Matt

I don't know if anyone else has been watching it, but I've really been enjoying the show. Kelsey Grammar has a fairly small part in the show, but I think it's pretty good none the less.

Click here to view the trailer.

I don't think I've seen that website updated in a long time...

I said I'm not aiming to see over night bills. I said I don't want extremely long waits though either.

I never said that it is neutral commentary, but it is, in my opinion, pretty accurate.

I like the new song, and I am hoping the new album is as good as the song.

"Little Songs" was okay, but I prefer to hear new "Moist" truthfully.

I enjoyed it but I have not seen "Get Shorty".

Actually, it's infinitely more democratic to be able to say "well, given that there are multiple seats up for grabs, if my first choice candidate either already has more than enough votes or has no chance of winning, I'd like my vote to count for my second choice to help him beat out someone else who I don't like it all" than to just say "well, I'll just vote for who I want," or, more likely, "I'll vote for who's ost likely to defeat the person I hate the most." A voter's opinion is more complex than a simple one-candidate vote can take into account. Voters have preferences. Yeah, okay, if someone gets really unpopular they might have to step down. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of Canadians usually end up with a government that they don't want, and that majority governments are inherently less accountable than minorities. STV is a flawed system, far more than our system of goverence. It slows down the government which infinitely means it takes more time to pass anything. That is not acceptable, the government also has a duty to pass bills in a timely matter. Because our government takes three votes before it passes any bills, it means that overnight bills really cannot be passed what so ever either. Our system runs at the right pace.

So they are going to be helping the universitys to lose money again. That is what happens when tuition does not go up at the rate of inflation, the schools lose money. Now that everyone is caught up, it is time to cap the tuition fees at the rate of inflation. They did such a great job doing that the last time around, oh wait no they did not. They had a couple fudge it budgets even. But I think the comparison on finacial management by both parties on www.bcliberals.com states my point best. To some money may mean nothing, but without a good budget and a strong economy, there is not enough money for social programs. The money we do spend over the amount we actually have leaves less money for the future. If we really want social programs we need to have money for them now so we are not spending what we do not have. We can generate more dollars for them by bringing in more jobs which we would get to tax both the business and the person now taking home a cheque (taxes that would be made anyways). By creating jobs, you are allowing people to not live off of the government as much also. By bringing in many new jobs, if business is exceptionally good to a company then they might consider bringing offices here which provides jobs for our trained mangerial people. There are many benefits to developing a strong economy.

I was refferring to the federal N.D.P. But, the provincial N.D.P. spent money on programs that did not work, they were not fiscally conservative in the least.

What are you on? First of all, even the idea that people can throw the government out if they don't do well is flawed. Without pro-rep, parties can easily form the government with less than half the votes. A majority of Canadians voted against the Liberals in the past four elections, and they won each time. Only in the most recent election was their power diminished slightly. The mixed-member-proportional system that Germany uses is the system I'd like to see. I'm familiar with the justifications, and I don't think they hold up. A majority government means that one party (and, in Canada especially, usually one man) has near absolute power for the next five years. In a minority situation, they can only pass legislation that is supported by parties elected by a majority of the population. Ergo, more democratic. Minority situations are inherently fairer and more democratic than majorities, and most countries manage just fine with them. Proportional representation systems (pure PR, MMP, STV) are much more common than single-member-plurality systems. Come back when you've read, um, anything about how proportional representation works. Why don't we have STV? I would like to see my second choice become elected. That's not democracy actually, that's the exact opposite. Paul Martin cannot do whatever he wants, he does not have total control. His MLAs have to be satisfied with how he is running the country because they want to be re-elected. Paul Martin cannot do whatever he wants because people might not support it. Maybe everyone's forgot about Brian Mulrooney. The people did not like what he was doing so he ended up having to step down.

That's actually what a debate is though. This just confirms to me that as long as people agree with everything Matthew Good says then he will not flip out.

Big Sugar - "Diggin' A Hole"

Money has to be kept into the buisness at equal or greater value to maintain or increase the value of it. It's not that rare for him to increase the price...

But the rich man will put the money into the cost of the goods and services in his buisness because he wants to keep up his former amount of income.

The government operates on opinion polls generally. People do not have short memories to the point where they forget. If something is done they disagree with enough they will remember the next election. The majority party does walk a tight rope trying to please everybody as is. But more controversial things have a chance to pass. It's already a democratic system we support because the majority still decides what happens because a majority is needed to elect any given party. Germany has a mix system now as they've changed things just enough to stop future fascist movements. The N.D.P., the Bloc, the Conservatives already have a voice. It's their job to convince us they deserve to have a majority. That's why the leader speaks out for the party. Plus there's room for debate in the house of commons, so they have a voice that way as well.

The N.D.P. would never likely fulfill their promises due to the fact that economically they could not work. Taxing the rich means that those taxes will get passed down to the people purchasing the goods and services. This could have a negative effect, such as a depression. If wage increases do not keep up with price increases people have less money to buy the goods, meaning layoffs happen, and as less and less money is available, more and more layoffs are made. The N.D.P. would also send us into more debt.

It does not work though because the minority parties can try to take the majority parties hostage, and they can try to push through their agenda. Much like Jack Layton tried after the last election. Layton even asked Paul Martin for a cabinet position, which Martin refused because this is not a coalition government right now. Having proportional representation would only better suit extremem parties such as the N.D.P. Not because it is a "better system of government", but because it destables the government. This allows extremists to take over. But, take a look at Germany from post World War I to 1934, nothing ever was accomplished, they had elections practically every year as the years became closer to 1934. People turned to the extremes in hopes of accomplishing anything. This would only help the N.D.P., as everything fell apart they would be looked to, to solve the problem. The Conservatives, and the Bloc would also benefit as everything fell apart though because they are more extreme parties, but people who vote for them already, for the most part, feel they are not having a fair deal. The Conservatives also have some people vote for them because some people still think that they are the Progressive Conservatives like in the old days. The proposal of proportional representation though is not about better government, it is about trying to take more power, unfairly. We have a system that works, and the majority can pass through which ever bills they like during their term, but if the people disagree with those bills, they will vote against them the next time anyways.

But Australia uses a mix system, are you disagreeing with the CBC now? A respected news source? They reported this not to long ago that only the sentate is elected by proportional representation. However, once 18 everyone must vote in Australia, so people might not be complaining because of the forced vote people might have less interest in politics. The House of Commons there is still elected through our system though. And Proportional Government doesn't work on any controversial issues is my point, it does not, unless everyone is in agreement. Look at Israel, thanks to coalitions, they take some pretty hard stances, when the majority does not quite agree with that. That is great for the minority, but what about the rest of the country? Well they are out of luck.

That's why Germany had nothing get done under minority/proportional government, and that's why Germany has actually switched to a mix between our system of proportional government. In all the examples people give, they are all mixed systems. Proportional government in a true form has never worked. Austrailia does not even have a proportional house, that's elected the same way ours is. What they have is a proportionally elected senate. The current proposal by the N.D.P. is nothing more than trying to grab more votes and power and not actually about what is good people. Personally I do not support proportional government period, but let's be honest all the other examples people use are not true examples in the sense that it is being proposed to Canada right now. We should stick with our system though because it works, it's a democratic system that actually works. Everything Paul Martin has been doing is actually akin to what Jean Chretien started before he was on his way out as well.

Proportional government doesn't work either, in fact, our system works the best because it allows democracy to happen. But, proportional government would slow it down because nothing would ever get done.

"Matthew Good Band"

That's why "Sum 41"'s last album was a "Metallica"ish album, and the one before it was an 80s metal album.

you think sum 41 is a good rock band? They are a good band, all their albums are pretty different from each other even.