Originally Posted by britb

I'm not even in this debate and now I'm a little annoyed.

Buddy, Conservative Party of Canada =/= Bible thumping ignorant racists

The hell kind of Conservative you been talking too? Bill O'Reilly?

I don't want to offend anyone, but Harper put a Minister of Science who refused to say whether or not he believed in evolution. Furthermore Harper cut spending for scientific research.

Originally Posted by Icecream

I don't want to offend anyone, but Harper put a Minister of Science who refused to say whether or not he believed in evolution. Furthermore Harper cut spending for scientific research.

I'm on your side but with all due respect the following link:

http://xkcd.com/285/

With respect to shitharperdid.com, I think it's an interesting way of conveying information about Harper's policies, but the post on his religious affiliations misleading. His membership in a particular group does not mean he follows their tenets completely. There are always nuanced differences in the beliefs of people in a particular group. If one could show that he held anti-homosexual beliefs, that would be more relevant.

It just hit me... That argument about "I'm from Europe, in fact one of the poorest countries in Europe. You know nothing about the EU... You have to have lived there in order to know it. You were just a tourist."... Total nonsense: The EU's poorest full-member (almost full anyways) is likely between Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Poland. Further east, countries are not part of the EU. She also said she had never had the opportunity to travel outside of that country, implying she's never actually lived in a member-state of the European Union. So all that rambling about "I know more about the EU than most, and no traveler could possibly know the EU like I do" was ... Well... A symptom of that dreaded disease again.

Originally Posted by thedog123123

I'm on your side but with all due respect the following link:

http://xkcd.com/285/

Its common knowledge, imo

Originally Posted by Icecream

I don't want to offend anyone, but Harper put a Minister of Science who refused to say whether or not he believed in evolution. Furthermore Harper cut spending for scientific research.

So what, refusing to clarify a position on a theory = does not believe theory? What, he has to believe in theories x, y and z to be competent minister? Are you gonna fire him if says electrons are strings and not particles?A scientific minister, by virtue of being tied to science, should doubt and look at things objectively, even including well-accepted theories (and we haven't established, credibility, if he doubts evolution at all). Maybe he didn't, know you, want to offend people with a piece of information that has no bearing on how he does his job. You know, the type of things people in politics do.

Spending to scientific research, well, recession and all. Sci research is expensive, and takes years to get anywhere with. I'd rather it be cut than, say, OSAP, to use everyone's new favourite subject.

Cam we stop lazily dehumanizing parties A, B and C?

Originally Posted by AlienSummer

The idea that nothing can get done in a minority government is untrue and not based on historical evidence. Things can get done in a minority government if all parties are willing to cooperate, which is most helpful when the governing party is interested in actually listening to their opposition instead of continuously ignoring what they have to say.

Things that have done through a minority government:
Implementation of old age pension (King)
Universal Health Care (Pearson)
Loans for university students (Pearson)
Canada Assistance Plan (Pearson)
Canada Pension Plan (Pearson)
Old age pensions indexed to the cost of living (Trudeau)

Unless something like Universal Health Care and the Canada Pension Plan aren't considered "REAL stuff," then "REAL stuff" can be done with a minority government.

Sorry, I wrote that pretty late so my judgment was clouded obviously. What I meant was that it is much easier for an opposition to come together to vote down existing bills. Look at all of your proofs, they are all from Liberal Prime Ministers. My original point being that there are many more Left-Based parties, this makes sense. Notice that none of the major points have been done by Conservative leaders. Basically, what I was trying to say was that REAL progress can only come in a majority if it is Conservative-led due to the left-bias and the easiness for the left to come together to form the official opposition. The only government that will work is a coalition that is centre-based with aspects from both the left and the right, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by mike_302

Good point. I'm not going to have an opinion and vote on a party because it'll likely just end up in a minority anyways. We wouldn't want our government to end up like Australia's, or England's, what with all that minority in their Parliament and all (not that we want to be England or Australia, but a minority government means our government might move at the same successful rate as theirs! yuck)

It's not so much having an opinion and voting that way. Obviously that's going to happen. It's more of the debate between these opinions. It's never going to be settled, so why even bother with people that are unwilling to shift their opinion, like members of this board clearly don't want to do. I'm not going to call on any one person specifically, but it's obvious that people are unwilling to listen to your comments and posts. That's why these debates and labels are ridiculous.

Originally Posted by J. Dorey

Sorry, I wrote that pretty late so my judgment was clouded obviously. What I meant was that it is much easier for an opposition to come together to vote down existing bills. Look at all of your proofs, they are all from Liberal Prime Ministers. My original point being that there are many more Left-Based parties, this makes sense. Notice that none of the major points have been done by Conservative leaders. Basically, what I was trying to say was that REAL progress can only come in a majority if it is Conservative-led due to the left-bias and the easiness for the left to come together to form the official opposition. The only government that will work is a coalition that is centre-based with aspects from both the left and the right, in my opinion.

While I agree with you that it's easier for the Liberal party to do anything with a minority government, I still think it would be possible for the Conservatives to do it if they had a better leader. Harper is far too divisive and bullheaded to listen to his opposition and try to cooperate with them. He also doesn't seem to realize that as long as he has a minority government, that means that the majority of Canadians voted for those left-of-centre parties.

In other words, he needs to face reality, and instead of trying to push through policies and budgets which he knows aren't representative of the majority of Canada's voting, and therefore goes against more than 51% of the opposition party members in Parliament, he should attempt to listen to what they're saying and apply some of that into his government. He can't run Parliament as if he has a majority when in fact he has a minority.

I was wondering when someone would notice that "largest minortiy =/ majority"! WHEWT!

Stole this from reddit, pretty cool info graphic.

Lol'd at the above post

Blame it all on Bloc Quebecois and Green Party. Seriously, one is about nationalism for a province and the other is about putting the environment first like we are some kind of environment supermen.

Canada doesn't just need voting reform, it needs a smarter population.