What American's Ought to Know About Canada, But Don't

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Nobody forced anybody to join the Liberals or to vote for them. The candidacy process is striaghtforward. Spending limits give indpendents with proper motivation the ability to advertise on the same level as their competition. Voting for a national party with a centralised nomination process is a choice that Canadians make. The leader is given exactly as much power as his caucus gives him. This caucus is selected by Canadians. Period.

Except when the leader refuses to sign nomination papers because someone got 'uppity', then the caucus is decided by the PMO, not by Canadians.

And you like this system?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


You think that banishing Parrish and making sure she will lose the next election, no matter what else happens, is good for free speech?

What a curious definition of freedom you have.

Did Martin pop a cap in every one of the people in her district who might vote for her? Did he put his caucus on the rack to make sure they would continue to support him after he fired her? If not then the fact that Martin has the power to fire Parrish is a direct result of the choice of every Canadian who belongs to the Liberals or voted for them. Who am I to tell people that they can't make a club where it's my way or the highway? Who am I to tell Canadians that they can't vote for that club?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Nobody forced anybody to join the Liberals or to vote for them. The candidacy process is striaghtforward. Spending limits give indpendents with proper motivation the ability to advertise on the same level as their competition. Voting for a national party with a centralised nomination process is a choice that Canadians make. The leader is given exactly as much power as his caucus gives him. This caucus is selected by Canadians. Period.

Nobody forced anyone to be a police officer. So they should not ***** when we override their collective bargaining rights for the good of the community and tell them that they will be happy with the pork chop we are throwing them and they have no choice if they dont.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Except when the leader refuses to sign nomination papers because someone got 'uppity', then the caucus is decided by the PMO, not by Canadians.

Canadians voted for candidates from a party where this possibility exists. Like I said: I don't favour legislating what politics people are allowed to play. I'm never going to vote for a Liberal patsy but why should I tell somebody else that they're not allowed to?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Nobody forced anyone to be a police officer. So they should not ***** when we override their collective bargaining rights for the good of the community and tell them that they will be happy with the pork chop we are throwing them and they have no choice if they dont.

And you continue to ignore the fact that one is a question of economics and one is a question of politics, free speech and free association.

[KrazyHorse]

I am in favour of legislating the one. Not the other.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Did Martin pop a cap in every one of the people in her district who might vote for her? Did he put his caucus on the rack to make sure they would continue to support him after he fired her? If not then the fact that Martin has the power to fire Parrish is a direct result of the choice of every Canadian who belongs to the Liberals or voted for them. Who am I to tell people that they can't make a club where it's my way or the highway? Who am I to tell Canadians that they can't vote for that club?

No, he is going to withhold his signature from nomination papers. Meaning someone else will get the Liberal nod. Meaning someone else will have the benefit of the Liberal machine in that riding, and the benefit of the word 'Liberal' next to the name on the ballot.

I'd sort of be surprised if Parrish won again, but not much. She might be in the right place at the right time. She might be successful in telling the PM to **** off. Unfortunately, not many others are so successful.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't know if you'd noticed but we all have one vote.

We don't all have a million dollars. Therein lies the difference...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


No, he is going to withhold his signature from nomination papers. Meaning someone else will get the Liberal nod. Meaning someone else will have the benefit of the Liberal machine in that riding, and the benefit of the word 'Liberal' next to the name on the ballot.

I'd sort of be surprised if Parrish won again, but not much. She might be in the right place at the right time. She might be successful in telling the PM to **** off. Unfortunately, not many others are so successful.

And I agree with you. I don't vote for rubber stamps. Neither should anybody else. But I don't want to tell people that they can't.

[Jon Miller]

Hmm

I understand that she shouldn't get the party support, if the party doesn't like her.

But she still should be able to put Liberal down by her name.

Jon Miller

[KrazyHorse]

Why? She isn't a member of the club. They threw her out of the clubhouse. I can't say that I'm a Nobel Laureate or a full professor at Harvard...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


And you continue to ignore the fact that one is a question of economics and one is a question of politics, free speech and free association.

Actually, it's a question of how we govern ourselves.

In other words, it's a very fundamental question, and it goes way beyond economics of individual freedoms. It goes to whether this nation will remain viable or not.

IOW, it's pretty important.

[Jon Miller]

You can say it. It is up to others whether they beleive you or not.

Jon Miller

[KrazyHorse]

BTW, for the Americans here Parrish is the one who called Americans idiots and Bush a moron. So NYE is defending her right to remain a member of the government and I'm not.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Actually, it's a question of how we govern ourselves.

In other words, it's a very fundamental question, and it goes way beyond economics of individual freedoms. It goes to whether this nation will remain viable or not.

IOW, it's pretty important.

It's important, sure. But individual freedoms are inviolable except in extreme situations.