Charles H.

Charles H.


272 comments posted · 5 followers · following 8

11 years ago @ - 'The only course of ac... · 6 replies · +11 points

According to Kady's posts: no questions.

11 years ago @ - Political or ministerial? · 3 replies · +13 points

I thought that was Baird's portfolio? At the very least, based on who he responds for during QP, he seems to think it's his portfolio.

11 years ago @ - Rights and Democracy: ... · 2 replies · +1 points

"G&M has made its position known - predictably "

That editorial is from April.

11 years ago @ - Necessary partisanship · 1 reply · +4 points

Ladies and gentlemen, let's thank KillItWithFire for this wonderful example of the outgroup homogeneity bias. Give 'em a round of applause!

11 years ago @ - What she meant to say · 0 replies · +3 points

To quote an ancient Air Farce skit: "Give me two packs of 'Smoking Can Kill You'."

11 years ago @ - And suddenly Ottawa di... · 0 replies · +3 points

What's more, I've been told that the poetry won't even rhyme!

11 years ago @ - The Conservative-Liber... · 0 replies · +2 points

I don't believe they're splinter factions of the same party, but they are indeed evidence of an old split -- the Sino-Soviet one to be precise.

Up until the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Communist Party of Canada leaned heavily in the direction of Moscow. (They have, however, splintered somewhat since then.)

The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) -- the name they prefer, but which Elections Canada won't let them use for obvious reasons related to potential voter confusion -- grew out of a BC student group and was founded along Maoist lines. Though they were also briefly Hoxhaists (of all things) in the years between the Sino-Albanian split and the collapse of the Albanian regime.

Random trivia for the day: in some circles on the left, Hardial Bains, the founder of the CPC (ML) as well as a number of other Maoist parties worldwide, was known by the derisive nickname "Hardly Any Brains".

11 years ago @ - Back to 1867 · 0 replies · +1 points

That's another debate, I suppose. Or perhaps a corollary to the officially approved or not one.

If he is officially approved, is it as a trial balloon for potentially contentious issues, or is it to try and placate the more rightward/libertarian elements of the base by showing that people still hold their views (even if the party doesn't implement them)?

11 years ago @ - Back to 1867 · 5 replies · +2 points

Because he's seen as a potential CPC (not PC, alfanerd) leader once Harper resigns, and because he's one of the few high-profile Conservative MPs who's willing/allowed* to speak his mind on issues to large/influential audiences.

* Let the debate on which of those it is commence! Again!

11 years ago @ - The blame game · 1 reply · +8 points

I know the National Post suggested that that, specifically the recent announcement of a trade agreement, was likely to have cost it.

Someone else suggested that the rather aggressive campaign to get the seat, combined with the Peter MacKay/NATO campaigning, may have turned a number of countries off.