly immoral way -- forcing a medical doctor to actually violate her hipporatic oath.

$1:

What I'm advocating is that the popular vote be respected. Most people who vote in federal elections vote either for the party or the leader. That vote is not reflected in the proportion of seats those parties get or those leaders control.

Their vote is reflected within their constituency. It really is as simple as that.

$1:

What you are doing is working to keep thing from progressing to the point where that specific is reached though. I wonder why?

Actually, we've been talking about a parrallel system. I doubt you're actually dumb enough to not have caught on to this, which demonstrates that you really are just doding the question intentionally. I wonder why?

$1:

Will they? Even if they lose their ridings? We've got one MP elected as an independent right now. Last parliament, we had a different one.

Tsk. Tsk. You're trying to dodge the question by confusing the issue. The question wasn't about how many independent MPs we have now. The question was about how independent MPs would be elected within a proportionally elected block of parliamentary seats in a parallel system.

$1:

If independents win a percentage (not determined because the Conservatives and Liberals don't want it to be) of the popular vote, and are granted...let's say three seats (two more than we've had in the last two parliaments, three more than we usually have) without a single independent actually winning a seat...would it be off to say that independents X, Y and Z won more votes than all of the other independents and therefore get a seat?

Isn't that precisely what proponents of proportional representation gripe about relating to the first-past-the-post system?

$1:

They may or may not represent the same thing as the other independents, but then again we are asked to accept that Stephen Harper's present public statements represents the people of Wild Rose. Washing the finest mushrooms down with the best Jimson weed tea doesn't reconcile that little gap.

They voted for him.

$1:

By standing there and yelling at each other until we figure it out.

You are looking for a complete solution...like taking Barbie and Ken out of their boxes and knowing that they were made for each other.

I'm sure you think that's a cute metaphor, but it has nothing to do with this. You're supposed to be mr. expert on proportional representation, and yet can't explain how it will actually function. Best reason to oppose it, in my opinion.

$1:

Why were they trying? How did things become so partisan that blatant character assasination became an acceptable political maneuver. What about the swift-boating it led to? Your premise is that these things are harmless because the world hasn't ended because of them. Have a look at politics in North America and tell me the last time there was a reasonable conversation about anything.

:roll: Let's just add up all the factors here:

1. Bill Clinton's bi-partisan administration
2. Republicans' failed attempt to impeach him, due to insufficient partisan support for the impeachment
3. Necessity for Democrats and Republicans to work together in order to govern under dealigned political system.

Doesn't add up to the United States fitting your assertion that it is the most partisan country in the world -- at least, during the Clinton administration. Remembering also that the until-recent Republican domination of Congress, Senate and Presidency is an oddity in American political history.

$1:

Still no answer.

It's still not worthy of a response.

$1:

Been through this before. First of all, having people go out and do evaluations is not administration. Putting that responsibility on the private sector does not remove or reduce the cost, it merely shifts it.

You want to get rid of admin costs? Drop the GST on insulation, vapour barriers, efficient appliances, hybrid cars, and anything else you can think of that reduces emissions. No middleman, no admin costs. I haven't seen one political party...yours, mine or theirs...suggest that. You know why? Because they get no control. Too cynical for you?

Yup. Too cynical. Plus, in my opinion, this doesn't necessarily go far enough. Why not also exempt the companies that produce these products from production-related taxes, so they can produce more, and produce it cheaper?

$1:

So strengthen the laws. We never did try him...instead we pretended he was a terrorist instead of just saying that he was a hateful little fuck who belonged in prison. Enact the laws and try the bastard. If you lose, then you lose. Don't be all goofy and deport him for somebody else to do the dirty work.

Ernst Zundel pratically was a terrorist. If the brand of hate propagation he was guilty of doesn't qualify as terrorism, there are still his links to violent hate groups.

$1:

Preston Manning says a lot of things. A man that most native groups in our country have called a racist was instrumental in Harper's last campaign. Having read most of his writings and being pretty conversant with the situation, I tend to agree with the native groups.

The racist weren't stomped out. They're still there. They just learned not to say "fucking Indians" in public. That's hardly an improvement.

I invite you to prove that. Furthermore, in order to brand Preston Manning as a racist, you would actually have to ignore the fact that he proposed legislation that would actually benefit immigrants and racial minorities, such as the Fair Language Policy. Then again, that doesn't fit within your idea that "oh, if some natives call him a racist, he must be racist."

The fact is that the individuals in question were eliminated from the party, and the media verified this.

$1:

You haven't shown that though. You have tried to define accountability as being very local and very narrow, but anybody who looks at the overall political culture should be able to comprehend that isn't valid beyond a high school election for most popular football player.

As a matter of fact, I have. I have shown that proportional representation constitutionally entrenches partisanship, and undermines accountability by electing MPs who are not accountable to any constituents.

You sure as hell haven't refuted that.

$1:

That's every democracy outside of the US, Canada, and England.

Doesn't change the facts.

$1:

Like a well-known Reform/Alliance supporter shooting a man for walking into his store because the man committed the horrible crime of being native?

Would you also like to discuss the legacy of homophobia and anti-semitism within the NDP? I can dig that up for you, if you like.

$1:

Actually, if you had any accomplishments I would have mentioned those too. You don't though.

I wouldn't be so quick to speak about things I know nothing about, if I were you.

$1:

He was. Apparently I blew snot on him as an infant. He didn't kill me, so obviously he was a superior human being.

More importantly though, he was right more often than not. He had a very simple way of looking at things. People are more important than money and money is just a tool to help people. Look at what he did and said, and that's it. Everything else is detail and nuance.

Well, at least we agree on Tommy Douglas.

$1:

That Deb won a seat and it got Reform into the debates? Nothing to prove...it's one of those facts.

That's not what you were asked to prove.

$1:

I'm not dodging at all. There are a variety of ideas out there and they need to be looked at, fought over, and decided on. I agree with overall concept, but don't have a favourite specific. You present generalizations and outright fallacies in an effort to keep specifics that I can argue for or against from coming forth.

You just aren't answering these questions. I'm not sure what you call that, but in anyone else's book, that's dodging.

$1:

And you failed to prove your point. In the end you resorted to a vague reference to nazis. I guess I should have countered by noting that you are possibly a distant grand nephew of somebody who might have seen Hitler once.

Trust me, I've proven my point. The fact you can't answer questions about the practical application of proportional representation is proof of that.

$1:

Funny, I know a lot of people...working farmers on the prairies...that consider the CWB to be a major issue. They aren't activist revisionists, they are farmers. They've been voting for the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives on the gays/guns/god thing but now you're fucking with their money. They aren't about to vote Liberal or NDP, but they aren't likely to vote for you either.

I know a number of farmers as well, and they were all awfully upset when a number of farmers were sentenced to prison for attempting to sell their own grain -- which belongs to them -- in the United States.

$1:

Since you seem to think you can question my prairie credentials, let's give yours a test. How much of your last vacation did you spend haying? Have you ever run a pull-type swather? What's a Deutz? What's the best thing about the tool-box? Why did the first generation of them disappear from the flat lands? What's AI? Ever done the Agribition crawl? What's the name of the most famous bucking bull ever? Are you sad the Paddock is gone? The difference between black and brown soil? How does a picket pounder work? What's the difference between an air seeder and a seeder? What do they call they individual parts of a knife? Do you even know what a correction line is? Ever spent x-mas eve with your arm up a cow? When you go to the mud-bogs, do you keep your beer in a cooler or just hope the cops have ice?

More or less two types of things on the prairies: farmers and riggers. Guess which I was -- and, in a sense, still am?

How about we test your prairie credentials: how fast does an oil/water hauler typically drive on the back roads? What's a kelly hose? What color is diesel in Saskatchewan? In Alberta? How many roadsigns have you hit with a beer bottle? Can you run and get me a pipe stretcher? How about the key for the v-door? What's a jake brake? Why don't you use it when you're passing the farmer's house? What's the best way to clean oil out of your hair? What do you hook up to the mud can?

$1:

Manning tried to make that go away and everybody thought we'd all forget. Funny that.

Clearly, you don't understand the history very well. Wolfgang Droege once managed to weasle his way into an Ontario riding association, and, once it was discovered who he was, was booted from the party faster than a racist Vancouver radio host. Feel free to look that one up.

$1:

being as lame as Patrick=do you have sex less than a 98 year old widow, or do you have a pet sheep.

Hey, you're the guy trying to convince me of your prairie cred.

$1:

Those aren't individuals...those are parties. If the Liberals and Conservatives weren't there, would they have a quorum? I can't remember the exact rules, but my gut says no. Even if they did, would any decision they reach be considered legitimate if the two largest parties were not involved? That doesn't depend on rules, and every sense I have says no.

It would take the booting more than two members of the committee to break quorum.

$1:

I didn't suggest it, I said it out loud, plain and simple.

You have a funny idea of leadership.

$1:

I'm not claiming that it's good leadership. I'm not saying that it's the way things oughtta be. I am saying that the leaders of our two biggest parties are leading this mess. Three minutes of hushed expletives in the hall shuts them down and makes them act like adults. The "leaders" haven't done that.

You know as well as I do that this shit comes from the top. Plumber's creed...shit flows down and payday is Friday.

You want to bitch about political leadership? Don't pretend there's a lack of it, point out its the wrong type.

When there is clearly a lack of leadership, it would be foolish to pretend there isn't.

$1:

Wider is fine, but elections are important. I find it disturbing that you'd appoint instead of electing, even at the level we currently elect.

You seem to be under the bizarre impression that chairing a committee would entitled Elizabeth May to a parliamentary seat, or something.

$1:

Launch some more shit. I throw it back.

I liken this more to a game of dodgeball -- except you're piss poor at dodging, and couldn't hit the broadside of a circulation tank.

You thought I was going to say barn, didn't you?

[Rev_Blair]

$1:

I'm not saying I know it all. It's just evident I know more than you.

No, it's evident that you think you know more than me.

$1:

I don't need to critique them all to make my point.

It's kind of odd which ones you chose to list though...those most likely to frighten people.

$1:

That's an interesting figure. The Green party would actually fail to acquire status in any system that requires more than 5% of the popular vote, given they had 4.4% of the national popular vote in the 2006 federal election.

Not that interesting because the number isn't for sure. 3% gives the Greens seats, 5% doesn't, 7% puts them even further away. The point is that you keep criticizing me for not being specific, but the specifics haven't been worked out yet.

$1:

Did I miss something? He was reelected because he did the right thing. That's an accountability success story.

Yeah, you missed the fact that he was representing people from outside of his riding and even outside of his province. He was being accountable to people who could never vote for him.

$1:

Now that you mention in it, this is a fair point -- in regards to this particular scenario.

In regard to any scenario. More voices give more representation.

$1:

Odds are, I spend more time in the bar room than you do. I don't necessarily always drink when I'm there, but I'm there nonetheless.

you should pay more attention then.

$1:

Whoever told you that is full of absolute nonsense. An MP sitting in a proportionally elected block in a parallel system has no consituents to answer to. Resultingly, he has nothing but party discipline to worry about. For other MPs, it would be business as usual.

They have everybody who voted for their party to answer to.

$1:

I doubt the hinterlands of north-east Saskatchewan cared much about the CF-18 contract. At least, not as much as anyone else in Saskatchewan.

It was the flash point...the final straw. The west got screwed. They didn't care about the particular contract, they did care that the contract was given to Quebec for political reasons.

$1:

No, it's the McKenzie-King model of pressure governance. You said so yourself.

Call it whatever you want.

$1:

Allowing women to vote is also an issue of equality.

Equality is a matter of human rights.

$1:

I have a Buddy Jesus figurine from the movie Dogma. All the same, there's nothing irrelevant about what the UN declaration of human rights says when trying to frame an issue as an issue of human rights.

There have been attempts to get gay rights into the UN declaration. They've been blocked by Islamic countries and the US.

$1:

You can't frame marriage as a human right issue. You can only frame it as an equality issue.

Equality is a human right.

$1:

There is a principle of confidence involved in a motion such as that, even if it doesn't necessarily represent a confidence vote.

Then why did Harper refuse to recognize that principle when Martin was in government?

$1:

On the contrary, I watch Mike Duffy live every day, and read extensively on the subject.

See, you're missing one of the two shows. You can watch Politics on the internet if you don't have a VCR.

$1:

David McGuinty had something to do with it. Let's see: OK. He debated on the bill.

lots of people debated on the bill.

$1:

All the same, you're a creepy individual, and still have yet to comment on these particular agreements.

I didn't like the agreements when they were put into place and still don't. And I'm not creepy, I just don't understand why somebody would grow a beard, then spend as much time trimming it as they used to spend shaving.

$1:

As a point of passing, one of them is with the Auto industry, a prime source of support for the NDP. Care to comment on that? Ready to screw your own in order to get Kyoto done?

Screw them? If they had been forced to make more efficient cars, they might not be laying off thousands of workers.

Do you think the average autoworker cares if he's building some retro-styled muscle car or a hybrid?

$1:

Fair enough. Let's blame the Conservatives for about a year of that, and the Liberals for a year-and-a-half.

Okay, but you should also acknowledge that the Reform/Alliance/Conservative attempts to scuttle Kyoto were effective in giving the Liberals an excuse not to do more.

$1:

Portions of the science are solid. Some of it has been misrepresented and still more politicized in support of a political agenda.

No, the overall science is solid. Portions of it have been misrepresented, but the massive amount work that has been done stands up as a whole.

$1:

Well, it is a joke, especially given the source of the bill, but that is hardly what has been asked of you here.

"But Tory MP Jason Kenney called the legislation a "bad political joke" concocted by the Liberals, who he accused of playing "political football" with an issue as important as the environment.

Ahead of the vote, Baird suggested the government will simply ignore the bill if it becomes law."


"How do you implement a bill with no money and no regulatory powers?" he told CTV News. "So it's a bit of a joke."


"But in the next breath, Harper downplayed the legislation as a toothless measure with "no plan of action" behind it."


"The Tories repeatedly tried to kill the bill, attempting procedural tactics to have it declared invalid up until the day of the final vote in the Commons."

$1:

Clearly, you haven't taken a close look at the Clean Air Act, and compared it to Kyoto. Under the Clean Air Act, Canada would actually meet Britain's targets.

We don't need to meet Britain's targets, we need to meet ours. Under C-30 our emissions would actually rise because of intensity-based targets.

$1:

That doesn't mean you can pass off cynicism as rational debate.

I didn't pass cynicism off as rational debate, I made a comment you construed as cynical as part of a debate. You can't just write off an argument because you consider it cynical.

$1:

94. Like I said, there is a principle of confidence attached to these votes.

That same principle applied when the Liberals were in office too. You can't have it both ways.

$1:

That's not how the process works. Besides, I guarantee I'm a lot more dealigned than you are, and my bookshelf can actually prove that.

Your bookshelf? Does it talk?

$1:

I wonder if Carolyn Parrish took any solace in that when she was forced by her party to vote against extending compensation to all the victims of the tainted blood scandal. A personal favorite example of mine, because this is one case in which the party whip was utilized in a truly immoral way -- forcing a medical doctor to actually violate her hipporatic oath.

She had the option of defying the whip. Everybody does.

$1:

Their vote is reflected within their constituency. It really is as simple as that.

You are ignoring that people don't, as a rule, use their local candidate as their main voting criteria.

$1:

Actually, we've been talking about a parrallel system. I doubt you're actually dumb enough to not have caught on to this, which demonstrates that you really are just doding the question intentionally. I wonder why?

Which parallel system though? Again, there are several ideas as to how the specifics would work, so it's impossible to discuss those specifics before we know what they are.

$1:

Tsk. Tsk. You're trying to dodge the question by confusing the issue. The question wasn't about how many independent MPs we have now. The question was about how independent MPs would be elected within a proportionally elected block of parliamentary seats in a parallel system.

I'm not trying to confuse anything at all. You are arguing that PR would keep independents from winning seats. The reality is that they aren't winning seats right now and would be no worse off under PR. Depending on the specifics of the PR system we choose, it could actually increase the chances of an independent winning a seat.

$1:

Isn't that precisely what proponents of proportional representation gripe about relating to the first-past-the-post system?

No.

$1:

They voted for him.

Notice what you said there...that they voted for Harper. Not that they voted for their local candidate, but that they voted for the party leader. That's the reality that PR seeks to address.

$1:

You're supposed to be mr. expert on proportional representation, and yet can't explain how it will actually function.

I never claimed to be an expert. I have, however, pointed out to you several times that we don't know exactly what the specifics would be because that has yet to be determined. It would be dishonest for me to say, "It will work like this," when we haven't decided what the system will look like.

$1:

Let's just add up all the factors here:

1. Bill Clinton's bi-partisan administration
2. Republicans' failed attempt to impeach him, due to insufficient partisan support for the impeachment
3. Necessity for Democrats and Republicans to work together in order to govern under dealigned political system.

Doesn't add up to the United States fitting your assertion that it is the most partisan country in the world -- at least, during the Clinton administration. Remembering also that the until-recent Republican domination of Congress, Senate and Presidency is an oddity in American political history.

Lets just look at how partisan the US has become under its present system.

Let's look at how partisan Canada under its present system.

Or you can keep arguing that there isn't a problem with partisanship.

$1:

Yup. Too cynical.

Why? Because it points out the obvious?

$1:

Plus, in my opinion, this doesn't necessarily go far enough. Why not also exempt the companies that produce these products from production-related taxes, so they can produce more, and produce it cheaper?

That would only work if you could find a way that they actually dropped their prices and passed the savings on.

$1:

Ernst Zundel pratically was a terrorist. If the brand of hate propagation he was guilty of doesn't qualify as terrorism, there are still his links to violent hate groups.

Not the point. The point is that we didn't charge him and try him. Instead we arrested him on a security certificate and sent him off so somebody else could do our dirty work for us.

$1:

I invite you to prove that.

Prove what? That Tom Flanagan worked on Harper's campaign?

$1:

Furthermore, in order to brand Preston Manning as a racist

Where did I say that Manning was a racist? I pointed out that white supremacists acted as his bodyguards because of their ties to the party.

$1:

Then again, that doesn't fit within your idea that "oh, if some natives call him a racist, he must be racist."

They made charged based on things that Flanagan wrote.

$1:

The fact is that the individuals in question were eliminated from the party, and the media verified this.

Flanagan worked on Harper's last campaign.

$1:

As a matter of fact, I have. I have shown that proportional representation constitutionally entrenches partisanship, and undermines accountability by electing MPs who are not accountable to any constituents.

You sure as hell haven't refuted that.

You haven't shown that. You've made the assertion, but offered no proof. You haven't even shown how MPs are accountable to their constituents under the current system, since all parties whip votes.

$1:

You just aren't answering these questions. I'm not sure what you call that, but in anyone else's book, that's dodging.

Because we don't what the specifics would look like. You do understand that there are several models being put forth and even the ones that are similar overall have large differences from each other, right? You understand that, if it's allowed to go to the next step so that it can be narrowed down to a single proposal, the result will likely include ideas from more than one proposal, don't you?

You are doing your best to keep PR from reaching the next step so that your questions can be answered.

The overall idea is to address the democratic deficit that currently exists because even majority governments come to power with substantially less than 50% of the popular vote in our current system. The popular vote bears little resemblance to the percentage of seats any given party gets in the House of Commons. There are regional divisions that are getting deeper and deeper. There are a substantial number of Canadians who don't vote because they feel they aren't represented. There are people who vote for parties they don't like in an attempt to keep parties they like even less out of power.

You would ignore these serious problems.

$1:

Trust me, I've proven my point. The fact you can't answer questions about the practical application of proportional representation is proof of that.

You're demanding a practical application of something that hasn't been designed yet. By doing so, you are trying to keep it from being designed.

$1:

I know a number of farmers as well, and they were all awfully upset when a number of farmers were sentenced to prison for attempting to sell their own grain -- which belongs to them -- in the United States.

Yup. Those guys broke the law and went to jail for it. They knew they were breaking the law. They publicized that they were breaking the law. They were fined and refused to pay those fines. They chose to go to jail.

They did that to get changes to the CWB. Guess what? They got changes. There are now ten farmer-elected seats on the board, giving farmers control of it. There are many more choices on how and when farmers get paid. If they want to get rid of the CWB, all they have to do is elect anti-CWB representatives to the board.

You just keep bringing up something that happened a long time ago without explaining it though.

$1:

More or less two types of things on the prairies: farmers and riggers. Guess which I was -- and, in a sense, still am?

There's a lot more than two types of things on the prairies. You seem to think you are somehow qualified to comment on the CWB, yet apparently you aren't a farmer. A lot like Chuck Strahl or Stevie Harper.

$1:

Clearly, you don't understand the history very well. Wolfgang Droege once managed to weasle his way into an Ontario riding association, and, once it was discovered who he was, was booted from the party faster than a racist Vancouver radio host. Feel free to look that one up.

Oh, I understand history very well. I understand that things get hidden but don't disappear.

$1:

It would take the booting more than two members of the committee to break quorum.

It's not two members though. It's all the Liberals and all the Conservatives.

$1:

When there is clearly a lack of leadership, it would be foolish to pretend there isn't.

The sniping and delays are a strategy being used by the leaders. They are just leading in the wrong direction.

$1:

You seem to be under the bizarre impression that chairing a committee would entitled Elizabeth May to a parliamentary seat, or something.

You seem to be under the bizarre impression that parliamentary committees are not part of parliament.