Matt

I finally saw this movie, and I think it was awesome...

The Tragically Hip - "New Orleans Is Sinking"

Odds - "Tears and Laughter"

I stopped watching when some of the original comedians left...

It was a pretty funny movie actually, but it was not quite as hilarious as "Wedding Crashers".

Royal Canadian Air Farce was pretty funny back then.

Some of the old Alliance members were progressive conservative type people too. The Alliance was meant to be what the Conservative party became. And beyond that, the leader of a party doesn't neccessarily display the ideas of ever person in the party, it's simply the leaders platform the party runs on.

Actually it should be about the majority working together from the major parties since they represent the majority of voters. Also some of the Conservatives are somewhat moderate being that some of them were from the P.C. party and the P.C. party and the Liberals were very similar towards the end.

If the "Liberal budget" was not an N.D.P. budget then why did Jack Layton say it was the first N.D.P budget to be passed? Also the majority of Canadians voted for the Conservatives and Liberals so if anything it should be a joint budget by those two, not the Liberals and N.D.P. Back to the topic at hand, Circum, I mentioned earlier how there was a growing support for the Liberals and the N.D.P. in B.C. too. In the last election, the Liberals gained a few seats in B.C. and I believe the N.D.P. gained some more seats too.

If the N.D.P. budget is what the majority of Canadians wanted, why didn't they vote N.D.P. in the last election? The people voted for the Liberal solution but they didn't get that because a minority government is in place. So the majority got screwed over, why? Oh yeah so the Liberals could stop a non-confidence vote, what does that have to do with the budget? Nothing.

And then the minority would pass things that only the minority wants to see passed, that means the majority and Liberal voters do not get what they voted for.

It is an unstable system though, the idea that having conflicting views makes government better is bogus. Imagine if the Liberals had to work with the Conservatives on getting through some social issues, that could work out pretty poorly considering these two parties don't agree on many social issues. That is what happens in Israel. Hitler, got lots of power though before they were out of a fringe party because he would cause an election pretty much every year. People grew weary of this too, and slowly gave him more power, such as Hindenburg did.

So they have a new CD coming out on tuesday, but they were selling the new disc already at their gig last night. So it's actually a pretty good sounding CD, I guess depending on if you like the first single "I Love Not Loving You" though.

At one point they were a fringe party too, which is when I was reffering too.

I like the one that goes "You can go from being a Liberal to a conservative in 20 years without changing a single belief" better. You make it sound as if it's bad having SOME sort of voice in collective affairs. I say run with what you got and demand more at the same time. Adapting an "all or nothing" sort of platform seems overly naive and optimistic to me. The Democrats aren't really Liberals though, they are right, the Republicans just go farther right than the Democrats.

It's not an honest mistake, most prop-rep systems do not work or they work poorly. The extreme parties tend to control the system, which is wrong. The parties with most of the support have to give in on things they do not want to, simply to have enough support inside the government to continue to govern. Take Germany (pre-World War Two), if the Nazis did not get their way they'd walk forcing yet another election. They got just enough support that Hindenburg needed Hitler's support to govern. Something seems wrong with that picture. Israel (modern day) tends to take hard-line stances because it is rare, if ever, someone has a majority so the extreme parties have control. The main parties need their support to stay the government. There is something wrong with that, and obvisouly people are not getting what they voted for, the minority of voters are getting what they voted for though. The majority gets screwed over though.

Let me guess you are a political sciences student and think you know it all because you are a political sciences student. These governments do not last long and I did not pull that out of my behind. Also people are willing to vote for the N.D.P. now because it does not matter actually. After twelve years of the Liberals dominating politics federally means some people feel they will win the election resulting people in voting for other parties to help them out. If an election was seriously on the line, many people would more than likely vote for the Liberals as opposed to the N.D.P. because they risk having the Conservatives winning over a divided left.

Please, the Liberals have stong numbers in many other provinces than just those ones because they are the only middle party. People only go to the extreme sides (far-right (Conservatives)/far-left (N.D.P.) when there is a crisis in the country, if people are satisfied they tend to vote for the middle. Also Proportional Representation would not work finacially. These governments get disolved within a year so because people cannot agree that well ever really. So what happens is people get to vote again, and that results in more elections. Elections are costly, and I would rather see that money going to help people and have an election about every four or five years as opposed to every year.

You can name call me all you want, but that does not make you right. If proportional representation came in, all it would mean is that all those people who do not vote Liberal or Conservative would vote for those two because of the simple matter it would be more important too. It would not equal things either because the reason Ontario and Quebec have such a majority is because they have such a large number of people living there. Also people currently will not vote Liberal because after twelve or so years, it seems likely the Liberals will be re-elected, so many people have the feeling it is time for a change too. So people would be willing to "throw away their votes" to other parties simply because it will seem meaningless. But many people would be more un-willing to send their votes to the far-right (Conseratives) or the far-left (N.D.P.) if prop rep happened. Generally, unless there is a major crisis people tend to vote for the middle.

"Move On" - The Waking Eyes

The Trews - "I Can't Say"

The Waking Eyes - Move On

Proportional Representation doesn't work. Quite frankly it won't un-balance politics in those country, both Quebec, and Ontario have large populations, so it's not unlikely the Liberals can continue to take plenty of seats from there. Also the Liberals had only like five seats in B.C. in 2000 and 8 after the 2004 election. And the Liberals are gaining in support in B.C. The main factor is B.C.ers are starting to feel alienated by the Conservatives, the main reason is they feel Stephen Harper is spending too much time in Quebec and not enough in B.C. This is leaving votes being picked up by the N.D.P. and the Liberals. The N.D.P. is not really more credible with many voters, some people feel his business policies would be terrible for Canada. The concern for that would be be that then there would be less money for his social programs. What Jack Layton managed to capture some more of the youth vote, which is typical for the N.D.P. really.

I voted for the Liberals in the poll...

The Trews - Ana & Mia