well, today is erection day....

accurate, whoever gets elected as Prime Minister runs around with an erection fucking the country until voted out of office.

by dilipj Jan 23, 2006

Hey Jaqs

Hope u r not among the voters.
Still put it in different words dear.

by neil higgins Jan 23, 2006

you had a political leader called Richard Dicks.Wow,what an erection come-on that could be!!!
:)

here in town commonly called "Dick's on Dick's"
[ formally known as "Richard's on Richards" Street. ]

by m_a_r_k Jan 23, 2006

Peter Fuchs. I bet there are one or two people of German descent running around with that name.

John Thomas? I have heard of several people by that name. Apparently, their parents were unaware of the meaning. If my last name was Thomas, and I had a son, I definitely would not name him John.

calling a spade a spade is nothing to be ashamed of, in my opinion.

Personally, Ottawa presents a perfect arguement for ground level nuclear weapons testing in Canada...nuke it and get rid of the treasonous twits as well as the broken system.

by tink! Jan 23, 2006

I had no idea that Canadians were that unhappy with their elected officials. You're starting to sound like us down here in the U.S.!=-)

(P.S. I'm a registered voter, but I don't vote because I haven't seen any worth in it yet)

agitating elections canada to include a none of the above box on every ballot.

finally figured out why, when they get 60% or more ballots marked none of the above there isn't any excuse to not fix the system.

to make it worse, about 20 years ago they made it illegal to not register for an election..then they made it illegal to not vote if you are registered.
I've been harassing them ever since saying that until they put a none of the above box, there isn't a place that I can mark a ballot and be happy with my vote. so I refuse to actually vote.

..turn in a blank ballot out of protest. They do count the "no vote" ballots, and it is a sign that the voter was not interested in any of the candidates. There have been several ballots where for one or two of the offices, I did not make a choice on purpose out of protest, but I have not turned in a totally blank ballot.

they took blank ballots into concideration here.
They don't.

It is counted as a spoiled ballot and they ignore it completely.

The sad part in yesterdays election, the riding I live in, 50% of the people are registered to vote, and 50% of the registered voters turned out to vote.

if that is indicative of the national average, it means only 25% of the population voted.
That is a serious scream that something is wrong with the system. yet it will be ignored.

by jck Jan 23, 2006

you should run for office...

get in there and run em off...and force MS out of the Canadian government. :^O

I can't be bothered to learn how to lie.

I thought you'd have to be a regular practicioner of more than that!! :^O

I hear that you can get almost anything passed into law or regulation in Canada if you pad enough pockets.

Glad to see the Canadian government is following along with the American way of politics. :^O

Don't feel alone, jaqui. I could never be a politician either. I'd probably be killed off within the first term. I'd record every meeting I have with any other politician, lobbyist or constituent. And if someone tried to bribe me or "influence" me, it'd go right out to every news channel in the country.

I still say...put blue-collar people into office and countries would run better.

Conservative Minority Government.
required for majority 155 seats.
[pre]
Party Seats Percentage
CON 124 36.25%
LIB 103 30.22%
BQ 51 10.48%
NDP 29 17.49%
IND 1 .52%
OTH 0 5.05%
[/pre]

This is Actually a good thing, as no one party dominates the government, it means they have to pay attention to the other parties or we wind up with another election because they suffered a vote of no confidence.

You got Paul Martin and his Liberal nitwits out of office. Who will the NDP and the Parti Quebecois most likely side with when forming a coalition? Will the Conservatives be able to get them to side with them to form a coalition government? What will the NDP and Parti Quebecois exact as a price for being a ruling coalition member?

of such a sdmall difference in total seats in the minority government, if the conservatives try to push something through that isn't approved by both the Bloc and the NDP they will lose in the house, and that could [ if it's on one of the critical subjects, like finance / taxes ] mean an election. A failed bill on one of the critical subjects is a vote of no-confidence and forces an election.

It's the best thing about a minority government.

How truely humo(u)rous and quite a twist of fate!

After hearing all about how the newest state to be added to the US (Canada) is so upset with the evil consumerism and such, they turn around and politically align themselves to fall in step with us! :D

Liberalism running rampant seems to be falling in disfavor in more than the US and I am gladdened by the prospect. What a gleeful moment. Let me bask for a minute!...... Ok, minute is up.

While it is true, the Canadian version of a "Conservative" after currency conversions and all is actually what we in the US would call a "Moderate" or even a "liberal moderate", it is still a swing in the right direction.

Again, congrats for leaving the world of "feeling" you should do this or that, and entering the world of you "THINK" you should do this or that! :^O

Oh joy...

Oh rapture....

Oh Oz must be just beside himself over this...

Welcome to the land of the thinking.... :D

Liberal = Government for big business, screw the people
Conservative = Government for big business, screw the people
NDP = government for unions = government for big business, screw the people.

in the us, it's all government for those that bought the presidency, screw the people.

Top Ten Reasons that...

Big business gets the ear of the president in America:

GEORGE W. BUSH (R)
Top Contributors
Cycle: 2004

Morgan Stanley
$600,480

Merrill Lynch
$580,004

PricewaterhouseCoopers
$512,500

UBS Americas
$468,075

Goldman Sachs
$388,600

MBNA Corp
$356,350

Credit Suisse First Boston
$330,040

Lehman Brothers
$327,725

Citigroup Inc
$320,620

Bear Stearns
$309,150

JOHN KERRY (D)
Top Contributors
Cycle: 2004

University of California
$627,225

Harvard University
$360,059

Time Warner
$312,775

Goldman Sachs
$296,750

Citigroup Inc
$284,631

Microsoft Corp
$278,597

Skadden, Arps et al
$263,077

US Government
$227,976

UBS Americas
$213,200

JP Morgan Chase & Co
$205,565

government for those that bought the presidency = big business contributors buying votes = government for big business, screw the people

same smell...different flavour of $hit

with all that screwing of the people, I always DID think Canuks were over sexed! :O

Do you at least get a kiss first? ;\

(besides, you KNEW I wouldn't be able to resist that post!) ]:)

PQ = Government for Quebec, screw the rest of Canada?

to the limiting of what adults are exposed and how it limits what people think about in the long run. And, that which will expose you and all other Canadians eventually to inept consideration and unthorough government practice and policy.

Yes jaqui...welcome to more exposure of the world of limited, often inaccurate, conservative thought.

The thought police are arriving in Canada. Get ready for increased Mr. Rodgers re-runs on CBC. :^O

with it being a minority government the other parties combined can shut down anything they don't want to let through.

this actually works in our favour, we get all parties attitudes and priorities being adhered to in what actually passes, not just one.

the Conservatives do not have the seats to pass anything without having support from the rest of the parliament. They only have the highest number of seats in this election, not a clear majority.

They're growing...

They'll take over your TV...

They'll teach your kids their ways...

They'll show you the right path...

They'll... they'll...

OH HALLELUJAH!!!! :^O hahahahahaha

They're gonna line their pockets...just like the rest of em, man...

I wish the USA had a government like that...but, a lot of Americans are too paranoid of voting out of the 2 big parties...i.e.- they're too chicken$hit to be unpopular.

It is just that there are so many blind followers of BOTH parties that vote party no matter what.

The other problem is, some parties that would attract people from one of the big two are not big enough to win, and ONLY serve to weaken the closest of the big two.

After all, that is the ONLY reason Clinton won the first time around. Ross took enough of the votes away and was the spoiler, just like they were afraid Nader would do for Kerry when they took him to COURT to prevent him from even getting on the ballot in some states. How is THAT for freedom and "for the people"?

And before you start going off on the evil republicans, notice I said that yes, BOTH sides are rampant with this.

Third parties ONLY get ideas out, but have no chance of winning.

by dc guy Jan 24, 2006

When a third party starts to become big enough to be a potential threat to the two parties, they start to pay attention. (Why do we continue to talk about "two parties" when there is no longer any substantive difference between them?)

The Communist and Socialist parties never won a major election in the U.S. Nothing above city council or school board. But they won quite a few of those. If something wasn't done, they'd start to win seats in State Legislatures.

As a result, both Conferences of the Republocrat League ultimately integrated the ENTIRE 1929 Communist Party platform into their own. Government-controlled education, social security, it's all there. It was Eisenhower, a Republican, who established the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare!

The same thing is happening today. My party (Libertarian) has had many minor victories in local elections because of government insanity like the War on Drugs without a constitutional amendment and asset forfeiture without due process. The Greens are also making a good showing, last time I looked they had a majority on the city council of Arcata, the cultural hub of California's rural northwest.

It will be interesting to see whether the Republocrats will begin to rein in their too-big-for-their-britches excesses to appease the Libertarian streak in America, or stop turning Alaska into an oilfield to appease our Green conscience. Or will they wait until there are Libertarians and Greens in Congress?

because the major stigma attached to being a member of a "3rd party", and that it is that you are wasting a vote.

Therefore quite often, you become unpopular with a majority of your constituents when you tell them you're a member of the "Reform Party" or something similar...and then, you often get labelled and told you're wasting your vote, etc. And, people are harassingly coerced by members of both mainstream parties.

I've seen it done in both states I lived in, so it's not just localized.

It's an archaic thought-process that needs to be reformed and bred out of our society by educating our children that participation in the electoral process is never a waste.

And as a footnote, 3rd parties will one day win a major election. Probably not in my lifetime, but by the end of the century I'm sure.

But eventually, the USA will catch up with the other modern nations of the world and quit thinking in political "black and white" (not racial, but party ideology).

BTW...I'd like to announce my candidacy in 2008 for president of the United States.

I'll be running under the banner of the Continuous Party...and, I'll move the seat of presidential residence to Ireland so I can have fresh Guinness while making my decisions! :^O

that colleges are making contributions with state funds?

That colleges are taking a political agenda in the first place?

So much for a balanced, informed education, right?

How do you know those were state funds? The staff, administration, and faculty might have voted to back Kerry and raised their own monies.

Harvard is a private university, btw...so, there's 50% of your "colleges" theory gone down the tubes.

Ever think that it is a sign of non-confidence as well in the current president that the faculty of a university that he attended wasn't a backer of him but of his opponent?

You didn't see Yale backing Bush, did you?

You didn't see the NEA backing Bush either, even though Laura Bush has been a teacher.

I think that speaks volumes about what the academic establishment thinks of Bush...as well as the majority of Americans and people around the world.

You're in denial. And, slamming my factual quotes (even though I showed both sides this time) won't do you a bit of good. :^O

it speaks volumes that organizations that walk around with their hands out vote Democrat.

The less dependant you are for a handout, the less likely to vote democrat.

Note, private sector vs public sector.

Slamming? I didn't even question if the numbers were correct, did I?

I just observed you showed the "University of California" as the number one for funds. this is your idea of a private college? Bet you a nice shiny quarter that this came out of the college general fund, or was pushed into a side fund but still came from college funds.

It wouldn't be listed as the college if it was all private donations, now would it?

Sign of non-confidence? Show me the funding records for the last 6 presidential elections and show me where they went Republican half the time and you can have that. Until then you know that is an "intentional misrepresentation of the truth".

And it is killing you that I didn't disagree with your "factual quotes" at all, but you still tell me I did? Your a funny man. Funny as you seem to have forgotten your meds and you have that twitch going again! ;\

the more powerful a third party gets on a national level, the more they are just a spoiler for the other end of the poitical spectrum.

The end with the strongest third party will lose because they are splitting their votes.

So while they are good to get ideas on the table and to pull the big two back in line, they are more of a ruler to punish with than a actual threat to win themselves.

Just the way I see it.

ATTACK Nader in the '04 election?

They did everything they could to keep him from even getting ON the ballots (it worked in Michigan).

He can't win if the DEMONcrats won't even let him get on that ballot to run.

Oh, there were also complants from the DEMONcrats that Republicans were SUPPORTING Naders RIGHT to run for President.

Oh, the party of civil rights and freedom.... :O
[i]
(DEMONcrats! Now THAT is funny! :D)

If you ban lawyers from office, countries would run better. Also ban government workers, since they only will vote themselves raises. Only allow business people and blue collar workers, they are the backbone of society.

One problem in Alabama is that about 1/4 of the state legislature is teachers and other government workers, and they are always voting themselves raises, plus they "double dip", collecting their government salaries (even though they are not at work at the time, taking time off for the legislative sessions but do not have to take vacation days) and their legislative salaries at the same time when the state legislature is in session. The lawyers go along with them, so the raises get passed, and the governor has no real veto power, his veto can get overridden with a simple majority vote.

by jck Jan 26, 2006

to make an amendment to your proposal.

I'm a government worker...and I don't vote my pay raises.

I wish I did! :^O

Can ya re-word that to say...Congressional rats instead?? :^O

Also, omit "business people" and just leave it as "blue-collar workers".

I'd prefer that truck drivers, barbers and florists run this country. At least they all know what having to earn a living is about.

by montgomery gator Jan 26, 2006

Most business people started from the bottom and got their businesses going before they got wealthy. See Bill Gates as an example. Also, the business people are the ones that provide jobs for the blue collar workers.

not only no kiss, no lube!!!

why do you think we get so pissed at them? ]:)