Advice of the Day (Forum)
Books (Forum)
Druidic Ramblings (Forum)
Dumb Ideas (Forum)
H-Town (Forum)
Links (Forum)
Movies (Forum)
Music (Forum)
Opinions (Forum)
Photo Albums (Forum)
Prose/Poetry (Forum)
Questions (Forum)
Video Games (Forum)
Member Login



Register Here


Forum posts for Advice of the Day for January 16, 2005

Posted by mike on Jan 16, 2006
A - Paul Martin
B - Stephen Harper
C - Jack Layton

What do I win?

Also, here are some words I think the others would have said:

Jim Harris (Green Party): Something to the effect of "the issue has already been decided".
Which it has been... barring the use of the notwithstanding clause, an integral part of the Canadian political system.

Gilles Duceppe (Bloc Québécois): "... the Nation of Quebec... distinct society."

Pinch hitter for the pinch hitter!
Posted by Katie on Jan 16, 2006
Thanks Mike....I knew I was missing some but didn't have the time at work to look the extra ones up!

You win.....
Posted by Katie on Jan 16, 2006
more thanks for reading the whole advice!

And a slow clap.

Posted by kristian on Jan 16, 2006
I just found the best website. Seriously.

Then click on Election Candidates, enter your postal code, and viola! It will show all the candidates, pictures (check for shifty-ness) and where they stand on various issues. If you don't understand the issue, click "what's this?" and it gives an in-depth explanation.

I am thoroughly impressed. This lets us all make informed decisions during the election.

Posted by mike on Jan 16, 2006
I just made up what I wrote. I heard that the Greens supports gay marriage and belive the issue has already been decided. The Bloc manages to work the Nation of Quebec and distinct society into everything they seem to say, but apparently they support whatever the people of Quebec want on the same sex issue. Seems pretty convenient... seperate from Canada and we'll give you whatever you want.

The part about notwithstanding was me. Who the hell just blurts out that they will take away the use of the notwithstanding clause? SURPRISE! I will remove parliaments ability to overrule the courts in favour of what people want. Courts are forced to work by the letter of the law... when it gets outdated we don't want to be stuck. Can you imagine if we still had to work with rules set out by peoples beliefs in 1910 or something?

Posted by cosmicfish on Jan 16, 2006
that shoptoit site is great.

Posted by phduffy on Jan 16, 2006
Great AOD and discussion today.

The notwithstanding clause exhists specifically to take away the rights on minorities (in any sense). It's not to overule the courts, parliament can always write new laws. The notwithstanding clause just exhists because the provinces were all bitchy about the constitution, so they added a clause in which the constitution can overide thing.

And remember, there was no not withstanding clause until 1982, and we certainly don't live with the same rules as in 1910.