rigorousintuition.ca

hava1 wrote:Thanks.
In our system coalition is the very goal, and is at the heart of the system.

rarely if ever was there a government without one. So I dont quite understand how the actual governing goes if the ruling party does not have a full majority in the house (more then 51 percent). do they have to solicit agreement for each and every decision/law ? that would be hard, and in the Knesset it would be impossible in practice.

But then I suppose in your house, the heat is not so high and many issues are not very polemic. or there';s something i totally miss.

The heat is high here as well, but arguably much less is at stake.

Ipsos Reid tonight says Ontario has finally broken big for the NDP, with 34% and the momentum to 40% for the Conservatives. Nationally the Liberals are at historic lows. They could be staring at oblivion.

I thought I'd let you field this first Jeff.

Coalitions are the nature of parliament; ideally, each vote should be a vote of conscience by representatives. Party was the wrecking ball through the best interpretation of Greek democracy since, well, the Greeks.

I think things are hot, but for the enforced quiet on the issue.

That would be border surrender to the US.

I'm sorry, but we shouldn't be in secret negotiations with the US on security. We all know it is a bullshit issue. It will only lead to something rather horrible. I'm sorry, but I agree with Al Purdy, that this is the 'Country of our defeat'...and, well, we get to make the rules. Like the one in Ontario (Upper Canada) about ending slavery...decades before the Brits and Americans got 'round to it.

And I was sorry for the Americans who fled to Canada, thinking it was the nation of Neil Young and Lennon bed sleep ins; it isn't anymore, and deserters were marched back (the complete opposite of our national histories on the matter, from 1812 on).

Anyway, the fact that this group was founded on realizing 9/11 was as shitty through and through as Oswald pulling a trigger, I find the lack of the border issue as a debate point....and I'd have to add Thorium as well...as the big personal disappointments of this campaign.

And while I hope people actually have reflected on Tommy Douglas being the Greatest Canadian, and maybe listening to and reflecting on his Mice & Cat parables (Maus anyone?) for once...who knows. We'll all find out on Monday.

But Jeff, ole Glen Macgregor is calling for a majority, or near majority, of the Regressives for Monday night...with the NDP 'surge' being only vapour...finishing behind Iggy.

Go figure.

I can't anymore. That's why I make wine.

stoneonstone wrote: Go figure.

I can't anymore. That's why I make wine.

and why I drink it.

stoneonstone wrote:
But Jeff, ole Glen Macgregor is calling for a majority, or near majority, of the Regressives for Monday night...with the NDP 'surge' being only vapour...finishing behind Iggy.

Ole Glen's going to be wrong on this one. (Though honestly, Ole Jeff of 8 AM was pretty much there, too.) The anti-Harper vote is coalescing. There's much less likelihood of a Conservative majority with that happening. And the momentum is with us. If Ontario keeps moving, the NDP could be leading in the province by Monday and there could be an NDP majority government.

Canadian_watcher wrote:and why I drink it.

Whatever happens, I'll be hitting the Irish Whiskey.

Jeff wrote:
Ole Glen's going to be wrong on this one. (Though honestly, Ole Jeff of 8 AM was pretty much there, too.) The anti-Harper vote is coalescing. There's much less likelihood of a Conservative majority with that happening. And the momentum is with us. If Ontario keeps moving, the NDP could be leading in the province by Monday and there could be an NDP majority government.
:

Oh my.. I would dearly love to be with the NDP crowd if that happens. Well, I'd love to be there no matter what, actually.
If I didn't have a dog, a sick mother in law and some god-awful hip problem I would drive up!!!

BTW, heard it confirmed that The Toronto Star will be endorsing the NDP.

Jeff wrote:BTW, heard it confirmed that The Toronto Star will be endorsing the NDP.

HA! they're smart.

Jeff wrote:BTW, heard it confirmed that The Toronto Star will be endorsing the NDP.

Fuck me, really?

Oh, you must be happy.

I hope this isn't what they call an endorsement in Canada: Toronto Star - Layton camp in damage control over massage parlour allegations

The particulars are wildly ridiculous, btw.

I think The Star wants to have its rub and tug it, too.

A 15-year old story of non-criminal behaviour from an anonymous ex-cop? It embarrasses me about the state of our Rovian affairs. It makes me almost want to tip them off to this video of the NDP deputy leader partying with sex trade workers at "Goodhandy's":



Random ex-cop: Julian Fantino, former Toronto police chief, your Conservative candidate in Vaughan riding.

The Star is lost without their star, Jim Travers. May he find peace in the torments of hell.

Layton's massage is the lead story this morning. Quite something.

Something else: an open secret among Canada's political-journo-satirical classes is that Harper's marriage is over all but in name, and his wife is living in relationship with a female Mountie. But that's unmentionable. It touched the mainstream once, when Norman Spector blogged about it for the Globe and Mail. The Conservative paper promptly deleted it, saying it was a private matter. Spector preserves "Why Ms. Harper joined the PM’s Christmas interview" on his private site.

I hesitate mentioning it now myself. I believe even family values hypocrites are entitled to their private hells. But I do, now, just because I'm this fucking mad.

From the Toronto Sun hit piece:

The police had to decide what to do with the controversial councillor.

"To have arrested him and charged him would have served our egos a lot more. Layton was a thorn in the side of the police, siding with the anti-poverty movement in '96 or '97 ... Jack was anti-police," the ex-cop said.

"We looked at it and thought do we take advantage of this, or do we look at this like (he's) any other person, put it away and we hope this thing dies a slow death."

In the end, they came to the conclusion they shouldn't charge him.

"If we had barged in and he was engaged in a sex act and we had plainly saw it, then it would have been a different story."

So, rather than charge him, they filed it away under their anti-police enemies list.

Because of the delicacy of Harper's private life, I don't think the Layton story came from anyone close to him. I think it was Rob Ford's cop-hugging crew. Our drunk-driving, spouse-abusing mayor formally endorsed Harper last night, and I can see this story as his "gift" to the campaign. And probably about as welcome as Mussolini's breaking the news to Hitler that Italy had invaded Greece. Mein Fuhrer, our troops are on the march!

Jeff wrote:Layton's massage is the lead story this morning. Quite something.

Something else: an open secret among Canada's political-journo-satirical classes is that Harper's marriage is over all but in name, and his wife is living in relationship with a female Mountie. But that's unmentionable.

Given the board context atm, is it piggish if I should thank you for un-unmentioning this?

And probably about as welcome as Mussolini's breaking the news to Hitler that Italy had invaded Greece. Mein Fuhrer, our troops are on the march!

Also, we Greeks are grateful for such erudite historical references. Did you know that our resistance to Italy and Germany was definitely THE factor that made the difference in the European war's outcome? Along with our friends in that Pan-Slavian thing. That's what I grew up on, and don't let a bunch of stout Churchillians, ugly Americans or Great Soviet Patriots tell you otherwise.

.

Jeff wrote:
Something else: an open secret among Canada's political-journo-satirical classes is that Harper's marriage is over all but in name, and his wife is living in relationship with a female Mountie. But that's unmentionable. It touched the mainstream once, when Norman Spector blogged about it for the Globe and Mail. The Conservative paper promptly deleted it, saying it was a private matter. Spector preserves "Why Ms. Harper joined the PM’s Christmas interview" on his private site.

I hesitate mentioning it now myself. I believe even family values hypocrites are entitled to their private hells. But I do, now, just because I'm this fucking mad.

Wow, that shows how out of touch I am with things since I holstered the satiric nib those years ago.

THIS WOULD destroy his base if it got out...all those 905 ers like my sister and her neighbours: they keep saying how 'we have to keep a good Christian in power in Ottawa...one that has a real family like us".