| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
 Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 1:03 am Post subject: |
 |
|
He's trying to defeat the budget because P. Martin tacked on an extra 4.6 billion to appease the NDP and get their votes. Then he went around on a spree to five provinces promising them extra funding as well. The dollar shot straight down after the news.
The 27th was the day they announced that they would be tacking on the extra 4.6 billion.
21 Apr 2005 0.81 US dollars (noon) 0.8070 (1.2391)
22 Apr 2005 (high) 0.81 US dollars (noon) 0.8102 (1.2342)
25 Apr 2005 0.81 US dollars (noon) 0.8081 (1.2375)
26 Apr 2005 0.80 US dollars (noon) 0.8023 (1.2464)
27 Apr 2005 0.80 US dollars (noon) 0.8022 (1.2466)
28 Apr 2005 0.80 US dollars (noon) 0.7995 (1.2508)
29 Apr 2005 0.80 US dollars (noon) 0.7956 (1.2569)
02 May 2005 0.80 US dollars (noon) 0.7965 (1.2555)
03 May 2005 0.80 US dollars (noon) 0.7970 (1.2547)
04 May 2005 0.80 US dollars (noon) 0.7996 (1.2506)
05 May 2005 0.80 US dollars (noon) 0.8033 (1.2449)
06 May 2005 0.80 US dollars (noon) 0.8044 (1.2432)
09 May 2005 0.81 US dollars (noon) 0.8079 (1.2378)
10 May 2005 0.81 US dollars (noon) 0.8083 (1.2372)
11 May 2005 0.80 US dollars (noon) 0.8016 (1.2475)
12 May 2005 0.80 US dollars (noon) 0.8004 (1.2494)
13 May 2005 0.79 US dollars (noon) 0.7921 (1.2624)
16 May 2005 (low) 0.79 US dollars (noon) 0.7872 (1.2704)
17 May 2005 0.79 US dollars (noon) 0.7896 (1.2665) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gwangjuboy wrote: |
| canuckistan wrote: |
The sex issue would NEVER be raised if you were talking about a man in the same situation. |
PC madness. If God wanted men and women to be the same he would have equipped them both with tackle. |
The Great Wall of Whiner wrote:
| Quote: |
Yes, bad choice of words. Sexual opportunist. Peter McKay is reported to be devastated to have the love of his life leave him for political ambition.
|
He's "reported to be devastated" but she's a "sexual opportunist".....see what I mean? Such puerile speculation about Stronach's private life is 100% sexist.
It's not about women "being the same" as men, it's about leaving the tired old schtick of women's sexualities out of discussions about their public lives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Didn't everybody talk about Trudeau's sex life back when he was a bachelor? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Lemon
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| He's trying to defeat the budget because P. Martin tacked on an extra 4.6 billion to appease the NDP and get their votes. Then he went around on a spree to five provinces promising them extra funding as well. |
Respectfully, you're misinformed.
I. As of a few hours ago, The Conservatives are no longer "trying to defeat the budget". They flipflopped again. The "NDP" money is not attached to the budget. In fact, it is a separate bill, to be voted on separately on Thursday right after the budget vote. The Conservatives continue to say they will vote against that bill, even though they will support the budget:
"It's our intention to support Bill C-43, the original budget," Harper said on Tuesday night. "We'll oppose Bill C-48, which was the deal with the NDP, which is complete irresponsible fiscal policy." - CBC
II. The Conservative leader has assured anyone who has asked that if he's elected he'll give all those provinces the money (including the Newfoundlanders and Nova Scotians in the oil deal) that the Liberals have been promising.
| GWOW wrote: |
| Didn't everybody talk about Trudeau's sex life back when he was a bachelor? |
Could be worse. No one discusses Stephen Harper's bedroom life, except the pundit who uncharitably suggested Harper "combs his hair before he goes to bed every night". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, now I'm informed. 
| Quote: |
| II. The Conservative leader has assured anyone who has asked that if he's elected he'll give all those provinces the money (including the Newfoundlanders and Nova Scotians in the oil deal) that the Liberals have been promising. |
I did know about this part, though. Anything else would be political suicide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
It's not about women "being the same" as men, it's about leaving the tired old schtick of women's sexualities out of discussions about their public lives.
|
Exactly. It was obvious now what the old boys club thought of her. One western mp said that she "whored herself out to the Liberals". Obvious remark to her gender. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Free World
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Drake Hotel
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Lemon wrote: |
| Mr. Winston Churchill, a parliamentarian of some note, "crossed the floor" twice in his career. |
Winston Churchill did a lot of good, I'm not going to deny that. But to be fair, each time he "flip-flopped" it was to benefit himself. Each time he switched parties it resulted in a promotion for himself. If Belinda Stronach had served in the army during her youth as Churchill did, instead of living the life of a spoiled millionaire's daughter maybe we could take her selfish tactics with a grain of salt. However, from where I'm standing it looks to me like shameful self advancement at the cost of her constituents.
| The Lemon wrote: |
| Her constituents came within 600 votes of electing a Liberal last year. It was a close-run thing. It could be argued that she's representing her constituents in particular far more now by refusing to bring down the government. |
Wouldn't it be more correct to argue that the majority of her constituents would want her to support the Conservatives instead of the Liberals? Every interview I have seen with her constituents has led me to believe that they were shocked and disappointed by the news. They elected the Conservative candidate because they like the Conservative platform. In my opinion it is not very democratic to take that right away from the people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Lemon
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Free World wrote: |
| Winston Churchill did a lot of good, I'm not going to deny that. |
Well, don't go out on a limb or anything.
| Free World wrote: |
| They elected the Conservative candidate because they like the Conservative platform. |
This is an assumption. We don't elect parties, we elect people who usually happen to belong to parties.
There's absolutely nothing in Canada's Constitution about political parties. She had every constitutional right to do what she did.
In the last election, the constituents put their faith in her to represent them in Ottawa to the best of her ability. She says she's doing so, and they'll decide if they agree with what she's done in the next election. This morning they woke up in the riding of a senior cabinet minister. I'd say they did pretty well.
| Quote: |
| In my opinion it is not very democratic to take that right away from the people. |
Well, that's the way the cookie crumbles in parliamentary democracies. I'd argue it wouldn't be very democratic to force elected representatives to automatically vote a certain way in the House for their entire term, which is basically what you're saying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
