|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 17:38:18 GMT -5
I've seen all of the Twilight films. D: WE are now mortal enemies. Until my attention span shifts to something e...LOOK! A KITTEH! In my defence, I didn't LIKE them. The kid I aide for was watching the films. Still, it's my secret shame.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 17:28:22 GMT -5
Now I want some Nutella. So yummy.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 16:57:45 GMT -5
When something wakes me up just as I'm drifting off to sleep, and leaves me wide awake. Fuck you, person who decided it would be a good idea to honk your car horn in the middle of the night. I hope someone fucks you with a cattle prod. I had that same thing happen last night, except it sounded like someone didn't want to let their puppy inside. Poor thing was barking and whinging for hours. Somehow it had the timing right to where it'd quiet down for a little while and I'd be just about to fall asleep and it'd start barking/whinging and wake me up. Sucks, doesn't it? I'm now suffering the effects of lack of sleep thanks to that asshole.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 16:48:47 GMT -5
Last night, during what little sleep I got, I had a dream that my roommate had a pet lion which constantly bullied me around, leaving me in constant fear of being mauled. She also had a panther, but it didn't feature in the dream quite so prominently. Somehow these animals got outside, and the dream ended with the police showing up to return the them to us, much to my dismay.
Man, fuck lions.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 16:36:50 GMT -5
"RAWR atheists burn in hell! I hope Satan rapes you with a goat! You should all be lined up and SHOT, like the scum you are. Freedom OF religion doesn't mean freedom FROM religion, you dirty heathen! On your grave, the epitaph should read, 'Here lies the only good atheist -- a DEAD atheist!' Traitor! Commie! Swine!"
Ten minutes later...
"Did you SEE that? A sign saying that there probably is no god? Don't they know that that's offensive!?"
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 16:29:02 GMT -5
If they could realistically find a way to allow faiths the opportunity to send a representative (if they choose to do so), I'd be cool with it. Unfortunately, it would be a horrendous ordeal, inevitably ending with someone being excluded.
And how would the nation handle a Satanist being involved? Or even a Pagan? If this was truly about being fair and allowing the religious to partake, they'd be fine with those groups showing up too... yet we all know that they'd throw even more of a fit if a Satanist turned up.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 16:21:29 GMT -5
All right. Your wording was tad confusing, leading me to question my memory in regard to American political practices.
I'm still curious as to how you'd deal with strategic voting, 2 dimensional politics and polarization in a 2 party system. I get that proportional representation is important to you (as it should be; ideally, all democratic systems should strive to obtain this), but I worry that such a system would only create an artificial sense of proportion, without truly representing what many of the people want.
It seems to me that alternative voting (when using one of the viable versions) combined with more than two parties could balance the two issues quite a bit more effectively than what you're suggesting.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 16:05:53 GMT -5
Do Americans not vote in individual Congressmen to fill the seats, based on electoral district?
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 15:50:19 GMT -5
Completely unrelated...but, do all local newscasters look the same? I swear, its like they churn these people out of a factory... Bahahahahah, I was thinking that exact thing when I first watched the clip.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 15:35:11 GMT -5
Problem is, they often only received more votes because of strategic voting. A huge portion of people end up voting for someone who they do not like, and does not represent their interests, simply because he wasn't quite as bad as the other guy. As a result, policies that a huge portion of the population wishes to see changed remain stagnant for far longer than they need to.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 11:31:57 GMT -5
Like I said earlier, I support alternative voting (e.g., ranked ballots) for this very reason. I'm not terribly pleased with the fact that the Conservatives were able to get a majority when most Canadians didn't vote for them -- and not just because I don't like the party. I agree that something needs to be changed, but two party would create a whole new set of problems, such as the aforementioned polarization and two-dimensional elections.
This is one of the issues I have with the Notwithstanding Clause.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 11:02:39 GMT -5
I've seen all of the Twilight films. D:
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 10:39:48 GMT -5
Could the federal government invoke it to ban gay marriage? Bleh, it's been a while since I studied this stuff in school, but... It can be invoked to pass laws which violate certain portions of the Charter (can't remember the specifics off-hand, so I'm not sure if it could be used to ban gay marriage), but most importantly, it can't be used to prevent people from voting (including laws which would ban freedom of movement, etc.), and is only applicable for a limited period of time. The populace has the ability to vote out a Parliament which acts irresponsibly. The primary purpose is, as I recall, to keep the judicial branch in check* & allow for certain measures to be taken under extraordinary circumstances. Truth be told, I'm not a huge fan of the Notwithstanding Clause (at least in its present form**), but we do have rights, liberties and the power to strike back if the government steps out of line. I don't feel all that threatened by it. By the way, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on these points (aside from the bit about two-party systems). I just want to make it clear that we're not quite as susceptible to government oppression as it might appear. Canada tends to be less legalistic than the US, and the cultural view of government differs a bit, so I can see why Americans might get a tad freaked out by our "ways". Thing is, there are a number of intricacies at play which aren't easy to spot when you're on the outside looking in. Do some things need to change? Absolutely. Are we in any realistic danger of having our rights stripped from us? No. * For instance, if a judge rules that child porn is free expression.** I'm fine with the overall idea of using it to challenge certain judicial rulings, but there are numerous elements which need to be altered.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 9:52:29 GMT -5
What? The Notwithstanding Clause only applies to certain scenarios. For instance, Ralph Klein was unsuccessful in invoking it because the issue of gay marriage doesn't fall under provincial jurisdiction. The same roadblock has applied to most attempts at utilizing it, and there is a limit to how long legislation enacted upon it carries legal weight.
In any case, we have the power to vote in and out provincial governments, so the Premier is still accountable to the people.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 3, 2011 9:46:01 GMT -5
I find the notion that a memorial service is "hollow" without prayer to be significantly more offensive than excluding the clergy from the event.
|
|