Good evening ladies and gentlemen, welcome to SDA Late Nite Radio. Tonight, for your delectation and pursuant to our Friday night old-time radio crime-detective show, here are Mildred Natwick, as Mary Curtiss, and the famous Ken Lynch, as Joe “Tasty” Martin, performing the Female of the Species episode (1939, 27:00, 7.1 MB, MP3) of Crime Does not Pay, an anthology radio crime drama series (1935 to 1952) based on Metro Goldwin Mayer’s short film series, which included roles by Bela Lugosi, Everett Sloane, Ed Begley, John Loder, and Lionel Stander.
Your Reader Tips are, as always, welcome in the comments.
More insight from barbarians.
Saudi scholar warns alcohol in bio fuel is a sin
A prominent Saudi scholar warned youths studying abroad of using ethanol or other fuel that contains alcohol in their cars since they could be committing a sin, local press reported Thursday. More at:
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/02/19/66803.html
Give the pseudo commie a break. It would be a wet dream come true to have the jack and gilless show running the country.
Jack and gilles went up the hill to form a coalition
Steve prorogued, they all went home, and the moonbats keep on bitching
no, ulianov, try again.
We don’t vote for an MP. We vote for an MP within a political party. I repeat: within a political party. I repeat: within a political party. Got that?
I’ll bet you thought that MPs didn’t belong to a political party! Heh – your ‘we are all alike’ and ‘we are all communists’ ideology doesn’t exist here. Or anywhere for that matter.
The political party with the most MPs gets to form the government. I repeat: the political party with the most elected MPs gets to form the government.
That’s what we vote for. A political party. I repeat; the political party with the most MPs gets to form the government.
And that means that when these MPs go to Parliament they can’t forget that they were voted in, within a political party, and abandon this framework. So, they can’t say – oh forget the electors, forget what they voted for..let’s us MPs decide who should be the government. To heck with the people.
That’s unethical. That’s immoral. And not one Canadian voted for their MP to ‘do what he wanted’. They voted for their MP within a particular political party. Do you need this repeated?
You sure are slow to understand our political system.
You’ve tried to tell me that coalitions are quite OK here. But they aren’t; because we don’t use them.
You’ve ignored the parliamentary rules that accept that the winning party…and that means the party with the most MPs – gets to form the government.
You’ve ignored that our normative rules don’t permit the losing parties to, without the electoral OK of the people, decide entirely on their own, to call themselves the government.
You’ve ignored that for any MP – any MP – to decide in advance of reading a Motion – how they will vote, is unethical. Yet, the Bloc said that they would vote in favour of the coalition’s budgets and any confidence motions..for 18 months. Without any knowledge whatsoever of what was in those motions. We taxpayers don’t pay MPs to make backroom deals like this. Do you know what a backroom deal is? Maybe in your world that’s OK. But not in a democracy.
Oh, and we don’t agree with paying the Bloc 1 billion in return for their vote. We consider this corruption. Maybe in your world that’s OK.
So, I know that in your marxist world, the people have no power. Only the elites have power. But we live in a democracy – and we, the electorate, we reject any and all groupies of MPs who decide, on their own, denying our vote..to take governmental power..and who refuse to go to the electorate …well, we don’t approve. I know in your marxist totalitarian world, that’s OK. But not in a democracy.
Ulianov:
The coalition is as dead as Lenin, Stalin and their apparatchiks.
This was a Hail Mary coalition hoping and praying that the Canadian sheeple wouldn’t notice that they were being given a short walk on the plank.
Of course the dummies forgot that atheists don’t get their prayers answered.
Why you keep bringing up the blessed coalition when it has been firmly rejected by many Canadians including the current Liberal leader as fundamentally unworkable.
Nobody in his right mind is going to accept a party with 77 seats usurping the role of a party with 143 seats in the HoC.
Better go round up some more people with torches and pitchforks because the Cdn people have rejected that option. Immediate polls for the Conservative party in the aftermath of Dionky’s escapade showed support levels in the 46-48% region.
And I’ll keep my musket handy for any of you other knotheaded pseudo revolutionaries.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von
Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Hey uli, we are now coming up to March and the federal Budget is still not passed.
Would you like to splain to us how your hero Jack Video Prof could have produced a Budget and gotten federal money out the door to help Canadians quicker than what is going on right now?
In fact truculent Jack Video has declared that he will vote against the Budget no matter what it in it.
You see uli, if Selfish Jack with his menage a trois, had managed to pull off his coup d’etat back in Dec, I figure he would just now be finding and moving into his new office.
And his Budget would still be about 6 months away.
Jack was a bare faced liar about his motive of ‘getting help to Canadians right now’ for bringing down the Harper govt.
“…and don’t think that it won’t happen here.”
You think the Red Terror is coming here, comrade?
Alert the authorities and round up the traitors …
“When you walk in the door, all you see are pictures of Stephen Harper,” said Ms. May” This is VERY old news. It originally came up more than a year ago. And the explanation is that it is customary to have Party Prime Minister’s pictures at the entrance to the caucus room. You will not that S. Harper is the FIRST Prime Minister for this Party. So, what’s the beef?
no, ulianov – the way to debate is to provide facts. Not just your opinions ungrounded by facts.
Again, we do not vote for an apolitical MP. We vote for an MP aligned with a particular political party. There are very few ‘independents’ in this country. And they don’t get to form the government. The factual reason I can assert that we don’t vote for an MP but for a political party is because the political party with the most MPs gets to form the government. FACT. The political party with the second most MPs gets to form the Opposition. FACT.
Ulianov. Facts are important. Base your conclusions on facts not just your own feelings.
To assert that something is ‘nonsense’ without being specific, and focusing on facts – is juvenile. Facts are important, ulianov.
Ever heard of the Parliament of Canada Act? It outlines a few rules, including such interesting facts as fiscal remuneration based on our two political party system, i.e., the government and the Opposition. Oh, and it refers to ‘parties’, i.e., political parties and their membership and how many MP members they have to have in their political PARTY in order to be paid a certain amount. (Twelve or more is the term used. That’s 12 MPs who are ‘members’ of that political party).
So, ulianov. Try again. This time, refer to facts. Not just your personal opinions.
ulianov – Read the parliamentary rules. Read the electoral act. Just try it.
You’ll find that our parliamentary system operates, not via the agendas of individual MPs, but via the agendas of political parties. That’s what the Parliamentary Rules refer to – political parties. That’s how the government is set up – by political parties. The party with the most seats wins the right to govern; the party with the second most seats is the Opposition. It’s the law.
Who said that coalitions are illegal? They are neither legal nor illegal and are totally irrelevant in Canada because we don’t operate our system that way. We operate via Winning Political Party and Second Party-Opposition.
Because something isn’t illegal doesn’t mean that it is acceptable within our Parliamentary Rules. And, not only was the proposed coalition unacceptable, but it was immoral and unethical. We’ve been through this before. I know that you, as a marxist, don’t care about the rights of the people. But Canada is a democracy, which means that the people’s will is supreme. That will is expressed in elections. No Canadian voted for a coalition government (and one made up of three losing parties!).
No Canadian, well..except for the three ‘leaders’..had even heard about such an idea before Harper smoked them out of the cave.
No, ulianov, you haven’t provided any facts to support your view that our electoral system ignores political parties. (Again, read the Parliamentary Act).
And you haven’t provided any facts to justify any support for ‘the coalition’. Nor have you provided any ethical values in its support.
So, the fact that YOU, our resident marxist, support something that violates our Parliamentary normative standards (losers become the govt); that violates democracy (governance without an election and against the will of the people); that violates the ethical requirement of MPs to READ Motions before they vote (Bloc’s written committment to support budgets)…well..this says a lot about you and your contempt for democracy and freedom, doesn’t it?
Cheers…oh..and try to read up on our parliamentary system.
I didn’t know I had to learn “Canadian”
http://failblog.org/2009/03/01/language-fail-3/
Coalitions are ‘perfectly acceptable’ to whom? Not to Canadians. I wonder if you are aware of the enormous rejection of such an idea when the Three Stooges, if I may use their name, suggested such an option.
Again, their legality has nothing to do with their acceptability. There is nothing in our constitution about such issues; that doesn’t make them legal or illegal. However, there ARE Parliamentary Rules – and these do not refer to coalitions but to the governing party and the opposition party. Try reading these rules; you might learn something.
Then, there are normative procedures- and don’t ignore them. The norm in Canada is for the winning party – that’s a political party, not a hodge podge of unaffiliated MPs – to form the government. There is no normative procedure for a coalition. Nor is there any normative procedure for a refusal to call an election if the government falls – and instead, to have the losing parties form a coalition.
By the way, ulianov/lberia – you haven’t said a word about the ethics of the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition of refusing to go to the electorate and finding out if the electorate actually want such a coalition. Why don’t you comment? Hmmm?
And you haven’t said a word about the ethics of having the Bloc, a political party (not a group of unaffiliated MPs) holding the power of this coalition. A party out of the electoral reach of over 80% of Canadians. Why don’t you comment?
Oh – and the ethics of this same Bloc signing a document that they will support all future confidence motions for 18 months. Despite not having read them. Do you think such behaviour is ethical? Do you think it violates their duty as MPs? Hmm?
What about bribing the Bloc with promises of over 1 billion in special deals to Quebec? OK?
What about promises of cabinet positions to members of a party that would never, on their own, be voted in as a government by the people. You OK with that?
Oh – and your falling back on your statements that “well, if a coalition isn’t illegal; that is, if it isn’t in the criminal code or the civil code..then, even though it may be unethical and profoundly undemocratic and a rejection of the electoral rights of the people, and a violation of the Parliamentary Rules and a violation of MPs’ duty as MPs and even though the coalition uses taxpayer money as bribes..ah..well, that’s just fine with me, ulianov/lberia. I’m a marxist and I reject the rights of the people”.
That’s you, ulianov, isn’t it? Heh.