|
Has anybody seen the new $20 bill? (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Superstar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Funny you mention the GST. That was one of Chretiens biggest lies. "I will eliminate da GST"
Sure he will.... Oh and it cost us 100s of thousands for a by-election so that Sheila Copps could save face on the matter too. Remember she promised to resign if the GST was not axed. Yeah right! Thanks for reminding us about the GST, another in a legacy of Liberal lies. |
Sheila Copps DID resign. And then the people re-elected her in the next by-election. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| The GST is better than the income tax. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by LoCa
:haha: i had no idea he'd said that lol |
um....well they were and they weren't. They were launched to retake the Holy Lands that in turn had been taken from Christians starting in the 7th Century. Don't kid yourselves...Islam spread by the sword just as much as Christianity...if not moreso.
Oh yeah...and the Moors (muslims) conquered and ruled Spain for nearly 7 centuries, only being pushed out in the late 15th Century. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
um....well they were and they weren't. They were launched to retake the Holy Lands that in turn had been taken from Christians starting in the 7th Century. Don't kid yourselves...Islam spread by the sword just as much as Christianity...if not moreso.
Oh yeah...and the Moors (muslims) conquered and ruled Spain for nearly 7 centuries, only being pushed out in the late 15th Century. |
Of course the Crusades went too far... ask any Greek about the saking of COnstantinople... but the bottom line is that Muslims tried to conquer Europe, and we formed a coalition of the willing in order to drive them out.
Thank God for Charles Martel!! |
|
|
| Superstar |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Who said I like Mulroney? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Senate-packing is as bad as court-packing (a la FDR). |
Fair enough. You never did say Conservatives were a better alternative.
| quote: |
That's laughable. Only a fool thinks the Senate is working. Quebec and the Atlantic provinces have way more power than they should. Remeber the "mexican" Senator - lived in Mexico 11 months out of 12, yet was a Canadian senator. Then the Reform Party hired that mariachi band to bring attention to him... HAHAHH brilliant! |
Honestly, I don't really like the structure of the Senate. I would rather they get rid of it like in the provincial legislature. I don't think anyone actually likes the idea of an appointed Senate (except the government in power), but the point is, if they aren't doing anything harmful to the country (like blocking legislation that the House of Commons passes), then why is it such a big deal if they do stay the way they are now. They're really not causing trouble, and their practical powers are used for creating committees to deal with certain public issues, similar to the US Senate.
With respect to your comment about Senator Andy Thompson, mismanagement in one way or another will always be present in politics. One senator attending too few meetings isn't a valid reason to say we need to change the Senate's structure. I'm sure you have better, more valid points, and I'd like to hear them.
| quote: |
Are you high? The Supreme Court of Canada is an absolute joke! |
Why? Give me some examples.
| quote: |
Exactly. Yet today it is a Lieberal rubber-stamp. |
And it would be an NDP rubber-stamp, or Conservative rubber-stamp, or Bloc rubber-stamp if those parties were in power, regardless of which party had majority in the Senate.
edit: about the Supreme Court being "an absolute joke".... you must be out of touch with the majority of Canadians, because according to an IRPP survey in 2000, 76.6% of Canadians are satisfied with the Supreme Court, and 72.5% of Canadians believe the Supreme Court can usually be trusted to make decisions that are right for the country as a whole.
http://www.irpp.org/choices/archive/vol6no3.pdf |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | | Honestly, I don't really like the structure of the Senate. I would rather they get rid of it like in the provincial legislature. I don't think anyone actually likes the idea of an appointed Senate (except the government in power), but the point is, if they aren't doing anything harmful to the country (like blocking legislation that the House of Commons passes), then why is it such a big deal if they do stay the way they are now. They're really not causing trouble, and their practical powers are used for creating committees to deal with certain public issues, similar to the US Senate. |
We need a Triple E Senate - equal, elected, and effective. Effective: it shouldn't just be a rubber-stamp. Elected: to reduce the Dictatorship of the PM. Equal: so all provinces have an equal voice, as opposed to the House which is rep. by pop.
| quote: | | With respect to your comment about Senator Andy Thompson, mismanagement in one way or another will always be present in politics. One senator attending too few meetings isn't a valid reason to say we need to change the Senate's structure. I'm sure you have better, more valid points, and I'd like to hear them. |
We deserve better.
| quote: | | And it would be an NDP rubber-stamp, or Conservative rubber-stamp, or Block rubber-stamp if those parties were in power, regardless of which party had majority in the Senate. |
I'll respond to this later when I have more time, including cites to specific cases. The bottom line, though, is that judges are acting as legislators, as a political arm of government. That's very wrong. |
|
|
| Superstar |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
We need a Triple E Senate - equal, elected, and effective. Effective: it shouldn't just be a rubber-stamp. Elected: to reduce the Dictatorship of the PM. Equal: so all provinces have an equal voice, as opposed to the House which is rep. by pop. |
Way to quote Preston Manning.
Effective: if you make them elected, wouldn't that cause grid-lock in Parliament and make it less effective than it is now? Wouldn't getting rid of the Senate be the most effective solution?
Equal: it IS currently represented by a minimum number of senators from each province, based on the country's demographic at the time the Senate was created. You could only argue here that they need to update the requirements based on today's demographic, but other than that I don't see your point here.
Elected: This one I agree with. Either that, or just get rid of the whole thing.
You didn't answer my question. That's not a reason backed up with evidence.
| quote: | | I'll respond to this later when I have more time |
Looking forward to it. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Superstar
Sheila Copps DID resign. And then the people re-elected her in the next by-election. |
Yeah but if she really meant it she wouldnt have run again. Hamilton isnt too bright either. Must be the daily sulphur intake LOL |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Superstar
edit: about the Supreme Court being "an absolute joke".... you must be out of touch with the majority of Canadians, because according to an IRPP survey in 2000, 76.6% of Canadians are satisfied with the Supreme Court, and 72.5% of Canadians believe the Supreme Court can usually be trusted to make decisions that are right for the country as a whole.
|
And I'm willing to bet that 90% of Canadians don't even know what the Supreme court judges stand for. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
And I'm willing to bet that 90% of Canadians don't even know what the Supreme court judges stand for. |
or even their names |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
just the fact that it seemed okay for immigrants to retain their cultural and language norms then, without feeling the urgent need to learn the languages and respect of the existing culture already there
but i guess that's not okay anymore..
i hear ya man .. i can't stand double standards either
|
Although I don't subscribe to this ideal, I do understand where you're coming from and there's nothing wrong with the ideal. Where it goes wrong is the "black and white" fallacy which appears to tell us that EITHER we should respect the customs of another culture OR they should respect ours, but not both. And that's essentially what's happened, too. Canada's original immigration system was pretty discriminatory and forced the immigrants to assimilate; now the buzzword in our history textbooks is "integration" and the cultural "mosaic".
Integration is fine and dandy but it's not the opposite of assimilation - rather, it's roughly in the middle of assimilation and whatever you call our current system (the phrase "hurling thousands of paint cans randomly at a white wall hoping for it to come out like the Mona Lisa" comes to mind, whereas cultural integration would be better described as "using a brush to paint pretty colourful patterns on that white wall").
Analogies seem to be pretty good for explaining so I'm going to plug ahead with this one:
The old system was like taking each can one at a time, mixing it with a thousand gallons of white, and using it to put on a single new coat. The result: a drab, slightly off-white wall. Not much to look at, but effective in its own way. The new system, however, is a total eyesore (figuratively speaking of course). To paint pretty pictures you need a set of rules and guidelines, you need a process, you need a PLAN that decides what to do with all that paint. Otherwise you end up with total chaos.
The question is, what are we going to be able to do now that we already have a wall with thousands of uncoordinated paint splotches. This country is messed up bigtime, especially in cities like Toronto. I'll leave the rest to the reader's imagination but really, the problem (and the only 3 or 4 plausible solutions) shouldn't be too difficult to grasp. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
or even their names |
weren't they in today's paper ?
|
|
|
|
|
