Never doubt my intentions. I do everything for a reason.

Had I just posted the image directly to the board your first reaction would be to say to yourself "PHOTOSHOPPED!", but seeing it on the official National Geographic website gives credibility to the photo.

Well, I mean, the other two are the Afghanistan motion and the budget (which is necessarily a confidence motion.) I wouldn't suggest that either of those are frivolous.

You're right on this one, though; asinine is a great description of what's going on here.

(Oh, and Tay, seems to me you're losing a step. Time was you'd post that shit straight up -- no link at all, just the pic.)

gotta love national geographic

this month, though, they've stated loud and clear that three separate bills are confidence issues... and - like the one on crime - are forcing the opposition to make the call, I call that bullying... you can call that whatever you want.

I think the government thinks that they can do all this asinine stuff and then say "well the Liberals voted against it, it's their fault we're having an election, not ours."

I'm just so tired of it.
I love the idea of a minority government because it forces everyone to be accountable, but this is just bullshit.

Also, while I'm being contrarian, I'd say he looks like more like Carell than Kattan. (Especially the second pic.)

Well, I mean, the government can make any bill they want into a confidence motion (of course, finance bills, like the budget, are required to be so.) So, they're well within their rights to make this a confidence motion, and so is the opposition well within its rights to defeat the bill and force an election.

That said, the whole thing is ridiculous, it's grandstanding, and it's strange grandstanding at that. (Are many Canadians even paying attention to this posturing? If the government fell on this, what would they argue? That the opposition fell on the sword of Senate/House procedure? I don't see the endgame here.)

I'm not sure it's fair to call it bullying, though. Much as I dislike the tactics the Conservatives have been using -- treating it as a perpetual campaign in which to score points -- I wouldn't say they've been playing at brinkmanship during their whole governance. To this point, very few non-finance bills, to my knowledge, have been confidence motions; it's not as though they're attaching election threats to every piece of legislation.

The singing is just plain immature.

good grief, this is an embarassment:

"The Canadian people through their elected representatives have spoken," said Peter Van Loan, the government House leader. "They want the Tackling Violent Crime Act passed and they want it passed now."

How is it that the government thinks they can get away with this?
How can we be assured adequate review of the bill if they pressure it through Senate?
Isn't the senate supposed to act as a check/balance for our government?
Isn't that why they're a separate body?
Shouldn't they, therefore, have adequate time to properly review an act/bill before it is passed into law?
What right does the government have to do this?


And while the Liberals walking out is understandable, how much longer do we have to deal with a bully-led government? Because that's what this is, bullying. They keep saying "If you don't like this, then get rid of us" and they're trying their darndest to push us into an election... an election no one wants. I wish the Reds would just stand their ground and say "no way, this is stupid, get over yourselves NOW." How is everything a non-confidence issue?

or how about the House singing "Na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye." as the Liberals left?

well, sorry Albert, I thought you were having pluralization problems. I just figured more than just atheists deserved to celebrate Darwin Day.

On a related note, staunch supporter of Darwin, Thomas Huxley, looks like Chris Kattan:





And yeah, that's Aldous' grandfather.

I knew that Darwin was religious, the atheist bit was for Beck. Notice I said atheist, Beck introduced me to Darwin day, Beck is a atheist, the post is for him mainly.