How do I join a political party in Canada?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, skilled businessmen are good at managing human resources, show entrepreneurship, think fast, etc. Brilliant persons make discoveries about non-linear mathematics and write the logico-philosophicus tractatus.

And once again you have spouted nonsense because of your utterly ridiculous defining of things. Brilliant businessmen are those who create innovations (ie, show entrepreneurship). Henry Ford, for example, was brilliant. His creation of the assemly line was a monumental change. To say he was not brilliant but merely 'astute' is just being an idiot.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Asher
You'll find that most scientists ignore philosophers.

The last thing a computer geek developing an incredibly intelligent AI wants to hear is the ethics behind it...

A true scientist can't ignore philosophy, because it still deals with cognition, knowledge theory and epistemology. An engineer can ignore philosophy, but not a scientist, alas.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Well, then my point was just that I don't like the word 'brilliant' being used to describe charismatic or astute people.

Then why were you the first to use the word in this thread?

When did anyone say brilliant, or in any way indicate a nobel laureate in the race? I recall Agy being a dick as per usual, and saying that 'she' was 'brainless'.

[Tingkai]

Anyways, Asher doesn't have to worry. Stronach has the Quebec votes locked up because her organisers control the Conservative associations in the province. That will give her the win.

Not that this matters. The Conservatives are not going to form the next government. They'll remain a marginal party.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
A true scientist can't ignore philosophy, because it still deals with cognition, knowledge theory and epistemology.

A true scientist can ignore a philosopher, because all of those exist without a pesky beret following you around with "what ifs" and "whys" when there is work to be done.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And once again you have spouted nonsense because of your utterly ridiculous defining of things. Brilliant businessmen are those who create innovations (ie, show entrepreneurship). Henry Ford, for example, was brilliant. His creation of the assemly line was a monumental change. To say he was not brilliant but merely 'astute' is just being an idiot.

Well, in psychology classes there is this classification into kinds of 'intelligences'- and the 'scientific' one is clearly different to the practical one- I.e. the intellectual capability to manipulate theoretical concepts compared to structurational/organizational capabilities.

I've never said you can't have both, but since being a master in one is already rare, being a genius in both is even more exceptional. Where is it that I talked about Ford? I merely said that the prime talent of a businessman is astuteness, and that of the scientist is brilliance.

So do I know if Ford had all? No. Did he write revolutionary economic/organizational theories? If so, he might apply.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Joining a party is supposed to be more of an involvement than just voting for the leader (except in the US where the primary system is so prevalent).

You should join only if you feel conservative enough to be closely associated with their politics: they will obviously send you mail, they will probably ask you to help finance the party, they will ask you to help them in non financial ways. If you're ready to join a party, you're supposed to be ready to do it, at least the "pay your share and get mail" part.

If not, then you'd better not join.

That is a quaint notion of how leadership races in Canada should work, but alas it does not work that way.

Instead, activists within the parties go out and recruit 'members' for whom memberships are often bought. On the appointed day, said members are expected to rally for the 'right' candidate by electing delegates for them.

There is some talk of leaving this gerrymandering in the past, but it comes up time after time.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not that this matters. The Conservatives are not going to form the next government. They'll remain a marginal party.

I think they can form the government. If not, they'll get around 100 seats which is pretty good for a 'marginal' party.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Not that this matters. The Conservatives are not going to form the next government. They'll remain a marginal party.

In your dreams, distant observer.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by notyoueither


In your dreams, distant observer.

What do you mean? Is the Mafia/Liberal Party in trouble?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Then why were you the first to use the word in this thread?

When did anyone say brilliant, or in any way indicate a nobel laureate in the race? I recall Agy being a dick as per usual, and saying that 'she' was 'brainless'.

No, you said she was more 'cerebral' than Agathon, which I doubt. Agathon is a respectable philosopher, while she is a successful businesswoman.

Look at Jean Chretien- he's not terribly brilliant, but he ruled over his party with extreme competence. Is he 'brainless'? And since we haven't heard anything serious from Belinda yet, I'll wait and see for myself if she is 'cerebral'.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What do you mean? Is the Mafia/Liberal Party in trouble?

$100 million shades of trouble.

[Asher]

Isn't their approval rating like 35%?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Asher

A true scientist can ignore a philosopher, because all of those exist without a pesky beret following you around with "what ifs" and "whys" when there is work to be done.

True scientists like de Broglie, Bohr, Einstein, etc, have a huge interest in philosophy.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
No, you said she was more 'cerebral' than Agathon, which I doubt. Agathon is a respectable philosopher, while she is a successful businesswoman.

Agathon is a respectable philosopher? Since when? Just because he's a peon at a public university in philosophy doesn't mean he's respectable...

Look at Jean Chretien- he's not terribly brilliant, but he ruled over his party with extreme competence. Is he 'brainless'?

YES.
Extreme competence? Chretien? Do we live in the same country...?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


No, you said she was more 'cerebral' than Agathon, which I doubt. Agathon is a respectable philosopher, while she is a successful businesswoman.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha.

In his own mind, perhaps. However, the way he carries on around here does not lead one to the word 'respect'.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
True scientists like de Broglie, Bohr, Einstein, etc, have a huge interest in philosophy.

So why didn't Nash and Turing? Babbage?

Are they not "true scientists"?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by notyoueither


$100 million shades of trouble.

What happened? They seemed so untouchable.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Asher

Agathon is a respectable philosopher? Since when? Just because he's a peon at a public university in philosophy doesn't mean he's respectable...

In his own mind, perhaps. However, the way he carries on around here does not lead one to the word 'respect'.

I don't know for respect, but anyone with the least brains can see Agathon manages to trounce about anyone on Poly when they try to have a philosophical debate. From what I read, he sounds competent and intelligent. Ask him why he thinks gay marriage should be legalized, and compare the answer with Belinda's.

YES.
Extreme competence? Chretien? Do we live in the same country...?

I said HIS PARTY. Chretien would have made a #1 dictator in any banana republic.

Besides, no, we DON'T live in the same country.

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What happened? They seemed so untouchable.

Yet another scandal. Has to do with crown corporations, Liberal politicians, Quebec, and $100M.

[Tingkai]

Latest polls show the Liberals have 42% support across the country. The Conservatives, even with the publicity boost of their leadership "election" and the sponsorship corruption, are at 32%.

The Conservative support will drop after Stronach gets "elected".

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I don't know for respect, but anyone with the least brains can see Agathon manages to trounce about anyone on Poly when they try to have a philosophical debate. From what I read, he sounds competent and intelligent. Ask him why he thinks gay marriage should be legalized, and compare the answer with Belinda's.

It's his field, why shouldn't he?

On the other hand, he manages to get trounced whenever he debates anything outside his field...

I said HIS PARTY. Chretien would have made a #1 dictator in any banana republic.

No, you didn't -- you said "he ruled over his party with extreme competence".

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Latest polls show the Liberals have 42% support across the country. The Conservatives, even with the publicity boost of their leadership "election" and the sponsorship corruption, are at 32%.

The Conservative support will drop after Stronach gets "elected".

Is it not conceivable that the conservative's number could go up once an actual leader is elected? Many people (myself included) would not support a conservative government if Harper was the leader, and so far I think he's going to win. I would've voted against the conservatives if polled that right now.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher

Is it not conceivable that the conservative's number could go up once an actual leader is elected? Many people (myself included) would not support a conservative government if Harper was the leader, and so far I think he's going to win. I would've voted against the conservatives if polled that right now.

Normally, there would be a boost in support immediately after a leader is selected, but the rules for the Conservative race will cause major divisions.

Under the Conservative rules, each riding gets a X-number of vote regardless of how many party members are in the riding. So 10 Conservative party members in Outremount, Quebec have the same voting power as 10,000 Conservative members in High River Alberta.

Next add in the fact that Stronach controls the Quebec riding associations.

How do you think western Conservatives will react when they see Quebec hijacking their party?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Asher

It's his field, why shouldn't he?

On the other hand, he manages to get trounced whenever he debates anything outside his field...

And since YOU don't have any field, except for living in Alberta...

No, you didn't -- you said "he ruled over his party with extreme competence".

That's it, I said HIS PARTY, as in he's a competent streetfighter, good to create relations. Geez, he started as a farmer and he ended prime minister.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Asher
No, you didn't -- you said "he ruled over his party with extreme competence".

Yes he did say "his party". Chretien ruled over his party with extreme competence, according to Boris, but that doesn't mean he translated this competence in his rule over Canada.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

Is it not conceivable that the conservative's number could go up once an actual leader is elected? Many people (myself included) would not support a conservative government if Harper was the leader, and so far I think he's going to win. I would've voted against the conservatives if polled that right now.

The need for an alternative will eventually outweigh most other considerations.

What some of the posters in this thread hope is that the ND will be that alternative when the time comes. That is why they point to a 10 point gap for the Liberals over the Conservatives and ignore the fact that poll numbers for their own party dropped.

Personally, I give Martin the next election. He will win it I am fairly sure. The question is whether we want an opposition headed up by a vet who knows how the game works, or do we want to give a rookie 4 years of on the job training.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
And since YOU don't have any field, except for living in Alberta...

Huh?

That's it, I said HIS PARTY, as in he's a competent streetfighter, good to create relations. Geez, he started as a farmer and he ended prime minister.

Your sentence commented on his leadership ability, not his party's competence.

I would think a competent leader would have far less scandals and foreign affair screwups that Chretien has had.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Tingkai
How do you think western Conservatives will react when they see Quebec hijacking their party?

They'll re-form the Reform.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Yes he did say "his party". Chretien ruled over his party with extreme competence, according to Boris, but that doesn't mean he translated this competence in his rule over Canada.

He did say "his party", but the comment was he ruled over his party. Ruled being the active verb, his party being the noun...

I was taking issue with him saying he ruled his party with extreme competence, because I don't think he did a very good job at all. The only reason they kept getting re-elected is because the Right was a total mess and still sore over Mulroney.