But you guys in Calgay did SIGN Bertuzzi and Cammareri to help you on offence, and they also said that the Oilers won't be happy, but they have Erik Cole. So everybody wins in the end.

Besides...you should of seen my face back on Draft day.

Have you not heard? Bertuzzi just scored his first goal in 17 games!

I'm not happy with this deal, being a Calgary fan and all.

On this note, they discovered a species that they thought to be previous extinct in August.
It's really fucking cool looking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_Tarsier

I'll probably go about my normal day unless somebody has some scientific proof the world is going to end.

Damn, you people are complaining about the heat!? Where I live, it's -45 with the windchill! (Celsius)

I think in the next season Dexter will find out Rita killed someone and he'll have moral issues while deciding if he should or not kill her

No.

This looks like it will be a close race.

I actually enjoy Alter Ego quite a bit. It's fun to see how the different choices all play out.

As for the article: excellent, informative, good work!

Guys I don't know what these avatars look like. Anyone got images?

While that season was the worst yet, it was still better than pretty much every single other show out there.

As for the last episode, I thought it seemed a bit rushed. In the last 15 minutes, everything happened. Then the show ended. Oh well. Perhaps next season, if there is one, will be better.

i did my senior project on AI and robotics. I did the whole thing over a weekend and it was awesome because the essay opened with a quote from the simpsons, and ended with a different quote from the simpsons.

I did an essay on nuclear power and I did that also. I got 100% on it, ironically.

As for personal experience with bad essays, I don't really have any. The worst mark I've ever gotten on an essay is 86% or so.

The majority of conservative party members want him out apparently. Once this is all over, he'll most likely be gone.

This sort of system exists for practical reasons really. If the left-leaning parties have more seats than the right-leaning ones, obviously they'd vote against the right-leaning ones, with or without a "coalition". Not just out of spite, but out of ideological differences. And when a governing party lose most of the votes in parliament, one can argue that they form a pretty useless government that can't get anything done. Without a vote of no confidence, the country would be at a standstill for the rest of the term. And without coalitions, the cycle would repeat itself until people forced themselves to vote for a party they don't necessarily agree with, just to get a majority and the country working again.

Won't a vote of no confidence mean a new election?

But, in reality a vote of no-confidence doesn't actually happen all that often. In fact, there have only been 5 prime ministers in history defeated by a motion of no-confidence. It has to be an extreme case before things will even get that far, and thus, it generally doesn't happen.

Now, to answer your question: no, not necessarily. The Governor General can either choose to have another election or to place the coalition government in power. Generally, a coalition never exists, so it goes straight to election, but in this case, the option is available.

While I get what you're saying about this coalition in particular, and while I agree with you to some extent (though, I think the Tories are dangerous as long as Stephen Harper is the party leader), I don't think that coalitions in general are undemocratic. I mean, what if the coalition had campaigned as a coalition; this one didn't, but what if they did? In that case, at least, I don't think you can argue that it would be undemocratic.

Yeah, I actually was going to mention that but I totally forgot. If the people actually voted in the coalition government, then I'd be fine with it. However, in this case, that didn't happen, so I believe that it is undemocratic.

Um you're slightly off on this one.  Hong Kong is not independent.  It belongs to China now.  

Hong Kong is actually an independent region, and not actually considered part of China. Well, technically, it's part of China, but it is entirely independent from the rules that govern the rest of China, so most just classify it as an independent nation. It is called the "two systems, one country" policy as far as I know.

I will start by saying that I am completely against the idea of a coalition government running our country. I believe that the Tories have the means and the ability to run our country to it's max potential, and are the party to do just that. That said, I am not the biggest fan of Stephen Harper, but I feel he's better than Layton, Ignatieff, or (god forbid) Dion.

Now, I am Canadian, obviously, and I understand completely how our political system works. However, I would be inclined to say that the coalition undermines the democracy of our nation. Sure, it may be legal, as kermit has said, but that doesn't mean that it is truly democratic, and truly a democratic representation of the people of our country. Just because the Conservatives only got a minority government doesn't mean that the "opposition" parties should be able to, essentially, overthrow them. I get what you're saying, kermit, but I completely disagree with it.

The problem I see is the fact that, yes, the left-leaning parties got more votes as a collective, but that's just it. They got more votes as a collective, which is not what the Canadian people voted for back in October. We were given the choice of voting for the Conservatives, the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc (in Quebec), the Green, as well as numerous other minor parties. However, we were not given the choice for a Liberal-NDP government, the proposed coalition government. As Canadian government has, and always should be, the party with the most votes and seats should be in power, not a group of parties.

If Canada was to return to the polls, I would be inclined to believe that we would, once again, elect the Conservatives into power. It is obvious that the Conservatives are the party that Canadian people want in power, and they should remain in power, rather than being overthrown by this coalition government. Besides, the Conservatives have barely been given a chance to govern, and the coalition parties are essentially only doing this, as was previous stated, because they do not want their funding cut.

Coalition governments, especially this coalition government, are truly undemocratic.

I've tried being nice to her, complimenting her, whatever, and it only makes the problem worse. She just totally ignores whatever I do and bitches about some little tiny minute detail that she apparently disagrees with, so I gave up on that.

As for figuring out "underlying causes," she is, as you may have figured out, very hard to talk to. I'm not sure how I would get to know her well enough to find this stuff out and fix it.

Is it too hard to ignore her? That'd be the first thing I'd try to do. If you aren't able to ignore her, for what reason would that be?

Because she never shuts up and is stupid as dirt. It pisses me off.

So there is this REALLY bitchy girl in my class, and she never fucking stops bitching. I swear, every word that comes out of her mouth, she is bitching at someone.

Anyways, I dealt with it for a while, kept quiet, tried not to get angry, and I must say, it was fucking difficult. She really pushed me to the edge. Today though, I finally snapped.

She was saying something about how she got low marks, and the teacher told her she needs to speak more. And then she bitched about how he was wrong and she was NEVER going to speak, but she really needs better marks. So I come in and point out that perhaps if she listened to the teacher, she would get better marks. So she just goes apeshit and starts talking about how the teacher doesn't know what he's talking about, and apparently, neither do I. I call her a fucking bitch, tell her to shut the fuck up, and walk away.

So I see her later that day, and she is bitching STILL. She never fucking stops!

So my question is, how do I deal with her, Gaming World? Perferably in a legal manner. I need her to stop before I kill her myself.

We really only have one major style that gets used at every tournament. It's called Canadian Parliamentary. 2 vs 2. Speech times are 8-8-8-8-4-4. Proposition Constructive - Opposition Constructive - Prop - Opp - Opposition Rebuttal - Proposition Rebuttal. Points of information are allowed, which gives it some diversity.

We also have British Parliamentary but that's only used about twice the whole year and I have no idea how to do it yet (this is my first year in debate). I do know that it's 2 and 2 vs 2 and 2. It's kind of complicated to explain. This is a good guide, though it doesn't really explain the timing. Also it's entirely impromptu apparently.

Actually we also use Worlds Style, which is three on three. I haven't done this yet either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Schools_Style_debate

So, apparently we do use entirely different styles, then. I don't know how in the world you would be able to do a public forum debate, 4 minutes is absolutely no time to do anything.

Oh, also, all our resolutions are phrased as "This House Believes That <insert resolution here>."

Also, one of the kids who was on the Canadian national team last year went to my school. So it's really good to be able to get advice from him. On that note, do you have any idea how the US does in international competition? Or if they even do international competition?

Ok, just a question that is entirely unrelated to the topic, but to debate itself. I too, am a debater, but in Canada, rather than the US. What style do you guys use down there? I would assume it's completely different from what we use, thought I may be wrong.