# "A Shocking Insult To Democracy": Harper Prorogues Parliament



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Harper to shut down Parliament - The Globe and Mail

Silence your critics for now Stephen, but I doubt this gamble is going to pay off. 

This smacks of something to hide and thankfully the media will not let us forget.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Gamble? How so? It's not like they are facing a confidence vote.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Look at it on the bright side. It may provide the Liberals with time to replace their lame duck leader.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Not again!?! This means that all the legislation is down the drain, even legislation that the Conservatives wanted. All this to cut off a hearing on the detainees. Unreal!!!!!!!!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> Not again!?! This means that all the legislation is down the drain, even legislation that the Conservatives wanted. All this to cut off a hearing on the detainees. Unreal!!!!!!!!


Not at all "down the drain" Dr. G., simply "on hold". From the story:



> The House of Commons and the Senate will come back in March, after the Vancouver Olympics, for a Speech from the Throne and a budget. *The move will have the effect of stalling all bills currently in Parliament*, including crime bills that the government had said were being delayed by the opposition.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Umm ... 



> Dimitri Soudas, press secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, would not confirm or deny the story to The Canadian Press, saying only that “no decision had yet been made” with respect to proroguing Parliament.


I hate it when rumour is reported as fact.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The headline is dead wrong, poorly written and totally misleading as it gives no regard to the paragraph MLeh quoted. Must be a Liberal newspaper.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Gamble? How so? It's not like they are facing a confidence vote.


I doubt this will factor into their approval rating. Burying under the carpet is not what I would consider good strategy and for Harper, it isn't about governing, it's about campaigning.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Must be a Liberal newspaper.


And again to your comment:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> I doubt this will factor into their approval rating. Burying under the carpet is not what I would consider good strategy and for Harper, it isn't about governing, it's about campaigning.


Their current approval rating in poll after poll far outstrips the Liberals every time. Wonder why that is?


----------



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

Nice to know Harper has his own little fiefdom that he can yank around as he pleases ...


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Still awaiting official confirmation (or denial) from the GG, unless someone has one?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

The longer Harper is around the less I abide his style. When he was being a dork shaking hid lad's hand was well goofy.

Now he and his Conwomen/men are afraid to face Parliament because they are alleged International Criminals and can't blame it on the Liberals this time.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MLeh said:


> Still awaiting official confirmation (or denial) from the GG, unless someone has one?


CBC News - Politics - PM seeks Parliament shutdown until March

"Soudas said the prime minister spoke with Gov. Gen Michaëlle Jean over the phone earlier Wednesday. But Soudas said he was not allowed to discuss a "private conversation" between the prime minister and the Governor General and would not confirm whether Jean had approved Harper's request for the prorogation."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ComputerIdiot said:


> Nice to know Harper has his own little fiefdom that he can yank around as he pleases ...


What if he wanted to suspend Parliament for a year or so. If he can close it for a three-month period, why not longer?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> The headline is dead wrong, poorly written and totally misleading as it gives no regard to the paragraph MLeh quoted. Must be a Liberal newspaper.


Is the National Post sufficiently "non-liberal" for you?

Parliament suspended until after Winter Olympics


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

If Canadians would once again start using their heads, not their bibles, perhaps we can finally see this incompetent sorry excuse for a Prime Minister out once and for all. Frick, Harper just infuriates me.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> CBC News - Politics - PM seeks Parliament shutdown until March
> 
> "Soudas said the prime minister spoke with Gov. Gen Michaëlle Jean over the phone earlier Wednesday. But Soudas said he was not allowed to discuss a "private conversation" between the prime minister and the Governor General and would not confirm whether Jean had approved Harper's request for the prorogation."


"seeks shutdown"

Again - the way things work is the GG has to make some sort of statement.

The silence from the GG is ... interesting.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

dona83 said:


> If Canadians would once again start using their heads, not their bibles, perhaps we can finally see this incompetent sorry excuse for a Prime Minister out once and for all. Frick, Harper just infuriates me.


Such emotion.  (That's not using your head. Perhaps ... lead by example?)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

dona83 said:


> If Canadians would once again start using their heads, not their bibles, perhaps we can finally see this incompetent sorry excuse for a Prime Minister out once and for all. Frick, Harper just infuriates me.


Let me guess. Iggy is much more trusted as PM and competent too?

Read any polls lately?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

dona83 said:


> If Canadians would once again start using their heads, not their bibles, perhaps we can finally see this incompetent sorry excuse for a Prime Minister out once and for all. Frick, Harper just infuriates me.


I disagree. This a very intelligent move. Harper is proving once again why he is the best Prime Minister this country has seen in over 40 years.

The opposition has shown no intention to co-operate, nor will they force an election either. They just want to stall everything, and scream hyperboles about non-issues. If nothing is getting done anyway, and the opposition is bent on trying to embarrass the country when the Olympics are coming up, it's just pragmatic to take a break until they're over.

The bonus is, by then enough senate seats will be open that the government will finally be able to get bills through that the house has already passed (and the senate keeps blocking).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Shades of il Duce 

Harper doesn't mind embarrassing Canada in front of the world in Copenhagen but not at the hockey game...

Fire the lot........

Let the GG run the country - more common sense than all the over paid idjits in Parliament combined.
Save a ton of money too.....


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> Read any polls lately?


The last one I saw indicated that 62% of the electorate didn't care much for Harper. 

And I can't see a second prorogue bereft of sound reasoning shifting voters rightward. Indeed, I would think this would unite (and re-ignite) his opposition more than anything else.

I can't vote anyway, but I can't yet see how this does anyone -- Harper included -- any good. He had important (actually his word was "critical") legislation before Parliament, or so he claimed, and he's just thrown out his primary attack on his opponents.

Maybe he's crazy like a fox, but at the moment this looks more stupid than shrewd. It will be interesting to hear his explanation. And hers, if she goes along with it again.

PS. Could somebody explain to me -- without rancour if possible -- what was accomplished/improved by the _last_ prorogue?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Let the GG run the country - more common sense than all the over paid idjits in Parliament combined.
> Save a ton of money too.....


The GG is NOT representative of any voter and in fact is an agent of a foreign head of government. The GG should be abolished, certainly not encouraged and never consulted on Canadian governmental matters.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> The last one I saw indicated that 62% of the electorate didn't care much for Harper.


The most trustworthy leader

National (n=1,002)

Stephen Harper: 31%
Michael Ignatieff: 14%
Jack Layton: 14%
Gilles Duceppe: 8%
Elizabeth May: 8%
None of them/Undecided: 25%
The most competent leader

National (n=1,002)

Stephen Harper: 36%
Michael Ignatieff: 20%
Jack Layton: 11%
Gilles Duceppe: 7%
Elizabeth May: 2%
None of them/Undecided: 24%
The leader with the best vision for Canada’s future

National (n=1,002)

Stephen Harper: 32%
Michael Ignatieff: 20%
Jack Layton: 15%
Gilles Duceppe: 4%
Elizabeth May: 4%
None of them/Undecided: 25%
Leadership Index Score

Stephen Harper: 99
Michael Ignatieff: 54
Jack Layton: 40
Gilles Duceppe: 19
Elizabeth May: 14

Nik on the Numbers - Harper widens leadership advantage over Ignatieff: Nanos Poll (Completed September 11th)

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 9:04 AM
Layton, Harper end '09 on a high at Ignatieff’s expense
Norman Spector

Jack Layton began the year measuring the curtains of his ministerial office — a tantalizing prospect that was rudely dashed when Michael Ignatieff reneged on the Liberal-NDP deal to forge a coalition with Bloc Québécois support. Though he supported the initiative himself, Mr. Ignatieff was eventually rewarded with the leadership of the Liberal Party — and without having to bother with an election by the membership. But the last laugh goes to Mr. Layton: for the first time in a Nanos poll, he leads Mr. Ignatieff on all indices of leadership — including competence, confidence of Canadians and vision for Canada.

Layton, Harper end '09 on a high at Ignatieff’s expense - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I'd rather the GG stay a figurehead, thanks very much. I have zero confidence she'd be any better at managing the country's affairs than the current fractious bunch.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Harper doesn't mind embarrassing Canada in front of the world in Copenhagen....


He did Canada proud in Copenhagen.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Yeah by staying away from any business and having a meal, by the looks of him that's something he's good at.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Yeah by staying away from any business and having a meal, by the looks of him that's something he's good at.


No, by keeping us from being legislated to line Gore's pockets. he indeed did us proud! :clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If proroguing Parliament becomes an impediment to good governance, it will eventually be abolished. In the meantime, this procedure does not stand outside the democratic process and the GG can decide whether or not to grant it.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Neither did forming a coalition.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

MacDoc said:


> Harper doesn't mind embarrassing Canada in front of the world in Copenhagen...


Harper's refusal to capitulate to the hysterical liars in Copenhagen is something all Canadians should be proud of.


----------



## tilt (Mar 3, 2005)

Could it have anything to do with the idea that he can use this time to fill up the empty seats with his people so that when parliament reopens he can have enough votes to push his legislations through?

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

tilt said:


> he can use this time to fill up the empty seats with his people so that when parliament reopens he can have enough votes to push his legislations through


But King Stephen is all about transparency and open, honest government... not like those underhanded Liberal scoundrels we had before 

Seriously, I wouldn't be comfortable with Harper in my local PTA let alone in the PMO. He's a despicable lying power-monger with no respect for the citizens he represents or the country he is supposed to be leading. While I'd stop short of wishing him personal harm, I can't wait for him to be removed from power.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> But King Stephen is all about transparency and open, honest government... not like those underhanded Liberal scoundrels we had before
> 
> Seriously, I wouldn't be comfortable with Harper in my local PTA let alone in the PMO. He's a despicable lying power-monger with no respect for the citizens he represents or the country he is supposed to be leading. While I'd stop short of wishing him personal harm, I can't wait for him to be removed from power.


Wow! I bet if you were asked to describe Chretien/Martin after their 13 years of thievery and illegal activity stealing from us all, my Mac would burst into flames.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Wow! I bet if you were asked to describe Chretien/Martin after their 13 years of thievery and illegal activity stealing from us all, my Mac would burst into flames.


Actually, that would be pretty hard, because my keyboard doesn't have the necessary expletive keys...

At the time, I really thought we'd hit rock bottom as far as federal governance could go with the last administration. And I'll certainly give the current government props for their management of the media, manipulation and craftiness with parliamentary procedure, and maintenance of party discipline. But the Harper government has brought a new meaning to opaque and disingenuous. He's seriously starting to remind me of Emperor Palpatine with these sorts of conniving manipulations of the system to serve his nefarious agendas.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Bryanc: though I don't disagree with the thrust of your assessment of the Harper administration, using Star Wars as a tool of analysis does little to further your argument.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Time for a Yoda rebuttal.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Wow! I bet if you were asked to describe Chretien/Martin after their 13 years of thievery and illegal activity stealing from us all, my Mac would burst into flames.


How's the old Mac going to behave when the alleged war criminal is brought to task? Oh yeah and the devil er Fiberals didn't make him do it. Right! It was Pictou boy's fault. Bad Christian Bad.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> using Star Wars as a tool of analysis does little to further your argument.


:lmao: hardly a "tool of analysis"... I'm just seeing visions of Harper lurking around in a hooded cloak saying "everything is proceeding as I have forseen it... heh heh heh." He can be Voldemort or any other archetypal antagonist if you prefer.

And to further the allusion, the forces opposing Harper's quest for ultimate power are few, fragmented, essentially leaderless and poorly trained/equipped. I can only hope that a plucky, unlikely underdog will emerge from the wilderness to vanquish the rampaging monster that has seized the reigns of power.

... maybe Harper's long-lost illegitimate son has a magic ring his great grandfather left him and which Harper has been searching for knowing that it's the one thing that can keep him from winning a majority...?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Harper should never have set a timer on the device he was going to use to kill Iggy. These evil overlords never learn.

Peter's Evil Overlord List


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

bryanc said:


> :lmao: hardly a "tool of analysis"... I'm just seeing visions of Harper lurking around in a hooded cloak saying "everything is proceeding as I have forseen it... heh heh heh." He can be Voldemort or any other archetypal antagonist if you prefer.
> 
> And to further the allusion, the forces opposing Harper's quest for ultimate power are few, fragmented, essentially leaderless and poorly trained/equipped. I can only hope that a plucky, unlikely underdog will emerge from the wilderness to vanquish the rampaging monster that has seized the reigns of power.
> 
> ... maybe Harper's long-lost illegitimate son has a magic ring his great grandfather left him and which Harper has been searching for knowing that it's the one thing that can keep him from winning a majority...?


...or at the very least he walks off a cliff into the volcano... :yawn:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Boy are you guys ever gonna be upset when Harper gets re-elected. Again.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

May Harper's latest stratagem to avoid accountability and prolong doing nothing backfire on him most ingloriously. I think he likes this proroguing trick a bit too much for our own good.

Bryanc: I still don't like dragging Star Wars into this... or Harry Potter or anything else smacking of pop culture fable shilling.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> May Harper's latest stratagem to avoid accountability and prolong doing nothing backfire on him most ingloriously.


Inglourious Basterd!


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Actually I personally feel that two plus months of Parliamentary inactivity has to be a good thing. At least they are not doing any damage in the interim.

We should perhaps do a poll as to which of the Big 4 Canadians want as PM. I suspect if "None of the Above" were offered as a 5th option it would easily take 50% of the votes.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

I wonder if our left-leaning ehMacians thought that proroguing parliament was "a shocking insult to democracy" the four times that Chretien did it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The move by Harper is obviously to provide stability over the Olympic period. It would be just like the opposition to band together and embarrass the country by forcing an election during the Olympics. Security has to be provided to all athletes and spectators alike and stability enhances security.

That being said, the Olympics are still a pox on the host country and a colossal waste of taxpayers money for an event that is pure commercialism.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

SINC said:


> stability enhances security.


Nice phrase. Brings to mind this one....

Service Guarantees Citizenship! 


Canada has hosted the winter Olympics before and there was no compelling reason to shut down Parliament, so why do it now?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

bsenka said:


> I wonder if our left-leaning ehMacians thought that proroguing parliament was "a shocking insult to democracy" the four times that Chretien did it.


a) not everyone who comments on this thread who disagrees with this proroguing agrees with that description. Indeed, not everyone who disagrees with this proroguing is anti-Harper.

b) I personally wasn't here for that, but I dimly recall that Chretien was in power for many years -- 10 years? -- so perhaps its the AVERAGE or the REASONING that alarms people rather than the act itself?

c) Since I wasn't here, I also don't know the reasons for Chretien's actions (any of them!). If proroguing Parliament was ALWAYS a bad idea, it wouldn't be allowed at all, so let's not be simple-minded eh? The discussion here is about whether THIS case is _warranted_ or not.

I'm still not hearing anything from the man himself -- or his surrogates here -- that resembles a coherent explanation of why he's seeking this prorogue. At least last time he had a reason. Maybe he does this time, but so far we haven't heard it -- and consequently I don't think most reasonable Canadians will buy this manoeuvre until they get a rationale that makes sense to them.

Ideologues, obviously, don't need a reason.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Prorogation is a strategic move on Harpers part. It is about deflecting attention away from the Afghan detainee issue during the Olympics and and filling the Senate with Conservative Senators to move through legislation that is being stalled/amended by the Liberal Senators.

Additionally the Government will be bringing down a budget when Parliament reconvenes effectively forcing the opposition to fish or cut bait because any budgetary matter is automatically a confidence vote. 

The Conservatives want an election because they feel they could win one particularly if they can deflect attention away from the whole Afghan detainee transfer matter which is essentially a red hearing being thrown out by the Opposition/Liberals. 

One must remember that the Liberal Government was in charge of transferring Afghan detainees for 5 years before the Conservatives came into power and the Conservatives actually improved upon the process over the previous government. If the Conservatives knew about detainee torture then the Liberal Government most certainly did as well during their tenure and they did even less to curtail it. The Liberals are most certainly in a situation of "the pot calling the kettle black" when it comes to the Afghan detainee issue.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Chas_m,

Chretien prorogued parliament for several reasons. At first, it was because there was infighting between Chretien and Martin's teams. They were airing their dirty laundry in public, and the MSM was starting to take notice, so Chretien prorogued to try to make it go away (or at least deflect any steam that the Martin camp was building up). According to Chretien's book, at the time he had already been contemplating just firing Martin outright due to incompetence as finance minister, but decided on a cooling off period instead. 

It was also done during the Gomery inquiry into corruption within the Liberal Party. The opposition obviously was unhappy with that, as they wanted to grill the government about it in Question Period.

The last time it was when Chretien finally had enough of the sideshow, and decided to retire. He prorogued so that he could step down. That way Martin was able to resume a new session of parliament as the sitting Prime Minister without having to face an election. That one did lead to a little bit of the now familiar "sure it's constitutional, but it's still undemocratic" grumblings. (See coalition, senate appointments, prorogation, etc, etc...)

Then there's Trudeau. He prorogued parliament four times in the span of four years. Mulroney did it once too. There is not one scintilla of scandal here, it's just the normal course of governing in Canada.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah, I get it now. It's OK for the Liberals to use the trick eight different times, but when Harper does it twice it's a "A Shocking Insult To Democracy".

Yeah right, makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## MacAddict (Jan 29, 2006)

Judging by the signs of influences that have prevailed during the Olympic Torch Tour, in the choosing of the torch bearers, my immediate reaction to the news of the proroguing of Parliament was that the Conservative MPs as a body, had somehow managed through their typical underhanded nefarious ways to acquire tickets to all of the events at the Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Again, as a body, they prevailed on their leader while he was in his atypical piano-playing-singing mode, to prorogue Parliament so that they could all en masse attend the affair without fear of any national affairs interruptions. An extended paid vacation if you will. 

Nothing really out of the ordinary for the electorate to be shoved aside while politicians in power exercise their prerogative once more to grab what they consider to be their due.

Auditor-General, please pay particular attention to all reimbursement claims made for expenses incurred during this 'time-off' period.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

As another poster suggested, extending the period wherein Parliament makes no decisions seems ideal to me.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

screature said:


> Prorogation is a strategic move on Harpers part. It is about deflecting attention away from the Afghan detainee issue during the Olympics and and filling the Senate with Conservative Senators to move through legislation that is being stalled/amended by the Liberal Senators.
> 
> Additionally the Government will be bringing down a budget when Parliament reconvenes effectively forcing the opposition to fish or cut bait because any budgetary matter is automatically a confidence vote.
> 
> ...


Thank G_d someone on this site understands politics ..... screature what do you think May election???????


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Prorogies, Sounds like the meal time snack of the future,
Great for a short break, Anytime of year.
(A New Canadian Tradition)

Maybe Rick Mercer will pick on this and make it into a skit.

Dave


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Rps said:


> Thank G_d someone on this site understands politics ..... screature what do you think May election???????


Yep, a sensible overview indeed, but I doubt the Liberals will want an election. If they go into an election with Iggy at the helm it will be his death knell.

They need both time and funds for an election and May is too early. Look for them to ask for a few changes, then support the government to avoid an election.

That will give them time to dump Iggy and find a real leader, if that is possible in the current disarray that is the Liberal party.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I wouldn't count Iggy out just yet. One of the faults of Harper is the overconfidence and then a really brainless move that will cost him a lot of support. And I'm going to predict some nice missteps on his part in the next year. When I start to see the conservative start to really beat the drums, that's a sure sign.

No Iggy won't want an election for a while, if he were smart, he'd let Harper dangle for at least another year. If he were smart that is.

This blogger has a few good quotes in this post:



> Harper would not be the first leader in history prepared to enhance his own power by hiding the savaging of his country’s system of government behind the laurels of young athletes.


And, well put:



> Just don’t blame the large majority of Canadians who continue to have the sense to reject Harper and his boys, medals notwithstanding. Yes, Canadians care about the economy, the environment, and the prisoner abuse scandal. They are concerned about the reputation of their country in the rest of the world. Give them a way to rid themselves of Harper in the next election and the people will do the rest.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good summary



> *Travers: Harper's dark democracy creates dangerous legacy*
> 
> By James Travers National Affairs Columnist
> 
> ...


Travers: Harper's dark democracy creates dangerous legacy - thestar.com


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I was just about to post thet MacDoc. I like Travers. You get the sense he's not playing politics. Which is exactly what Harper wants us to do. Delay and distract.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> Good summary
> 
> 
> 
> Travers: Harper's dark democracy creates dangerous legacy - thestar.com


Generally I think this is a balanced overview. However, I disagree that Harper is creating a "dark and dangerous legacy for democracy". 

As Travers accurately points out Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien all ruled with iron fists as well (albiet at times perhaps more hidden in a velvet glove). The difference is that they all ruled under majority Parliaments so it was much, much easier for them to get their way, they had a defacto dictatorship to rule from.

With Harper, because he is ruling in a minority Parliament and thus does not have the same luxuries built into his rule, he must make use of every little bit of Parliamentary procedure allowed him to "get his way". I do not believe this to be surprising or creating a "dark and dangerous legacy for democracy". If anyone thinks for a moment that if Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien or any other savvy political leader in this country ruling in a minority government would not also take advantage of every means available to them to control Parliament, maintain power and push through their political and legislative agendas they are simply politically naive and dreaming in Technicolor.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> Thank G_d someone on this site understands politics ..... screature what do you think May election???????


Hmmm, too close to call, it really all depends on the Opposition and when the polls indicate that they have a snow ball's chance in hell of winning.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Good summary
> 
> 
> 
> Travers: Harper's dark democracy creates dangerous legacy - thestar.com


good article. Of course, we'll begin to hear about how previous PMs have done this and worse, somehow erasing this. The screams of better! more accountable! really ring hollow now. Which is a point many conservative supporters will just never admit. (or liberals for that matter).


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

screature said:


> Generally I think this is a balanced overview. However, I disagree that Harper is creating a "dark and dangerous legacy for democracy".
> 
> As Travers accurately points out Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien all ruled with iron fists as well (albiet at times perhaps more hidden in a velvet glove). The difference is that they all ruled under majority Parliaments so it was much, much easier for them to get their way, they had a defacto dictatorship to rule from.
> 
> With Harper, because he is ruling in a minority Parliament and thus does not have the same luxuries built into his rule, he must make use of every little bit of Parliamentary procedure allowed him to "get his way". I do not believe this to be surprising or creating a "dark and dangerous legacy for democracy". If anyone thinks for a moment that if Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien or any other savvy political leader in this country ruling in a minority government would not also take advantage of every means available to them to control Parliament, maintain power and push through their political and legislative agendas they are simply politically naive and dreaming in Technicolor.


I agree with your assessment 100%. 

I'm always pointing out that it IS a minority. It's just that the opposition is incapable of offering a viable alternative and have resorted to dragging the other guy down. (I was always taught that you don't raise yourself up by putting others down, but I think our politicians have forgotten this.)

So much of the rhetoric is of the 'FUD' variety: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt
Instead of demonizing Harper I would like the left to present a viable alternative. But they don't. And so it will continue.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I think this should be troubling to Canadians of all stripes. The erosion of checks and balances is unsettling to say the least.

I have no problem with skewering the Liberals in regards to their use of this tactic. I am not into blind worship whatsoever. They used it to their advantage to cover up, delay and generally make the issues 'go away'. Meet the new boss...

In the case of Harper though, it's different (and I attempt to say this as totally non-partisan as I can). He emerged from the Reform Party ooze and successfully morphed himself into the mainstream. The trusted brand of the Progressive Conservatives now assimilated with fringe party that would have NEVER become the acting Government. We can't even get the tried and true NDP to that position but that's another story.

Then came the promises: Openness! Accountability! Transparency! Hogwash. Harper is and has been in campaign mode since he darkened Parliament's door. He wants nothing of openess or accountabilty, he wants his majority full stop.

I believe Harper's Reform and subsequent Nation Citizen's Coalition roots are more telling of who the man is. Once he holds a majority, we will definitely find out. I for one am not willing to take that chance. 

He has masterfully integrated himself into the preceived political mainstream. Just the merger of the two parties alone bought him many vote and support from dyed in the wool Conservatives. Many of who wouldn't touch Reform with a 10 foot pole. This has served him well. Although he still misses that Majority that should be his for the taking, why is that?

I believe the majority of Canadians don't trust Harper, even if they voted for him. Even though he has made all the right moves his past and present continue to haunt him. Little slip ups here and there. Things that I'm sure, from what I've read of the man, throw him into a rage and he clamps down even further on communication, openess and accountability. He appears power mad and I'm afraid of what he'll do with that power once he has it.

This current proroguing seems like a harbinger of what's to come. To not address the detainee issue is disgraceful for one whose entire platform was based on accountability. It was disgraceful for the Liberals when they were in power as well. So does this make him as bad? 

I was sad when Harper and MacKay disbanded the PCs. They, like all good Canadian political parties were moderate, adding to the political balance of our great country. What we have know I believe isn't. But we won't know for sure until it's too late.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

When all political parties push to become modeate, there's no difference at all between them. I much prefer having alternatives.

I agree with this columnist:

For Harper, 2009 was a very good year - The Globe and Mail




> The Prime Minister had a very good 2009, blending policy successes with bare-knuckle political fisticuffs that left one opposition politician after another reeling.
> 
> His decision to prorogue Parliament for pretty much the rest of the winter has pundits and constitutional experts howling. Well we should howl. Shutting down the House and Senate for the second time in one year makes a mockery of Parliamentary government.
> 
> ...


As the article points out, there are issues that could pillory Harper in the future, but for now he's doing fine and Canadians are generally happy with him.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I wouldn't count Iggy out just yet.


Uh, you'd better count him out. From the story above:



> *Mr. Ignatieff is no more popular than his predecessor, Stéphane Dion, who must be counted the most unsuccessful leader in the history of the Liberal Party.*


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Macfury, not sure if I agree with the author here : Mr. Ignatieff is no more popular than his predecessor, Stéphane Dion, who must be counted the most unsuccessful leader in the history of the Liberal Party.

I think the biggest failure for the Liberals was John Turner [ remember the era he was in ] he was voted in as leader and voted out as PM before the paint dried on his nameplate. Dion was selected as the evil of the two lessors [ the Liberals still haven't groomed anyone to replace anyone .... ] defensive ploy by the incumbent ? Not sure, but I also don't see anyone on the horizon for the Conservatives .... maybe we should outsource our leadership to China like everything else in North America....


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> Macfury, not sure if I agree with the author here : Mr. Ignatieff is no more popular than his predecessor, Stéphane Dion, who must be counted the most unsuccessful leader in the history of the Liberal Party.
> 
> I think the biggest failure for the Liberals was John Turner [ remember the era he was in ] he was voted in as leader and voted out as PM before the paint dried on his nameplate. Dion was selected as the evil of the two lessors [ the Liberals still haven't groomed anyone to replace anyone .... ] defensive ploy by the incumbent ? Not sure, *but I also don't see anyone on the horizon for the Conservatives* .... maybe we should outsource our leadership to China like everything else in North America....


I think Jim Prentice is a possible successor to Harper and before the Afghan detainee "issue" MacKay was a good bet... he is still young so has lots of time to bide and may still be in the running at a future point in time.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

With Parliament split between 4 parties and the Greens outside Parliament eating up half a million votes per election, things are at an impasse. With our first-past-the-post system that only really works properly with 2 parties contesting for power, I don't see much changing. If the Libs could ever get their act together, they have a better shot at a viable majority than the Cons, because when they're in gear, they can hold more of the political centre than the current Con incarnation. But they are showing no signs of having an act to get together.

I don't believe that the Libs will be able to present a viable alternative, new leader or not. What I predict happening is that they will be able to make a grab for power the same way almost all governments have under first-past-the-post, when the current government wears out its welcome due to internal dissension and the usual sporadic revealing of corruption that always occurs.

There is a scandal waiting to happen to Harper's government, that will eventually topple it. I don't know what it will be, but experience has taught me that it is certain to happen. In the meantime, we who don't like the old boss, will have to put up with whatever he dishes up.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> With Parliament split between 4 parties and the Greens outside Parliament eating up half a million votes per election, things are at an impasse. With our first-past-the-post system that only really works properly with 2 parties contesting for power, I don't see much changing. If the Libs could ever get their act together, they have a better shot at a viable majority than the Cons, because when they're in gear, they can hold more of the political centre than the current Con incarnation. But they are showing no signs of having an act to get together.
> 
> I don't believe that the Libs will be able to present a viable alternative, new leader or not. What I predict happening is that they will be able to make a grab for power the same way almost all governments have under first-past-the-post, when the current government wears out its welcome due to internal dissension and the usual sporadic revealing of corruption that always occurs.
> 
> There is a scandal waiting to happen to Harper's government, that will eventually topple it. I don't know what it will be, but experience has taught me that it is certain to happen. In the meantime, we who don't like the old boss, will have to put up with whatever he dishes up.


A very good analysis GA... We are in for "more of the same" with either Conservative or Liberal minorities for some time to come IMO. I don't know that it need be a "scandal" per say to topple the Conservatives... more than likely with this crew a communications debacle of some sort. Despite their aggressive political shrewdness, they have displayed some glaring communications errors in the past and most recently with the Afghan detainee issue... so I think communications errors could end up being their downfall.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> Macfury, not sure if I agree with the author here : Mr. Ignatieff is no more popular than his predecessor, Stéphane Dion, who must be counted the most unsuccessful leader in the history of the Liberal Party.


I think he went a litle overboard: "One of the most unsuccessful" would have sufficed.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> With our first-past-the-post system that only really works properly with 2 parties contesting for power, I don't see much changing. If the Libs could ever get their act together, they have a better shot at a viable majority than the Cons, because when they're in gear, they can hold more of the political centre than the current Con incarnation. But they are showing no signs of having an act to get together.


Hey, you promised to stop whining about first-past-the-post--or was that only for British Columbia.




GratuitousApplesauce said:


> There is a scandal waiting to happen to Harper's government, that will eventually topple it. I don't know what it will be, but experience has taught me that it is certain to happen.


Class, I present you with a prime example of "magical thinking" plucked from the internet.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Not sure if the "first past the post" is the problem as much as the distribution of population within our country. W.A.C. Bennett used to think of Canada as 5 countries [ B.C and the Yukon, The Prairies, Ontario and Quebec, The Martimes, and the Far North ... in his view Canada was more a Federation of economic units. Our population base has created an uneven distribution of self interest. Thus we will be saddled representation and party manipulation as long as we have the current system. We have five alternatives, in my opinion:

a: representational [ but this means someone has to establish the weighting which will lead to problems ]
b: presidential system, where we elect our leader independent of the house
c: eliminate parties during a run off until there is a clear winner [ costly and time consuming ]
d: have an equal and elected Senate to pass the laws and a Commons to create them or
e: suck it up and keep the current system

If it were me, I would have a Presidential system with an equal elected Senate. You vote for your party and vote for your leader. We need to place the balance of power in the hands of an equate Senate to even out the self interest disparity in this country. Until every Province and Territory has the same number of voters and ridings we will constantly have this argument.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Rps said:


> Not sure if the "first past the post" is the problem as much as the distribution of population within our country. W.A.C. Bennett used to think of Canada as 5 countries [ B.C and the Yukon, The Prairies, Ontario and Quebec, The Martimes, and the Far North ... in his view Canada was more a Federation of economic units. Our population base has created an uneven distribution of self interest. Thus we will be saddled representation and party manipulation as long as we have the current system. We have five alternatives, in my opinion:
> 
> a: representational [ but this means someone has to establish the weighting which will lead to problems ]
> b: presidential system, where we elect our leader independent of the house
> ...


I am all for your concluding suggestion, Rps. This would make Canada a republic, with no constitutional monarchy or a Gov. Gen. I don't see this happening until QEII dies a natural death, since she will never abdicate. We shall see.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

mrjimmy said:


> I believe the majority of Canadians don't trust Harper, even if they voted for him.


The majority of Canadians don't trust ANY politician. But poll after poll indicate that they distrust Harper less than other leader.

http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W09-T408E.pdf

Note that Harper has more than double the support of Ignatieff on pretty much every marker.

I think the thing that Harper's detractors are missing in events like this one, is that they are not eroding support they way they think it would. If anything, they're just more galvanizing. If you already didn't like him, then you really hate this. But if you already liked him, then this makes you support him even more.

The latter is certainly the case for me. If we put the partisan "politics as sports: my team is great, your team sucks" banter aside I can still honestly say that the prorogation was a good thing, and that it showed strong leadership on Harper's part to do it. Seriously, no matter who you support politically, putting it aside and just promoting the greatness of Canada while the world's eyes are on us is the right thing to do. It should have been the plan all along.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rps said:


> Not sure if the "first past the post" is the problem as much as the distribution of population within our country...


Another very good point Rps... this is definitely part of the problem. Another third compounding component and to my way of thinking on of the worst is the whole whipped system we operate under. MPs need to be able to have more freedom to represent the views of their constituencies in a true democracy.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

bsenka said:


> Seriously, no matter who you support politically, putting it aside and just promoting the greatness of Canada while the world's eyes are on us is the right thing to do.


I think one of the greatest things about Canada ought to be our open and transparent government, where representatives debate the issues of the day. Having a minority government that abuses parliamentary procedures to make itself into a de facto dictatorship makes us look like a banana republic. It's an embarrassment.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Hey, you promised to stop whining about first-past-the-post--or was that only for British Columbia.


I don't recall ever making such a promise, although I have recognized that electoral reform is a dead issue for the foreseeable future. Tell you what MF, you quit whining about what you call "socialism" and I'll quit whining about our dysfunctional electoral system. 



Macfury said:


> Class, I present you with a prime example of "magical thinking" plucked from the internet.


Not magical, just experience old bean.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

bryanc said:


> Having a minority government that abuses parliamentary procedures to make itself into a de facto dictatorship makes us look like a banana republic. It's an embarrassment.


It sure would be if that were happening, thankfully it isn't.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> I think one of the greatest things about Canada ought to be our open and transparent government, where representatives debate the issues of the day. Having a minority government that abuses parliamentary procedures to make itself into a de facto dictatorship makes us look like a banana republic. It's an embarrassment.


What constitutes an "abuse" of Parliamentary procedure?... Highly subjective to say the least. If it were truly an abuse then it would be disallowed. 

Is it an abuse of Parliamentary procedure for the Liberals to support a Bill in the House (for political optics) that they know full well will be rejected by their members in the Senate, stonewalling and amending Bills that the *elected* MPs passed? One could most certainly say yes, but this is political strategy and as long as it is within the rules, it is fair game.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I don't recall ever making such a promise, although I have recognized that electoral reform is a dead issue for the foreseeable future. Tell you what MF, you quit whining about what you call "socialism" and I'll quit whining about our dysfunctional electoral system.


Too late for a deal now!



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Not magical, just experience old bean.


As governments get older, the chance of a scandal becomes more likely. But not necessarily a scandal that will cause them to lose an election.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Good summary


I thought you didn't like democracy based on your recent posts about the Governor General and the efficiency of the communist system in China.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

I'm not in the least embarrassed. What IS embarrassing is when Canadian politicians from any level of government go abroad and start bad mouthing their own country to try and score brownie points. I cringed every time May, Miller or McGuinty opened their mouths. 

There has been zero co-operation from any of the opposition parties. They have had only one thing in mind, bring down the government. Heck, Layton was talking about not voting for a budget he hadn't even heard yet. All Iggy has spoken about is defeating Harper and getting himself elected. Talk about playing politics. Not one of that bunch has thought about what is good for the Canadian citizens. 

I don't have any problem with parliament sitting quiet for awhile until the Olympics are over. I hope the idiots have the good sense to keep their yaps shut while the world's eyes are upon us. While I'm not a huge fan of the Olympics I do recognize it is a special event that comes to our great country only once in a while. I'd love to see everyone forget about politics for a short time and get behind our athletes who have trained so hard for this. Come the beginning of March a new session of Parliament will open. Kindergarten class can get back to squabbling at that time.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Good post adagio. The opposition can whine all it wants but it has done very little to cooperate with this government. In fact, the opposite is true given what the three opposition parties tried to pull one year ago.

I still remember Jack Layton's statement the day after Harper first got elected. He immediately shot down any idea of negotiating and cooperating with the Conservatives.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

None of this matters anyways because the Tories are headed for a majority according to those in the know:

Tories set for majority: Psychic - Yahoo! Canada News


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> As governments get older, the chance of a scandal becomes more likely. But not necessarily a scandal that will cause them to lose an election.


Their time will come, sooner or later. ( I'm hoping sooner. ) It's just the nature of politics and politicians, left, right or centre. Some selfish, greedy power-monger, or a series of them, will step too far over the line for standard damage control to contain. And their opponents will promise a new dedication to ethics and transparency.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Their time will come, sooner or later. ( I'm hoping sooner. ) It's just the nature of politics and politicians, left, right or centre. Some selfish, greedy power-monger, or a series of them, will step too far over the line for standard damage control to contain. And their opponents will promise a new dedication to ethics and transparency.


Regardless of their politics, somebody somewhere is bound to eventually do something stupid. The question becomes, are those isolated incidents, or are they somehow systemic with a party/government. Unless a solid connection of the latter is made, it has no effect on the ability of the government to stand.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Uh, you'd better count him out. From the story above:


Sinc, you wear your partisanship on your sleeve.

I dislike both Haprer and Iggy.

However, just poll numbers to me isn't the whole story, your hero Harper at one time had some pretty dismal showings himself. Now I can't be sure that Iggy is savvy, or lucky enough, to be popular enough to take power, but I do know, that comparing Iggy to Dion, merely based on numbers is not seeing the whole story. Iggy, and Dion are very different leaders, and as I said, it may not be over for Iggy at all. Other than making the error of looking as if he may try to force an election, at the worst possible time, he's been rather slippery I think.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I have little confidence in Iggy myself. No, he's not Dion, but that's rather moot.

Iggy has proven to be a blustery guy with lousy political instincts. He's got a fine academic mind, no doubt, and I wouldn't mind having a pint with him to chat about what he knows (or thinks he knows). But as a leader? I'll be very surprised if he manages to reform his public image and find some traction. He had his shot and he's blown it... for one thing, I don't think he listens to his handlers. He's a bit too ivory tower intellectual for our nation. If he had some charisma to match his intellect, things might be different.

I dislike Harper intensely but I don't see anyone in the Liberal camp standing up to him anytime soon. They'd need to ditch the head man first.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't know Max. Harper has shown himself to be pretty dense himself quite a number of times, I think this 'masterful' thing is a bit overblown, considering what it's being compared to really (yawn).

But, you might be right, he may not be able to recover.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

groovetube said:


> I don't know Max. Harper has shown himself to be pretty dense himself quite a number of times, I think this 'masterful' thing is a bit overblown, considering what it's being compared to really (yawn).
> 
> But, you might be right, he may not be able to recover.


Don't get me wrong, GT... I too consider Harper simply crazy-fortunate on a number of occasions and still believe that he is his own worst enemy. Liberal blunders have given him a leg up several times, though - no question of that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Frankly, I was looking forward to Iggy's rise to the Liberal helm, when I read his stances on the various issues a few years back. He presented himself as someone who undersood that the ony way to build a substantial social safety net was to first encourage a robust economy. The leader he has become doesn't seem so clear headed. If Ignatieff had been the leader he said he wanted to become, I would probably have supported him


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Frankly, I was looking forward to Iggy's rise to the Liberal helm, when I read his stances on the various issues a few years back. He presented himself as someone who undersood that the ony way to build a substantial social safety net was to first encourage a robust economy. The leader he has become doesn't seem so clear headed. If Ignatieff had been the leader he said he wanted to become, I would probably have supported him


I think precious few of his public stances have been his own. I get the distinct feeling he just repeats the talking points of whatever book he last read without even understanding what it is he said, or realizing that it contradicts what he said previously.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_I think precious few of his public stances have been his own. I get the distinct feeling he just repeats the talking points of whatever book he last read without even understanding what it is he said, or realizing that it contradicts what he said previously._

I don't disagree with that assessment, although I think it quite nicely describes many a wily, career politician. Although I would add that Ignatieff, like many before him, fully realizes it whenever they contradict themselves in the public realm... they just don't care. They reserve the right to be expedient and fluid when it comes to their motivation and deeds.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> _I think precious few of his public stances have been his own. I get the distinct feeling he just repeats the talking points of whatever book he last read without even understanding what it is he said, or realizing that it contradicts what he said previously._
> 
> I don't disagree with that assessment, *although I think it quite nicely describes many a wily, career politician.* Although I would add that Ignatieff, like many before him, fully realizes it whenever they contradict themselves in the public realm... they just don't care. They reserve the right to be expedient and fluid when it comes to their motivation and deeds.


ha ha, yes it does, yes it does. While both Harper, and Iggy have made some real head scratchin blunders, I wouldn't for second think either of them are actually stupid, or 'don't understand what they said'.

lol.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> _Although I would add that Ignatieff, like many before him, fully realizes it whenever they contradict themselves in the public realm... they just don't care. They reserve the right to be expedient and fluid when it comes to their motivation and deeds._


_

This reminds me of an episode of Hogan's Heroes when the spineless Colonel Klink explains a cowardly and complete about-face in policy with: "I am very flexible in these matters."_


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm going to take a wild guess here and think perhaps there is quite a bit about Hogan's heroes that reminds you of Canadian politics in general.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Pols can be spineless indeed but they prefer to think of themselves as supremely flexible, with impeccable survival skills. Too, they know they can count on an electorate too dulled by a veritable slew of contemporary distractions to care... an electorate which, not coincidentally, tends to have fairly short-term memories. Iggy is not the first, nor the last, to shift gears when he thinks it's prudent. But I'd say that, in his case, his sense of timing needs some work.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

In U.S. politics I recall Bob Dole, who was anything but a fiscal conservative, campaigning suddenly that he was going to be a tax-cutting president. Sometimes supreme flexibility doesn't even cut it with the electorate.

I remember years ago thinking that it was beyond most people's ability to look up old items in a newspaper to see what one pol or another had said seven years ago, therefore they could get away with it. With the internet we're a lot closer to being able to compare things people said in various years, yet it still doesn't seem to matter much--working to define the search terms and getting a few bad results is still pretty discouraging for the few people who care. 

On the other hand, if search capapbility were perfect and you could call up exactly what you needed with no effort, it would show everyone to be a hypocrite at some point. That would cause isolated examples of hypocrisy to lose their punch in a hurry.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yep. If everyone can be proven to have said or done something which bears the stink of hypocrisy, then a single instance of it suddenly seems moot.

Agreed - the public does not deeply care about politics... and the more further back in the past we go with our searches for which pol did or said what, the less relevant it all seems to the public today. Many of us do not exercise our right to vote. Much of our youth view the political arena as an endless sideshow, one with atrocious players and dull spectacles - and which, most tellingly, young Canadians feel has precious little impact on their lives. It's really no wonder that jaded, jaundiced views tend to dominate the media.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

This is a bit of a tangent to the discussion, but a couple of years ago I read a book called "Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)" which talks about self-justification of actions. It's an interesting read and talks about how our own brains work to deceive us and our perceptions of our previous actions. I sometimes wonder how much self-justification goes on in the brains of our political and corporate leaders.




> We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.


 — George Orwell (1946)


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

A great deal, I suspect - although no more than what each of us does in the private realm. We all have friends and families who could point to strange inconsistencies in our natures - telling gaps between what we profess to believe in and how we act out when we think no one is watching.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yep. Character is the sum total of what we do when we don't believe anyone can see us. 

I recall tuning into a radio show a few years back hosted by G. Gordon Liddy and a caller was trying to box him into some absurd scenario by which he would kill his own son. Liddy just cut him short and said that if the caller wanted to invent a scenario by which the entire world would be destroyed unless he shot his offspring, then he would agree to it right away--save your time! 

Consistency is merely impossible and something we strive for as a goal, and each person will eventually behave as a hypocrite.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Character is the sum total of what we do when we don't believe anyone can see us.


Does that mean that people who believe in God have no character?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Does that mean that people who believe in God have no character?


That would be anyOne, you're thinking of.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Max said:


> Y
> 
> Agreed - the public does not deeply care about politics.../QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Rps said:


> Not sure about that Max, politics is temporal .... whether by design or accident, parties only seem to campaign during the election period. If you think about it, there are some swing seats out there. Wouldn't it make more sense for the challenging parties to keep hitting the voters on the incumbents failings on a continuing basis. But we call an election, try to convince every other candidate is a liar, and once the election is over, all is forgotten until next time.


I disagree... parties' respective continue to grandstand in the house during question period... evidently pols believe there's a percentage in acting out politically, even when there's not an election in the air. I believe it's a condition of being political... like something in your blood. You have to be fond of turning it on at any given time, not merely when it's time to go to the polls.



> If I were the leader of the Green Party, I would be canvassing on a continuing basis and have my riding association pass a by-law that would allow a candidate to run in two campaigns to keep up the pressure .... first party to realise that will take many a seat I can assure you.


I'm not so sure about that myself. Don't discount sheer voter fatigue and the annoyance factor regarding old school, door-to-door techniques. I dunno about you, but I can only take so many poundings on my door from well-meaning canvassers and would-be sales and charity types.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Max, that all depends on the riding and the issue at hand. Clarington is a classic example of where the Green's could pick up a seat if they worked it between elections.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Perhaps. I do know that this door-to-door stuff in the cities is a tough slog. Personally, I appreciate unsolicited visits to my house about as much as I enjoy telemarketers ringing me up at the dinner hour.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

It seems to me that some Ehmacians have a very narrow view of the political process.

Political parties continually, through local riding associations, try to canvass for members/donations.

If one engages in the partisan political process one may help develop policy and the direction of a party’s platform. This is accomplished if one would partake in the activities of local riding association’s discussions and actions that put forward resolutions to party conventions. 

You can stand for office in a riding association or at the provincial or federal wings of the party. Stand and be elected as a delegate to policy meetings/conventions.

Or sit on the interwebnet and rail how ineffective the party political process is and how politicians just don’t listen or act in your interest.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Or sit on the interwebnet and rail how ineffective the party political process is and how politicians just don’t listen or act in your interest.


I advocate this for the Greens and NDP!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

Point taken. How about this, then?

_It seems to me that you can do something constructive about politics and how they're discussed online. Or you can type away at your keyboard and rail on at how ineffective the online world is and how other posters just don't listen to you or nod in affirmation to everything you say._

The beauty of the internetweb is that we all get to play political pundit - it's an equal-opportunity medium. I'm sorry, did I say "beauty?" I meant "horror." Oh dear... sometimes it gets a bit confusing that way.

Anyway, I'm sure that some people don't mind being canvassed. Many people, even! I just wanted to note that I personally don't like being canvassed at my own door.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> Anyway, I'm sure that some people don't mind being canvassed. Many people, even! I just wanted to note that I personally don't like being canvassed at my own door.


We think alike on that issue Max, but I toss in the phone and mail as well as my door.

I have a simple system. I patiently explain to a phone or a door canvasser that I no longer wish them to use the privacy of my home as theirs to bother me.

I ask them calmly to remove my phone number from their list, or make my address off limits, both in person and via mail, to their volunteers or pro fund raisers for that matter.

In return, I promise when I make a once a year donation to the United Way I will specifically request a portion of my donation be sent to their charity.

If they insist on door knocking, mail outs and phoning, they get nothing.

I started this about four years back and my phone calls, mail and door knocking are nearly non existent now.

I keep a list of those I ask to cooperate and follow through with my donation with one tax deductible receipt from the United Way.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Nice method there, Sinc. Mind if I borrow it?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> Nice method there, Sinc. Mind if I borrow it?


Help yourself sir. Sometimes I do come up with a winner.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> I disagree... parties' respective continue to grandstand in the house during question period... evidently pols believe there's a percentage in acting out politically, even when there's not an election in the air. I believe it's a condition of being political... like something in your blood. You have to be fond of turning it on at any given time, not merely when it's time to go to the polls.


QP is for the media, the sound bite, etc... it is theatre. The grandstanding and drivel that comes out of QP is in direct relation to the attention the media gives it. If QP happened _In Camera_ (meaning without cameras for those who might think otherwise) QP would be a completely different thing and might actually serve a purpose beyond striving for political one-upmanship.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

No question that QP is theatre. But then again, most contemporary politics is just that. Any time a pol is giving a sound bite in front of a clutch of cams, there's going to be some acting out. This is a televisual world we live in, after all. But I agree that QP might possibly be more effective if the cameras were banished. Then again, that would make it easier for cynical deals to be done. However, I'd still rather take the chance. Because what we have right now is a bunch of noisy grandstanding - style winning out over substance... and a whole lot of hammy acting.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> But I agree that QP might possibly be more effective if the cameras were banished. Then again, that would make it easier for cynical deals to be done. However, I'd still rather take the chance. Because what we have right now is a bunch of noisy grandstanding - style winning out over substance... and a whole lot of hammy acting.


In Camera, doesn't mean without record. It would still have a Hansard transcript of the proceedings. Also no deals are made in QP. It might (slim chance) make for a purposeful Q&A session though if it were In Camera i.e. real questions as opposed to pot shots and possibly real answers without hyperbole, platitude and "back at yas".


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Indeed.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'd be all for it if pay were suspended as well....useless tits.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> QP is for the media, the sound bite, etc... it is theatre. The grandstanding and drivel that comes out of QP is in direct relation to the attention the media gives it. If QP happened _In Camera_ (meaning without cameras for those who might think otherwise) QP would be a completely different thing and might actually serve a purpose beyond striving for political one-upmanship.


The problem with QP is the name. It should be named and focused as answer period. The Government isn't under any obligation to answer any questions. They never answer unless it the softball questions lobed at Ministers by government caucus back bencher.

Take out the public review of the process the government is free to do as it pleases definately not a scenerio anyone would want in a Parliament with a party holding a majority of seats.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> I'd be all for it if pay were suspended as well....useless tits.


Right, when pigs fly. Wait until the Auditor General finds the bills for junkets for committees that can't meet to places like Hawaii (to see if pineapples might be grown in Cape Breton) or the Turks (to see if this is in the Carribean or in the middle east). We shall see.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> The problem with QP is the name. It should be named and focused as answer period. The Government isn't under any obligation to answer any questions. They never answer unless it the softball questions lobed at Ministers by government caucus back bencher.
> 
> Take out the public review of the process the government is free to do as it pleases definately not a scenerio anyone would want in a Parliament with a party holding a majority of seats.


QP is not a public review process (in reality)... and even if it were it is not removing the public review process to have it In Camera at all. The public galleries would still be open and the press corps would still be there to report and a Hansard transcript would still be mandatory . What it could potentially do is remove the "Circus" that otherwise surrounds QP.

As you say the government never really answers anyway (this is true of *any* government not just the current one) so your point is mute before you even made it.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> QP is not a public review process (in reality)... and even if it were it is not removing the public review process to have it In Camera at all. The public galleries would still be open and the press corps would still be there to report and a Hansard transcript would still be mandatory . What it could potentially do is remove the "Circus" that otherwise surrounds QP.
> 
> As you say the government never really answers anyway (this is true of *any* government not just the current one) so your point is mute before you even made it.


My point is the government should, but to your point, freedom of info request are largely fudged or ignored also.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Rick Mercer: "Even Afghanistan, where Canadians are dying, has a parliament that's open for business." 



.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I agree that pay and pension credit should be suspended. Given those 2 conditions I believe the country would benefit greatly by proroguing Parliament say 11 months a year.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> My point is the government should, but to your point, freedom of info request are largely fudged or ignored also.


There would be no freedom of info request involved or needed... How can I make this any more clear... In Camera simply means QP would happen without camera's present, everything else would remain the same.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

eMacMan said:


> I agree that pay and pension credit should be suspended. Given those 2 conditions I believe the country would benefit greatly by proroguing Parliament say 11 months a year.


I would still ike to know what might prevent a Prime Minister of Canada from doing just this very thing?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> I would still ike to know what might prevent a Prime Minister of Canada from doing just this very thing?


Reality.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

screature said:


> Reality.


Not if the GG agrees with the PM's reason for this closure. Legally, what can prevent a longer proroguing of Parliament?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Not if the GG agrees with the PM's reason for this closure. Legally, what can prevent a longer proroguing of Parliament?


Legally nothing... There is a heck of a difference between 5 weeks and 11 months. If any PM asked for an 11 month prorogation it would be political suicide... That is why I said reality.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

screature said:


> Legally nothing... There is a heck of a difference between 5 weeks and 11 months. If any PM asked for an 11 month prorogation it would be political suicide... That is why I said reality.


Still, without a legal statute making this illegal, it is up to the PM and GG to close down a legally elected Parliament. Might be "political suicide", but imagine a Nixon/Watergate situation here .................... the PM simply shuts down Parliament for an indefinate period of time and there is no vote of non-confidence. If the Queen of England agrees, we are stuck. 

Just one more reason why I would rather see us cut ties with the monarcy and the GG, and have a Canadian Republic, with an elected House of Commons and an elected Senate.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

If we have an elected HoC and elected Senate, what's the point of having the Senate. Why not have a third elected body, fourth, fifth, etc.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> There would be no freedom of info request involved or needed... How can I make this any more clear... In Camera simply means QP would happen without camera's present, everything else would remain the same.


I guess your too young to remember Parliament before TV cameras were turned onto the chamber. 

QP played the same way as does today. Remember more of the noise and foolishness is out of camera view.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

hayesk said:


> If we have an elected HoC and elected Senate, what's the point of having the Senate. Why not have a third elected body, fourth, fifth, etc.


Personally, I would like to see the Senate done away with altogether. Still, if it must remain, I would see it similar to the US Senate with two senators from each province and one from each territory. This way, the House of Commons might be expanded to better represent true population. There are 4 MPs for PEI and 7 MPs from NL, and our combined population is just over half of the population of Calgary. I don't think that Calgary has 20+ MPs within the city limits. Thus, this area is under-represented. So, drastically reduce the Senate and expand the House.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Personally I favour a small elected Senate. Three elected members from each province and territory. Straight-up single 5 year terms no second ride. Cannot initiate legislation but can either vote it down altogether or introduce or delete amendments then send it back to HoC. 

Ideally would help protect the other regions of Canada from being at the mercy of the Ontario/Quebec control of Parliament.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

eMacMan said:


> Personally I favour a small elected Senate. Three elected members from each province and territory. Straight-up single 5 year terms no second ride. Cannot initiate legislation but can either vote it down altogether or introduce or delete amendments then send it back to HoC.
> 
> Ideally would help protect the other regions of Canada from being at the mercy of the Ontario/Quebec control of Parliament.


An interesting idea re term limits, eMacMan.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

hayesk said:


> If we have an elected HoC and elected Senate, what's the point of having the Senate. Why not have a third elected body, fourth, fifth, etc.


I agree what is the point of the "Senate" elected or not elected. If a second body is needed it should be a body of equals controlled and representative of the Provinces and Territories. Preferably elected, but for fixed periods of say Five years.

Perhaps the role of GG should be Head of State and referee for Parliament with fixed guidelines/rules with the view of keeping democracy rolling along.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> I guess your too young to remember Parliament before TV cameras were turned onto the chamber.
> 
> QP played the same way as does today. Remember more of the noise and foolishness is out of camera view.


Not too young at all. I attended on several occasions. The rules of accepted decorum were looser then as well (desktop banging is no longer tolerated). Of course a lot of the foolishness goes on off camera that isn't the point, it is what goes on in front of the camera. 

BTW I watch QP every day, (part of my job, so please drop the condescending tone a little please and thanks  )


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL, rid us of the GG and the ties to the monarchy, SVP. Merci, mon ami.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> BigDL, rid us of the GG and the ties to the monarchy, SVP. Merci, mon ami.


I shall agree to cut the ties to the Monarchy, when your native land gives up the dream of the President being the elected Royal. Same sort of pomp and ceremony. 

The important issue to me is the notion that the PM is a commoner, nobody special. The Head of State in Canada presently the GG is out of the fray in political discussions such as going to war. As I stated the role of GG need tweaking in my view.

When the situation of war arose recently, in the Excited States, one was accused of being disloyal to speak against such a proposition. The press did not speak out against or question the Iraq invasion. peace out


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Still, without a legal statute making this illegal, it is up to the PM and GG to close down a legally elected Parliament. Might be "political suicide", but imagine a Nixon/Watergate situation here .................... the PM simply shuts down Parliament for an indefinate period of time and there is no vote of non-confidence. If the Queen of England agrees, we are stuck.
> 
> Just one more reason why I would rather see us cut ties with the monarcy and the GG, and have a Canadian Republic, with an elected House of Commons and an elected Senate.


Very much of Parliamentary Procedure is not based in statute but in tradition and precedent, this is true of even the oldest Parliaments. 

Prorogation has legitimate purposes and is used for a government to to reset its priorities and call for a new Speech from the Throne which publicly states the priorities of the Government for any given session. You can speculate about the evil intents of future or current leaders, but the practice serves a purpose. It may be reasonable to set a limit as to the duration of a prorogation but to abandon the practice altogether I do not believe is necessary. 

BTW a 5 week prorogation is not particularly long.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> I shall agree to cut the ties to the Monarchy, when your native land gives up the dream of the President being the elected Royal. Same sort of pomp and ceremony.
> 
> The important issue to me is the notion that the PM is a commoner, nobody special. The Head of State in Canada presently the GG is out of the fray in political discussions such as going to war. As I stated the role of GG need tweaking in my view.
> 
> When the situation of war arose recently, in the Excited States, one was accused of being disloyal to speak against such a proposition. The press did not speak out against or question the Iraq invasion. peace out


That was George Washington's original idea, but the various checks and balances with the US Congress and Supreme Court make this royalty a hard sell, especially given the limitations of the 22nd Amendment.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> Not too young at all. I attended on several occasions. The rules of accepted decorum were looser then as well (desktop banging is no longer tolerated). Of course a lot of the foolishness goes on of camera that isn't the point, it is what goes on in front of the camera.
> 
> BTW I watch QP every day, (part of my job, so please drop the condescending tone a little please and thanks  )


I was attempting to point out that cameras were turned on in the chamber to yes inform Canadians but a stated goal was to stop the unruliness of QP.

On an editorial note I must say some people know how to win friends and influence people, especially to deflect the debate to other areas, as noted by others. peace out


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> I was attempting to point out that cameras were turned on in the chamber to yes inform Canadians but a stated goal was to stop the unruliness of QP.
> 
> On an editorial note I must say some people know how to win friends and influence people, especially to deflect the debate to other areas, as noted by others. peace out


It may have been a stated intention at the time but it failed miserably, all it allowed for was for the media to set the agenda for both the Government and the Opposition.

_"On an editorial note I must say some people know how to win friends and influence people, especially to deflect the debate to other areas, as noted by others. peace out."_

Not sure what you are alluding to...?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

From Rick Mercer in today's Globe And Mail:

Proroguing is for children (and Stephen Harper) - The Globe and Mail



> It is too bad that prorogation isn't something that our soldiers had in their arsenal. When faced with the order to head out on a foot patrol in the Panjwai district of southern Afghanistan, to risk their lives to bring democracy to that place, wouldn't it be nice if they could simply prorogue and roll over and go back to sleep? Soldiers don't get that luxury. That is afforded only to the people who ultimately order them to walk down those dangerous dusty roads in the first place.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Doesn't surprise me in the least given the source, Mercer.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> From Rick Mercer in today's Globe And Mail:
> 
> Proroguing is for children (and Stephen Harper) - The Globe and Mail





> It is too bad that prorogation isn't something that our soldiers had in their arsenal. When faced with the order to head out on a foot patrol in the Panjwai district of southern Afghanistan, to risk their lives to bring democracy to that place, wouldn't it be nice if they could simply prorogue and roll over and go back to sleep? Soldiers don't get that luxury. *That is afforded only to the people who ultimately order them to walk down those dangerous dusty roads in the first place.*


Yes... and it was the Liberal Government of Jean Chretien....  Lest we forget.

(Not that it would be any different had it been Conservatives in power at the time... just sayin'.  )

Not to mention, "to stand in harms way" is what the military signed on for...

I think Rick Mercer is funny... but he is a comedian who wears his political inclinations on his sleeve.... doesn't mean I want him making the tough decisions.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

^
+1


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Yes... and it was the Liberal Government of Jean Chretien....  Lest we forget.
> 
> (Not that it would be any different had it been Conservatives in power at the time... just sayin'.  )
> 
> ...


Doesn't change the fact that there is a groundswell of disdain for this latest 'strategic' move by the PM. The fact that Mercer is lending his voice loudly only helps the cause.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Doesn't change the fact that there is a groundswell of disdain for this latest 'strategic' move by the PM. The fact that Mercer is lending his voice loudly only helps the cause.


_
Groundswell_... please define... a few hundred Facebook participants makes a groundswell not. 

At any rate if the public at large takes exception to this particular prorogation... so be it.. it will work itself out in the wash... aka the next election. IMO it is a blip and the *general* public cares not.

I see e-mails from the public on a daily basis at the time of the "Coalition" I saw hundreds and hundreds of e-mails expressing their opposition to the concept (from people across the country) almost instantly. Thus far I have seen maybe twenty concerned about the prorogation.

It just isn't (again IMO) going to gain any significant traction... particularly when the most pressing issue when the House returns will be a new Budget.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> _
> Groundswell_... please define... a few hundred Facebook participants makes a groundswell not.
> 
> At any rate if the public at large takes exception to this particular prorogation... so be it.. it will work itself out in the wash... aka the next election. IMO it is a blip and the *general* public cares not.


How very arrogant of you. In the immortal words of Dr.G.:

We shall see.

Also, I wouldn't be so cavalier as to discount FB. The numbers are growing exponentially.

FB _is_ news these days.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> How very arrogant of you. In the immortal words of Dr.G.:
> 
> We shall see.
> 
> ...


I don't know why you would consider it arrogant when I stated it as simply my opinion and not the definitive truth... I guess it is arrogant if I disagree with you.  And absolutely we shall see.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> I don't know why you would consider it arrogant when I stated it as simply my opinion and not the definitive truth... I guess it is arrogant if I disagree with you.  And absolutely we shall see.


No, sadly you take an arrogant tone with many of your posts _IMO._


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

"FB is news these days" 'tis true... and so was the death of Michael Jackson, the King of Pop... who thinks about it now?

Facebook has a particular demographic that uses it and mostly those who participate very little in the democratic process.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> No, sadly you take an arrogant tone with many of your posts _IMO._


I guess it depends on who you agree with as to who sounds arrogant doesn't it...?

At any rate time will tell...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> "FB is news these days" 'tis true... and so was the death of Michael Jackson, the King of Pop... who thinks about it now?
> 
> Facebook has a particular demographic that uses it and mostly those who participate very little in the democratic process.


I'm glad we haven't resorted to generalizing.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> I'm glad we haven't resorted to generalizing.


Just sayin' the majority of Facebook users are in the age group that statically votes less than other age groups... nothing more... again your quote of Dr.G. was appropriate.. We shall see...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Just sayin' the majority of Facebook users are in the age group that statically votes less than other age groups... nothing more... again your quote of Dr.G. was appropriate.. We shall see...


I know several hundred _not_ in that age group. I'm sure they know several hundred more.

Are you the resident expert on everything screature?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

The "Facebook outrage" so far has shown itself to be the same group of a left wing "rent-a-crowd" types it always is. Their growing page membership are in direct contrast to the polling of the public. 

When they did it during the coalition goofiness, they claimed tens of thousands of members, and offered that as proof most people were in favour of the coalition. Then the polls came out and showed Harper's approval in the mid 50s, and those in favour of coalition to be almost the exact same number as NDP supporters.

It's not much different now. 60% of Canadians either support or don't care about prorogation, but a Facebook group making noise what makes the news.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> I know several hundred _not_ in that age group. I'm sure they know several hundred more.
> 
> Are you the resident expert on everything screature?


Nope. But being that I am involved in the "biz" of politics I do pay attention.

Elections Canada is slow to come out with "official tabulations" of voter data so the last "official" data we have for from Elections Canada is from the 39the General Election in Canada 2006. Here are the demographics of voter turnout by age:









We also have voter turnout by age compiled by the Strategic Council of Canada on the the 40th General Election in Canada 2008, but this is based on survey results as opposed to actual statistical results:









Regardless in each case the lowest voter turnout occurs in the youngest age groups.

These are the latest statistics of FaceBook users:









So based on the data one can see that the majority of FaceBook users are in the age demographic that cannot vote/vote the least.

Of course there are exceptions (and obviously you know a bunch) but this is the data.

I try not to talk through a hole in my hat... even if you think otherwise.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

My point is that being dismissive, flippantly or otherwise can be dangerous. There are still high numbers in the age groups that do vote.

Also, I believe anger displaces apathy. Perhaps a formula Harper hasn't counted on.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> I'm glad we haven't resorted to generalizing.


Please be respectful when dealing with a knowledgeable professional, I implore you be judicious, going up, against an opinionated individual. Deflection from an issue to confond and confuse. As you noted not the first time either.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Please be respectful when dealing with a knowledgeable professional, I implore you be judicious, going up, against an opinionated individual. Deflection from an issue to confond and confuse. As you noted not the first time either.


Bull**** Baffles Brains is not my motto... but perhaps it is your's...

Being referred to as opinionated is usually in reference to one who has little or no experience/knowledge regarding the matter at hand. While I am certainly not a sage, I have both experience and knowledge of the political realm.

So you may not appreciate or agree with my opinions... fine, but I see no evidence in your argumentation that you are any less "opinionated" in the positions you hold i.e. greater demonstrable experience/knowledge. So please spare me your indignation and facetious comments.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> My point is that being dismissive, flippantly or otherwise can be dangerous. There are still high numbers in the age groups that do vote.
> 
> Also, I believe anger displaces apathy. Perhaps a formula Harper hasn't counted on.


Certainly it can be so... it just is a matter of degrees... Harper's move was definitely a risk.. but I believe it was calculated... again we shall see.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Stacking the Senate


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Please be respectful when dealing with a knowledgeable professional, I implore you be judicious, going up, against an opinionated individual. Deflection from an issue to confond and confuse. As you noted not the first time either.


:clap:

over and out.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Doesn't change the fact that there is a groundswell of disdain for this latest 'strategic' move by the PM. The fact that Mercer is lending his voice loudly only helps the cause.


Yeah, right, the pro-Conservative polls lately definitely show that trend. 

And Mercer is nothing more than a comic and a poor one at that. His opinion with real voters is pretty much a bust.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Ottawaman said:


> Stacking the Senate


But of course... Tada.

Politics is a blood sport... there is little room for error... I pointed this out as part of Harper's strategy earlier in this thread. This not news nor shocking.

It is the *real* reason why the Liberals are upset over the prorogation...they are soon to loose their stranglehold over the Senate.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Oh Sinc. He is a popular comic. He may not espouse the views you hold, but nevertheless he is quite popular, though he is from the east.

pity him I guess eh?

Anyway, regardless of what I think about the recent events, and any "groundswell" that may result, it'll depend on how things pan out when parliament resumes if the public will begin to drop support. It certainly wouldn't be the first time Harper edged into majority territory, only to shoot himself in the foot.

Truthfully, Iggy hasn't presented much of an alternative to voters, which would account for some support for the er, 'new' conservatives. I figure Iggy has a remaining shot in the spring summer, if he still doesn't, well, good luck to Harper and may god help us all.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Oh Sinc. He is a popular comic. He may not espouse the views you hold, but nevertheless he is quite popular, though he is from the east.


He's only popular if you watch the CBC and not many do that out our way.

Personally, I find his so-called humour childish, much like his political stance.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> He's only popular if you watch the CBC and not many do that out our way.
> 
> Personally, I find his so-called humour childish, much like his political stance.


Many, many people enjoy Rick Mercer and his brand of humour and insight. In fact, he regularly gets audiences with all of our political leaders because they realize his immense appeal. 

He doesn't normally engage in sexist or bodily function humour though...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Oh Sinc. He is a popular comic. He may not espouse the views you hold, but nevertheless he is quite popular, though he is from the east." gt, he is from St.John's, NL, which is Canada's far east. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Many, many people enjoy Rick Mercer and his brand of humour and insight. In fact, he regularly gets audiences with all of our political leaders because they realize his immense appeal.
> 
> He doesn't normally engage in sexist or bodily function humour though...


And many, many people detest the guy and his brand of humour and insight.

Politicians are media pigs that oink at any opportunity to gain publicity. Heck, Bob Rae even went skinny dippin' with his boyfriend Mercer and what could be more newsworthy that that?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Heck, Bob Rae even went skinny dippin' with his boyfriend Mercer and what could be more newsworthy that that?


You should cover your neck, you're getting a burn.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> You should cover your neck, you're getting a burn.


What, for stating the obvious as seen on your favourite network? Those who participate in such actions are wide open to criticism.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

SINC said:


> And many, many people detest the guy and his brand of humour and insight.
> 
> Politicians are media pigs that oink at any opportunity to gain publicity. Heck, Bob Rae even went skinny dippin' with his boyfriend Mercer and what could be more newsworthy that that?


Still, he spoke with George Bush (briefly) and PM Harper, Chretien and Martin.

YouTube - Ric Mercer Talking with Americans

YouTube - How about a sleepover at the White House?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiRVo-2F9tk&feature=related

YouTube - Paul Martin visits Canadian Tire with Rick Mercer


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Proroguing is no different than being a seasonal worker, Like fishing or gardening,
Is Stephen Harper trying to tell us that he's a seasonal worker?

Then perhaps Harper and his party should get seasonal wages.

I'm a seasonal worker and I'm appalled that they are getting paid full time wages.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> Still, he spoke with George Bush (briefly) and PM Harper, Chretien and Martin.
> 
> YouTube - Ric Mercer Talking with Americans
> 
> ...


That is true Dr. G., but cavorting in the nude with an openly gay comedian comes with a certain stigma for many voters. You can dislike that fact, but it is a fact and it does affect public opinion.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> What, for stating the obvious as seen on your favourite network? Those who participate in such actions are wide open to criticism.


Criticism, hmmm. 

Like I said....

Also, (clears throat, gross assumption, clears throat) my favourite network? Goodness, are you into the spirits so early?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

dolawren said:


> Proroguing is no different than being a seasonal worker, Like fishing or gardening,
> Is Stephen Harper trying to tell us that he's a seasonal worker?
> 
> Then perhaps Harper and his party should get seasonal wages.
> ...


They've all applied for EI.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Criticism, hmmm.
> 
> Like I said....
> 
> Also, (clears throat, gross assumption, clears throat) my favourite network? Goodness, are you into the spirits so early?


No spirits required to know you have supported the CBC on this forum many times. 

I will forgive the insinuation that I am under the influence this one time.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

My goodness some Ehmacians are a tad cranky this evening. With everything going as well as expected and predicted why so much of the nasty?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

my, a sleepover with an openly gay comedian.

guess that should cause at least some consternation amongst the homophobic no?

YouTube - Rick Mercer's Sleepover with Stephen Harper

But Mercer is cee bee CEEEEEEEEE...... ohhhh the CBC. Harper on the CEEE BEEEEEEE CEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

snort.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> They've all applied for EI.


That's insane

If you get laid off, Then you collect E.I.
Why should the Government be allowed to collect E.I. for laying themselves off?

That's like saying to my boss, I'm proroguing the fall this year and collecting E.I. instead,
I wouldn't be getting my job back in the spring would I if I did that.

Why should they get their jobs back in the spring either?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> I will forgive the insinuation that I am under the influence this one time.


And I will forgive you for being a homophobe this one time.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

groovetube said:


> my, a sleepover with an openly gay comedian.
> 
> guess that should cause at least some consternation amongst the homophobic no?
> 
> ...


to paraphrase another Conservative PM No Whore Like a Media Whore.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

dolawren said:


> That's insane
> 
> If you get laid off, Then you collect E.I.
> Why should the Government be allowed to collect E.I. for laying themselves off?
> ...


In an industrial dispute (strike/lockout) situation the non working parties receive no EI.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> my, a sleepover with an openly gay comedian.
> 
> guess that should cause at least some consternation amongst the homophobic no?
> 
> ...


Hilarious! Can you believe Harper was right beside him, _touching him_ when he was in bed????

Ick!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

dolawren said:


> That's insane
> 
> If you get laid off, Then you collect E.I.
> Why should the Government be allowed to collect E.I. for laying themselves off?
> ...


Harper laid them all off, no?

I'm kidding btw.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> And I will forgive you for being a homophobe this one time.


mrjimmy, you jump to conclusions once again. 

I know from association with, and reporting about many, many westerners that are in fact homophobic, especially rural folk. That's a fact.

But now you have called me a homophobe and that is not only wrong but a personal affront to me. There is a huge difference between knowing the ilk of fellow westerners and being accused of something I am not.

I will expect an apology forthwith on that accusation.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> That is true Dr. G., but cavorting in the nude with an openly gay comedian comes with a certain stigma for many voters. You can dislike that fact, but it is a fact and it does affect public opinion.


I'd say this is definitely bordering on homophobic.

"cavorting in the nude"!!!! "with an openly gay comedian"!!!!!!!!!

Come on!!!!! it was a funny joke he merely jumped in the water, he wasn't -cavorting- with an openly gay comedian! 

Holy get yer shirt tails in a homphobic knot.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I'd say this is definitely bordering on homophobic.
> 
> "cavorting in the nude"!!!! "with an openly gay comedian"!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...


You don't get it either gt?

I am not talking about myself. I am pointing out, and quite correctly that there does exist a segment of rural westerners who view such things in a much different manner than those who openly accept the gay movement.

Those who don't are in the large group I refer to in my observations.

Calling me homophobic is absurd and not true. I recognize the difference between this group and the generally accepting population. Obviously you can't get you head around that, nor can mrjimmy.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> mrjimmy, you jump to conclusions once again.
> 
> I know from association with, and reporting about many, many westerners that are in fact homophobic, especially rural folk. That's a fact.
> 
> ...


SINC, where I'm from, making an insinuating remark regarding one's sexuality by saying *'their boyfriend'* is considered homophobic. 

I am, as you are so fond of saying, calling it as I see it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it's how you put it Sinc. I didn't call you a homophobe, but I thought what you said, bordered on homophobic.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I'm simply trying to let others know that there are in fact people who think that Rae and Mercer are "boyfriends" from what they saw on TV. Nothing more and nothing less. It was what I heard time and again from locals here when it aired. And that is homophobic, not me.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Rick Mercer is gay? Hmm... learn something new every day.

From where I sit, most Canadians don't give a rat's behind the majority of attempts to improve a politician's image by intruding into popular culture....


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> I'm simply trying to let others know that there are in fact people who think that Rae and Mercer are "boyfriends" from what they saw on TV. Nothing more and nothing less. It was what I heard time and again from locals here when it aired. And that is homophobic, not me.


if thats the case, homopobia is the least of their worries. Brain death is likely higher on the list.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The larger issue in my mind is that there are those of you who think such groups of people somehow do not exist. 

It can't really be called hatred, but it borders on it as they have no tolerance or acceptance of the gay lifestyle. 

Many gays have fled rural western Canada, especially in small communities where their lives are miserable due to non acceptance in the community. (k d lang comes to mind here.)

It is real and it still exists and to deny it only shows ignorance to the reality of some small communities.

To lump me in with them because I am aware of them, is just as ignorant.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> I'm simply trying to let others know that there are in fact people who think that Rae and Mercer are "boyfriends" from what they saw on TV. Nothing more and nothing less. It was what I heard time and again from locals here when it aired. And that is homophobic, not me.


If there are people who thought that they were boyfriends after viewing the clip, they would not be very perceptive people. It was a silly clip, done for laughs and had nothing to do with Mercer and Rae being involved with each other. Are you letting us know that there are locals who are not very perceptive -- as well as being homophobic?

"Openly gay" -- that's an interesting choice of words you made a few post back, SINC. What does that mean exactly? Should gay people be hiding their orientation? It's not illegal anymore. 

Is it like "openly Jewish"? I'm sure there are locals where you live and also where I do that might not like openly Jewish people either. Should politicians and comics be afraid of offending the sensibilities of people like that? Should anyone at all really care what Neanderthals like that think about anything?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

groovetube said:


> I'd say this is definitely bordering on homophobic.
> 
> "cavorting in the nude"!!!! "with an openly gay comedian"!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...


Perhaps some have too much thought and focus on pubic opinion.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If there are people who thought that they were boyfriends after viewing the clip, they would not be very perceptive people. It was a silly clip, done for laughs and had nothing to do with Mercer and Rae being involved with each other. Are you letting us know that there are locals who are not very perceptive -- as well as being homophobic?
> 
> "Openly gay" -- that's an interesting choice of words you made a few post back, SINC. What does that mean exactly? Should gay people be hiding their orientation? It's not illegal anymore.
> 
> Is it like "openly Jewish"? I'm sure there are locals where you live and also where I do that might not like openly Jewish people either. Should politicians and comics be afraid of offending the sensibilities of people like that? Should anyone at all really care what Neanderthals like that think about anything?


Seems like that Bob is cavorting once again on the Jewish front.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh I doubt the other 99% of Canada gives two craps about some rural communities who think Rae was "cavorting nude with an openly gay comedian".

I know I sure don't.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If there are people who thought that they were boyfriends after viewing the clip, they would not be very perceptive people. It was a silly clip, done for laughs and had nothing to do with Mercer and Rae being involved with each other. Are you letting us know that there are locals who are not very perceptive -- as well as being homophobic?
> 
> "Openly gay" -- that's an interesting choice of words you made a few post back, SINC. What does that mean exactly? Should gay people be hiding their orientation? It's not illegal anymore.
> 
> Is it like "openly Jewish"? I'm sure there are locals where you live and also where I do that might not like openly Jewish people either. Should politicians and comics be afraid of offending the sensibilities of people like that? Should anyone at all really care what Neanderthals like that think about anything?


Openly gay!!! CAVORTING NUDE!!!!!!!


oh. my. god.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> "Openly gay" -- that's an interesting choice of words you made a few post back, SINC. What does that mean exactly? Should gay people be hiding their orientation? It's not illegal anymore.


It is no secret that those who do not support gay marriage and the gay lifestyle would very much prefer that gays live a secluded lifestyle, thus I use the term openly gay to demonstrate it is an abomination to these people. What's so difficult to understand about that?

They live in another world and don't want their lifestyles intertwined with something they find offensive.

Religion plays a large role in these interpretations of the gay movement. Ridicule me or them all you like, but I make no apologies for alerting others to their presence, nor pointing out that they form large voting blocks and support candidates who support their views.

I didn't say it was right or wrong, just that it exists. If you can't accept that it does, that's your issue, not mine. Keeping your head in the sand is fine with me. I choose not to and acknowledge the fact they exist.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Should anyone at all really care what Neanderthals like that think about anything?


Isn't it funny how those claiming to be opposed to bigotry are usually the most overtly bigoted of the bunch.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

if it weren't so sad, this is almost funny.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bsenka said:


> Isn't it funny how those claiming to be opposed to bigotry are usually the most overtly bigoted of the bunch.


Interesting take and quite correct. :clap:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

bsenka said:


> Isn't it funny how those claiming to be opposed to bigotry are usually the most overtly bigoted of the bunch.


Huh? I'm bigoted because I think bigots are Neanderthals? Are you being funny? Maybe you mean that I'm bigoted against Neanderthals, and I apologize if I sully the name of their long-dead sub-species if I associate their memory with homophobic numbskulls. In that case you can replace my use of the word Neanderthal with homophobic numbskull.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Huh? I'm bigoted because I think bigots are Neanderthals? Are you being funny? Maybe you mean that I'm bigoted against Neanderthals, and I apologize if I sully the name of their long-dead sub-species if I associate their memory with homophobic numbskulls. In that case you can replace my use of the word Neanderthal with homophobic numbskull.


:lmao:

Thanks for the laugh GA.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> It is no secret that those who do not support gay marriage and the gay lifestyle would very much prefer that gays live a secluded lifestyle, thus I use the term openly gay to demonstrate it is an abomination to these people. What's so difficult to understand about that?
> 
> They live in another world and don't want their lifestyles intertwined with something they find offensive.
> 
> ...


I was wondering why you think it's necessary to alert us to the fact that there are homophobes out there who might not like Mercer or anyone who associates with him and use that as way pointing out that Mercer isn't popular in some circles. There are racists, bigots, sexists and homophobes of every stripe lurking about who don't like those of other races, women and gay people who don't keep hidden or keep to their "place". Why should we care what these people think about anything? I don't expect you to apologize for mentioning it, just wondering why you thought it was so important to mention.



SINC said:


> Interesting take and quite correct. :clap:


What is correct SINC?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hold on!!!!????? Mercer's gay?

Sonal, where were we?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I was wondering why you think it's necessary to alert us to the fact that there are homophobes out there who might not like Mercer or anyone who associates with him and use that as way pointing out that Mercer isn't popular in some circles. There are racists, bigots, sexists and homophobes of every stripe lurking about who don't like those of other races, women and gay people who don't keep hidden or keep to their "place". Why should we care what these people think about anything? I don't expect you to apologize for mentioning it, just wondering why you thought it was so important to mention.
> 
> 
> What is correct SINC?


It is important that enlightened people like yourself are aware that there are substantial pockets of the population who are much like, and in some cases aligned with, those of similar beliefs in the southern US regarding the gay lifestyle.

Telling only the rosy side of the enlightened population does not tell the whole story of people's support or non support of the gay movement in general.

And what is correct is your belittling and ridiculing of groups whose views you oppose by name calling and labelling. Freedom to hold those opinions are their right, like it or not.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Hold on!!!!????? Mercer's gay?
> 
> Sonal, where were we?


Let's have an athon for those with impaired gaydar. We can use my dad's barn!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Hold on!!!!????? Mercer's gay?
> 
> Sonal, where were we?


Uh... somewhere where no one watches This Hour has 22 Minutes? 

Who knew?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Uh... somewhere where no one watches This Hour has 22 Minutes?
> 
> Who knew?


I hate to break it to you but ........Rick moved to Toronto <andinawhisper> has his own show


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> I hate to break it to you but ........Rick moved to Toronto <andinawhisper> has his own show


...which scarcely differs from This Hour has 22 Minutes.

Groundbreaking TV they have on the CBC...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh my god, we aren't arguing about Rick Mercer and his show and whether it's bad or not. Seriously.

oh my gawd like the ceebeecee is like totally crap.

Jeez we went from Rae "cavorting NUDE with an OPENLY GAY comedian, to now trashing Mercer. For whatever the hell reason.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

groovetube said:


> oh my god, we aren't arguing about Rick Mercer and his show and whether it's bad or not. Seriously.
> 
> oh my gawd like the ceebeecee is like totally crap.
> 
> Jeez we went from Rae "cavorting NUDE with an OPENLY GAY comedian, to now trashing Mercer. For whatever the hell reason.


Well he did threaten Chales Lynch with death that time.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

BigDL said:


> Let's have an athon for those with impaired gaydar. We can use my dad's barn!


I wouldn't classify it as an "impaired gaydar" issue. 
I didn't realize Mercer was gay (if he even is) because, like many, I don't care what his lifestyle preferences are. I just think he's a great comedian.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> It is important that enlightened people like yourself are aware that there are substantial pockets of the population who are much like, and in some cases aligned with, those of similar beliefs in the southern US regarding the gay lifestyle.
> 
> Telling only the rosy side of the enlightened population does not tell the whole story of people's support or non support of the gay movement in general.
> 
> And what is correct is your belittling and ridiculing of groups whose views you oppose by name calling and labelling. Freedom to hold those opinions are their right, like it or not.


You know SINC, I'm well aware about these pockets of people, I doubt if anyone here doesn't know about them. Yes they have the freedom to be as stupid and bigoted as they want to be. But it's not intolerant of me to not tolerate their bigoted intolerance. It's telling it like it is. The only people who might weep for me belittling a bigot is someone who sympathizes with the bigot.

Curious that your original comments further back in the thread seem to appear that you shared the opinions. Then you later went on to explain that you were only informing us that such backward views existed -- as if no one else knew that this was a fact. Again, why was it necessary to tell us what the backward minority thinks about Mercer?



SINC said:


> Heck, Bob Rae even went skinny dippin' with his boyfriend Mercer and what could be more newsworthy that that?





SINC said:


> What, for stating the obvious as seen on your favourite network? Those who participate in such actions are wide open to criticism.


Let's for the sake of argument say that Mercer, rather than being "openly" gay, was openly black. I'm sure there were those who might have argued similar things to what you've said here about Bill Cosby back in the 1960s. "Politicians should be careful about appearing with him in certain parts of the country because there are substantial pockets of the population who have certain beliefs about the ***** lifestyle" might be a similar statement that someone might have argued back then. 

Bigots are bigots and deserve no sympathy from anyone for their stupid, yet freely held bigoted opinions. I'm only glad that their right to hold these opinions no longer translates into their right to legislate how those they hate can live their lives.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Harper laid them all off, no?
> 
> I'm kidding btw.


That'll teach me for not doing the research,
Can't believe everything you read without a reputable link to back it up.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> You know SINC, I'm well aware about these pockets of people, I doubt if anyone here doesn't know about them. Yes they have the freedom to be as stupid and bigoted as they want to be. But it's not intolerant of me to not tolerate their bigoted intolerance. It's telling it like it is. The only people who might weep for me belittling a bigot is someone who sympathizes with the bigot.
> 
> Curious that your original comments further back in the thread seem to appear that you shared the opinions. Then you later went on to explain that you were only informing us that such backward views existed -- as if no one else knew that this was a fact. Again, why was it necessary to tell us what the backward minority thinks about Mercer?
> 
> ...



Wow. I missed this little gem :


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by SINC
> Heck, Bob Rae even went skinny dippin' with his boyfriend Mercer and what could be more newsworthy that that?


And the indignation of being called out on it.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

People are talking about Rick Mercer and Bob Rae going in a lake, and that's now news?

As a reminder: the Mercer "Report" is FAKE NEWS. Drawing attention to it like it's something you care about is like saying that Jon Stewart should back off on President Bush. It's hilarious.

I stand by my argument that the proroguing of Parliament is better than the passing of bad laws. Why be tortured like Afghan captives by the whims of Tories? And why answer questions about it in the Commons when generals come out and say it happened? Enough already.

Harper can keep spending money and appointing right wing judges and stuff. He doesn't need Parliament to do much of anything he hasn't already done. No doubt he's waiting to overturn a bunch of laws when he comes back with a majority, takes off the Conservative mask and reveals the Reformer he's always been.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Huh? I'm bigoted because I think bigots are Neanderthals? Are you being funny? Maybe you mean that I'm bigoted against Neanderthals, and I apologize if I sully the name of their long-dead sub-species if I associate their memory with homophobic numbskulls. In that case you can replace my use of the word Neanderthal with homophobic numbskull.


You keep proving my point.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Which is.... what? That the pathetic neanderthals who would have gays rammed back into closets or get themselves beat the crap out of have very little sympathy from the majority of people who have evolved from that sort of barbarity?

Or... what.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> Which is.... what? That the pathetic neanderthals who would have gays rammed back into closets or get themselves beat the crap out of have very little sympathy from the majority of people who have evolved from that sort of barbarity?
> 
> Or... what.


Another perfect example.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you're just going to have to explain that in a little detail.

and example, of what. Proving what point.

Let's have it, or, are you speaking in tongues here.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> you're just going to have to explain that in a little detail.
> 
> and example, of what. Proving what point.
> 
> Let's have it, or, are you speaking in tongues here.


Example of those loudly professing themselves to be against bigotry being the most overtly bigoted of the bunch.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver said:


> Harper can keep spending money and appointing right wing judges and stuff. He doesn't need Parliament to do much of anything he hasn't already done. No doubt he's waiting to overturn a bunch of laws when he comes back with a majority, takes off the Conservative mask and reveals the Reformer he's always been.


This is what I've been praying for.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

bsenka said:


> Example of those loudly professing themselves to be against bigotry being the most overtly bigoted of the bunch.


The flimsiest of all arguments yet. Purely intended to distract and deflect.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

bsenka said:


> You keep proving my point.


You must be a member of the Homophobe Anti-Defamation League. Their motto: "Don't hate the haters, we're only human beings." 

Seriously, your twisted point is that calling out homophobic bigots is an example of intolerance, because I'm hurting their delicate feelings? Strange.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> The flimsiest of all arguments yet. Purely intended to distract and deflect.


exactly.

What I'd like to know, is what exactly am 'bigoted'... about?

And, would I be bigoted if I spoke out against a group or community of people who didn't believe black people are equal to others?

(


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

My question about reformers is: who reforms _them?_


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Max said:


> My question about reformers is: who reforms _them?_


Actually, this is a very thought-provoking question, Max. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Max said:


> My question about reformers is: who reforms _them?_


Perhaps The Wild Rose Party. Now there's a frightening thought.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> My question about reformers is: who reforms _them?_


I thought it was you. 

And here I was, sitting on my ass thinking you were taking care of it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I thought it was you.
> 
> And here I was, sitting on my *ass* thinking you were taking care of it.


well, there's that assume thing.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

bsenka said:


> Example of those loudly professing themselves to be against bigotry being the most overtly bigoted of the bunch.


There are generally 11 prohibitive grounds under law that a citizen may not discriminate against a person or a group people. These people and groups are covered under legislation and are called identifiable individuals or groups of people.

Yeah. The problem with discrimination, bigotry, intolerance and hatred against unidentifiable groups is, it is not against the law.

Homophobes, white supremacists, and other types of haters just don’t get the protection under law. 

Their only protections is shown above. I guess ya go with the best ya got. Then look for the like minded, to support your position, to drown out the opposition. 

So! How’s that working for you?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Perhaps The Wild Rose Party. Now there's a frightening thought.


There is no Wild Rose Party.

There is however a Wildrose Alliance Party in Alberta, if that is what you are referring to as this party.

Wildrose Alliance Party


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> There is no Wild Rose Party.
> 
> There is however a Wildrose Alliance in Alberta, if that is what you are referring to as a party.


...Wildrose Alliance = WA = Western Alienation Hummmm!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> There is no Wild Rose Party.
> 
> There is however a Wildrose Alliance Party in Alberta, if that is what you are referring to as this party.
> 
> Wildrose Alliance Party


Oh my goodness I was waaay off. Thanks for correcting me.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Oh my goodness I was waaay off. Thanks for correcting me.


almost started a civil war there.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

groovetube said:


> almost started a civil war there.


.:clap:


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MF: I'm too impure to be of any use to anyone who wants to reform stuff. Sorry to disappoint.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Well now, I see it's moving beyond Facebook:

Majority condemn Harper move, poll finds - thestar.com



> According to the online survey of 1,019 Canadian adults conducted Jan. 5-6, 53 per cent turned thumbs down to prorogation while 19 per cent agreed with the move and another 28 per cent were undecided.
> 
> The rejection of the decision to prorogue Parliament was highest in Ontario, at 59 per cent, and lowest in the Prairie provinces — 50 per cent in Alberta and 48 per cent in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

and here:

Prorogation 'has hit a nerve' - The Globe and Mail



> Nearly two-thirds of the 1,744 respondents to the EKOS poll agreed with the statement: “The elected House of Parliament is the proper place to conduct the business of the nation and suspending Parliament is antidemocratic.”





> Meanwhile, an Angus Reid online poll also released Thursday suggests prorogation has been rejected even by Conservative supporters. Thirty-five per cent of respondents who voted Conservative in the last election said they disagree with the decision to suspend Parliament.





> But Mr. Graves said the numbers suggest that Canadians know what prorogation means and are not happy about it. And the Conservatives should be worried.
> “Clearly this has hit a nerve,” he said.
> Mr. Harper and his party “must be hearing footsteps,” the pollster said. “Instead of pondering how their majority is going to work out, they are closer to sitting on the other side of the House.”


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

just chuckling about the scoffing at the "groundswell" thing earlier.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

SO the CBC and the Globe's patently dishonest slander campaign is starting to work.

Typical lying left.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

bsenka said:


> SO the CBC and the Globe's patently dishonest slander campaign is starting to work.
> 
> Typical lying left.


Oh I think it's much larger than that. I think the Canadian public is simply getting sick of the arrogant, lying right. About time.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

If Canadians disagree with Harper, it's a left wing ploy. If they agree, it's Canada turning conservative.

Funny that.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

bsenka said:


> SO the CBC and the Globe's patently dishonest slander campaign is starting to work.
> 
> Typical lying left.


EKOS is certainly not left-leaning. If anything, their polls have trumpeted the upswings of the Conservatives

EKOS Research Associates - Media Center

The most recent polls are on top.

Double digit Tory lead: "This is not a blip" 
pdf version


Tory lead ebbs slightly 
pdf version


Tories consolidate lead 
pdf version


Tories edge into majority territory 
pdf version


Tory lead beginning to gel 
pdf version


Tories open up comfortable lead 
pdf version


Conservatives open up their lead 
pdf version


Tories open up small lead on Liberal election talk 
pdf version


Liberals/Tories in dead heat as election looms


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Well now, I see it's moving beyond Facebook:
> 
> Majority condemn Harper move, poll finds - thestar.com


mrjimmy I implore do not use facts to disagree let alone discredit a true professional. I beg you for your own security.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

It's just as I have always thought about the Cons,
They have "Gone Fishing"


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

dolawren said:


> It's just as I have always thought about the Cons,
> They have "Gone Fishing"


 Be gentle on our friends, they never could have imagined how something so simple could go so horribly wrong. Proroguing Parliament last year, went so well after all.

It's a lot to digest, let alone crow, or humble pie.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Actual questions to Dear Abby, as answered by Stephen Harper - Macleans.ca



> DEAR ABBY: Please settle a disagreement for us. Is a butter knife used to put your butter on your plate, or to spread the butter on your bread? — ETIQUETTE-CHALLENGED
> 
> Dear ETIQUETTE-CHALLENGED:
> 
> ...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Canada without Parliament: Halted in mid-debate | The Economist



> The timing said everything. Stephen Harper, the prime minister, chose December 30th, the day five Canadians were killed in Afghanistan and when the public and the media were further distracted by the announcement of the country’s all-important Olympic ice-hockey team, to let his spokesman reveal that Parliament would remain closed until March 3rd, instead of returning as usual, after its Christmas break, in the last week of January.
> 
> Mr Harper turned a customary recess into prorogation. This means that all committees in both houses are disbanded and government bills die, no matter how close they are to approval. The prime minister, who heads a Conservative minority government, clearly reckoned that giving legislators an extra winter break, during which they might visit the Winter Olympics (in Vancouver between February 12th and 28th), would not bother Canadians much.
> 
> He may have miscalculated. A gathering storm of media criticism has extended even to the Calgary Herald, the main newspaper in his political home city, which denounced him for “a cynical political play”. There are plans for demonstrations on January 23rd, just before Parliament would have reconvened. “Parliamentary democracy is in danger,” declared Peter Russell of the University of Toronto, who was one of 132 political scientists who signed a letter condemning the prorogation and calling for electoral reform.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> Canada's minority Conservative government, which a few months ago seemed on the verge of having enough popular support to win a majority in Parliament, has seen its lead in one poll fall back to the lowest point since last summer.
> 
> An EKOS survey released on Thursday showed Conservative support at 33.1 percent, down 2.8 percentage points from the last EKOS poll on December 17, and support for the Liberals, the biggest opposition party at 27.8 percent, up 1.1 percent.
> 
> ...


Tory support down after Parliament suspended


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Earlier in this thread the Facebook protest was being denigrated as insignificant, "a few hundred", rent-a-crowd, etc.

Well the group zoomed passed 100,000 members tonight, moving at about 1000/hour. They're writing lots of letters, making phone calls, sending faxes and having lots of discussions on the issues. Active subgroups for 32 Canadian cities have sprung up to plan and organize local rallies for January 23rd.

Join here:

Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament | Facebook


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Earlier in this thread the Facebook protest was being denigrated as insignificant, "a few hundred", rent-a-crowd, etc.
> 
> Well the group zoomed passed 100,000 members tonight, moving at about 1000/hour. They're writing lots of letters, making phone calls, sending faxes and having lots of discussions on the issues. Active subgroups for 32 Canadian cities have sprung up to plan and organize local rallies for January 23rd.
> 
> ...


Yet it's strangely quiet in here .


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I was just going to say.

It's funny, on the news last night they were saying how the facebook group protesting against the shutting down of parliament was getting so many members because well, it's just easy for someone to click a button. But what they didn't mention, was that the group had over 100k members already, while the groups started by the whiney Stephen Taylor, (and a few others tried too), either of them have even 500 members.

I guess if you're conservative, and you agree with them, clicking a button is insurmountably hard.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Ottawaman said:


> Tory support down after Parliament suspended


who was it here that scoffed at the groundswell of protest? And then haughtily trotted out graphs whilst tossing snotty jabs, which still showed the biggest majority of facebook users to be of voting age and up?


well, I think it remains to be seen where this goes over the next few months. I admit I have to chuckle at seeing Harper's lead over the tories go from 15% to less than 6%, but I said it before, Harper has shown, he knows how to shoot himself in the foot before. The public I think will only allow him so many recoveries, before they tire of him. He better hope the Olympics gives him that much needed glow.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> But what they didn't mention, was that the group had over 100k members already


Hmmm, lemme see.

100,000 protesters

33,000,000 Canadians

That's about 0.003%

Some groundswell.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Hmmm, lemme see.
> 
> 100,000 protesters
> 
> ...


You forgot this part:



> moving at about 1000/hour


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

...oh yes, and all those pesky polls.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> You forgot this part:


Sorry, let's be generous and say that rate continues every single hour for 30 days.

Net result? 720,000 protesters.

A whopping 0.02%.

Wow!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Sorry, let's be generous and say that rate continues every single hour for 30 days.
> 
> Net result? 720,000 protesters.
> 
> ...


I'd say that is an unprecedented wow! Imagine all the people those 720,000 will influence. Actually don't, it might be too disturbing for you.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Sorry, let's be generous and say that rate continues every single hour for 30 days.
> 
> Net result? 720,000 protesters.
> 
> ...


gah. Those pesky, er, facts.

If in fact the, groundswell swelled to 720,000, it wouldn't be .02% Sinc. I guess you failed math class.

last elections ballots cast: 13,929,093

so the figure is actually, closer to 5%, not .02

And, that is only, on facebook. Don't be tryin to pass off that all of canada is on facebook now.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Is my math off or would that make our population over 3 billion?
> 
> I thought the figure is closer to 5%


No your math is way off but so is SINCs, 720,000 of 33,000,000 is 2%.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Earlier in this thread the Facebook protest was being denigrated as insignificant, "a few hundred", rent-a-crowd, etc.
> 
> Well the group zoomed passed 100,000 members tonight, moving at about 1000/hour. They're writing lots of letters, making phone calls, sending faxes and having lots of discussions on the issues. Active subgroups for 32 Canadian cities have sprung up to plan and organize local rallies for January 23rd.
> 
> ...


Nothing was denigrated, at the time of writing it was a few hundred. That is politics... things change... we shall see if the momentum can be maintained... we shall see.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Yet it's strangely quiet in here .


Some people do have work to do and can't check in here every 5 minutes...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Be gentle on our friends, they never could have imagined how something so simple could go so horribly wrong. Proroguing Parliament last year, went so well after all.
> 
> It's a lot to digest, let alone crow, or humble pie.


It ain't over until it its over... still waayy too early in the game to know how Harper's strategy will play out. 

As I said earlier it was a strategic gamble on his part to prorogue... sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Some people do have work to do and can't check in here every 5 minutes...


Well you do have almost 5000 posts in less than 3 years...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> ...oh yes, and all those pesky polls.


Polls are notoriously meaningless until you get into an election campaign. If polls were indicative of the outcome of elections before entering into an election campaign then the Conservatives would have had a majority government in the last election...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> It ain't over until it its over... still waayy too early in the game to know how Harper's strategy will play out.
> 
> As I said earlier it was a strategic gamble on his part to prorogue... sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you.


I agree. It's not as though this is a hugely important issue. But if it comes back to bite him on the ass...so what?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Well you do have almost 5000 posts in less than 3 years...


I suppose you are saying Dr. G. who is a University Professor is a lazy layabout because he has over 49,000...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Polls are notoriously meaningless until you get into an election campaign. If polls were indicative of the outcome of elections before entering into an election campaign then the Conservatives would have had a majority government in the last election...


Truthfully, polls are notoriously meaningless unless they are working for you.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> I suppose you are sdaying Dr. G. who is a University Professor is a lazy layabout because he has over 40,000...


Not at all. I was simply responding to you, not bringing anyone else into it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Truthfully, polls are notoriously meaningless unless they are working for you.


No not true... If you were to go back and look at my posts you will see that I don't cite them because they are exactly as I said... next to meaningless until you enter a campaign and even then the change very rapidly.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Not at all. I was simply responding to you, not bringing anyone else into it.


Merely making a statistical comparison and extrapolating on your implication... you can have numerous posts here in a condensed period of time depending on the time available. You were getting "cheeky" and suggesting that because I have nearly 5,000 post here in less than 3 years somehow I don't seem to have any work to do. Or am I misinterpreting?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Merely making a statistical comparison... you can have numerous posts here in a condensed period of time depending on the time available. You were getting "cheeky" and suggesting that because I have nearly 5,000 post here in less than 3 years somehow I don't seem to have any work to do. Or am I misinterpreting?


My goodness you're defensive this morning. You can interpret my post any way you wish. It _is_ the internet after all.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Truthfully, polls are notoriously meaningless unless they are working for you.


ha ha ha Quite true.

Didn't it come out that Harper had spent a lot more money than previous governments, running polls twice a day or something like that?



mrjimmy said:


> My goodness you're defensive this morning. You can interpret my post any way you wish. It _is_ the internet after all.


Bu but... the internet is serious business!!!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> No not true... If you were to go back and look at my posts you will see that I don't cite them because they are exactly as I said... next to meaningless until you enter a campaign and even then the change very rapidly.


Everything relating back to you again?

What I said is simply a truism. You'll find evidence of it (including my own) littered like landmines around here.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> My goodness you're defensive this morning. You can interpret my post any way you wish. It _is_ the internet after all.


Just callin' 'em like I see 'em... as do you.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Just callin' 'em like I see 'em... as do you.


I would expect nothing less.

ps. Cheeky begets cheeky.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Everything relating back to you again?
> 
> What I said is simply a truism. You'll find eveidence of it (including my own) littered like landmines around here.


No... You were replying to *my* comment, you quoted it. Sure *some* people like to talk about polls like this, doesn't make them right.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> I would expect nothing less.
> 
> ps. Cheeky begets cheeky.


Care to Tango...  :lmao:


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Care to Tango...  :lmao:


I would, but you know, two men dancing...

_People might not appove. _


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I'm not endorsing the Liberals here (don't like the party) but they've set up a funny page on their web site:

Introducing the Stephen Harper 'Just Vacationing' Out-of-Office Reply Challenge



> For a Senate seat, press 1. For big stimulus cheques, press 2. If you lost ministerial documents, press 3. For accountability, leave a msg.
> 
> ---
> 
> ...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

From The Economist of all sources:

Canada's Parliament: Harper goes prorogue | The Economist



> A legislature matters more than the luge
> Mr Harper is a competent tactician with a ruthless streak. He bars most ministers from talking to the media; he has axed some independent watchdogs; he has binned campaign promises to make government more open and accountable. Now he is subjecting Parliament to prime-ministerial whim. He may be right that most Canadians care more about the luge than the legislature, but that is surely true only while their decent system of government is in good hands. They may soon conclude that it isn’t.


Thanks Mr. Harper for making us an embarrasment on the world stage.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"From The Economist of all sources." Very true, mrj. I was surprised at the source as well. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Dr.G. said:


> "From The Economist of all sources." Very true, mrj. I was surprised at the source as well. Paix, mon ami.


You shouldn't be. It is a myth that the Economist, at least now, is entirely right wing in its thinking, ie: the magazine has come out in support of the theory of climate change, and supported Obama in the last election. Not exactly the characteristics of an institution that would be unfailingly behind Harper, or any nation's conservative government.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> From The Economist of all sources:
> 
> Canada's Parliament: Harper goes prorogue | The Economist
> 
> ...


I think more than anything it shows that it must have been a slow news day.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> I think more than anything it shows that it must have been a slow news day.


My how dismissive. I would be a bit more balanced than that and say that this is actually news.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, let's go back to corruption and scandal and the dictatorship when the Liberals held power.

In the meantime, good on Harper for choosing his battles and how they will be fought. It puts us in the forefront of the world stage and I applaud him for his efforts. :clap:

By the time parliament resumes, everyone will have forgotten about it anyway.

Then it will be onward to win yet another election while Iggy dies a slow and painful political death.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yep, let's go back to corruption and scandal and the dictatorship when the Liberals held power.
> 
> In the meantime, good on Harper for choosing his battles and how they will be fought. It puts us in the forefront of the world stage and I applaud him for his efforts. :clap:
> 
> ...


Dream a little dream SINC.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yep, let's go back to corruption and scandal and the dictatorship when the Liberals held power.
> 
> In the meantime, good on Harper for choosing his battles and how they will be fought. It puts us in the forefront of the world stage and I applaud him for his efforts. :clap:
> 
> ...


Yes, when the heat is on, and we're talking about the government CURRENTLY in power, yes let's QUICKLY change the channel and talk about an old government, no longer in power, and a leader(s) who are no longer there.

Yes, why not talk about Mulroney too! Hell why bother talk about the current government and it's actions, we certainly would want them to be accountable in any way nope, let's talk about something else.

YES! The old liberal scandal. Like it hasn't been beaten to death already.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Yes, when the heat is on, and we're talking about the government CURRENTLY in power, yes let's QUICKLY change the channel and talk about an old government, no longer in power, and a leader(s) who are no longer there.
> 
> Yes, why not talk about Mulroney too! Hell why bother talk about the current government and it's actions, we certainly would want them to be accountable in any way nope, let's talk about something else.
> 
> YES! The old liberal scandal. Like it hasn't been beaten to death already.


They addressed that in The Economist article as well. Far too easy to fall back on the old 'Yes, but the last Government...' routine. It just doesn't fly anymore.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> My how dismissive. I would be a bit more balanced than that and say that this is actually news.


Yes it is dismissive, we don't all see it the same way.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it's kind of amusing (not) to watch the conservatives squirm and do the old 'nothing to see here! it's not news!' routine, while considering an old scandal of a party long out of party, as... news.

Right.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Yes, when the heat is on, and we're talking about the government CURRENTLY in power, yes let's QUICKLY change the channel and talk about an old government, no longer in power, and a leader(s) who are no longer there.


Remember that the Conservatives are in power only at the whim of the opposition who can take them out whenever they want.

But they don't and that is because they know they do not have, in the Liberals case, either the support or the leader to pull off an election win.

It's quite sad, really.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Yes it is dismissive, we don't all see it the same way.


The point is, The Economist, a widely read and respected publication, did write an unflattering article about it. Slow news day or not.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> They addressed that in The Economist article as well. Far too easy to fall back on the old 'Yes, but the last Government...' routine. It just doesn't fly anymore.


Yes, it was a good article and well-balanced. Still, I don't see the current Conservative really caring what the article says about the state of affairs here in Canada. I don't see anything changing their minds right now. We shall see.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

aaaaand, next up is the old sabre rattling routine. The old 'my daddy is bigger'n yer daddy' routine.

It all gets trotted out, one by one.

Anything, to change the channel. Anything. I guess.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> The point is, The Economist, a widely read and respected publication, did write an unflattering article about it. Slow news day or not.


When it comes to mistakes, anyone can piddle on the floor, it takes exceptional talent to crap on the ceiling. 

The Economist a news source of note just spotted some real talent and commented upon it. :yikes:

So let's all celebrate Stephen Harper's ability to draw negative attention to Canada once again. :clap:


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> aaaaand, next up is the old sabre rattling routine. The old 'my daddy is bigger'n yer daddy' routine.
> 
> It all gets trotted out, one by one.
> 
> Anything, to change the channel. Anything. I guess.


SINC is correct though. The Conservatives are fully taking advantage of the fact that currently, there is no viable option. Although it seems as though the backlash to this current arrogant action is resonating. There's only so much BS the voting public will put up with before they take action. They will reach a point where ANY alternative is better than Harper's Conservatives. Is this that point? We shall see.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> SINC is correct though. The Conservatives are fully taking advantage of the fact that currently, there is no viable option. Although it seems as though the backlash to this current arrogant action is resonating. There's only so much BS the voting public will put up with before they take action. They will reach a point where ANY alternative is better than Harper's Conservatives. Is this that point? We shall see.


Sure. Ontario voted for McGuinty, twice. Anything, is possible.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Yes, when the heat is on, and we're talking about the government CURRENTLY in power, yes let's QUICKLY change the channel and talk about an old government, no longer in power, and a leader(s) who are no longer there.
> 
> Yes, why not talk about Mulroney too! Hell why bother talk about the current government and it's actions, we certainly would want them to be accountable in any way nope, let's talk about something else.
> 
> YES! The old liberal scandal. Like it hasn't been beaten to death already.


Ron James the east coast comedian recently noted when Liberals have a scandal you call the police, when Conservatives have a scandal you call the morgue. (Walkerton/Maple Leaf scandals.)


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> 720,000 / .02%
> 
> 7.2 x 10^5 / 2.0 x 10^-4
> 
> ...


This is basic math. 720,000/33,000,000 x100 = 2.18%. Not hard. 

You are correct that SINC was incorrect... but your 5% was also way off (albeit not as much as SINC's... I think he forgot to multiply his result by 100 to reach the percentage.) My point was you both were wrong.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Now, if the idea is to get technical and argue something to death, we could also say, there weren't 36 million eligible voters in the last election.

And then, one could get even more pissey and point out that in the last election, there were only 14 million voters.

What were we talking about again?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> What were we talking about again?


What's cool about EhMac is that all the messages from awhile ago are still there!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> SINC is correct though. The Conservatives are fully taking advantage of the fact that currently, there is no viable option. Although it seems as though the backlash to this current arrogant action is resonating. There's only so much BS the voting public will put up with before they take action. They will reach a point where ANY alternative is better than Harper's Conservatives. Is this that point? We shall see.


I actually agree with you on this mrjimmy, as Canadians typical don't vote *for* things they vote *against* them. Is this prorogation enough for Canadians to vote against the Conservatives....? As you said, we shall see.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> What's cool about EhMac is that all the messages from awhile ago are still there!


do I have to put a smiley on -everything-?
-just in case...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Using the input given, 0.02% and 720,000, the calculation is correct. The post did not include the 33,000,000 figure.


That's why these these forum are run as thread's.. you have to follow them back...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Using the input given, 0.02% and 720,000, the calculation is correct. The post did not include the 33,000,000 figure.


I dunno where all this "incorrect math" stuff is coming from, but my figures of 720,000 as a percentile of 33,000,000 is still .02%.

How do you figure I am so far off screature? Mayhaps you need a math tuneup yourself?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MazterCBlazter said:


> 2.18% ?


Rounded to the nearest percentile is still .02%.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

720,000/33,000,000=.0218

.0218x100=2.18%

(ratio)x100=percentage=Grade 5 arithmetic (Probably Grade 3 nowadays)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

sinc, when your calculator says .02, it's .02 of 1, which is actually... 2%

type 720,000 in, and divide it by 33,000,000 which gives you.02 etc. which is 2%

But I don't know know why you guys are using 33 million. Eligible voters is likely a little more accurate, even though they don't all vote.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> sinc, when your calculator says .02, it's .02 of 1, which is actually... 2%
> 
> type 720,000 in, and divide it by 33,000,000 which gives you.02 etc. which is 2%
> 
> But I don't know know why you guys are using 33 million. Eligible voters is likely a little more accurate, even though they don't all vote.


yep, you're right gt. I just kept posting what the computer read. 2% it is. Mea culpa.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> I dunno where all this "incorrect math" stuff is coming from, but my figures of 720,000 as a percentile of 33,000,000 is still .02%.
> 
> How do you figure I am so far off screature? Mayhaps you need a math tuneup yourself?


No SINC you have to multiple the result by 100 to derive the percentage. 720,000/33,000,00 = 0.0218 but to achieve the percentage you have to multiply by 100.

Just to provide an example based on the way you are doing the math. If you had 1 person objecting to prorogation in a pollution of 100 by your way of doing the calculation that 1 person would represent 1/100 = 0.01% which I think you can agree is not correct. In order to obtain the percentage you have to multiply by 100. So 1 in 100 = 1%

So in you in your calculation 720,000/33,000,000 =0.0218, but that isn't the percentage you still have to multiply by 100 in order to derive the percentage thereby obtaining 2.18 %.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> No SINC you have to multiple the result by 100 to derive the percentage. 720,000/33,000,00 = 0.0218 but to achieve the percentage you have to multiply by 100.


Yep, see my post of an hour earlier. I corrected it. Sorry about that, but you must have missed post #330 when you wrote yours.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well, are we all SMART. 

dont worry sinc, I've made the same error many times, and that very calculation is in my daily workflow. Perhaps I need more smart drinks.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> With such a weak opposition in Parliament and no opposition at all in his own party and government, the Prime Minister is in a strong position – maybe the strongest ever. Why then does he need to shut down Parliament? I'm afraid the answer lies in Norman Spector's musings on Jan. 1: a spring election. Not to say that an election is absolutely certain, but Mr. Harper clearly wants the window to be opened in March.





> If a leader in such a strong position feels such a strong need to obtain a majority, it must be that he somehow still feels constrained by his minority situation. It must be that Mr. Harper wishes to do something that he knows would be intolerable even to such a weak opponent as Mr. Ignatieff.



Introducing Canada's minority dictatorship


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

In my opinion, Harper prorogued Parliament in order to get senators appointed to Senate so that the Liberal majority in the Senate would no longer be able to hold up/change legislation already passed by the House of Commons.

Sometimes you have to slow things down in order to get them moving again.

I think all this talk about Spring Elections and dictatorships is bunk. FUD. Harper isn't THAT stupid to call an election he knows the population doesn't want, and hopefully Ignatiaff isn't that stupid either.

Parliament is actually two parts. The minority government in the House of Commons is actually working quite well. It's the Senate that's the issue right now.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> Yep, see my post of an hour earlier. I corrected it. Sorry about that, but you must have missed post #330 when you wrote yours.


Yep I did miss that, sorry SINC.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Th topic was referring to those that actually vote, so, the number of voters joining the facebook page at 720,000 predicted is closer to 5% of the voters than 2.18% of the entire population.


Nope that would not be right either. As I pointed out earlier the majority of the age demographic that uses Facebook either can't vote (too young) or is in the lowest percentile of eligible votes that do vote. So without doing the math on it which is impossible because it is all speculation, but based on the statistics I would say that 2% of those that actually cast a ballot is probably about right.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Exactly, it is all speculation.


Yep... 'tis true.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Exactly, it is all speculation.


as is the quick assumption that based on facebook's entire membership, that this specific interest group's makeup is the same, and that at least of that group's members are under the age required to vote.

It seemed to me the biggest majority of facebook users were over 18?

edit: always good to use real stats.

Facebook Marketing Statistics, Demographics, Reports, and News ? CheckFacebook

about 90% of Canadian facebook users, are above the required age to vote.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*125,612*
as of 9 AM Pacific Time. 

At the rate it's going it is set to become the largest Canadian Facebook group ever this morning. Ironically, the current largest group was the anti-coalition group from a year ago.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> *125,612*
> as of 9 AM Pacific Time.
> 
> At the rate it's going it is set to become the largest Canadian Facebook group ever this morning. Ironically, the current largest group was the anti-coalition group from a year ago.


So, to put that number in perspective, it means that one city, say the size of Brantford (Pop. approx, 125,000) is upset. The rest of of the cities, towns and villages in the country have yet to sign up. :yawn:


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Of course the only poll that really matters is the one on election day, and in the last election a healthy minority of eligible voters 'prorogued' their right to vote.

(My daughter was having a discussion with her boyfriend's mother about something political, and asked her point blank "Did you vote in the last election?" When the mother admitted "No" my daughter - bless her heart - said "Well then, you don't really have much of a right to bitch, do you?")

I'd love to see how many of those people who think it makes a difference clicking a button to join a group on Facebook will get off their butts and vote when it matters.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

MLeh said:


> Of course the only poll that really matters is the one on election day, and in the last election a healthy minority of eligible voters 'prorogued' their right to vote.
> 
> (My daughter was having a discussion with her boyfriend's mother about something political, and asked her point blank "Did you vote in the last election?" When the mother admitted "No" my daughter - bless her heart - said "Well then, you don't really have much of a right to bitch, do you?")
> 
> I'd love to see how many of those people who think it makes a difference clicking a button to join a group on Facebook will get off their butts and vote when it matters.


Sadly the only way the voter can say "None of the Above" is to withhold their vote. I do really wonder if this option was placed on the ballot if it might not get over 50% of the vote.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it's rather amusing to watch people falling over themselves to minimize the significance (or not) of the facebook group, while I recall the panties getting into a bunch about the facebook group that was of a similar size (interestingly enough!) that was against the coalition.

Makes you stand back and smile.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> it's rather amusing to watch people falling over themselves to minimize the significance (or not) of the facebook group, while I recall the panties getting into a bunch about the facebook group that was of a similar size (interestingly enough!) that was against the coalition.
> 
> Makes you stand back and smile.


Did they get excited about the Facebook group when the coalition thing was on? You should quote the post here and really stick it to them!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it was everywhere all over conservative blogs. Here the notorious CC is laughing about it here.

But you take things sooooo serious Macfury. Will I get a hero's sandwich if I spent the afternoon searching if a member here actually did, since it was like... a year ago?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ahh, I thought you meant the locals, not the world at large. Normally, EhMacers are fairly consistent.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Ahh, I thought you meant the locals, not the world at large. Normally, EhMacers are fairly consistent.


yes indeed, they are!


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

One the things that is highly unusual about this prorogation compared to most others, is that it leaves key areas of the government's own legislative agenda abandoned. Harper's defenders keep hitting the talking point that Parliament has been prorogued many times by many governments throughout Canadian history. While this is true, it's not the whole truth. In most cases the Parliament was prorogued only when the bulk of the government's agenda as laid out in the Throne Speech has been acted on.

Harper's last prorogation was only days after a Throne Speech and was clearly to avoid a confidence vote. This time it looks like the Conservatives were seeking to avoid more scrutiny on Afghanistan, which was clearly going badly for them. Others have mentioned other tactical reasons, such as rejigging the Senate. The stated reasons by Harper are not believable.

In the meantime here is a list of bills that this prorogation leaves dead. Many of these are central to what the Cons say they wanted their government to accomplish, that the government put a lot of work into and that many Con supporters were eagerly waiting to see passed. They are now history.



> C-6 Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (allows government recalls of dangerous products)
> 
> C-8 Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act (gives equal property rights to aboriginal women)
> 
> ...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> So, to put that number in perspective, it means that one city, say the size of Brantford (Pop. approx, 125,000) is upset. The rest of of the cities, towns and villages in the country have yet to sign up. :yawn:


The group is up over 130,000 members now and is the largest Canadian Facebook group ever. Your minimizing of this is obviously a function of your partisan stance and not a true or honest estimation of the potential significance of this event. You are not "putting it in perspective" you are putting a spin on it. I'm not saying it's necessarily massively significant, but it's a big story in the media for a reason. It's shows that there is some serious discontent with what Harper has done and not nearly "routine" as his recent talking points have stated. 

Getting that number of people to register an opinion about anything is a rather large phenomenon. Since Facebook membership is only a small subset of the subset of Canadians who are inclined to spend a lot of time online, this number of people registering for the group in less than a week is quite significant. I'd say it's more like the tip of the iceberg of discontent among the population, as recent polls have shown. Last year saw slightly less people sign up for a Facebook group against the possibility of a coalition and that at the time represented the discontent of a bit more than half of the population. In this case polls have shown even some Conservatives are unhappy about the prorogation, so this Facebook phenomenon is clearly representing a greater opinion.

At this point the goals of the group are to get those who joined to contact their MP and the media and to participate in and help organize protests in 32 Canadian cities on January 23rd. If only 1 in 20 of the people who have joined the group manage a letter to their MP or the PMO, this would be a significant event. The PMO staff would be inundated with work. If that amount of people actually participate in demonstrations on the 23rd that will lead the news that day.

Of course a lot of the people who joined the group have probably already forgotten about it. But if the group continues to grow and makes good on some of their plans to mobilize Canadians discontent with Harper's tactic, it will have been a huge success.

It's clear that Harper has once again made a blunder in his underestimation of the Canadian populace's willingness to stomach his authoritarian approach to governing. There's a reason that even though the opposition parties are in disarray, he still can't get enough votes to form the majority he wants. He has once again shown why he can't earn the trust of enough Canadians.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You could be right GA, but I doubt it. My bet is it will fizzle like a bad fuse in the weeks to come.  

Wishing the outcome you desire to happen is folly. The internet is a fickle place and Facebook isn't exactly a banner source of reliability.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> You could be right GA, but I doubt it. My bet is it will fizzle like a bad fuse in the weeks to come.
> 
> Wishing the outcome you desire to happen is folly. The internet is a fickle place and Facebook isn't exactly a banner source of reliability.


You're right, it may well fizzle, politics is like that. In the meantime, I'm happy for any squirming it causes Harper, as is my political inclination. 

I'm _always_ wishing for a particular outcome -- as are you, I would guess. Mostly I don't get anything close to what I want. I don't let my idealism blind my realism and I try not to let my realism kill my idealism.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> You're right, it may well fizzle, politics is like that. In the meantime, I'm happy for any squirming it causes Harper, as is my political inclination.
> 
> I'm _always_ wishing for a particular outcome -- as are you, I would guess. Mostly I don't get anything close to what I want. I don't let my idealism blind my realism and I try not to let my realism kill my idealism.


On these points we can agree GA. I like you, have wants and desires politically, but I learned long, long ago, that it is a disappointing path to follow,

Nowadays for me becomes, "what will be, will be".


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I was thinking that perhaps, I'd like to prorogue January. It's a crappy month really. I'm busy as all hell, clients are nuts, and the weather sucks. No wait, the government has it right. I'll prorogue til March!

That's the ticket. Wonder if -I'll- get paid in the interim too like them?





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> Canada's House of Commons and Senate will remain dark until early March because of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision last week to have Parliament prorogued.
> 
> It is a small symptom of a grave condition. Our Parliament has become the most dysfunctional in the English-speaking world, weaker and more irrelevant than the U.S. Congress or the parliaments of Britain, Australia or New Zealand.


Few countries can claim such a pathetic Parliament


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Point: Liberals

Harper has 'something to hide,' Liberal ads say - The Globe and Mail



> “He was busy shutting down Parliament. He did it in the middle of the holidays because he thought Canadians wouldn’t notice. It was his holiday gift to himself. He didn’t want to have to answer questions about torture cover-ups, climate change unemployment.”


Seems as though they are adopting Conservative tactics. Good for them!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it's about time they woke up from their "high road" slumber. Still, a bit lame.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Tories aren't the only ones who play parliamentary games*



> Prime ministers have always controlled when Parliament meets, but this is ridiculous. After his dramatic request to prorogue Parliament just over a year ago, Stephen Harper has done it again, overturning the parliamentary calendar and phoning the governor-general on Dec. 30 to close down Parliament until March (announced just as everyone was watching the picks for Canada's Olympic men's hockey team). When Harper asked the governor-general for prorogation in December 2008, Parliament at least went out with a bang. In December 2009, it faded away with barely a whimper.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> it's about time they woke up from their "high road" slumber. Still, a bit lame.


Absolutely a bit lame but apparently, it's what people respond to. 

Until of couse it's taken too far.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MP Tony Clement just upgraded me to the "elite status" class. Cool.

CBC News - Politics - Academics slam suspension of Parliament

"A group of university professors is condemning the federal government's decision to suspend Parliament, but the ruling Conservatives appear unmoved by the latest criticism.

Over 100 professors have signed a letter written by University of Montreal philosophy Prof. Daniel Weinstock that accuses Prime Minister Stephen Harper of violating "the trust of the Canadian people [and] thus acting anti-democratically."


"The Conservatives appear unfazed by the criticism, however, with Industry Minister Tony Clement saying Monday that ordinary Canadians don't consider prorogation to be a big issue.

"I know it's a big issue with the Ottawa media elite and some of the elites in our country, but I got to tell you if reaction in my constituency is any indication, I've had maybe three dozen emails," he said."


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> MP Tony Clement just upgraded me to the "elite status" class. Cool.
> 
> CBC News - Politics - Academics slam suspension of Parliament
> 
> ...


Congratulations: Dr. G That is indeed quite a promotion. I am assuming that you will be getting an extra $20,000,000 a year compensation as I am sure your current salary is completely inadequate to support an elitist lifestyle. 

Mr. Gore's annual expenditures on electricity would support me and mine quite nicely for at least two years. So I can see how you would need a big salary boost in order to mingle with that crowd.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what a bunch of absolute lying scuzballs. Clement is almost, almost as bad as that baldfaced liar Baird.

The elite... 

Well speaking from the unwashed masses Clement, I consider this to be a big issue.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Don't forget what happened to the Conservatives the last time they called out the 'elitists'.

Quebec showed them the door over 'Elitist Arts Funding'. 

Tony Clement is only doing the opposition a favour by even bringing up the 'E' word. I'm sure the message from the brains of the outfit is to play to the grassroots faithful, not them edu-macted big city slicksters.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

eMacMan said:


> Congratulations: Dr. G That is indeed quite a promotion. I am assuming that you will be getting an extra $20,000,000 a year compensation as I am sure your current salary is completely inadequate to support an elitist lifestyle.
> 
> Mr. Gore's annual expenditures on electricity would support me and mine quite nicely for at least two years. So I can see how you would need a big salary boost in order to mingle with that crowd.





MazterCBlazter said:


> All hail Dr.G.


eMacMan, it means I get two bags of peanuts on any Air Canada flight over 5000km from St.John's. Still, on a university profs salary, I don't travel often over 5000km. 

MCB, you shall be my protection from the autograph seekers.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

CTV News | Harper says proroguing best for 'important work'

Apparently, now, this just in, the less important work, gets done in the parliament Canadians elected them into.

I guess Harper, doesn't appreciate that Canadians, twice sent him into a minority government.

Damn, Canadians. And those, ELITE people...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

My letter to my MP, which I will fax tomorrow and send snail mail copies to the PMO and the Opposition leader:



Me said:


> I am writing to express my concern about Prime Minister Harper's prorogation of Parliament until March.
> 
> I am concerned that most of the pending legislation has died on the order paper and the fact that the work of all parliamentary committees has been terminated, including the work of the House of Commons Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

CBC.ca Video: Tom Flanagan says that the government's talking points don't have much credibility

Flanagan comes on around the 3:40 mark. His criticism of Harper is surprising since he is a long time political confidante, sometimes called a "soul mate" and worked closely with Harper since the Reform days. Flanagan is in favour of the prorogation though, but believes that Harper should have come out and stated his reasons for it straight up.

... interesting.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

he has a point. If they had been straight up from the beginning about it, then you could really only take issue with the real reasons. But the lies, deceit, the BS talking points, just makes them look like total buffoons. 

And Clement and his Elite comment. Niiiiiice move....


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> he has a point. If they had been straight up from the beginning about it, then you could really only take issue with the real reasons. But the lies, deceit, the BS talking points, just makes them look like total buffoons.
> 
> And Clement and his Elite comment. Niiiiiice move....


I think this applies to Harper's mandate in general. No one really knows where he will take the country if he fools us into giving him a majority.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Another interesting read:

Harper underestimates Facebook at his own peril - The Globe and Mail



> Of course, Mr. Harper would understand how powerful online activism can be since, last year, he benefited from a popular Facebook group opposed to a coalition government. But while that effort worked in his favour, the next three months are likely going to be long and uncomfortable for the Prime Minister as the media and an activist public refuse to let him forget his recent choices very quickly.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

> Easily the biggest fallacy around online politics is the belief that because something is easy, it doesn’t matter. Joining a Facebook group is easy; marching is hard. So pay attention to marchers and ignore Facebook groups, the reasoning goes.


Well gee doesn't THIS sound familiar! One has to chuckle that facebook seemed more a deal when it favored the conservative cause...

The truth is, the idea that only the 'marchers' at rallies are the numbers to watch, is pure stupidity. Because if that were so, then the the real poll, election day, you'd only see the marchers voting accordingly.

Yet more people just not getting the big shift to online digital communication. Keep up, or get left behind.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

groovetube said:


> Well gee doesn't THIS sound familiar! One has to chuckle that facebook seemed more a deal when it favored the conservative cause...
> 
> The truth is, the idea that only the 'marchers' at rallies are the numbers to watch, is pure stupidity. Because if that were so, then the the real poll, election day, you'd only see the marchers voting accordingly.
> 
> Yet more people just not getting the big shift to online digital communication. Keep up, or get left behind.


I can guarantee that after the 23rd, when rallies are being organized in 31 Canadian cities that unless there are millions attending, — which there won't be, — that the Conservatives will use the same arguments to ignore and marginalize this as well. 

I've always felt that protests like this represent the tip of an iceberg, since most people are not the least bit politically active, have never written their MP or attended a rally. I have 60 or 70 Facebook friends, most of whom probably agree with me on this issue. When I posted a link to the anti-prorogation Facebook group only 4 or 5 others joined the group themselves. Even clicking a "join" button is more political action than the vast majority of people want to indulge in. Saying all of these people don't care about the issue is mistaken though, they just see politics as something they are too busy to participate in, or often believe that their input doesn't matter. I disagree with this point of view, but many of these same people, unfortunately not all, will still vote.

Facebook group now at 167,914.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

groovetube said:


> And Clement and his Elite comment. Niiiiiice move....


Clement claimed in the press he only had received 3 dozen emails on the subject. I'll bet he has 3,000 now.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ha ha I was thinking the same thing wenI read that.

Kinda like that 'bring it on' nonsense. The righteous right likes that sort of thing don't they.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> *Shutdown leaves Tories, Liberals nearly tied: poll*
> Conservative support drops in wake of PM's decision to prorogue Parliament
> 
> 
> ...


Conservative support drops in wake of PM's decision to prorogue Parliament


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> Conservative support drops in wake of PM's decision to prorogue Parliament


I really have no faith in polls. Most people just hang-up. I am sure that at least in Quebec a majority of those that do participate lie, as there is no other way to explain the discrepancy between polls and election results in that province.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> there is no other way to explain the discrepancy between polls and election results in that province.


Do they use Diebold voting machines in Quebec?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

No but I believe Harpo wants to have them in place by the next election.beejacon


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Polls are polls are polls but...

Conservatives on 'razor's edge of losing government' - The Globe and Mail



> If an election were held today, he says, the Tories would have only 112 seats compared to the 145 they have now. Last fall, when his polls had the Tories in majority government territory, Mr. Graves had the Harper team winning 177 seats. Now, they would see their biggest losses in Ontario, dropping to 33 from 51seats.
> 
> The Liberals, meanwhile, would make gains in Ontario, taking 60 seats from their current 38. Nationally, Mr. Graves has the Ignatieff team winning 107 seats compared to the 77 seats they have now.
> 
> His figures suggest the NDP would win 33 seats, down from the 37 they have now. And the Bloc Quebecois would win five more seats, going to 53 from 48 seats.


Included is a message to those pesky Liberals:



> Mr. Graves does, however, see some positives for the Tories in this poll. He says Liberal fortunes haven’t been “jump-started.” His numbers only show the Grits are moving up “ever so gently.”
> 
> “This is a Conservative slide rather than a Liberal rise,” he says, arguing the challenge for Mr. Ignatieff now is to seize the public disenchantment over prorogation and start providing reasons to Canadians for voting Liberal. Mr. Graves says the Grits need to shift “public thinking about what is different and better” about them.


Now as far as that old insignificant 'rent a crowd' of only a few hundred:



> Prorogation protests go international. The organizers of the anti-prorogation rallies planned for Jan. 23 are now saying there will be rallies in London, England, and New York. There is also the possibility of an anti-prorogation demonstration in Los Angeles.
> 
> Jonathan Allan, the spokesperson for the rallies that were inspired by the anti-prorogation Facebook group, is boldly predicting huge turnout. “As we enter the second decade of the 21st century and become exposed to the whims of an unaccountable government, we are legitimately confident that these rallies, including the ones in Ottawa and Toronto, will be among the largest independent political protests in years,” he told The Globe in an email, noting that it’s a non-partisan effort.
> 
> “We have rebuked all assistance from opposition parties; this is an entirely grassroots organized event,” he writes. “We, as the citizens of Canada, are demanding that the elected representatives of our Parliament return to work immediately – if not in the House of Commons, at least within the context of the parliamentary inquiry into the government’s complicity in torture and war crimes.”


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

this is where the sabre rattler's, the bring it on ho ho HAR HAR crowd suddenly says polls don't matter.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> this is where the sabre rattler's, the bring it on ho ho HAR HAR crowd suddenly says polls don't matter.


Make note and bring it to their attention when they suddenly do again.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I can only agree that it's not so much a Liberal surge as it is a Tory slide.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

What is most interesting about this whole situation is how big a stink can be made about something of such little consequence... very Shakespearean... "Much Ado About Nothing". The Facebook phenomenon has some potentially rather scary implications... mob rule. Just choose your subject get people all riled up and start a riot... democracy in action.










Now for a few facts about prorogation:


Prorogation is a Parliamentary procedure that was inherited from the British Parliamentary tradition. It has been used throughout the history of the Parliament of Canada.

Prorogation has been used in all but five Canadian Parliaments since Confederation. These five unique Parliaments were all short-lived minorities, the longest of which lasted just over a year.

A Parliament is established following a general election and lasts until the Parliament is officially dissolved. Upon dissolution, a general election follows to establish a new Parliament. Prorogation should not be confused with dissolution.
Prorogation does not end a Parliament; it is the formal ending of a session of Parliament.

A session is one of the fundamental time periods into which a Parliament is divided. There may be any number of sessions in a Parliament, and there is no set length for a session although they generally last for approximately one year. 
The current Parliament, which began following the October 2008 election, is the 40th Parliament. The recent prorogation ended the 2nd session of this Parliament. On March 3rd the 3rd session of the 40th Parliament.

Here is how the 2nd session of the 40th Parliament compares with history:

This is the 105th time that the Canadian Parliament has been prorogued.
The average number of days in a Parliamentary session is 211; the 2nd session of the 40th Parliament lasted 338 days.
The average number of sitting days for a session of Parliament has been 109; the 2nd session of the 40th Parliament sat for 128 days. 
The Speech from the Throne will mark the beginning of the 3rd session of the 40th Parliament.
The average number of sessions per Parliament is 3.6. The number of sessions per Parliament has ranged from 1 to 7 (0 to 6 prorogations).
Of the first 39 Parliaments, 2 had 7 sessions, 4 had 6 sessions, 7 had 5 sessions, 9 had 4 sessions, 4 had 3 sessions, 8 had 2 sessions, and 5 had 1 session.
The shortest session of Parliament was the 6th session of the 18th Parliament: 1 sitting day
The longest session of Parliament was the 1st session of the 32nd Parliament: 591 sitting days


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> What is most interesting about this whole situation is how big a stink can be made about something of such little consequence... very Shakespearean... "Much Ado About Nothing". The Facebook phenomenon has some potentially rather scary implications... mob rule. Just choose your subject get people all riled up and start a riot... democracy in action.


Ah, the Facebook supporters are an angry mob now? Interesting.

Also, I think it's evident that it's not so much Prorogation, it's Harper and his Government.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Ah, the Facebook supporters are an angry mob now? Interesting.
> 
> Also, I think it's evident that it's not so much Prorogation, it's Harper and his Government.


No not saying they are, it just presents a somewhat scary possible road to travel down.

If it was about Harper and his Government then why didn't this all start without prorogation and the media whipping people up over a Parliamentary procedure?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it won't be long before angry mob, becomes socialist and then a PLOY!

Duck! And COVER!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> No not saying they are, it just presents a somewhat scary possible road to travel down.


I think banning the right to assemble is even scarier.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> I can only agree that it's not so much a Liberal surge as it is a Tory slide.


Absolutely... this has nothing to do with a rise in Liberal support. This is Canada where we don't so much vote *for* things, we vote *against* them.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> I think banning the right to assemble is even scarier.


Totally agree, wasn't even mentioned.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Totally agree, wasn't even mentioned.


What was implied by you was that their right to assemble was a "somewhat scary road to travel down". I'm not sure why you immediately jumped to the conclusion that this could be an 'angry mob', but all that comment serves to do is create fear and distrust. From there, nothing good happens.

I think it's a great thing! Democracy in action! So un-Canadian. We should thank Harper for helping to diminish, even fractionally, voter apathy in the great country of ours.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> If it was about Harper and his Government then why didn't this all start without prorogation and the media whipping people up over a Parliamentary procedure?


Have you heard about this proverbial straw that broke the camels back?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> What was implied by you was that their right to assemble was a "somewhat scary road to travel down". I'm not sure why you immediately jumped to the conclusion that this could be an 'angry mob', but all that comment serves to do is create fear and distrust. From there, nothing good happens.
> 
> I think it's a great thing! Democracy in action! So un-Canadian. We should thank Harper for helping to diminish, even fractionally, voter apathy in the great country of ours.


No, that is the way you choose to interpret it. I think it is potentially scary because any medium can be abused. If such a furore can be raised over something so relatively minor it makes me wonder what could happen over other matters and where it might lead in terms of inciting violence. Not saying that it would but everything has it's yin and yang built into it (thesis and antithesis).

It is also too bad that something as obviously as powerful has Facebook has become couldn't be put to use over more pressing serious matters, that would actually make a difference to people's lives, like say poverty of hunger.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> No, that is the way you choose to interpret it. I think it is potentially scary because any medium can be abused. If such a furore can be raised over something so relatively minor it makes me wonder what could happen over other matters and where it might lead in terms of inciting violence. Not saying that it would but everything has it's yin and yang built into it (thesis and antithesis).
> 
> It is also too bad that something as obviously as powerful has Facebook has become couldn't be put to use over more pressing serious matters, that would actually make a difference to people's lives, like say poverty of hunger.


You think it's minor, Harper says it's minor, many, many others don't think it's minor at all; regardless of what they're _*being told*_.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Have you heard about this proverbial straw that broke the camels back?


Nah, I don't buy it, the polls didn't indicate any such thing before this, they would have already been in the 30% territory before prorogation if that was truly the case. This is all about media spin in a slow news period.

Take for example Robert Fife on CTV, he keeps bantering about that this is a 2 month prorogation when knows it is a lie... but it spins well so he says it any way. January 25 - March 3. *5 weeks* truth actually be told it is closer to 1 month than two months... but since when is the media about telling the truth?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> It is also too bad that something as obviously as powerful has Facebook has become couldn't be put to use over more pressing serious matters, that would actually make a difference to people's lives, like say poverty of hunger.


I'm sure it has. There seems to be quite a bit of info regarding how to help with the disaster in Haiti. This is probably the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> You think it's minor, Harper says it's minor, many, many others don't think it's minor at all; regardless of what they're _*being told*_.


It is minor. It has happened 105 times in our Parliament's history. You can make butter from milk if you whip it up hard enough.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> It is minor. It has happened 105 times in our Parliament's history. You can make butter from milk if you whip it up hard enough.


Just like the Facebook protest is insignificant? 

We shall see...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> It is minor. It has happened 105 times in our Parliament's history. You can make butter from milk if you whip it up hard enough.


It would be minor and similar to most of the other prorogations if the government had worked it's way through it's legislative agenda. Many of these historical prorogations you speak of occurred with only a short break in between, sometimes with the next session starting the next day. It is unusual for a prorogation to leave so many pieces of legislation to die on the order table. Many of the bills left were supposedly important parts of the government's agenda that the Cons claimed were desperately needed. And many Con supporters were looking forward to their passage. They are now dead and untold hours of Parliamentary work is tossed out the window, never mind the expense of shepherding those bills through Parliament for months.

This Parliament had not come to any natural conclusion. The stated reasons so far are bogus and everyone can tell this doesn't pass the smell test. It was completely a political tactical move on the part of Harper. Tom Flanagan, who for decades had been Harper's political confidante, right-hand man and campaign manager went so far as to declare on the CBC that the reasons are BS and that Harper should have gone forward with the real reasons (which Flanagan felt were defensible).

It would be minor if the government hadn't prorogued only one year before. The previous prorogation ended a session of Parliament that only existed for a few days.

It would be minor if Harper chose not to denigrate our democratic institutions and at least made some kind of a nod towards normal Parliamentary practice. He couldn't even be bothered to make the customary personal visit to the GG, his next-door neighbour, he phoned it in. 

He was not elected President of Canada, he was elected as an MP from Calgary, who happens to be the leader of the party that has the highest number of seats in the House, but a minority of seats. His legitimacy to govern comes from Parliament and nothing else. He should be respectful of that fact and not act like he has a God-given mandate to govern, especially without keeping Parliament voting his way.

This would only be minor if you believe that Harper was actually elected Prime Minister, which he wasn't. Stephen Harper knows this only too well, but I think it serves him to attempt to cast Parliament as being irrelevant. His recent comments about Parliament not being suitable for "important work" show the spin he is trying to push. He wants to be Canada's El Presidente ordering around a rubber-stamp legislature.

This IS the straw that broke the camel's back for many people. I've always opposed Harper so I've been against pretty much everything he's done, but many people, even some Cons have joined the group. The self-described advocate for open and accountable government has conclusively shown that he is the antithesis of that.

187,355


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I now wonder if any knifes sharpening has begun in the Conservative woodsheds (maybe Reformers only went woodsheds) or what ever passes for back rooms for Conservatives these days. 

When a guy like Tom Flanagan gives you a slice and on the CBC, of all places, you gotta wonder.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yeah, I found that remarkable too.... Flanagan, of all people. Just a little bit curious, that.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Max said:


> Yeah, I found that remarkable too.... Flanagan, of all people. Just a little bit curious, that.


Flanagan made the joke to the stunned host and commentators of the show, "I hope I won't be called a "Harper stooge" anymore".

The point was that Flanagan believes in the prorogation, he just believes that Harper has bungled it politically by coming out with a series of phoney justifications for it. I'm sure Flanagan is still a Conservative stooge at least. Certainly Flanagan is no believer in the niceties of democracy either.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Here's a chart that shows all the government legislation's progress through Parliament in the last session. 










It's rather small in this image. If you can see it, the legislation that made it through to Royal Assent has the progress bar going all the way to the right. The rest is unfinished and DOA with the prorogation.

Out of 63 bills, 31 were passed.

Here is a link to a larger version of the chart, which you can click it on to scale it up.

http://i.imgur.com/UeEnK.jpg

The chart is from the Government House Leader's official web site: LINK


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The fewer bills pass the happier I am. And 'sauce, stop describing this as an abrogation of democracy. It's part of the Canadian democratic process whether you favour it or not.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I had read earlier that Flanagan did indeed support proroguing Parliament and that he was simply fed up with Harper's stated reasons for going that way. Although this brings to mind that chestnut of an observation about leopards and their spots, it's still fascinating that Flanagan has come out at all against Harper, for whatever reason.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The fewer bills pass the happier I am. And 'sauce, stop describing this as an abrogation of democracy. It's part of the Canadian democratic process whether you favour it or not.


MF, just because it's legal, doesn't make it democratic. 

I don't see how a prorogation of Parliament can or should be able to be brought about by someone without a majority of Parliament agreeing to this and have that called "democratic". In most cases PMs have had enough respect for our Parliamentary system to not abuse this power — not Steve. Again, this is just Harper acting as if he's President, not someone who's right to govern comes from Parliament.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Max said:


> I had read earlier that Flanagan did indeed support proroguing Parliament and that he was simply fed up with Harper's stated reasons for going that way. Although this brings to mind that chestnut of an observation about leopards and their spots, it's still fascinating that Flanagan has come out at all against Harper, for whatever reason.


Yes, it is fascinating. I guess everyone is wondering what the real story there is. Flanagan has always been staunchly behind Harper and is the one who took him by the hand and led him to taking on the mantle of Alliance leader.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I don't see how a prorogation of Parliament can or should be able to be brought about by someone without a majority of Parliament agreeing to this and have that called "democratic". In most cases PMs have had enough respect for our Parliamentary system to not abuse this power — not Steve. Again, this is just Harper acting as if he's President, not someone who's right to govern comes from Parliament.


If the majority of Parliament doesn't like it, they can form a coalition government under Iggy.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Who needs a coalition? Just have a non confidence vote against the Cons and let's do this all over again.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> If the majority of Parliament doesn't like it, they can form a coalition government under Iggy.


They can't form any government at the moment, but I see how you're trying to redirect the point. The point isn't about Iggy or a coalition which isn't in the cards. The point is that in our country, Parliament is supreme. 

Harper, although not the only PM to ever attempt to make the PMO the supreme authority, is trying to redefine Parliament as some kind of sideshow that is his to command. His authority as PM comes from Parliament and at the moment, there is no Parliament in session. 

Lengthy breaks in Parliament are usually only done as recesses, where it is technically still in session and can be reconvened. It is somewhat more acceptable where the PM leads a strong majority government, but even in that case, leaving Parliament prorogued for too long smells of contempt for democracy. Leaving Parliament locked twice in less than a year for lengthy periods, as Harper has, when his mandate is not a majority one clearly smells.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Harper, although not the only PM to ever attempt to make the PMO the supreme authority, is trying to redefine Parliament as some kind of sideshow that is his to command. His authority as PM comes from Parliament and at the moment, there is no Parliament in session.


His authority is limited by the checks and balances offered by the Governor General, who sided with him in this case, but is under no obligation to do so.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> His authority is limited by the checks and balances offered by the Governor General, who sided with him in this case, but is under no obligation to do so.


That's nonsense. The GG would never go against the PM unless the PM has flagrantly disobeyed the law in a very serious manner. The public would not support the GG interfering otherwise and it would still provoke a very serious crisis if the PM was doing anything untoward and was interfered with.

This is actually the point. With Parliament prorogued the PM's only check is an unelected person that subject to being appointed by him (or the Queen of Canada, yikes). When Parliament is in session the proper check on the PM is our Parliament, as it should be.

As long as the GG defers to standard practice and defers to Parliament there is no issue. As is the case with the PM, who is not conforming to standard practice.

Edit: I believe it is the mark of a banana republic where the Prime Minister can on a whim phone in a prorogation of the very institution where his authority comes from. This is something that should be changed, the House should have to vote on a prorogation.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> His authority is limited by the checks and balances offered by the Governor General, who sided with him in this case, but is under no obligation to do so.


King Byng Affair seems to indicate differently. Much of the "rules" surrounding Parliament are not written and there is convention and actual past practice to go by. Parliament checks the powers of the government and the Prime Minister Governs at the pleasure of Parliament and the GG.

Not quite as neat and tidy as it is spun out to be.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

No prime minister should be permitted to advise the prorogation or dissolution of Parliament without a vote to do so in the House of Commons: Simon Fraser University constitutional expert


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ottawaman said:


> No prime minister should be permitted to advise the prorogation or dissolution of Parliament without a vote to do so in the House of Commons: Simon Fraser University constitutional expert


What a load of crap!



> This change could be implemented informally and quickly, with the passage of a resolution in the House of Commons to the effect that the prime minister would be in contempt of Parliament to advise prorogation or dissolution without being authorized to do so by the House. Such a resolution would preserve the important personal prerogative of the governor-general to either prorogue or dissolve Parliament on her own initiative if necessary. But it would also establish the norm that our MPs should decide collectively when it is time to stop Parliament's work. The decision to shut down Parliament should be made democratically, not autocratically.


Do you realize that statement would mean that we would be handing the decision to suspend our own parliament to a foreigner, namely the representative of Lizzie and her loonie band of misfits over in England?

God help us if that ever happens.

The GG's office should be quashed and the sooner the better. We have no need of any control exercised in our system by the misfits that are currently known as "the royals" across the pond.

It is time to cut and run and never before has it been more obvious or urgent.

The monarchy is potentially a dictatorship over Canada and nothing more.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> What a load of crap!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The only potential dicatorship in this country is Harper. The Monarchy can give a rat's tookus. 

Nice try.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> The only potential dicatorship in this country is Harper. The Monarchy can give a rat's tookus.
> 
> Nice try.


If you cannot see past a "try" you miss the point that the GG has far too much power within our system. We need to cut the cord to Britain and the sooner the better. Try that.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> What a load of crap!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


SINC, it not clear what you're in a flap about. You do know that he hasn't suggested a change in the GG's current job description. The GG representing the Queen of Canada is the one who has granted the current and previous prorogation - on the advice of the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, MP PC. By tradition and practice she must accept that advice.

I think the writer makes perfect sense, the House should vote on it, it should not be the decision of the PM alone. I hope someone in the opposition has the brains and balls to sponsor this change when the House goes back.



SINC said:


> The GG's office should be quashed and the sooner the better. We have no need of any control exercised in our system by the misfits that are currently known as "the royals" across the pond.
> 
> It is time to cut and run and never before has it been more obvious or urgent.
> 
> The monarchy is potentially a dictatorship over Canada and nothing more.


I'm not worried about Queen Liz or King Charlie taking over our country, but I do agree that we should disconnect our head of state from the British Royals.

One small point that many people don't understand and that I didn't until recently, but the Queen is not technically a foreign monarch. She wears several hats as well as the British crown. She has a side job as Queen of Canada which is separate from her London gig. If the Brits gave her the heave-ho she could legitimately pack up her jewels and move to Ottawa and wear her Queen of Canada crown. I not sure if this technically gives her Canuck citizenship, but I would imagine it does.

I think we do need an official head of state though, separate from the PM. I would like to see the GG job retain it's current powers (maybe with some tweaking that guarantees non-partisanship) but be chosen by our elected representatives in Parliament, maybe similar to the way the Speaker is chosen. We could also go to electing a head of state and have a President, but I think then the job would get political which I can't see as benefiting anyone.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> If you cannot see past a "try" you miss the point that the GG has far too much power within our system. We need to cut the cord to Britain and the sooner the better. Try that.


Been there done that where's your tee shirt on the matter?

Don't go on like a loony.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think the writer makes perfect sense, the House should vote on it, it should not be the decision of the PM alone. I hope someone in the opposition has the brains and balls to sponsor this change when the House goes back.


The fact that this is even possible proves we are in no danger of dictatorship--beyond the usual lefty heavy-handedness.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

I don't really understand what all the fuss is about. Proroguing of Parliament is as old as the hills and is a fairly regular feature of Canadian political history.

I do understand that those who oppose Harper see it as an opportunity to make Political Hay, and they certainly have all the right in the world to do that.

But, it's no more or no less "undemocratic" this time than any of the other governments we've had over the years. They've all done it; I don't believe there has been any reasonably stable Government in this country (3+ years of governing) that hasn't done it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

gordguide: those screaming loudest about it here at ehMac were the ones defending the actions of the attempted coalition against those who called it undemocratic. They get their knickers in a knot when they aren't getting their way, not out of respect for democracy. While I hated the prospects of a Prime Minister Dion, both strategies are entirely democratic and respect our country's laws.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

gordguide said:


> I don't really understand what all the fuss is about. Proroguing of Parliament is as old as the hills and is a fairly regular feature of Canadian political history.
> 
> I do understand that those who oppose Harper see it as an opportunity to make Political Hay, and they certainly have all the right in the world to do that.
> 
> But, it's no more or no less "undemocratic" this time than any of the other governments we've had over the years. They've all done it; I don't believe there has been any reasonably stable Government in this country (3+ years of governing) that hasn't done it.


The fuss is because the two uses of prorogation by Harper are extraordinary uses of this power and unlike the 100 or so times it has been used by other governments. As has been mentioned in this thread and throughout the media, in opposition to Conservative talking points, prorogation has been used in almost all cases when a government's legislative agenda has been mostly achieved or attempted, not as a political tactic to avoid a vote (2008) or to avoid an increasingly embarrassing series of questions being raised in a Parliamentary committee (2009).

While those who choose to make political hay from the missteps of their political opponents are constantly vigilant for anything to use, for the issue to resonate, especially for it to resonate with those who might not necessarily be opponents, the fuss is usually about something substantial. Criticism of Harper has come from all corners, not just the left, as you can see in the following Western Standard article, penned by someone calling themselves a libertarian.



> How to undermine a democracy in just one year.
> ---
> All and all, last year's prorogation of parliament should go down in the history books as one of the most perfectly and shrewdly played political moves in Canadian history. But that didn't make it right.
> 
> ...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> gordguide: those screaming loudest about it here at ehMac were the ones defending the actions of the attempted coalition against those who called it undemocratic. They get their knickers in a knot when they aren't getting their way, not out of respect for democracy. While I hated the prospects of a Prime Minister Dion, both strategies are entirely democratic and respect our country's laws.


The ones who were calling it undemocratic last year were incorrect and didn't understand how Parliament works. Harper played that one to his advantage and is attempting to use the same bit of misinformation this year. He insists that Canadians have elected him Prime Minister and insists that he is not accountable to Parliament. Hence the two prorogations, each time to avoid the consequences of Parliament.

By the way, my knickers are just fine, thanks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The ones who were calling it undemocratic last year were incorrect and didn't understand how Parliament works.


Apparently someone else doesn't understand how it works now. This person may not like the way in which it is working and may even wish that it were changed at some future point. This person ascribes all sorts of unspoken motives to the current PM, then uses this as evidence to determine the move is undemocratic. 

This person has knotted knickers.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Apparently someone else doesn't understand how it works now. This person may not like the way in which it is working and may even wish that it were changed at some future point. This person ascribes all sorts of unspoken motives to the current PM, then uses this as evidence to determine the move is undemocratic.
> 
> This person has knotted knickers.


My knickers are fine also. In fact, they are very comfortable. The hunt continues I suppose.

Just as an aside though, I haven't read, either in the for or against camp, anyone who doesn't 'understand' how any of this works. Nor have I read anyone to declare the prorogation as illegal. Not sure what you're on about.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Lots of aspersions being cast in here. Feels like you need an umbrella to wade through this thread.

Reminds me of Parliament. I mean, when they were working, of course. Nowadays it's like a vacation on the public's nickel. Cool. That's the thing about working in gov - those benefits.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Nor have I read anyone to declare the prorogation as illegal. Not sure what you're on about.


Undemocratic.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It would be minor and similar to most of the other prorogations if the government had worked it's way through it's legislative agenda...


This is a red herring argument being bandied by the Opposition and one that you clearly have fallen for. The legislative agenda is the Government's...hardly one that the Opposition is with any sincerity disappointed to see go by the way side. It is extremely disingenuous to suggest otherwise. This is patently clear when one looks at the record of how Liberal MPs voted in the House, purportedly voting in favour of legislation knowing full well that their cronies in the Senate would be stonewalling and amending the legislation before coming back to the House. Now who is being anti-democratic. Voting in favour of legislation in the House for optics sake (don't want to appear soft on crime), just to send legislation off to the Senate to have your un-elected Senators do your dirty work for you.

This is the *real* reason why the Liberals have their knickers in a knot, it is because prorogation not only means that they will no longer have a majority in the Senate it means that Senate Committees must be reconstituted (this would not have happened without prorogation) and they will also lose their majority status in Senate Committees where the amendments to legislation are first made, making their strangle hold on delaying and amending legislation passed through the House null and void.

This forces Liberal MPs to fish or cut bait when it comes to voting on legislation in the House, they will no longer have their cronies in the Senate to do their dirty work for them, the will have to honestly vote for Bills that their either truly support or truly don't because they won't have the unelected Senate to back them up, stonewalling and amending legislation any more.

So you can say Harper is being anti-democratic all you want and if he is it is in response to an anti-democratic Liberal party making use of dominance in the Senate to maintain their stance as "the natural ruling Party of Canada."

As for the whole Afghan detainee matter, it will return, nothing has been cancelled in this regard merely postponed. Aside from the potential security threat that it may pose for the troops I hope it will come to a public inquiry because once and for all it will be made obvious to Canadians (who don't already know) that this is a case of the pot (Liberals) calling the kettle black. They were in charge of detainee transfers for 5 years before the Conservatives were in power and the situation was even worse then so most certainly if torture was going on under the Conservative watch it certainly was under the Liberals and they did absolutely nothing about it.

If in doubt:

Terry Glavin: Cover-up. What are the Liberals hiding?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Undemocratic.


And who called it that?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> This is a red herring argument being bandied by the Opposition and one that you clearly have fallen for. The legislative agenda is the Government's...hardly one that the Opposition is with any sincerity disappointed to see go by the way side. It is extremely disingenuous to suggest otherwise. This is patently clear when one looks at the record of how Liberal MPs voted in the House, purportedly voting in favour of legislation knowing full well that their cronies in the Senate would be stonewalling and amending the legislation before coming back to the House. Now who is being anti-democratic. Voting in favour of legislation in the House for optics sake (don't want to appear soft on crime), just to send legislation off to the Senate to have your un-elected Senators do your dirty work for you.]


Harper's plan is to do exactly the same thing by stacking the senate with Conservative sympathizers.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Harper's plan is to do exactly the same thing by stacking the senate with Conservative sympathizers.


Well but of course... However it will take some time the next appointments will only give the Cons a slim edge.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> As for the whole Afghan detainee matter, it will return, nothing has been cancelled in this regard merely postponed. Aside from the potential security threat that it may pose for the troops I hope it will come to a public inquiry because once and for all it will be made obvious to Canadians (who don't already know) that this is a case of the pot (Liberals) calling the kettle black. They were in charge of detainee transfers for 5 years before the Conservatives were in power and the situation was even worse then so most certainly if torture was going on under the Conservative watch it certainly was under the Liberals and they did absolutely nothing about it.[/URL]


It's on the Conservative's watch now and all they're doing is denying and when caught, proroguing. That will be what is remembered.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> It's on the Conservative's watch now and all they're doing is denying and when caught, proroguing. That will be what is remembered.


The prorogation is not about the detainee issue, it will go on, it is about the Senate.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Well but of course... However it will take some time the next appointments will only give the Cons a slim edge.


So will you ascribe the same characteristics to them?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> The prorogation is not about the detainee issue, it will go on, it is about the Senate.


Whatever the 'real' reason (forgive me for not taking your opinion as gospel), many of the voting public sees it as one of, if not the main reason.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> So will you ascribe the same characteristics to them?


Sure of course, but I doubt that opportunity will arise in the same manner as it did for the Liberals any time soon. The Liberals enjoyed a large majority in the Senate for a very long time, that situation is not likely to come the Cons way any time soon.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Whatever the 'real' reason (forgive me for not taking your opinion as gospel), many of the voting public sees it as one of, if not the main reason.


Don't blame you... I'm no prophet. :lmao: But the detainee issue is only put on hold... it would make no sense to run away from an issue that is only destined to return upon returning to Parliament. The Senate situation... that has some lasting effect.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> And who called it that?


Undemocratic?

'Sauce.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> MF, just because it's legal, doesn't make it democratic.
> 
> I don't see how a prorogation of Parliament can or should be able to be brought about by someone without a majority of Parliament agreeing to this and have that called "democratic".


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

screature said:


> The prorogation is not about the detainee issue, it will go on, it is about the Senate.


Without defending either side, I agree, especially about the Senate part.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> The prorogation is not about the detainee issue, it will go on, it is about the Senate.


It's odd that you say you know what the prorogation is about, yet Harper himself has only said it's about "recalibrating" and some BS about an Olympic vacation. He expects us to believe that was worth scrapping half of his legislation and half of the work of the last session of Parliament. 

Tom Flanagan believes it is about the detainee issue and feels that it is a valid political tactic that is defensible and that Harper would win the public debate if he came out and said so. I think he's viewing the Canadian public through Tory-tinged glasses on that belief, but to each their own. Many Cons seem to have forgotten who Tom Flanagan is, even though he was Harper's right hand man for a decade. If anyone knows what's going on behind the scenes it would be Flanagan.

The fact that Harper hasn't really announced any believable reasons for throwing away half of his parliamentary agenda leads many to point to the obvious reason. But even if as you say it's about the Senate then it's also a political tactic. I'd like to see some factual information that shows how the Senate was unusually preventing any legislation from getting through Parliament. I think that's just another Con talking point. They obviously were being more active than other Senates, but many of the bills went to Royal Assent so obviously they weren't holding up everything as the Cons claim.

So it's disingenuous to talk about Harper scrapping half of his legislative agenda for a political tactic? For the record I am happy that some of the bills are gone, but that's not the point. The ends don't justify the means, even though Harper believes they always do. To hold a sham Parliament and waste all of those days of work by MPs, staff and the government in general is a scandal in itself. And the contempt shown to the body, which is the supreme power in our democracy, is certainly telling.

And MF, why do you claim to know so much about my knickers? You're on here yapping about every issue pretty much all the time. Does that mean your knickers are permanently twisted about everything? I come on ehMac at times quite a lot and then because of my business requirements hardly post at all for many weeks. So my posts are often more frequent when I have the spare time to get involved in something that interests me - that is all.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Brian Gable - Globe and Mail


----------



## Motu (Nov 18, 2009)

And that differs from a majority how?





ComputerIdiot said:


> Nice to know Harper has his own little fiefdom that he can yank around as he pleases ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Good one, GA.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> And MF, why do you claim to know so much about my knickers? You're on here yapping about every issue pretty much all the time. Does that mean your knickers are permanently twisted about everything? I come on ehMac at times quite a lot and then because of my business requirements hardly post at all for many weeks. So my posts are often more frequent when I have the spare time to get involved in something that interests me - that is all.


You need to spend more time here 'sauce. It will toughen your lefty hide.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It's odd that you say you know what the prorogation is about, yet Harper himself has only said it's about "recalibrating" and some BS about an Olympic vacation. He expects us to believe that was worth scrapping half of his legislation and half of the work of the last session of Parliament.
> 
> Tom Flanagan believes it is about the detainee issue and feels that it is a valid political tactic that is defensible and that Harper would win the public debate if he came out and said so. I think he's viewing the Canadian public through Tory-tinged glasses on that belief, but to each their own. Many Cons seem to have forgotten who Tom Flanagan is, even though he was Harper's right hand man for a decade. If anyone knows what's going on behind the scenes it would be Flanagan.
> 
> ...


You over estimate the affection felt between Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Harper. They have been on the outs for years with Flanagan berating Harper repeatedly. He also hasn't been on the "inside" for years either. His opinion at this point is no more relevant than any other political analyst.

Prorogation is always a tactical move whether it be to "recalibrate" priorities or otherwise. This is politics.

As for the Senate having anything to do with prorogation, if you don't believe me read this: Harper to revive Senate reform plan: Decision to prorogue Parliament could give minority government enough power to force a high-stakes vote on changes.



> Stephen Harper will revive a contentious plan to reform the Senate after Parliament resumes in March, setting the stage for a showdown with the opposition and a handful of provinces over whether senators should be elected and held to term limits.
> 
> The Prime Minister's decision to prorogue Parliament, and appoint five new senators during the 22-day break, could give his minority government enough clout to move its reform agenda through the Senate, and then force a high-stakes vote on the legislation in the House of Commons.
> 
> Mr. Harper promised Tuesday that any senators he did appoint “will further our Senate reform agenda.”





> After taking office in 2006, the Conservatives proposed a bill to limit senators' terms to eight years – which was to precede a bill that would establish Senate elections – but it died as Liberals in the Senate insisted there should be 12-year terms and that such a constitutional change must be negotiated with the provinces.





> The Conservatives have long argued that they faced obstructionist efforts from Liberal senators, and accused them of blocking or watering down bills that passed the Commons, or using their control of Senate committees to delay them. Two pre-Christmas moves, to delay a consumer safety bill and amend a drug crime bill, angered the Conservative government.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

From today's Globe And Mail:

Prorogation riles Canadians - and splits the Kent family - The Globe and Mail



> Arthur Kent is based in Calgary. Besides making documentaries, he has of late been writing thoughtful but extremely pointed pieces critical of Stephen Harper and his government’s decision to shut down Parliament. He says the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament to try to contain the damage from the Afghan detainee inquiry.
> 
> “In truth, there has been an unwritten fatwa maintained by the Prime Minister’s Office against discussion of any and all controversial aspects of the Afghan debacle,” Mr. Kent wrote recently on his news site, SkyReporter.com.
> 
> In an interview, Arthur Kent added that if Stephen Harper is uncomfortable with democracy, he should quit his job.





> “If this problem was simply a product of ire about prorogation then it might even dissipate somewhat even after focus on the crisis in Haiti fades,” he says. “But I believe that prorogation was just the match that lit the fuse to a broader range of frustrations the public had with what was seen as an increasingly autocratic governing style lacking in the accountability and transparency themes that Harper appealed to in replacing the Liberals.”


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I've always contended that the real reason behind this proroguing was getting control of the Senate so bills passed by the House of Commons would actually get enacted. 

People are just so emotional and thinking it's all about Afghanistan. The Liberals got us into Afghanistan so they're not going to be squeaky-clean either when it comes to this inquiry. But it's a red-herring that the Liberals are promoting, and the Conservatives for the most part are "What?" Reacting to accusations only further entrenches the idea, so they're not even reacting. But the Liberals have nothing more to say, so they keep going on about the stalled inquiry. It's nothing to do with that.

Look at the big picture - what were the goals of the Conservatives? One of them was Senate reform. (I agree with Senate reform. I think it's an antiquated system that needs revision.) 

Harper is merely using the current system to achieve his party's long term goals. I don't think he or the Conservatives have a 'hidden agenda' - I think the party platform is fairly straightforward, and one of those items is 'Senate Reform'. For those who aren't all emotional, it's fairly straightforward and makes sense. Reforming Senate is not a 'hidden agenda' - it's been part of the party platform since day one. And now he's doing his best to achieve that goal, using the current system, which include proroguing Parliament.

However, the mass of people react emotionally to things. For years savvy politicians have been manipulating the masses through their emotions to achieve their own desires. (Best example: Want to get Saddam out of power? Link him emotionally with some attack on your country. 99% of Americans still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11, even though the FACTS don't support this.) I would classify the first 10 years of this century as 'the decade of emotionalism'. Greed and fear.

I'm tired of politicians manipulating the masses through emotions. Fear, mostly, is the current tool of the Liberals. Fear of the unknown. Instead of offering something positive, all they do is breed fear and distrust.

Stop being emotionally manipulated. Start thinking. 

The facts: Minority House of Commons - but still functioning, and getting bills passed. Senate - dysfunctional - bills stalled. Solution: fix Senate. First step: get a majority in Senate.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Great post MLeh. Makes the most sense of anything posted in this thread before and hits the nail right on the head. :clap:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MLeh said:


> I've always contended that the real reason behind this proroguing was getting control of the Senate so bills passed by the House of Commons would actually get enacted.
> 
> People are just so emotional and thinking it's all about Afghanistan. The Liberals got us into Afghanistan so they're not going to be squeaky-clean either when it comes to this inquiry. But it's a red-herring that the Liberals are promoting, and the Conservatives for the most part are "What?" Reacting to accusations only further entrenches the idea, so they're not even reacting. But the Liberals have nothing more to say, so they keep going on about the stalled inquiry. It's nothing to do with that.
> 
> ...


not a bad post until you imply that fear, is a liberal tool.

Fear, has served the conservatives extremely well, quite obviously.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Great post MLeh. Makes the most sense of anything posted in this thread before and hits the nail right on the head. :clap:


Gosh I agree! The almost 200,000 members of the FB group, the respondants in all the latest polls, the respected Academics, Journalists, Commentators, even The Economist must be wrong! SINC, I think you need to get to Ottawa and straighten these people out! Tell them they are all just getting too emotional. Instruct them to start thinking. Perhaps all they really need is just to sit down with a cup of tea. 

Harper has been nothing but a standup guy who is good to his word. How in the world could we have thought otherwise. Foolish easily manipulated unthinkers.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

MLeh said:


> ...
> I would classify the first 10 years of this century as 'the decade of emotionalism'. Greed and fear.
> 
> I'm tired of politicians manipulating the masses through emotions. Fear, mostly, is the current tool of the Liberals. Fear of the unknown. Instead of offering something positive, all they do is breed fear and distrust.
> ...


*
Exactly.*

and speaking of fear and emotional manipulation - I've seen it from both sides.

Two significant items you are ignoring - though I am sure there are many more and on both sides - I cite these two because they are particularly amusing (and ongoing) given the context of the discussion:

1) the spin the current party in power used when threatened with the perfectly democratic and parliamentarily permitted possibility of a coalition. This one may be ongoing... we'll see if anyone can manage to bring another coalition together. (wouldn't it be hilarious if the CPC did to shore up their position! )

2) any time the current party in power speaks about crime or justice issues (or even the economy) - no matter what the statistics say. This one is continual.  Strategically it is a good one to use, if you're willing to use it - there will always be a crime somewhere, and the media will find it and report it. If the media exploit it, why not everyone else.

Heck - If I was PM I'd try to find a way to delay things for a while... if you wait long enough something will happen somewhere that you can use to scare people. (I have never thought that the current crop of scandals/issues were enough to bring down the party in power.)

I've had too many telephone polls and pamphlets from the CPC trying to scare me into one thing or another over the past few elections. If the liberals are doing it (and I think you're right and they are), they've had plenty of tutoring in recent years (whether they needed it or not!)


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

groovetube said:


> not a bad post until you imply that fear, is a liberal tool.
> 
> Fear, has served the conservatives extremely well, quite obviously.


Oh, absolutely.

I didn't mean to infer it was exclusively a Liberal tool - just that it's all they're using right now.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Gosh I agree! The almost 200,000 members of the FB group, the respondants in all the latest polls, the respected Academics, Journalists, Commentators, even The Economist must be wrong! SINC, I think you need to get to Ottawa and straighten these people out! Tell them they are all just getting too emotional. Instruct them to start thinking. Perhaps all they really need is just to sit down with a cup of tea.


Nope, I don't want to disturb the current brain set of the sheeple on FB if they are so right and so determined as you keep pointing out. Bring on an election, and we'll see who comes out on top.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Nope, I don't want to disturb the current brain set of the sheeple on FB if they are so right and so determined as you keep pointing out. Bring on an election, and we'll see who comes out on top.


Not just FB SINC. Many many more. Too many to list. 

Hmm, 'sheeple', interesting. I didn't realize you were such an independant thinker. Shame on those poor uninformed people,


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

SINC said:


> Nope, I don't want to disturb the current brain set of the sheeple on FB if they are so right and so determined as you keep pointing out. Bring on an election, and we'll see who comes out on top.


Sinc: the best way to deal with emotional responses to a rational discussion is to IGNORE them. Trust me. Because otherwise you just become emotional yourself and fuel the fire. You can't win.

I know it's frustrating. But it's also not productive. (If you're not part of the solution ... all that.)


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MLeh said:


> Harper is merely using the current system to achieve his party's long term goals. I don't think he or the Conservatives have a 'hidden agenda' - I think the party platform is fairly straightforward, and one of those items is 'Senate Reform'. For those who aren't all emotional, it's fairly straightforward and makes sense. Reforming Senate is not a 'hidden agenda' - it's been part of the party platform since day one. And now he's doing his best to achieve that goal, using the current system, which include proroguing Parliament.


Google: Harper + Manning + Harris + The Fraser Institute

Start there.

The Manning/ Harris report is Harper's hidden agenda. Hidden because he denies it while campaigning for a Majority Government. It's what he strove for in the NCC. It's his plan for Canada.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> The Manning/ Harris report is Harper's hidden agenda. Hidden because he denies it while campaigning for a Majority Government. It's what he strove for in the NCC. It's his plan for Canada.


So hidden you can find it on Google. Frankly, if Harper doesn't do something to institute his "Secret Plan" soon, I'll be disappointed in him.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MLeh said:


> Sinc: the best way to deal with emotional responses to a rational discussion is to IGNORE them. Trust me. Because otherwise you just become emotional yourself and fuel the fire. You can't win.
> 
> I know it's frustrating. But it's also not productive. (If you're not part of the solution ... all that.)


How arrogantly dismissive. I see that people who disagree with you are 'emotional'.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MLeh said:


> Sinc: the best way to deal with emotional responses to a rational discussion is to IGNORE them. Trust me. Because otherwise you just become emotional yourself and fuel the fire. You can't win.
> 
> I know it's frustrating. But it's also not productive. (If you're not part of the solution ... all that.)


Yeah, you're right. I'll leave them to their illusions.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> So hidden you can find it on Google. Frankly, if Harper doesn't do something to institute his "Secret Plan" soon, I'll be disappointed in him.


You forgot the denies part.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yeah, you're right. I'll leave them to their illusions.


And you go back to those enlightened rural folks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> You forgot the denies part.


The only part that has me worried.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> How arrogantly dismissive. I see that people who disagree with you are 'emotional'.


the usual typical righteous right response.

If someone disagrees, their crazy, socialist, emotional, attach anything you like.

what I find, somewhat amusing, is how whenever Harper and co. decides to show a little of their true colors, their support numbers drop like a rock.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> And you go back to those enlightened rural folks.


Those enlightened rural folks are the ones who keep food on your table. Just something you might want to consider.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Those enlightened rural folks are the ones who keep food on your table. Just something you might want to consider.


oh oh mr jimmy. Sounds like you may need a food taster now...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> oh oh mr jimmy. Sounds like you may need a food taster now...


:lmao:


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> the usual typical righteous right response.
> 
> If someone disagrees, their crazy, socialist, emotional, attach anything you like.
> 
> what I find, somewhat amusing, is how whenever Harper and co. decides to show a little of their true colors, their support numbers drop like a rock.


Indeed.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I haven't been around this issue as long as many, but I distinctly recall that during Harper's campaign(s), his idea of "Senate reform" was to *abolish* it, not "pack it with cronies."

Abolishing Senate nearly impossible: expert

At the very least, he claimed to want it to become an elected body. Indeed, "pack it with cronies" was, according to him, the root of the problem. But his actions have belied his words.

Don't know if I'd call that a "hidden agenda" or just "a lie to get elected," but the point is that it's a completely opposite bill of goods than what the voting public (all of them, Con and non-Con alike) were sold.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> Great post MLeh. Makes the most sense of anything posted in this thread before and hits the nail right on the head. :clap:


Uhhm, I think this is what I have been saying SINC, not to diminish what Mleh is saying because I completely agree, but she isn't the only one to be making these points.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> Uhhm, I think this is what I have been saying SINC, not to diminish what Mleh is saying because I completely agree, but she isn't the only one to be making these points.


Yep, I read your position and you are right as well. I just don't recall you bringing the "emotion" into it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> How arrogantly dismissive. I see that people who disagree with you are 'emotional'.





mrjimmy said:


> And you go back to those enlightened rural folks.


Who is being arrogantly dismissive?????


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> Yep, I read your position and you are right as well. I just don't recall you bringing the "emotion" into it.


Yes you are correct on that front, I didn't state it explicitly...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> I haven't been around this issue as long as many, but I distinctly recall that during Harper's campaign(s), his idea of "Senate reform" was to *abolish* it, not "pack it with cronies."


Senate reform was indeed part of the platform, but not to abolish it. Ever heard of a triple "E" senate? Equal, Elected and Effective has long been the desire.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

chas_m said:


> I haven't been around this issue as long as many, but I distinctly recall that during Harper's campaign(s), his idea of "Senate reform" was to *abolish* it, not "pack it with cronies."
> 
> Abolishing Senate nearly impossible: expert
> 
> ...


chas_m the Liberal dominated Senate shot down Bill S-4 which would have limited Senate terms to 8 years from their current 45. The only way for Harper to enact Senate reform is to put into place enough Senators who will actually vote *for* reform. Regrettably *appointing* Senators who are amenable to change has to be the first step towards reform under the existing system


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

As far as I'm concerned, the only emotional responses in this thread have had to due with Rick Mercer and homosexuality. Everything else has been link based articles to major newspapers, moderate and measured personal opinion and the mention and promotion of the growing popularity of a Facebook group. 

In other words, no knickers in any knots.

Simply saying one is emotional because you don't happen to agree with them does not an emotional response make.

Although calling people 'sheeple' and telling people to 'stop being emotional' and to 'start thinking' doesn't go a long way to providing a balanced counterpoint to what's being discussed here. It seems as though it's only intention is to enflame. And with that to point the finger and scream 'emotional'. 

Can we get back to reasonable discourse now?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Who is being arrogantly dismissive?????


Yes you are right. I lowered myself to that level and invoked the 'eye for an eye' clause.

Sorry.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Settle down mrjimmy, it's only an online forum! 

Seriously, I haven't noticed anything particularly emotional from you.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Settle down mrjimmy, it's only an online forum!


see below


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You caught me in mid-edit!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Settle down mrjimmy, it's only an online forum!
> 
> Seriously, I haven't noticed anything particularly emotional from you.


I'm part robot.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

screature said:


> chas_m the Liberal dominated Senate shot down Bill S-4 which would have limited Senate terms to 8 years from their current 45. The only way for Harper to enact Senate reform is to put into place enough Senators who will actually vote *for* reform. Regrettably *appointing* Senators who are amenable to change has to be the first step towards reform under the existing system


Exactly.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

One thing is for certain and that is that the existence of this thread will not have any effect on the overall repercussions of the proroguing of parliament.

Having noted that, here are some observations from my crystal ball that I think are a likely outcome of this “Shocking Insult To Democracy”.

The Facebook protest will fizzle before the next election. It many look good right now to those who oppose the move by the Conservatives, but at the end of the day it won’t mean jack sh!t. 

Facebook is an obsession with too many folks and when they visit it every hour of every day, they get bored enough to click on a “me too” button when a protest button is offered up right in front of their mouse. 

How many of those supposedly nearly 200,000 will actually bother to vote on election day? I can’t say for sure, but you can safely bet it will be substantially less than half. Clicking a button versus actually getting out to a poll and casting an informed ballot are two very different things.

And that brings us to the next election day at some point in the future. The prorogation of parliament will be as dim then, as it is now to Liberals who are howling, when their very own party used in many more times than the Conservatives over the history of parliament. It is just that if does not suit them when the other party steals what essentially is a pretty good idea to take focus away from potentially politically damaging events on the hill. Chretien was a master at it, after all.

And an election brings us to that typical Liberal voter the next time he or she enters a polling station. They will likely have something like this go through their mind if they are open minded at all. 

First, our party is currently is disarray and we sure don’t have a bankable leader, Iggy being compared to being as bad as Dion and all. And by then they will know that the senate will be controlled by Conservatives by then too.

And having just come through a major recession, we seem to have survived so much better that our neighbours to the south. I mean I still have my home and a my savings are still secure. I was able to afford that new flat screen TV we wanted and all. And all that was under the Conservatives watch. 

Sure, we’ve got a bit of a deficit, but that seems to be under control now. I won’t say this out loud or tell my fellow party members, but I think I’ll stick with the devil I know and bide my time for our party to recover and find a real leader. That of course is followed by a vote for the Conservative candidate.

At least that’s the way it’s been going and it looks likely to continue with yet another Conservative minority, or maybe even a slim majority, as people tire of going to the polls and the lackluster performance of today’s Liberal party.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm kinda chuckling about how when everybody was shrieking about the insult to democracy the coalition was, and facebook's group had just over 100k members, that mattered. That was Canadians speaking up!

And now, the tables have turned, we see the facebook group having grown even larger, and, the recent polls supporting the idea that Canadians aren't happy about this by the conservative support numbers dropping.

Now I have no way of knowing where things will go in 3 months, but reducing the trend to an obsession with facebook, is simply hilarious.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> One thing is for certain and that is that the existence of this thread will not have any effect on the overall repercussions of the proroguing of parliament.
> 
> Having noted that, here are some observations from my crystal ball that I think are a likely outcome of this “Shocking Insult To Democracy”.
> 
> ...


Whatever makes you feel better.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Whatever makes you feel better.


At least I have the courage of my convictions and am willing to speculate what the outcome will be, unlike others here that when it gets near the truth, all they can offer is rim shots from the peanut gallery.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I'm kinda chuckling about how when everybody was shrieking about the insult to democracy the coalition was, and facebook's group had just over 100k members, that mattered. That was Canadians speaking up!
> 
> And now, the tables have turned, we see the facebook group having grown even larger, and, the recent polls supporting the idea that Canadians aren't happy about this by the conservative support numbers dropping.


But that certainly hasn't been the attitude on EhMac.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

SINC said:


> And having just come through a major recession, we seem to have survived so much better that our neighbours to the south. I mean I still have my home and a my savings are still secure. I was able to afford that new flat screen TV we wanted and all. And all that was under the Conservatives watch.


And you attribute all that to Mr. Harper?

How big is our deficit? Does anyone really know? What about the billions in surpluses that were squandered? And what will become of the structural deficit? The economic story is not even close to having concluded.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ottawaman said:


> And you attribute all that to Mr. Harper?
> 
> How big is our deficit? Does anyone really know? What about the billions in surpluses that were squandered? And what will become of the structural deficit? The economic story is not even close to having concluded.


No one can know how big the deficit will ultimately be. It remains to be seen, but we've been in deficit before and survived.

Our banks and mortgages are intact, unlike many other economies.

I don't think it would have mattered what party was in power. I doubt any one of them could have done any better given the circumstances and the tiny footprint we leave on world economic issues.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Admonish the opposition as being in trouble, emotional, dysfunctional. Point at the failings of everyone else. Don't focus on the Conservatives. 

Let’s not regard the fact in Alberta there is a movement provincially to dump the Conservatives. 

Federally the the Conservative good dogs seem to have gotten off leash. Even the Calgary Hearld has gone off message track and pointed out Harper’s lack of democratic leadership. 

It will be interesting to see, if the good dogs from the Conservative Party, get back to Ottawa with the resumption of Parliament.

We shall see if the backbenchers are going to be sheeple once again or will they speak up and start to represent the interests of the people that elected them to Parliament. To have their voices heard with regard to the budget.

Perhaps the Conservative backbenchers will see the folks back home are not happy with Stephen Harper’s undemocratic leadership style. Maybe the rumblings of how this guy can’t get a majority, even when as pointed out above, the Liberal are effectively leaderless, for what four years now.

Instead let’s focus on FB, Liberals, emotions anything but not on Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Interim Troubles or PM Con S.H.I.T. if you will.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Aww, we're back to emotion again.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> unlike others here that when it gets near the truth, all they can offer is rim shots from the peanut gallery.





SINC said:


> Aww, we're back to emotion again.


*rimshot*


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> *rimshot*


Oh my, now we can't tell the difference between rim shots and observations.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

BigDL said:


> Admonish the opposition as being in trouble, emotional, dysfunctional. Point at the failings of everyone else. Don't focus on the Conservatives.
> 
> Let’s not regard the fact in Alberta there is a movement provincially to dump the Conservatives.
> 
> ...


It would be nice if the opposition offered a positive alternative solution.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

MLeh said:


> It would be nice if the opposition offered a positive alternative solution.


Maybe the opposition dosen't have to do anything. Perhaps the Conservatives will dissolve any chance of majority without any help.

Is this the start of falling away and falling apart? Maybe it's just a one of maybe a trend Thompson steps down from Veterans Affairs minister role | Canada | News | Toronto Sun 

Greg Thompson could see the writing on the wall or the PM S.H.I.T. Who knows? We shall see.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Oh my, now we can't tell the difference between rim shots and observations.


Oh I see, _for you,_ they're observations. I read nothing but dismissive goading from your last 'observation'. More like rimshot if not something even less significant. As you are so fond of saying to groovetube:

'Still got nuthin'

Moving right along.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Oh I see, _for you,_ they're observations. I read nothing but dismissive goading from your last 'observation'. More like rimshot if not something even less significant. As you are so fond of saying to groovetube:
> 
> 'Still got nuthin'
> 
> Moving right along.


Uh, oh, got that wrong too.

"Still got nothin' and still usin' it I see" is the line.

No "u" in nothin'.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Uh, oh, got that wrong too.
> 
> "Still got nothin' and still usin' it I see" is the line.
> 
> No "u" in nothin'.



Sorry SINC, I'm not so fascinated as to quote you directly. The essence is there and really, that's all that matters.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

When all you got is to wag your finger and make distracting noise or simply go into denial. 

What to do? What to do?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

BigDL said:


> Maybe the opposition dosen't have to do anything. Perhaps the Conservatives will dissolve any chance of majority without any help.
> 
> Is this the start of falling away and falling apart? Maybe it's just a one of maybe a trend Thompson steps down from Veterans Affairs minister role | Canada | News | Toronto Sun
> 
> Greg Thompson could see the writing on the wall or the PM S.H.I.T. Who knows? We shall see.


See, the difference between us is I don't care who is leading the country as long as they are providing good government. Conservative, Liberal - I don't really care. Many years ago Preston Manning said he didn't care if the Liberals stole all his policies. One of his policies was eliminating deficits and balancing the books - which happened under Martin. Good for Canada, long term. 

For many years the Liberals were apparently providing a good type of government - balancing the books - but then it became more about lining their own party pockets (sponsorship scandal, anyone?) than good governance. The Liberals were the seeds of their own demise and until they rebuild credibility there will be no viable alternative to the Conservatives.

So, lets just say we forget about 'the party line', and look at actual results. And to look at actual results we need more than scare tactics and demonizing the opposition. We need actual policy, promises and platforms. The opposition is providing none of these.

The Conservatives do have policy. They have made promises. It's up to the opposition to provide a viable alternative. They're not.

Right now, it's just a race to the bottom. And I think we all deserve better than that.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

MLeh said:


> See, the difference between us is I don't care who is leading the country as long as they are providing good government. Conservative, Liberal - I don't really care. Many years ago Preston Manning said he didn't care if the Liberals stole all his policies. One of his policies was eliminating deficits and balancing the books - which happened under Martin. Good for Canada, long term.
> 
> For many years the Liberals were apparently providing a good type of government - balancing the books - but then it became more about lining their own party pockets (sponsorship scandal, anyone?) than good governance. The Liberals were the seeds of their own demise and until they rebuild credibility there will be no viable alternative to the Conservatives.
> 
> ...


 ....once upon a time in the land there was a *Progressive* Conservative minority government, were the leader would truly consult with the opposition parties and developed consensus and bring forward legislation a majority of elected members could support. They had stable sessions of governance. There was prosperity in the land. They had balanced budgets and even paid down the debt. 

Alas the wise old leader retired and his young replacement had the brash notion I will lead as if I had a majority I can pass any proposition I like.
I will double speak and call a deficit a balanced budget and because of my strong leadership I will get my much desired majority government.

Well Rodney MacDonald did just that and was awarded a serious thumping at the polls. Now he’s out of politics altogether.

If SH had governed like Premier Hamm of Nova Scotia seeking common ground and consensus I should well agree with your proposition, based on today’s realities however I shall not agree there is good governance.

Many citizens did not agree with SH’s promises and voted for representation that reflected different points of views. 

You may agree whole heartedly with SH’s promises, the majority of elected Parliamentarians do not. The PM’s S.H.I.T. are not reflective of the majority will of the last Parliament and that’s a fact no matter how it spun. My sincere hope is you are not covered with it when it’s spun in your direction.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> The PM’s S.H.I.T. are not reflective of the majority will of the last Parliament and that’s a fact no matter how it spun. My sincere hope is you are not covered with it when it’s spun in your direction.


It is the reflective will of enough Canadians that SH has held power for quite some time now. How many Liberal defeats is that anyway?

My bet is that Canadians won't be electing any lame ducks like Iggy and speaking of ducks, might I suggest that when the next election is held, you might want to duck yourself.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> It is the reflective will of enough Canadians that SH has held power for quite some time now. How many Liberal defeats is that anyway?
> 
> My bet is that Canadians won't be electing any lame ducks like Iggy and speaking of ducks, might I suggest that when the next election is held, you might want to duck yourself.


Let's hope PM S.H.I.T. is just that for his sake. If Harper should again fails to attain a Majority what then? Who shall be Lame then? I fear that duck's goose will be cooked.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

YouTube - The Wild Proroguer


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> It is the reflective will of enough Canadians that SH has held power for quite some time now. How many Liberal defeats is that anyway?
> 
> My bet is that Canadians won't be electing any lame ducks like Iggy and speaking of ducks, might I suggest that when the next election is held, you might want to duck yourself.


It's also the collective will of Canadians that the majority that Harper has wished for has consecutively slipped from his grasp. Obviously this is indicative of the unease and distrust the 'majority' of voters have with him. 

The way things are going, it looks fairly certain it will happen again. His luck has continued to be a lame opposition, certainly not his appeal. Canadians would have turfed him and his reformers had the Liberals had their act together.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Consensus is wildly over-rated. Scarcely anything achieved through consensus is worth having.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Consensus is wildly over-rated. Scarcely anything achieved through consensus is worth having.


Specifically?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> It's also the collective will of Canadians that the majority that Harper has wished for has consecutively slipped from his grasp. Obviously this is indicative of the unease and distrust the 'majority' of voters have with him.
> 
> The way things are going, it looks fairly certain it will happen again. His luck has continued to be a lame opposition, certainly not his appeal. Canadians would have turfed him and his reformers had the Liberals had their act together.


Actually that isn't quite true. In the case of the last election it was the collective will of the people of Quebec that denied the Conservatives a majority. If it wasn't for two communications blunders (communications, which I have said time and again is the Achilles heal of the current Conservative regime) regarding the arts and young offenders they would have had a majority in the bag. Even Chantal Hébert said as much.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh, the conservatives letting slip a little of their true colors, cost them a majority.

Well thank god for that.

It can explained, or spun in any direction, that can make even make closet "I'm not really a conservative" er, conservatives, feel better.

They still never got a majority. Twice. End of story.

(cue sabre rattling...)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> But that certainly hasn't been the attitude on EhMac.


you missed the point.

I don't think facebook, is a political force in of itself. But it's an interesting indicator, of what many Canadians are thinking. 

A large number of Canadians reacted negatively to the prospect, of having a coalition, especially with those baby killing socialist separatists.

The facebook group merely reflected that.

The current facebook group, seems to reflect the real world as well, as polls, are starting to show.

I seem to recall references made here and on just about every conservative blog etc. I saw about the growing facebook groups. And here, isn't the only place macfury.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> Actually that isn't quite true. In the case of the last election it was the collective will of the people of Quebec that denied the Conservatives a majority. If it wasn't for two communications blunders (communications, which I have said time and again is the Achilles heal of the current Conservative regime) regarding the arts and young offenders they would have had a majority in the bag. Even Chantal Hébert said as much.


and the collective will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Right On! Always, the focus is not on the latest S.H.I.T.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Actually that isn't quite true. In the case of the last election it was the collective will of the people of Quebec that denied the Conservatives a majority. If it wasn't for two communications blunders (communications, which I have said time and again is the Achilles heal of the current Conservative regime) regarding the arts and young offenders they would have had a majority in the bag. Even Chantal Hébert said as much.


I consider Quebecers to be Canadians and rank them in with the 'majority' of voters. So in fact, it is true.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> It's also the collective will of Canadians that the majority that Harper has wished for has consecutively slipped from his grasp. Obviously this is indicative of the unease and distrust the 'majority' of voters have with him.
> 
> The way things are going, it looks fairly certain it will happen again. His luck has continued to be a lame opposition, certainly not his appeal. Canadians would have turfed him and his reformers had the Liberals had their act together.


That is precisely what I posted when you responded:



mrjimmy said:


> Whatever makes you feel better.


Glad to see the change of heart. Feel better now?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Conservative Party Disowns Tom Flanagan


lol, Tom Who?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

wow.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Ottawaman said:


> Conservative Party Disowns Tom Flanagan
> 
> 
> lol, Tom Who?


That is fabulous. Speaking of childish, this is the equivalent of stcking one's fingers in the ears and going 'na-na-na-na-na'.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

That's astounding... "let's pretend we've never heard of him and maybe he'll go away." What a strategy.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> That is precisely what I posted when you responded:
> 
> Glad to see the change of heart. Feel better now?


I'm not sure of the change of heart of which you speak. That has always been my position. My lament is that the Liberals have been so lame that they allowed this tyrant to exist far longer than he should have. 

Luckily the tyrant is continually the architect of his own undoing. If his policies were so cut and dry, so transparent, why is it that he hasn't gained the trust of the electorate enough to win that majority? 

It's simply becuase there is a whole pile of other policy, policy that wouldn't sit well with the majority of Canadians; waiting in the wings for him to have his coveted majority to implement. He, like an excited child with a secret to tell, lets it slip from time to time and blows it. As GT says, "well thank God for that."

For the record then, my position is and has been that Canadians will be voting against Stephen Harper, not for the Liberals. Hopefully they are organized and clear thinking enough that they don't spread these votes to thinly over many parties. We shall see.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I've often thought, it would have been better for Harper to have gotten his majority 2 elections ago. Because, guaranteed, and based on his previous performance, he wouldn't keep his real policies in check to please Canadians, and that 4 year term would be all we ever saw of him. Buh bye.
Canadians will have elected anything in shoe leather after that. Hell look what happened in Ontario?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> I've often thought, it would have been better for Harper to have gotten his majority 2 elections ago. Because, guaranteed, and based on his previous performance, he wouldn't keep his real policies in check to please Canadians, and that 4 year term would be all we ever saw of him. Buh bye.
> Canadians will have elected anything in shoe leather after that. Hell look what happened in Ontario?


Think of the damge he could have inflicted in that time period. I realize this has been a 'death by a thousand cuts' but I feel we are a lot better off this way. Although I do believe a majority two elections ago would have shaken the opposition out of their stupor enough to solidly regroup. Sadly they have merely trapsed along without it seems, any real sense of urgency.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

agreed, though the idea certainly says it all doesn't it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Y'all must really have suffered under Harper. It's tough to watch the victims of such abuse drag themselves to the internet to be counted, comrades carrying wounded comrades.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what?

Idiot vote buying gst cuts, resulting in even bigger deficits that need to be reigned in, yeah, someone's gonna suffer.

Flaherty will just spew the same lies he did here in Ontario, and the gullible will swallow it up, once again. Deja vu....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You maniacs! You finally really did it. You cut the GST! Ah, damn you! Damn you all to hell!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

now if only it did something positive.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> You maniacs! You finally really did it. You cut the GST! Ah, damn you! Damn you all to hell!


Channeling Taylor, I see.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You maniacs! You finally really did it. You cut the GST! Ah, damn you! Damn you all to hell!


Cut the GST and then say:

'My goodness, we're in deficit! We should look at ways to save money. Why here's one, healthcare. Oh wait, here's another: the CPP and while we're at it, EI. And what about those lazy good for nothing disabled and those seniors, always looking for handouts. We can save there also!'

Here's an interesting article written in 2005 that is stored in Google's cache:

Straight Goods - The Hidden Conservative Agenda - Why Stephen Harper really wants to call the shots.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I certainly agree with some of those hidden agenda plans, mrjimmy. But I need more proof than the word of an OSSTF blogger to believe that these things may some day come about.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> I consider Quebecers to be Canadians and rank them in with the 'majority' of voters. So in fact, it is true.


The point being made was that the election was lost in Quebec... how did I just know that this was going to be your come back. For the record I think I know Quebecers are Canadian (even though a significant amount of them wish it would be otherwise), I happen to live there.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

One has to wonder how Canada used to do without the GST. I guess it must be the contingency tax in case we're run by complete morons who can't read a balance sheet. 



mrjimmy said:


> Cut the GST and then say:
> 
> 'My goodness, we're in deficit! We should look at ways to save money. Why here's one, healthcare. Oh wait, here's another: the CPP and while we're at it, EI. And what about those lazy good for nothing disabled and those seniors, always looking for handouts. We can save there also!'
> 
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Cut the GST and then say:
> 
> 'My goodness, we're in deficit! We should look at ways to save money. Why here's one, healthcare. Oh wait, here's another: the CPP and while we're at it, EI. And what about those lazy good for nothing disabled and those seniors, always looking for handouts. We can save there also!'
> 
> ...


Here's one part of the so-called hidden agenda they can't enact soon enough for me:

The Law of the Right:

The role of the judiciary will be usurped as Parliament takes over as complete law-maker.

It's time we put a stop to judges making laws.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

MannyP Design said:


> One has to wonder how Canada used to do without the GST. I guess it must be the contingency tax in case we're run by complete morons who can't read a balance sheet.


Correct.



> Harper, he said, is caught in a bind that is affecting how candid he is willing to be with Canadians about the economic situation. "The last thing a Conservative government wants to do is be the first to run a deficit after nine consecutive surpluses. They're supposed to have that reputation as sound fiscal managers."
> 
> "They tried to hide the reality of the seriousnsess of the situation," which is what led to the November economic statement. "They came out with numbers that were not credible at all," partly as a result of relying too heavily on private-sector forecasters in preference to the government's own experts. "That economic statement was a major disappointment. It lacked all credibility."
> 
> The statement referred to revenue that would be generated by the sale of assets. "I don't believe those numbers at all," said the former Finance executive, saying they weren't based on any kind of plan."


~Economist Mike McCracken of Informetrica

Economic management draws failing grade from observers

More information from  Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Ottawaman said:


> Correct.
> 
> 
> ~Economist Mike McCracken of Informetrica
> ...


ha ha ha. Zing!

It also sure helped right the massive (debt)) wrongs of the previous conservative government.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> You over estimate the affection felt between Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Harper. They have been on the outs for years with Flanagan berating Harper repeatedly. He also hasn't been on the "inside" for years either. His opinion at this point is no more relevant than any other political analyst.


Flanagan understands how Harper thinks, precisely because he was the guy who mentored Harper and pushed him forward. His opinion is far more relevant than most, even if he is no longer working in Harper's office. Of course the new talking point on Flanagan is to attempt to deny that he ever had anything to do with Harper's government and that he has no current connections to anyone in Ottawa. 

It's amazing how Conservatives stand there denying the obvious and are shocked when nobody believes them. I suppose if one of their spokespeople announces that the sky was green up until last year we should believe that also.



screature said:


> Prorogation is always a tactical move whether it be to "recalibrate" priorities or otherwise. This is politics.
> 
> As for the Senate having anything to do with prorogation, if you don't believe me read this: Harper to revive Senate reform plan: Decision to prorogue Parliament could give minority government enough power to force a high-stakes vote on changes.


It's amusing how the "ends justifies the means" style of thinking is so prevalent with Harper, his government and it's supporters.

Parliament is the supreme body in Canada. It is the expression of the democratic will of Canadians via our elected representatives. The legitimacy of the government and the Prime MInister flows from Parliament. Yes there is a loophole (which should be plugged IMO) that says the PM without consulting the very Parliament that grants his government legitimacy can announce a prorogation on his own. Most governments historically have recognized that to use prorogation to avoid consequences in Parliament should not be done and haven't done this, although Chretien may have done so with one of his prorogations. He was certainly someone who also believed the ends justified the means.

Harper has prorogued to avoid consequences two years in a row now. This is especially egregious because his government does not have a majority in the House.

So lets just say, the prorogation wasn't to avoid the Afghan questions in Parliament, but it's for tactical reasons of rigging the Senate to his liking. We can even ignore that officially Harper has not stated that this is the reason for the prorogation. (Hmmm, why wouldn't he want us to know that?) Therefore this means that in Harper's estimation Parliament is less important than his political tactics. 

But we don't need to guess at this, only a few days ago Harper announced his contempt for Parliament by saying in an interview that it was not suitable for important work and only good for political games. Who elected him king? He doesn't have the moral right to decide that, he's not a President or an Emperor he's just another MP with a few extra duties, because the party he leads has the confidence of Parliament temporarily. The same Parliament that he unilaterally suspended.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> *HYPOCRITICAL HARPER QUOTES*
> 
> "The first principle of a democracy is that the Prime Minister is supposed to be able to face this House of Commons any day on a vote. This government now has the deliberate policy of avoiding a vote. This is a violation of the most fundamental constitutional principle of our democracy." - Stephen Har...per as Leader of the Opposition attacking the Martin government, May 3rd 2005
> 
> "When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is frankly when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to govern " Stephen Harper Canadian Press, April 18, 2005"



a persistent pattern of attack on Canada's democratic institutions, of which the latest prorogation is only the latest example


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sure, the spin is hypocritical. It was ever thus. Just like hearing the various MPs moaning "Shame! Shame!" over the very stuff they were doing when they were in power. I don't get bent out of shape over posturing, but I'm vicious over bad legislation.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... prorogation has been used in almost all cases when a government's legislative agenda has been mostly achieved or attempted ..."

I think that whomever believes that has a very short memory.

As for "attempted", that's the equivalent to "failed". Prorogation kills any and all bills and any and all work or amendment, completely. It has to be re-introduced in the next session and passed, starting from step on.

There is only one way a bill can be continued at the same stage; if a unanimous vote of the House agrees when the new Parliament is convened. I'll leave it to ehMac readers to ponder how often that happens.

One of the more common effects of prorogation over the years has been to kill private members' bills, which broadly speaking take considerable time to move through the legislative process, and many of which have substantial support with the public. As a matter of fact, I can't think of a single private members' bill that was able to pass into law under the Liberals or the Progressive Conservatives in the history of this country; virtually every one was killed by prorogation.

On five occasions, the last being during 1978-79 (Trudeau Liberal government), the legislature was prorogued, killing all parliamentary business, and then re-opened, _on the same day_.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*Not Just Bills*

Some of the most important work accomplished by backbenchers elected to Parliament are preformed on Parliamentary committees. All of the work of Committees was lost and will have to start over at square one.

One such standing committee of Parliament is the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs (ACVA). This committee reviews legislation affecting our veterans as can be seen here House of Commons Committees - ACVA (40-2) - Committee Home

For fun let's see what the committee is working on, go ahead and click some of the links.

One item under review the so called “New Veterans Charter,” The Veteran Charter is Designed to help Canadian Forces Personal coming home from Afghanistan. For an overview 

Afghan Mission - Veterans Charter - Canadian Forces - CASR - Canadian American Strategic Review - Veterans Affairs Canada - VAC - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder - PTSD - Disability Benefits - NATO ISAF - Humanitarian Intervention - Nation-Building - 

How ever there are short comings with the legislation as mentioned here 
STOGRAN TO LAUNCH PROBE INTO NEW VETERANS CHARTER - David Pugliese?s Defence Watch

The ACVA was working on the matter, well, that is until Conservative S.H.I.T. stopped the process and started I.T. 

For fun a political spin on things, just to change things up a bit. Please keep in mind that MP Peter Stoffer NDP Veterans Affairs Critic has many active Armed Service Personnel and Veterans residing in the riding of Sackville-Eastern Shore as CFB Halifax is a major defence establishment. 
New Veterans Charter must be improved says NDP | NDP

Now some Ehmacians (like Harper's actions) do not want government to provide services to Veterans and have said as much in this thread. 

For some Ehmacians Back our Veterans “You Betcha  "



> The fewer bills pass the happier I am. And 'sauce, stop describing this as an abrogation of democracy. It's part of the Canadian democratic process whether you favour it or not.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Something tells me this quote:

"When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is frankly when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to govern." -- Stephen Harper

Will be appropriate for MANY posts in this forum over the coming months ...


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Mr Harper's "moral authority to govern" is given to him by the Loyal Opposition, without whose support he has no government.

They are collectively free to end this government any time the House is in session. I don't see anything undemocratic in that whatsoever.

And, since every government is compelled by law and the Constitution to put a budget before the members before the fiscal year ends, and since every budget vote is automatically and un-revokably a Confidence Vote, they will have a glorious opportunity within months, if not less, to show us how seriously they take the concept of "moral authority to govern" themselves.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

gordguide said:


> Mr Harper's "moral authority to govern" is given to him by the Loyal Opposition, without whose support he has no government.
> 
> They are collectively free to end this government any time the House is in session. I don't see anything undemocratic in that whatsoever.
> 
> And, since every government is compelled by law and the Constitution to put a budget before the members before the fiscal year ends, and since every budget vote is automatically and un-revokably a Confidence Vote, they will have a glorious opportunity within months, if not less, to show us how seriously they take the concept of "moral authority to govern" themselves.


I believe Chas_m is simply trying to say that Harper is a hypocrite. But he's a politician, that's part of his job description, right next to liar.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> I believe Chas_m is simply trying to say that Harper is a hypocrite. But he's a politician, that's part of his job description, right next to liar.


Just as Chretien was when he was in power. Does "we'll cancel the GST in the red book", ring a bell?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Just as Chretien was when he was in power. Does "we'll cancel the GST in the red book", ring a bell?


Was I defending Chretien SINC?

You will probably notice upon closer examination that I was being both specific and general in my post. No bells need to be rung. My point being that Harper is absolutely no different. In fact, many would say worse. 

Although, since you feel compelled to delve into the ancient history of Chretian this morning... Not cancelling a tax is an election promise not kept. Hmm, name a politician who hasn't done that. Cancelling Parliament to avoid an enquiry regarding torture? Well that seems, _criminal._

Please continue to sharpen your axe.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Was I defending Chretien SINC?
> 
> You will probably notice upon closer examination that I was being both specific and general in my post. No bells need to be rung. My point being that Harper is absolutely no different. In fact, many would say worse.
> 
> ...


when it cuts a little close, they need to invoke a previous liberal. It helps them feel better.

"a liberal did it before!"

Hmmm. And here I thought we voted for change. You know, that accountability crap.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Was I defending Chretien SINC?
> 
> You will probably notice upon closer examination that I was being both specific and general in my post. No bells need to be rung. My point being that Harper is absolutely no different. In fact, many would say worse.
> 
> ...


Gladly:

Before Liberals Complain About Parliament Being Prorogued As Undemocratic . . .

Jean Chretien prorogued Parliament four times during his time as Prime Minister: February 5, 1996; September 18, 1999; September 16, 2002; and November 12, 2003.

* On each occasion, the Liberals killed their own legislation. Several bills ended up dying over and over again due to Liberals proroguing Parliament or calling early elections.

That's twice as many times as Harper, isn't it?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yes sinc. twice as many. *Over 13 years*.

So far, Harper has prorogued twice, *and* called an early election, in only 3 years.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Gladly:
> 
> Before Liberals Complain About Parliament Being Prorogued As Undemocratic . . .
> 
> ...


Were they doing it to avoid a enquiry into a potentially criminal act?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Were they doing it to avoid a enquiry into a potentially criminal act?


Uh, does adscam ring a bell?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Uh, does adscam ring a bell?


I wouldn't even put them in the same class. One is a war crime. The other? Not so much.

Besides, I could care less about defending the Liberals or any other party for that matter. The governing party is The Conservative Party. These are issues relating to them and them alone.

Everything else is ancient history.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Besides, I could care less about defending the Liberals or any other party for that matter. The governing party is The Conservative Party. These are issues relating to them and them alone.
> 
> Everything else is ancient history.


And if it involves the Liberals in a current and similar situation, mrjimmy suddenly dons a mortarboard and becomes a historian.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> I wouldn't even put them in the same class. One is a war crime. The other? Not so much.
> 
> Besides, I could care less about defending the Liberals or any other party for that matter. The governing party is The Conservative Party. These are issues relating to them and them alone.
> 
> Everything else is ancient history.


Sure, brush off the sins of the past. They can't be relevant, can they? 

And the war crimes you refer to were not perpetrated by Canadians as far as I can tell. Afghanistan officials were responsible. Did our troops have prior knowledge abuse would follow the turnover of prisoners?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> And if it involves the Liberals in a current and similar situation, mrjimmy suddenly dons a mortarboard and becomes a historian.


I am an equal opportunity 'disapprover' of all things foul in politics.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> And the war crimes you refer to were not perpetrated by Canadians as far as I can tell. Afghanistan officials were responsible. Did our troops have prior knowledge abuse would follow the turnover of prisoners?


SINC: the troops were only responsible for what happened after the Liberals lost power--ancient history, don't you know.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Sure, brush off the sins of the past. They can't be relevant, can they?
> 
> And the war crimes you refer to were not perpetrated by Canadians as far as I can tell. Afghanistan officials were responsible. Did our troops have prior knowledge abuse would follow the turnover of prisoners?


We would have found out sooner if Parliament wasn't prorogued. 

And btw, being complicit, having knowledge of such things is still considered criminal under the Geneva Convention.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> SINC: the troops were only responsible for what happened after the Liberals lost power--ancient history, don't you know.


It's on The Conservative's watch now Macfury and has been for some time.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> It's on The Conservative's watch now Macfury and has been for some time.


Yeah, MF, the Liberals only started the whole thing and that does not matter. Get it?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yeah, MF, the Liberals only started the whole thing and that does not matter. Get it?


What did the Liberals start SINC? What have they been accused of in regard to the detainee issue? 

Now what have the Conservatives been accused of?

_Oh right, there is a difference._


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

the conservatives, are simply incapable of taking responsibility for anything. The last page or so, is a good example, of some supporters, who will spend pages, deflecting any criticism to a previous government, whether valid, or not.

You see that erases any and all blame of the current ones. They keep running and hiding under an old liberal government's skirt. Kinda funny actually, in a sad way. 

It sort of outs the ones who try the slippery "i'm not really a conservative party supporter really" ones too.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> What did the Liberals start SINC? What have they been accused of in regard to the detainee issue?
> 
> Now what have the Conservatives been accused of?
> 
> _Oh right, there is a difference._


If the Liberals had not started our involvement in Afghanistan, there would be no detainee issue.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> If the Liberals had not started our involvement in Afghanistan, there would be no detainee issue.


But when we can support our troops with the work of the ACVA let's cut and run, no improving benefits please. Less government, smaller tax bills.
Again how did the Liberals make Harper do I.T.?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> when it cuts a little close, they need to invoke a previous liberal. It helps them feel better.
> 
> "a liberal did it before!"
> 
> Hmmm. And here I thought we voted for change. You know, that accountability crap.


gt: It's a classic deflection manouver. You see it most often with children:

Mother: 'Billy, why were you throwing stones at the window?'
Billy: 'But Tommy was doing it too!'

To which the Mother will enevitably say: 'Well if Tommy jumped off a cliff would you do it too?'

Usually they eventually learn to take responsibility for their own actions.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Completely missing the point mrjimmy. Most political parties behave in embarassing fashion. Calling it "shocking" at this point is what I find disingenuous.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> If the Liberals had not started our involvement in Afghanistan, there would be no detainee issue.


Oh my what a stretch of logic this is.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> We are not yet in a constitutional crisis over the government’s refusal to release the Colvin memos to Parliament, but we probably should be. A secretive and overbearing government has turned an ordinary political dispute into an extraordinary confrontation over the powers and privileges of Parliament. Unless some compromise is found, Parliament will ﬁght, and Parliament will be right.
> 
> What began as a manageable controversy over the Harper government’s faltering attempts to deal with a problem it inherited from the Liberals—what to do with the prisoners our forces captured in Afghanistan—has been transformed, via the Conservatives’ reﬂexive paranoia and insularity, into a full-blown political debacle, complete with martyred whistle-blower, outraged former ambassadors, self-correcting generals, and befuddled ministers. And running throughout, a drumbeat of press reports contradicting virtually every aspect of the government’s story.





> But whatever controversy might thus have been aroused would have been nothing like the ﬁrestorm in which the Conservatives now ﬁnd themselves, owing entirely to their refusal to allow the evidence to come out—a policy that, whatever its motives, has only fed suspicions of wrongdoing. If the government has nothing to hide, it sure seems determined to hide it.
> 
> It is not only Parliament, we should recall, that the government has been stonewalling. Colvin’s sensational appearance before the Commons special committee on Afghanistan only came about after the chairman of the military police complaints commission, Peter Tinsley, discontinued hearings into the treatment of Afghan detainees in the face of the government’s persistent refusal to release the relevant documents to the commission.
> 
> Obstructing the work of a quasi-judicial commission is one thing—regrettably, hardly unusual in this country, where the shutdown of the Somalia inquiry caused barely a ripple. But refusing a Commons committee’s demand for the documents—and, more remarkably, last week’s vote of the full House—is another thing again.





> So we need to see the documents, in unedited form. Or rather, Parliament (technically, the House of Commons, but I’ll use the shorthand) has demanded to see the documents. With that, and with the government’s brusque rejection of its demands, the dispute has entered an entirely new stage. It is difﬁcult to overstate the importance of what is at stake. It is no less fundamental than whether the government is answerable to Parliament—the bedrock principle of our system of government. That’s not only a political matter. It’s also, arguably, a legal one.





> How should Parliament respond to the government’s apparent rejection of its demands? Lee is unequivocal. “There are only two or three times every century when parliaments have an opportunity to benchmark their powers,” he says. “This is one of those moments in time, when Parliament says the king must submit to the will of the people’s House.”
> 
> The matter won’t be settled in court, he vows: indeed, the courts will not even look at it. Rather, he intends to move a motion asserting parliamentary privilege just as soon as the House returns. Should the Commons vote to find the government in contempt, it has a range of punishments at its command, even as far as banishing the Prime Minister from the House. And should the government deem this a confidence vote? “This is so fundamental it’s not even a matter of confidence. Parliament might not allow itself to be dissolved, and the Governor General should be aware of this.”
> 
> It needn’t come to that, of course. No one is suggesting the documents should be released to the general public. So far as national security concerns are an issue, committee meetings could go in camera. Committee members could be required to swear an oath not to disclose the evidence they received, as is the practice in other democracies. As it happens, Lee is the sponsor of a private member’s bill that would set up a national security committee on these lines, reviving a government bill that died with the 2006 election. He has written the Prime Minister asking his support for the legislation. Now would seem a good time for the PM to respond.




Parliament will fight - What’s at stake here is nothing less than our system of government


A good article that raises important questions.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Completely missing the point mrjimmy. Most political parties behave in embarassing fashion. Calling it "shocking" at this point is what I find disingenuous.


I wouldn't say disingenuous. dramatic maybe, but disingenuous? No.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Flanagan understands how Harper thinks, precisely because he was the guy who mentored Harper and pushed him forward. His opinion is far more relevant than most, even if he is no longer working in Harper's office. *Of course the new talking point on Flanagan is to attempt to deny that he ever had anything to do with Harper's government and that he has no current connections to anyone in Ottawa.
> *
> It's amazing how Conservatives stand there denying the obvious and are shocked when nobody believes them. I suppose if one of their spokespeople announces that the sky was green up until last year we should believe that also.
> 
> ...



"_Of course the new talking point on Flanagan is to attempt to deny that he ever had anything to do with Harper's government and that he has no current connections to anyone in Ottawa. _"

That is nonsense. Because a rookie MP claims she doesn't know who Flanagan is that makes it a talking point...  What rubbish.

Unlike you I am not passing any moral judgements on the political tactics and strategies being used I am merely discussing the reasons for them and their possible outcomes. 

To use every legal means in ones arsenal as a politician only makes sense. If you have a problem with prorogation fine, then call for legislation to outlaw it's use but to say that making use of it for political gain is some how new or anti-democratic (when it is politics) is just naive. Any political leader worth his or her salt will use every legal means to maintain power once they have it. That is why the outrage from the opposition is disingenuous, because if the shoe were on the other foot and they had enough savvy they would be using similar strategic and tactical methods.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Ottawaman said:


> Parliament will fight - What’s at stake here is nothing less than our system of government
> 
> 
> A good article that raises important questions.


+1

I wonder how fast Flaherty can table the most unpalatable budget to fail, so the Harper Government can be voted into an election. That ploy will allow not answering questions and not providing documents thereby avoiding a Parliamentary crisis.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> What did the Liberals start SINC? What have they been accused of in regard to the detainee issue?
> 
> Now what have the Conservatives been accused of?
> 
> _Oh right, there is a difference._


Uhh, the Liberal Government was in charge of Afghan detainee tranfers for longer than the Conservatives and you think *they* didn't know about abuse allegation. Think again:

Terry Glavin: Cover-up. What are the Liberals hiding? 




> Canadian diplomats stationed in Kabul warned the former Liberal government in 2003, 2004 and 2005 that torture was commonplace in Afghan prisons. In spite of these warnings, the Martin government signed an agreement with the Karzai government in December 2005 to hand over all Canadian-captured prisoners to Afghan authorities, Foreign Affairs documents obtained by La Presse reveal...
> 
> According to a 2004 report: 'The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission concludes from its monitors' assessments that torture remains a current practice, particularly during the early stages of police investigations, in order to extract confessions from prisoners.'
> 
> "While the Afghan government was not accused of condoning physical violence in the treatment of prisoners, a 2005 report filed by Canadian diplomats noted that the Afghan military, police and intelligence services were implicated in arbitrary arrests, kidnappings, extortion, torture, and the murder of criminal suspects. Police commanders and officers were also implicated in many allegations of rape. The alleged victims included women, girls and boys...


So if you and others here are willing to call Harper and MacKay war criminals  you have to say the same of Martin and McCallum and don't say that was then this is now... that is BS and you should know it.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Uhh, the Liberal Government was in charge of Afghan detainee tranfers for longer than the Conservatives and you think *they* didn't know about abuse allegation. Think again:
> 
> Terry Glavin: Cover-up. What are the Liberals hiding?
> 
> So if you and others here are willing to call Harper and MacKay war criminals  you have to say the same of Martin and McCallum and don't say that was then this is now... that is BS and you should know it.


Fair enough. Let's cancel the prorogation and have a full enquiry. Lets find out who's really to blame. Oh wait, the Olympics are on/ we're recalibrating/ etc. etc. etc.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> Uhh, the Liberal Government was in charge of Afghan detainee tranfers for longer than the Conservatives and you think *they* didn't know about abuse allegation. Think again:
> 
> Terry Glavin: Cover-up. What are the Liberals hiding?
> 
> ...


I only alleged.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Fair enough. Let's cancel the prorogation and have a full enquiry. Lets find out who's really to blame. Oh wait, the Olympics are on/ we're recalibrating/ etc. etc. etc.


No it is about the Senate. 

Personally, I think a public inquiry (aside from the needless expense) would be a good thing. It would bring to the full light of day what the reality of what is going on over there although I doubt very many would have the stomach for it. War isn't pretty and doesn't have Hollywood endings. S**t happens and it doesn't mean that someone is a war criminal because of it. They do the best they can given the circumstances that very, very few civilians could ever being to understand.

We are in an autonomous foreign country fighting a war against an enemy that has shown itself time and again to be almost sub-human and in our comfortable homes we expect the people of that country who take these murders into custody to treat them with kid gloves and put them up in swank North American style prison conditions? Or are we supposed to pay with our tax dollars to build such prisons for them and then staff them as well?

Who amongst those who are calling the detainee transfer matter an outrage , yada, yada, yada, have actually thought of what an alternative solution might mean or cost and where is the moral necessity for Canada to do such a thing. It is their country, their legal/penal system and their criminals. We do what we can to try and educate them as to human rights but at the end of the day if abuse happens that is their issue, not Canada's. 

Geneva Convention, Geneva Convention, Geneva Convention... what prisoner of war does anyone *actually* think doesn't suffer some form of abuse... *really*!?!?! Are people *that* naive. Ch**st, people get abused by police in this country when they are being interrogated or put into prison.

This is what makes the whole detainee issue raised by the Opposition so obviously politically motivated and just an attempt to gain political ground and discredit the Government. They knew what was going on when it was under their watch. The difference is that the Opposition of the time either understood that this was to be expected because it is war after all, or that they had more pressing issues that they felt they could undermine the Government with, quite frankly it was the latter.

So in their desperation because they are a party in disarray they glom onto the detainee transfer issue for their "moral outrage and indignation" when they themselves are hypocrites for doing so.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> I only alleged.


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The inquiry will continue after the Olympics, and I for one, am relatively happy not to see that inquiry elevated out of proportion through the Olympic loudspeaker. The truth will out and the brush will tar with equal opportunity.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

screature said:


> This is what makes the whole detainee issue raised by the Opposition so obviously politically motivated and just an attempt to gain political ground and discredit the Government. They knew what was going on when it was under their watch. The difference is that the Opposition of the time either understood that this was to be expected because it is war after all, or that they had more pressing issues that they felt they could undermine the Government with, quite frankly it was the latter.
> 
> So in their desperation because they are a party in disarray they glom onto the detainee transfer issue for their "moral outrage and indignation" when they themselves are hypocrites for doing so.


This.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> No it is about the Senate.
> 
> Personally, I think a public inquiry (aside from the needless expense) would be a good thing. It would bring to the full light of day what the reality of what is going on over there although I doubt very many would have the stomach for it. War isn't pretty and doesn't have Hollywood endings. S**t happens and it doesn't mean that someone is a war criminal because of it. They do the best they can given the circumstances that very, very few civilians could ever being to understand.


I agree, an enquiry is a good idea. I think most people realize that war isn't pretty. Government cover-ups aren't pretty either. I think the general public will be fine.



> We are in an autonomous foreign country fighting a war against an enemy that has shown itself time and again to be almost sub-human and in our comfortable homes we expect the people of that country who take these murders into custody to treat them with kid gloves and put them up in swank North American style prison conditions? Or are we supposed to pay with our tax dollars to build such prisons for them and then staff them as well?


So we should simply accept this and turn a blind eye to torture? Wow.



> Who amongst those who are calling the detainee transfer matter an outrage , yada, yada, yada, have actually thought of what an alternative solution might mean or cost and where is the moral necessity for Canada to do such a thing. It is their country, their legal/penal system and their criminals. We do what we can to try and educate them as to human rights but at the end of the day if abuse happens that is their issue, not Canada's.


So what you are saying is that it's acceptable for us to knowingly allow torture?



> Geneva Convention, Geneva Convention, Geneva Convention... what prisoner of war does anyone *actually* think doesn't suffer some form of abuse... *really*!?!?! Are people *that* naive. Ch**st, people get abused by police in this country when they are being interrogated or put into prison.


Oh that pesky old Geneva Convention, getting in the way of despots since 1949. 



> This is what makes the whole detainee issue raised by the Opposition so obviously politically motivated and just an attempt to gain political ground and discredit the Government. They knew what was going on when it was under their watch. The difference is that the Opposition of the time either understood that this was to be expected because it is war after all, or that they had more pressing issues that they felt they could undermine the Government with, quite frankly it was the latter.


I'm not condoning, nor have I condoned the actions of the previous Government in regards to this issue. This has only come to light under the current Government and their reaction to it has been to deny, and subsequently prorogue. This is unacceptable. Hold an enquiry and get to the truth of the matter. 



> So in their desperation because they are a party in disarray they glom onto the detainee transfer issue for their "moral outrage and indignation" when they themselves are hypocrites for doing so.


See above.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> I agree, an enquiry is a good idea. I think most people realize that war isn't pretty. Government cover-ups aren't pretty either. I think the general public will be fine.
> 
> 
> So we should simply accept this and turn a blind eye to torture...
> ...


I am saying there is only so much we can do to prevent it and that to a certain degree abuse is inevitable in such situations, to think otherwise is to see the world through rose coloured glasses.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Oh my what a stretch of logic this is.


and quite a telling one too.
!


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

interesting look at Parliamentary privilege


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> I am saying there is only so much we can do to prevent it and that to a certain degree abuse is inevitable in such situations, to think otherwise is to see the world through rose coloured glasses.


Are you attempting to diminish the severity of these allegations? I think it's a failure on the part of our leadership and it is in direct contravention to the Geneva Convention. 

It is considered a war crime. Please don't belittle the severity of it.

If it was happening to our soldiers or civilians it would be a completely different story.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Are you attempting to diminish the severity of these allegations? I think it's a failure on the part of our leadership and it is in direct contravention to the Geneva Convention.
> 
> It is considered a war crime. Please don't belittle the severity of it.
> 
> If it was happening to our soldiers or civilians it would be a completely different story.


As it would be if it was happening by our own hands, but it isn't and we have no control over what happens to transferred prisoners. Take up the Geneva convention with the Afghans. All we can do is hand over their own citizens and ask them to play by the rules. We've done that.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> As it would be if it was happening by our own had, but it isn't and we have no control over what happens to transferred prisoners. Take up the Geneva convention with the Afghans.


There's that little problem of having prior knowledge and therefore being complicit.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> There's that little problem of having prior knowledge and therefore being complicit.


Not after _we've asked them to comply_ we're not.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Not after _we've asked them to comply_ we're not.


Yes we are. The allegations point to their knowledge of these crimes being commited but they continued to transfer prisoners anyway. That is considered a war crime.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And that accusation is just about as dead as Johnny.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

and this is because sinc says so.

this is where adscam or some other invocation of a past liberal misdeed suddenly appears.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> this is where adscam or some other invocation of a past liberal misdeed suddenly appears.


No, this is where YOU usually mention it!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> No, this is where YOU usually mention it!


really? Show me where macfury.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

The inquiry isn't going anywhere ... it will be back, assuming it ever left.

Apparently the outrage over prorogue isn't about "democracy" so much as releasing the hounds over Afghanistan. I'm sure the Liberals are well aware of the tools at their disposal to try to erode confidence in the Harper Government ... those tools are still available to them.

What I see, as far as Mr Harper's motives, is a simple method to insure that the next Senate will have a majority of Conservative members; manipulation of Senate seats being a time-honoured tradition of virtually every government we've ever seen in this country, going back to 1867.

The "outrage" is just smoke and mirrors. It's not like the Liberals can take the high road on manipulation of Senate seats. So they fire obliquely. Politics as usual.

I, for one, am really happy in general with the quality of government we've enjoyed over the last decade, with minority governments who are subject to checks and balances. If it were up to me, they'd all be minority governments ... I don't much care who is nominally in charge. The damage they can do is limited.

Let's face it ... a Canadian government with a majority can do pretty much whatever it pleases. They're all dangerous, in my opinion.

The LIberals, if I read them right, don't dare force an election because they fear it will give Mr Harper a majority next time. I share their fears, but for different reasons.

But, if that's the case, clearly the people of Canada aren't onside with the "outrage" over this "shocking insult to democracy".

I fear a Liberal majority just as much; they've done as much harm as Conservatives themselves over the years. Perhaps the biggest irony of all is we owe this glorious stalemate to the separatist and anti-Federalist Bloc. Life is funny sometimes.

Long live the minority government!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> really? Show me where macfury.


Like so:



groovetube said:


> "it's the liberals fault..." or "the left wing blah blah..."
> 
> in 3... 2... 1...
> 
> edit: I left this reply form for a while and it appears the countdown was late.





groovetube said:


> god this stuff just has to **** off the conservative supporter.
> 
> This just has to be a liberals fault somehow...





groovetube said:


> oh yes and we all know how well conservatives keep their promises on fixing waste...
> 
> Oh right. I forgot. It's the liberals fault...
> :lmao:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh there's plenty more macfury!

All, mocking someone else for bringing it up, constantly.

YAWN.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Tories to introduce Senate reform legislation



> A number of provinces, most vocally Quebec, have said that any change to the Senate without the consent of the provinces would be unconstitutional, and would likely spark a court case. In order to amend the constitution the federal government would need the consent of seven provinces, representing 50 per cent of the population.
> 
> The previous Senate reform bills died on the Order Paper when Prime Minister Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament, on Dec. 30, but a leading constitutional expert who testified before a Senate committee looking into Senate reform, in 2007, said it's unlikely either would have held up in a court case.
> 
> Jennifer Smith, a Dalhousie University political science professor who worked on constitutional issues in the Meech Lake and Charlottetown constitutional rounds, called the term-limits proposal "constitutionally doubtful," and said that Senate elections "violate the spirit of the Constitution."





> "It violates the spirit of the Constitution because clearly the understanding is the Prime Minister will appoint whomever is elected. That would compromise the power of the Crown to appoint whomever it wishes to the Senate, subject to the specifications outlined in the constitution itself. That's what the constitutional issue hinges on as far as I'm concerned," she said.
> 
> Prof. Smith also questioned how limiting Senators to a single eight-year term, as proposed by the previous legislation, would increase accountability, as the Conservatives have said is their intent.
> 
> "If accountability is what you're after here now you're devising a system where you're making people not accountable because people can't be held to account because they don't have to run again, or they can't run again," she said.





> "My party's position is that if Mr. Harper wants to amend our Constitution to create an elected Upper House, he needs to get the provinces on board and in order to do that he needs to conduct, honest, public, substantive consultations and establish a consensus," said Ms. Jennings. "It needs a substantive and honest debate, and that's not what we're getting from the Conservatives."


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Not after _we've asked them to comply_ we're not.


 :yikes:



SINC said:


> And that accusation is just about as dead as Johnny.




When you got nothing you come with your best


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

gordguide said:


> the inquiry isn't going anywhere ... It will be back, assuming it ever left.
> 
> Apparently the outrage over prorogue isn't about "democracy" so much as releasing the hounds over afghanistan. I'm sure the liberals are well aware of the tools at their disposal to try to erode confidence in the harper government ... Those tools are still available to them.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

BigDL said:


> When you got nothing you come with your best


BigDL, in all fairness to SINC, this comment:



SINC said:


> And that accusation is just about as dead as Johnny.


was in reference to a remark I made in the previous post. It was sarcastic and added nothing to the discussion so I immediately removed it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

gordguide said:


> " ... prorogation has been used in almost all cases when a government's legislative agenda has been mostly achieved or attempted ..."
> 
> I think that whomever believes that has a very short memory.
> 
> ...


My aging memory may not be what is used to be, but I'm unaware of any recent or older historical examples of a Canadian government proroguing and leaving over half of their legislative agenda to die on the order paper. Or one where the government was refusing to produce documents against a Parliamentary order and had shut down a committee ordering those documents by refusing to attend without explanation. Or any examples at all of a government proroguing when the session was barely 2 weeks old, had passed no legislation and was facing an imminent confidence vote that they expected to lose, as Harper's government did in 2008.

Prorogation may be "routine" as the Cons talking points like to say, but Harper's unprecedented use of this hammer twice in a year has been anything but.



gordguide said:


> One of the more common effects of prorogation over the years has been to kill private members' bills, which broadly speaking take considerable time to move through the legislative process, and many of which have substantial support with the public. As a matter of fact, I can't think of a single private members' bill that was able to pass into law under the Liberals or the Progressive Conservatives in the history of this country; virtually every one was killed by prorogation.


I've been reading that private members bills are not affected by this, unless they were in the committee stage, in which case the committees are dissolved.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Is everyone still in shock, or has it sort of settled in?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> "_Of course the new talking point on Flanagan is to attempt to deny that he ever had anything to do with Harper's government and that he has no current connections to anyone in Ottawa. _"
> 
> That is nonsense. Because a rookie MP claims she doesn't know who Flanagan is that makes it a talking point...  What rubbish.


Actually screature you were providing an example of the latter part of that statement, by asserting that Flanagan has no current connections in Ottawa and is on the outside. I somehow doubt that.



screature said:


> Unlike you I am not passing any moral judgements on the political tactics and strategies being used I am merely discussing the reasons for them and their possible outcomes.
> 
> To use every legal means in ones arsenal as a politician only makes sense. If you have a problem with prorogation fine, then call for legislation to outlaw it's use but to say that making use of it for political gain is some how new or anti-democratic (when it is politics) is just naive. Any political leader worth his or her salt will use every legal means to maintain power once they have it. That is why the outrage from the opposition is disingenuous, because if the shoe were on the other foot and they had enough savvy they would be using similar strategic and tactical methods.


I wouldn't call for legislation to outlaw it's use, because it has a very functional use. When a session is over Parliament is prorogued so that a new session can start. I have echoed the current calls for legislation to make prorogation a option that must be voted on in Parliament. That would ensure that at least the majority of our elected reps have agreed to this suspension of Parliament.

The outrage from the opposition politicians may be disingenuous and I don't doubt that many would use similar methods to Harper. Chretien for instance, was quite good at these kind of games. But no one has used prorogation the same way Harper has, nor in such an extreme way. The outrage from those who give a sh!t about our democratic government and aren't just defending their favourite party right or wrong, is not at all disingenuous.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Is everyone still in shock, or has it sort of settled in?


Whose in shock?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Whose in shock?


Thread title.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Thread title.


That's a quote from the OP's article.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Uh-huh. I assumed that the OP was likewise shocked--at least at first.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Uh-huh. I assumed that the OP was likewise shocked--at least at first.


MacFury, is this all you have to contribute today?

The thread title was a quote from Ralph Goodale. Take from it what you will. I would concern yourself more with the negative response this has earned the Conservatives. 

Strike three and all that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> MacFury, is this all you have to contribute today?
> 
> The thread title was a quote from Ralph Goodale. Take from it what you will. I would concern yourself more with the negative response this has earned the Conservatives.
> 
> Strike three and all that.


It's all I felt like contributing today. The prorogation is an old and tired story already and I wondered if people here were still het up over it as though it were fresh.

Whether it earns the Conservatives negative press is no big deal to me. While I prefer them over the Liberals (only because Iggy said Harper should have spent MORE on the stimulus plan) they haven't cut near enough expenditures to get me worried about seeing an end to some amazing agenda.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> It's all I felt like contributing today. The prorogation is an old and tired story already and I wondered if people here were still het up over it as though it were fresh.
> 
> Whether it earns the Conservatives negative press is no big deal to me. While I prefer them over the Liberals (only because Iggy said Harper should have spent MORE on the stimulus plan) they haven't cut near enough expenditures to get me worried about seeing an end to some amazing agenda.


The prorogation issue will continue to wax and wane, coming back in full force when the Parliament resumes. 

Also, rallys are planned to start popping up here and there in the next coming weeks. It will be interesting to see if people put 'their money where their mouth is.'

I'm sad for you, worrying about your elusive agenda. Light a little candle and say a little prayer. Miracles CAN happen MacFury!

On a side note, perhaps the thread title could be changed to:

*'A Shockingly fortuitous Insult To Democracy': Harper Prorogues Parliament.*


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> *'A Shockingly fortuitous Insult To Democracy': Harper Prorogues Parliament.*


Ha! Seriously, there wasn't a single Bill they were working on that I consider important. Having them do nothing is a welcome relief. I do believe they will have to go back and finish whatever Afghan inquiries have started, although ultimately I suspect everyone on the Hill knows this is just pure finger-pointing, and not part of some Machievellian plot.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Ha! Seriously, there wasn't a single Bill they were working on that I consider important. Having them do nothing is a welcome relief. I do believe they will have to go back and finish whatever Afghan inquiries have started, although ultimately I suspect everyone on the Hill knows this is just pure finger-pointing, and not part of some Machievellian plot.


And I think that it lost Harper the brief, elusive foothold he needed to become the mediocre dictator he's always dreamt of. 

Three strikes, _yerrrrr out!_

Then (hopefully) send the Reformers scurrying and rebuild the Conservative party into something more palatable. More Canadian.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Then (hopefully) send the Reformers scurrying and rebuild the Conservative party into something more palatable. More Canadian.


When they call me asking for my vote, I explain to them that they can count on it only of they stop spending like fool and eliminate corporate welfare. Plenty to go around on all sorts of social spending while cutting taxes if that's achieved.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

From The Toronto Star:

Opposition fights back on prorogation - thestar.com



> Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has written an open letter to the Facebook group opposing the shutdown of Parliament, saying he supports their protests and is cheering on all the planned rallies for this weekend.
> 
> “I want (you) to know how heartened I am by the mere existence of this group – the largest spontaneous online political movement we’ve seen yet in this new digital age of politics in Canada. I am heartened because the vitality of our democracy depends on the participation of its citizens, regardless of their political stripes,” Ignatieff writes in the letter, which appears on Facebook.
> 
> “Some dismiss your efforts as nothing more than a click of a button. They are wrong. I know that your organizers have been volunteering their own time for several weeks to prepare Saturday’s rallies. And I know that thousands of you will be taking time off school and work, or away from your families to attend them. Anyone who pretends that those sacrifices don’t count is highly mistaken.”


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> "Some dismiss your efforts as nothing more than a click of a button."


First thing Iggy's been right about in a while.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Engagement with the issues is good for Canada in any context, even a digital venue.
Perhaps voting in Canada would be embraced by more if it was possible to vote electronically.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yet more geniuses dismissing the digital age.

Brilliant.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Rick Mercer said:


> Bottom line is — Canadians got together and elected 308 Members of Parliament to go to Ottawa and represent us. And 1 Member of Parliament, Stephen Harper, sent them packing.
> 
> Prime Minister, with all due respect, I know it's your job to run the country, I'm glad you're hard at it, but it's the voters who get to send MPs home.
> 
> And with poll numbers like this, you might want to keep that in mind.


.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Ottawaman said:


> Engagement with the issues is good for Canada in any context, even a digital venue.
> Perhaps voting in Canada would be embraced by more if it was possible to vote electronically.





GratuitousApplesauce said:


> .


It might be worth a try, Ottawaman. Maybe it would result in a more active electorate and a more responsive Parliament?

Liked his rant, GA. Very true.

Paix, mes amis.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

CBC News - Canada - Liberals, Conservatives in virtual tie


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

From today's Globe And mail:

PM hails accomplishments on eve of protests - The Globe and Mail



> It is not usual that reporters are allowed into a caucus meeting but for so many reasons today – to show the Tories are at work, despite the prorogation controversy and to celebrate their fourth anniversary – the press was able to cover the Prime Minister’s opening remarks.
> 
> Before cameras were allowed in, national caucus chairman Guy Lauzon was overheard giving directions to his caucus members, warning them to “be on their best behaviour” and to cover up any sensitive documents so that they don’t end up on the “front page of The Globe and Mail.”
> 
> He also told his caucus colleagues to stand up, clap and show the Prime Minister a “warm welcome” when he entered the room.


Look at the birdie, look at the birdie.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Apparently you can dress up conservatives and show them off in the parlour, as long as they are seen and not heard everything is fine.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Apparently you can dress up conservatives and show them off in the parlour, as long as they are seen and not heard everything is fine.


At some point, ministers will need to come to the forefront and express the views of the government re their portfolio. We shall see.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

*"Canada is better off under Tory rule: Stephen Harper"*



> OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper, speaking to his caucus on Parliament Hill, says "Canada is safer, stronger and better off" after four years of Conservative rule.
> 
> On Saturday, Conservatives mark the fourth anniversary of the election that swept out Paul Martin and the Liberals and gave the reins of government to Harper and the Conservatives.
> 
> ...


Canada is better off under Tory rule: Stephen Harper


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*Time to stand up for Parliament*



> It is time the rules governing prorogation changed. Canada's Parliament has shown itself vulnerable to an excessive concentration of power, and hence is hampered in fulfilling its role as the “ultimate sovereign body.” The prorogation of 2008 has now been followed by another, this time simply for partisan tactical convenience. The Prime Minister is misusing the power to shut down Parliament, and in the process destabilizing Canada's democracy. For that reason, prorogation should be made subject to legislative controls.


Time to stand up for Parliament - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> .


Rick Mercer is wrong. Harper isn't just a single MP. He is the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister has special powers in a constitutional democracy. For example he can send us to war without Parliament. He has every right to ask the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. Canadians are free not to like that, but let's stop pretending that he is breaking rules because we can't find anything else to complain about.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Rick Mercer is wrong. Harper isn't just a single MP. He is the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister has special powers in a constitutional democracy. For example he can send us to war without Parliament. He has every right to ask the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. Canadians are free not to like that, but let's stop pretending that he is breaking rules because we can't find anything else to complain about.


Dave, nobody is saying that Harper is breaking the letter of the law here. Many recognize that the law as it stands grants the PM special powers and that it grants him powers that should be curtailed in a democratic system. So far no PM has so blatantly abused those powers as Harper has and that is the significant issue. 

I find that I have to keep hammering on this point because many don't seem to get it. 

Parliament is the supreme authority in our country as the expression of the democratic will of the citizens. 

Every PM's right to govern comes solely from Parliament. 

No leader whose power flows from a legislative body should have the power to suspend that very body, autocratically and without consulting that body. 

Especially for partisan tactical reasons and especially when that body is has issued a subpoena for documents that the government doesn't want to deliver (2009) or when that body is about to vote against that PM (2008). 

This may be within the letter of the law, _as it stands_, but it is an abuse of power nevertheless. 

So far PMs have stopped short of pushing the envelope like Harper has, but I say that we redefine that envelope for the good of our democracy. A bill will be introduced when Parliament reconvenes to allow prorogation only if Parliament approves of it. Only a despot would oppose such a change to our laws.

Dave, I'm in your hometown today attending the anti-prorogation rally in downtown Victoria. 2,000 people showed up in Centennial Square to disagree with Harper. I understand something like 50,000 came out across the country today to register their protests, even with Harper trying to win the media spotlight by scheduling an unusual Saturday press conference in an attempt to soak up the media minutes.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

A pic from the Victoria rally today:










I forgot how much fun political rallies are. I haven't been to one in a few years. It was a beautiful day. We all loudly sang Oh Canada.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> A pic from the Victoria rally today:
> 
> I forgot how much fun political rallies are. I haven't been to one in a few years. It was a beautiful day. We all loudly sang Oh Canada.



Fantastic! I attended the one in Toronto as well. I'm not sure of the numbers but Yonge Dundas Square was jammed. I would guess at a couple of thousand. It was quite uplifting. 

Here's what Harper had to say today:



> Harper, at a press conference on Canada's response to the Haiti relief effort this morning, was asked about the planned rallies today.
> 
> “The government is extremely occupied these days. Obviously we continue to announce and deliver stimulus programs, stimulus projects across this country,” Harper said.
> 
> ...


Watch out for that pesky _groundswell_ of opposition Stephen. Best not to take it too lightly.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Watch out for that pesky _groundswell_ of opposition Stephen. Best not to take it too lightly.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure I saw Harper shaking in his boots at that post. :lmao:


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yeah, I'm pretty sure I saw Harper shaking in his boots at that post. :lmao:


Get it in while you can SINC.

I seem to remember a certain dismissiveness when I first started this thread. What a difference a few weeks have made.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Get it in while you can SINC.
> 
> I seem to remember a certain dismissiveness when I first started this thread. What a difference a few weeks have made.


Yeah,_ "maybe"_ 50,000 Canadians protested today. What's that as a percentage of over 33,000,000 again?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yeah,_ "maybe"_ 50,000 Canadians protested today. What's that as a percentage of over 33,000,000 again?


Allow me to quote you:



SINC said:


> Read any polls lately?


Why yes I have. Your boy is sinking fast.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Why yes I have. Your boy is sinking fast.


But still ahead and by the time the dust settles and parliament resumes, Iggy will be toast again. Watch it happen.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Yeah,_ "maybe"_ 50,000 Canadians protested today.


And Dr. G has posted 50,000 times!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> And Dr. G has posted 50,000 times!


Agreeing this is a good thing?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Allow me to quote you:
> 
> 
> 
> Why yes I have. Your boy is sinking fast.


:clap:

Beauty, Iggy is as popular as ever. Steve's popularity has dropped well unlike Led Zeppelin but more like, like a tub of lard. Speaking of him, how's Steve doing after clicks turned into people takin' it to the streets?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> And Dr. G has posted 50,000 times!


Got a call from the federal Liberal Party re the possibility of my taking over the party in an emergency leadership convention and leading it back to their glory days. I quoted General Sherman in my response -- "If nominated, I shall not run .......... if elected, I shall not serve."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

SINC said:


> But still ahead and by the time the dust settles and parliament resumes, Iggy will be toast again. Watch it happen.


Sad, but most likely true. I can see why the Conservatives are slipping, but if the Liberals can't overtake them in this situation, I see another minority government with the Conservatives winning if the budget is defeated in March. We shall see.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> But still ahead and by the time the dust settles and parliament resumes, Iggy will be toast again. Watch it happen.


The fact that he's blown his Majority is all I need to sleep at night. Also, three Minorities in a row?

_Yourrrrrrr out!_


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Wow! Police estimating between 10,000 to 12,000 protesting today in Toronto alone. Good work!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yep, looks like Harper is going to lose all of the MPs in his downtown Toronto base.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Yeah,_ "maybe"_ 50,000 Canadians protested today. What's that as a percentage of over 33,000,000 again?


I think most are protesting because their guy isn't in power.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> This may be within the letter of the law, _as it stands_, but it is an abuse of power nevertheless.
> 
> So far PMs have stopped short of pushing the envelope like Harper has, but I say that we redefine that envelope for the good of our democracy. A bill will be introduced when Parliament reconvenes to allow prorogation only if Parliament approves of it. Only a despot would oppose such a change to our laws.


I'm not a despot and I don't support this bill. I like having a powerful PM.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> I'm not a despot and I don't support this bill. I like having a powerful PM.


I have to agree with you on this, Vandave. If the public finds this sort of thing unacceptable, they will have a chance to weigh in on it for the next election. As for me, I had no problem when other PMs chose to exercise the option.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> The fact that he's blown his Majority is all I need to sleep at night. Also, three Minorities in a row?
> 
> _Yourrrrrrr out!_


What's that grinding sound? Reforming the sharpness of the long knives? But the conservatives will assure and reassure that S.H.I.T. is all but over.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Well, there were 300 brave souls to represent the riding of Mr Axworthy in Regina.
Apparently there were 400 in Saskatoon. That's 700 people representing roughly 430,000 citizens in those two cities. Winnipeg (about 600K) had 300 people. Calgary (1 million plus) saw 200 protesters.

" ... My aging memory may not be what is used to be, but I'm unaware of any recent or older historical examples of a Canadian government proroguing and leaving over half of their legislative agenda to die on the order paper. ..."

The Liberals prorogued parliament on 02 February 1996 to avoid more than 200 written questions from members over the sponsorship scandal, and to prevent the Auditor General from tabling his report which first detailed the extent of the scandal. The Prime Minister resigned and was replaced by Mr Martin before a new session was opened.

There is no prepared list of bills that died on the order paper for this session, unlike the current situation, with plenty of prepared statements, with data provided by "concerned citizens" in the news for journalists to quote.

For the last days of the last Liberal government, you have to actually read the official documents; certainly much more work than Googling "37 bills" and "half the agenda".

But, here we go:

Died on the Order Paper:
C–7R—Ms. Marleau (Minister of Health)—An Act respecting the 
control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances 
and to amend certain other Acts and repeal the Narcotic 
Control Act in consequence thereof [Introduced exactly two years prior to prorogation; passed the House; Failed to pass Senate]
C–52R—Mr. Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and 
Government Services)—An Act to establish the Department of 
Public Works and Government Services and to amend and 
repeal certain Acts
C–58—Mr. Gray (Solicitor General of Canada)—An Act to 
amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Royal 
Canadian Mounted Police Act
C–62R–*—Mr. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board)—An 
Act to provide for the achievement of regulatory goals through 
alternatives to designated regulations and through administra- 
tive agreements
C–66—Mr. Young (Minister of Transport)—An Act to amend 
the Western Grain Transportation Act
C–78R—Mr. Gray (Solicitor General of Canada)—An Act to 
provide for the establishment and operation of a program to 
enable certain persons to receive protection in relation to certain 
inquiries, investigations or prosecutions
C–84R–*—Mr. Rock (Minister of Justice)—An Act to provide 
for the review, registration, publication and parliamentary 
scrutiny of regulations and other documents and to make 
consequential and related amendments to other Acts
C–88R—Mr. Manley (Minister of Industry)—An Act to 
implement the Agreement on Internal Trade
C–90—Mr. Martin (Minister of Finance)—An Act to amend the 
Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act
C–94—Ms. Copps (Minister of the Environment)—An Act to 
regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for 
commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances
C–95R—Ms. Marleau (Minister of Health)—An Act to establish 
the Department of Health and to amend and repeal certain Acts
C–96R—Mr. Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources Develop- 
ment)—An Act to establish the Department of Human 
Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related 
Acts
C–98—Mr. Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)—An Act 
respecting the oceans of Canada
C–100R—Mr. Martin (Minister of Finance)—An Act to amend, 
enact and repeal certain laws relating to financial institutions
C–101R–*—Mr. Young (Minister of Transport)—An Act to 
continue the National Transportation Agency as the Canadian 
Transportation Agency, to consolidate and revise the National 
Transportation Act, 1987 and the Railway Act and to amend or 
repeal other Acts as a consequence
C–106R—Mr. Rock (Minister of Justice)—An Act respecting the 
Law Commission of Canada
C–109R—Mr. Manley (Minister of Industry)—An Act to amend 
the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors
C–111R–*—Mr. Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources 
Development)—An Act respecting employment insurance in 
Canada
C–112—Mr. Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources 
Development)—An Act to amend the Unemployment 
Insurance Act
C–113—Mr. Manley (Minister of Industry)—An Act to amend 
the Standards Council of Canada Act
C–115R—Mr. Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)—An Act 
respecting fisheries
C–117—Ms. Marleau (Minister of Health)—An Act to amend 
the Tobacco Products Control Act
C–118—Mr. Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of 
Canada)—An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend 
certain other Acts
C–119—Mr. Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of 
Canada)—An Act to amend the Criminal Code (child 
prostitution, criminal harassment and female genital mutilation)
C–120—Mr. Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern 
Development)—An Act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining 
Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act

Passed via the use of Closure (remember, the Liberals have a majority here):

C–69R—Mr. Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of 
Commons)—An Act to provide for the establishment of 
electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of 
electoral boundaries

We have also Bills C-200 to C-366, which are Private Members' bills, I don't have time to go through the records to see if any passed. It's quite possible that not a single one did; that was the norm under the Liberals.

So, 25 Government Bills dying on the order paper, of 120 introduced over a two year session with a majority government, at least 150 Private Members' bills failing to pass during that parliament, and parliament prorogued to avoid a scandal that caused the Prime Minister to resign and that eventually resulted in bringing down the government.

I'm told, but am not going to bother to research, that of the bills that died on the order paper listed above, several were re-introduced and also died on the order paper each time when the Liberals prorogued parliament the three times after 2 Feb 96. If true, they would never have passed, after being supposedly part of the Government' agenda for roughly a decade.

But, not before passing a bill the Americans would refer to as "Gerrymandering" to change the electoral boundaries prior to a difficult election, through the use of Closure. I don't know about anyone else, but forcing a bill through parliament by using rules designed for emergencies and times of war, in my mind, is somewhat less democratic than a Government whose "threat to democracy" consists of not passing it's own legislation. Call me crazy.

And this is by no means particularly unusual; the history of Parliament has plenty of examples of this kind of thing over more than 140 years. Liberals and Conservatives alike. This is simply the most recent example of using prorogue to avoid unpleasantness, prior to this one.

Like I said: Politics as usual.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yeah, but when the Conservatives use it, it's "A Shocking Insult To Democracy" gg.

I guess _"all those protesters"_ conveniently forgot about Adscam and the Liberal prorogation to avoid it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what just blows me away, is seeing conservatives, use a corrupt liberal party who at it's worst point was embroiled in scandal, as the bar for justification.

You just can't make this up can you.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Proroguing to start a new session (when the government's agenda has been completed) is perfectly proper. Proroguing to shut down Parliament is not.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I'm not a despot and I don't support this bill. I like having a powerful PM.


I'm sure that would quickly change when it's someone you don't wish to be PM doing things you disagree with. Checks and balances suddenly seem much more appealing then...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> what just blows me away, is seeing conservatives, use a corrupt liberal party who at it's worst point was embroiled in scandal, as the bar for justification.
> 
> You just can't make this up can you.


It's all they've got GT.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well, so much for holding your government accountable.

I suppose this is where promoting the sharp polarization of left/right becomes useful to a party in power. Can you imagine if everyone, including your supporters required accountability for your actions?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> what just blows me away, is seeing conservatives, use a corrupt liberal party who at it's worst point was embroiled in scandal, as the bar for justification.


groove doesn't get it guys. You just have to accept this current situation is awful and never mention the past again. Context is a meaningless word: 

"Why are you dredging up the past????!!!! Why are you always bringing up the Liberals????"

You just can't make up this sort of thing.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Ottawaman said:


> Proroguing to start a new session (when the government's agenda has been completed) is perfectly proper. Proroguing to shut down Parliament is not.


Uhh says who... is it written anywhere?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Wow! Police estimating between 10,000 to 12,000 protesting today in Toronto alone. Good work!


Wow that would even be a bad turn out for a Leafs game...


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yeah, but when the Conservatives use it, it's "A Shocking Insult To Democracy" gg.
> 
> I guess _"all those protesters"_ conveniently forgot about Adscam and the Liberal prorogation to avoid it.


 :clap: Atta boy! Keep on taking those big hacks, for one day you will hit a homerun.

If we are going to bring up old scandals let's return to yesteryear and look at the granddaddy of 'em all Pacificgate Pacific Scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Keep the faith.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> Wow that would even be a bad turn out for a Leafs game...


 Perhaps the good people of Toronto should try to send the Leafs just such a message, what could it hurt? Their record?:lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> If we are going to bring up old scandals let's return to yesteryear and look at the granddaddy of 'em all Pacificgate Pacific Scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Keep the faith.


Yup, the Alexander Mackenzie Facebook page rocked that election.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Yup, the Alexander Mackenzie Facebook page rocked that election.


:clap:

One can only imagine the power of texting (the nightletter telegram sent station to station.)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> One can only imagine the power of texting (the nightletter telegram sent station to station.)


They were more advanced than many think.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

I remember being on Parliament Hill for the November 1982 Labour Protest against high interest rates and unemployment. I was just a "young whipper snapper" back then. 

It was the largest rally ever held on Parliament Hill. 50, 000 from across Canada... on Parliament Hill alone!  Puts things into perspective a little doesn't it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

To those who are saying that 50,000 protesting is isn't a lot of people, I say nonsense. Every person at the rally I was at I would guess was representing a whole host of other people who would never ever consider attending a political rally. 

The number is significant, because it is the tip of the iceberg, as is the case in all political protests. That said, I predicted earlier in the thread that even if they were able to draw a million to the rallies that the Con apologists would write it off. 

To those who are saying that because other PMs have abused the power of prorogation that somehow makes it OK, I marvel at your logic. This is the logic of children. "Timmy, why did you steal X?" "Well, Johnny stole some too!" You'll have to do better than that.

If Chretien's prorogation was as egregious as the last two by Harper, I condemn it without reservation. I would protest this as well, gladly shoulder-to-shoulder with many Conservatives who were disgusted by it. This is not a partisan issue and the Facebook group and those organizing the rallies are very clear about this. Yes, Harper is being criticized, but this is not about a chance to get some partisan shots in. The protest would never have gotten to where it has if that was so. This is a matter of principle. No one should be able to usurp the power of Parliament.

At the Victoria rally I attended, one of the speakers at one point mentioned how members of all parties were represented there. There were MP's from the Liberals, NDP and a representative from the Greens. Gary Lunn, being my MP and the closest Con MP to Victoria was invited but never RSVP'd. But there were a contingent of Conservatives at the rally, many there because they were angry about some of the legislation that was left to die. We all cheered when they were recognized. They sang O Canada along with us. The MPs may have to tow the line but many of the members during this prorogation and the last one are PO'd at Harper.

I have previously mentioned in this thread that Chretien's prorogation may have been similar to Harper's although I was not aware of all the details, Thanks to GordGuide for that. I understand that Sir John A. also prorogued to avoid facing an issue in Parliament and put the GG at the time in quite a quandary. These are not arguments that support the idea of the PM having the unlimited arbitrary power to prorogue. These are reasons why the PM should not have that power.

Vandave supports the idea of having a strong PM, with reserve powers that he can use solely at his own discretion. He mentions that the PM can declare war all by himself. So why is this something we want to have in a democracy? I don't support one man having that kind of power. Parliament is where the legitimate power of our democracy resides as the representation of our democratic choices and no person in our democracy should have the power to curtail that.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*Is Democracy in Canada Worth 10 Minutes of Your Time?*

Since the rally I have been challenging all my Facebook friends to write their MP if they disagree with Harper's prorogation. I'm not sure what the numbers are currently, but I'm guessing that MPs and the PM have received tens of thousands of letters, probably mostly emails, about this issue. 

I'm challenging them to write and send a snail mail letter, and to Cc the PM and someone in the Opposition. The same goes to anyone who agrees with me here on ehMac. It's a 10 minute job to do so. Is our democracy in Canada worth 10 minutes of your time?

Remember, no postage is required when you write an MP. Link to find contact info for your MP based on your postal code.

If you need a template, use my letter posted earlier in this thread if you would like. ( Post number 371 of this thread, if for some reason the link doesn't work.)

I know that letters to MPs do matter. On an issue like this, where they have probably already lost the ability to reply to every one, it becomes a numbers game, which is why snail mail is important. Some suspect that the Cons may have been simply deleting email. I don't know about that but if actual truckloads of letters are arriving on Parliament Hill this will have an effect. Maybe screature knows more about this, if he cares to share that info with those who he disagrees with. 

A million letters would be nice. 

Post here if you've sent already sent a letter or when you do.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

truthfully, proroguing parliament has certainly raised the anger of many Canadians.

However, raise interest rates to 24%, and you're of course, going to see a pretty massive response. Something also, to put into perspective.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why bother e-mailing? Each of those 12,000 Toronto protesters represents about 1,000 other people so at 12 million you're already covered!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

so for the next few pages, we'll hear all about how this protest doesn't matter. The conservative supporters, seem a little disappointed the turnout wasn't far more lame. One conservative blogger posted pictures at the vancouver rally, showed no people really. He lamented there was no one really there. Part of the "blogging tories". Then deletes any comments by anyone letting him know he perhaps went to the wrong spot perhaps.

It's all really kinda funny, but now tiring. Of COURSE we'll hear how this doesn't matter. Did we really think it'd be different?

The only way this will matter, is if Iggy can pick up the ball. Though, if Canadians get angry enough, they'll elect a donkey if he even smelled liked change...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> ...I know that letters to MPs do matter. On an issue like this, where they have probably already lost the ability to reply to every one, it becomes a numbers game, which is why snail mail is important. Some suspect that the Cons may have been simply deleting email. I don't know about that but if actual truckloads of letters are arriving on Parliament Hill this will have an effect. Maybe screature knows more about this, if he cares to share that info with those who he disagrees with.
> 
> A million letters would be nice.
> 
> Post here if you've sent already sent a letter or when you do.


I see no advantage to hard copy over electronic means of communication when addressing an MP. In fact I would dissuade it. Replying to thousand e-mails is a helluva lot easier to do than a thousand pieces of hard copy correspondence. If you actually want a response then e-mail is preferable whereas if you send a letter you may never get a response (when the numbers are in the thousands on the same subject).

Additionally you are only serving to take resources away from MPs offices that are usually already severely taxed, resources that could actually be much better spent in working on case work where people lives are actually being affected. Things like, immigration cases, CRA investigations, EI claims, Passport cases, etc., etc. 

Really if this is an issue that is of that great a significance to you, writing to MPs or the Prime Minister isn't going to matter significantly, the only place that registering your displeasure with the Government that really matters is in the ballot booth.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> Really if this is an issue that is of that great a significance to you, writing to MPs or the Prime Minister isn't going to matter significantly, the only place that registering your displeasure with the Government that really matters is in the ballot booth.


Really? Wow.

Don't write your MP because it doesn't matter? In other words, shut up between elections and let the pros get to work. 

I strongly disagree with this advice. If I disagree or agree with what my MP is doing then it is my duty to let them know that. Sure they do polling, but numbers are no replacement for getting actual feedback from those who they represent in Parliament.

Speaking of email over snail mail, I've received better responses when I've sent mail than with email. If an issue is one where they will get a lot of letters than a thousand or ten-thousand email is much easier for them to dismiss or possibly ignore or even hide. A hard copy is something they have to document. I'm sorry if this causes them extra work. But if they are getting a ton of mail about something, that means it's an issue that's quite important to those who pay their wages.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

'sauce, I know you're passionate about this issue, but don't let it blind you the quality of various parodies.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> Our sphinx-like, dull-as-a-door and unashamedly opportunistic prime minister has been wrong so many times – yet he always bounces back


The real Stephen Harper?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> I see no advantage to hard copy over electronic means of communication when addressing an MP. In fact I would dissuade it. Replying to thousand e-mails is a helluva lot easier to do than a thousand pieces of hard copy correspondence. If you actually want a response then e-mail is preferable whereas if you send a letter you may never get a response (when the numbers are in the thousands on the same subject).
> 
> Additionally you are only serving to take resources away from MPs offices that are usually already severely taxed, resources that could actually be much better spent in working on case work where people lives are actually being affected. Things like, immigration cases, CRA investigations, EI claims, Passport cases, etc., etc.
> 
> Really if this is an issue that is of that great a significance to you, writing to MPs or the Prime Minister isn't going to matter significantly, the only place that registering your displeasure with the Government that really matters is in the ballot booth.


Your comment leads me to believe you work in the mailroom.

Your 'don't bother writing because it doesn't matter anyway' comment has fired me up to do the same as GA and spread the word about writing letters. Lots and lots of them.

Thank you for the inspiration!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> I see no advantage to hard copy over electronic means of communication when addressing an MP. In fact I would dissuade it. Replying to thousand e-mails is a helluva lot easier to do than a thousand pieces of hard copy correspondence. If you actually want a response then e-mail is preferable whereas if you send a letter you may never get a response (when the numbers are in the thousands on the same subject).
> 
> Additionally you are only serving to take resources away from MPs offices that are usually already severely taxed, resources that could actually be much better spent in working on case work where people lives are actually being affected. Things like, immigration cases, CRA investigations, EI claims, Passport cases, etc., etc.
> 
> Really if this is an issue that is of that great a significance to you, writing to MPs or the Prime Minister isn't going to matter significantly, the only place that registering your displeasure with the Government that really matters is in the ballot booth.


=don't write to the Prime Minister and his gang, especially the gang, as they are only to be seen and not heard.

The Conservatives are on a break and hey the Olympics, remember the Olympics are going to take an inordinately huge chunk of time from the daily grind of taking a break.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Really? Wow.
> 
> Don't write your MP because it doesn't matter? In other words, shut up between elections and let the pros get to work.
> 
> ...


An interesting take on what I said but not the point being made. 

"Don't write your MP because it doesn't matter? In other words, shut up between elections and let the pros get to work. " Never said anything of the sort.

Writing to your MP does matter but on this particular issue I was merely suggesting that starting a campaign to generate a million pieces of snail mail is not going to get you anywhere. This Government doesn't care about the cluster of people making a stink over prorogation. They have made this clear. The Opposition is quite well aware (as is the rest of Canada) who opposes this particular prorogation. 

If you need to feel that you are doing something, go ahead and knock yourself out, get a million people to write letters. I am merely telling you that on this issue it is my opinion it won't make any difference. The sides are entrenched, thus if you truly want to express your discontent with the Government over this issue the best way to make your voice heard where it will (or could) make a difference is on the next election day... when it really counts.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm willing to bet, that a prime minister who spends more than the last in polls, twice a day(!), might be somewhat interested in over a million letters...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> This Government doesn't care about the cluster of people making a stink over prorogation. They have made this clear.


I think that thousands of letters landing at their door will make them plenty aware that people do care about this issue. Harper has proven himself to be arrogant enough to take advantage of our famous apathy and indifference. Every letter is a vote, if not votes _against_ Harper. How could he not listen.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Your comment leads me to believe you work in the mailroom.
> 
> Your 'don't bother writing because it doesn't matter anyway' comment has fired me up to do the same as GA and spread the word about writing letters. Lots and lots of them.
> 
> Thank you for the inspiration!


I didn't say any such thing, geesh you guys need to read what was written and not in between the lines.

I said the most effective way for you to voice your displeasure with the Government is to vote against them come the next election. Is this really shocking or surprising.

If like GA you want to run off and start a writing "movement" go right ahead... I have seen dozens and dozens of them come and go and on issues that are much more wide spread and near and dear to people's hearts (because they affect them personally) than prorogation.

The opposition to Bill C-6 received more e-mail and hard copy mail than any other issue during this and the last Parliament, yet the Bill (despite the Senate shenanigans) passed and received Royal Assent. What good did all those e-mails and letters do? Did it accomplish anything? Oh it probably made those who were protesting feel like they were doing something... but beyond that it didn't amount to a hill of beans.

GA asked if I thought e-mails and snail mail would make a difference about this matter. I answered honestly and not with what you might *want* to hear. I am expressing my opinion based on seeing how these "campaigns" come and go with little to no actual effect on legislation or elections. You wanted the truth it seems you guys "can't handle the truth".


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> I think that thousands of letters landing at their door will make them plenty aware that people do care about this issue. Harper has proven himself to be arrogant enough to take advantage of our famous apathy and indifference. *Every letter is a vote*, if not votes _against_ Harper. How could he not listen.


Perhaps, perhaps not, nothing is static in politics. Also I am sure that they know full well that the majority of those who would be writing on this issue would not be voting for them in the first place.

In the end what do you and GA seek to accomplish other than venting. What is the end result you seek?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature: from personal experience, I have received actual custom replies on e-mails that include my name and address. I want the MP or MPP to understand that my letter matters to them in particular. When I've sent regular mail, I've received form letters thanking me for writing.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> I
> GA asked if I thought e-mails and snail mail would make a difference about this matter. I answered honestly and not with what you might *want* to hear. I am expressing my opinion based on seeing how these "campaigns" come and go with little to no actual effect on legislation or elections. You wanted the truth it seems you guys "can't handle the truth".


Are you equating your _opinion_ with the _truth_?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Are you equating your _opinion_ with the _truth_?


It was a joke, I should have put in the  but forgot. No it is my opinion but based on experience. But it was the truth for Bill C-6 which far outstripped this issue when it comes to letter and e-mail writing and there are plenty more where Bill C-6 came from.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> I didn't say any such thing, geesh you guys need to read what was written and not in between the lines.
> 
> I said the most effective way for you to voice your displeasure with the Government is to vote against them come the next election. Is this really shocking or surprising.
> 
> ...


 = they're prorogued and they ain't coming back 'til they get back. 
Goodness when you're right, you're right.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The point that the vast majority of the people who are protesting prorogation and writing letters about it, would not be voting Conservative anyway, certainly rings true and further supports my view that it is all but a flash in the pan. Write away, but don't expect it to make any difference.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> screature: from personal experience, I have received actual custom replies on e-mails that include my name and address. I want the MP or MPP to understand that my letter matters to them in particular. When I've sent regular mail, I've received form letters thanking me for writing.


Of course, I know MPs who insist on writing personally to all e-mails and snail mail that isn't a form letter. Note: *Not a Form Letter*.

Ok to be clear I am not suggesting that in general it is not worth writing to your MP about an issue. To the contrary it can be important, but the issue we are talking about is this particular prorogation at this particular point in time. I do not believe that a form letter campaign is going to make a difference on this issue at this point in time.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> The point that the vast majority of the people who are protesting prorogation and writing letters about it, would not be voting Conservative anyway, certainly rings true and further supports my view that it is all but a flash in the pan. Write away, but don't expect it to make any difference.


Your view is; Stephen Harper's brain dead?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Your view is; Stephen Harper's brain dead?


I suspect that "he doesn't care about BigDL's opinion on the matter" would be more accurate.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I suspect that "he doesn't care about BigDL's opinion on the matter" would be more accurate.


Or, like many of us, anyone's opinion that differs from his own.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> The opposition to Bill C-6 received more e-mail and hard copy mail than any other issue during this and the last Parliament, yet the Bill (despite the Senate shenanigans) passed and received Royal Assent. What good did all those e-mails and letters do? Did it accomplish anything? Oh it probably made those who were protesting feel like they were doing something... but beyond that it didn't amount to a hill of beans.


Not to derail, but wasn't Bill C-6 one of the one's that died with prorogtion? This to me was the only beneficial aspect of it.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Not to derail, but wasn't Bill C-6 one of the one's that died with prorogtion? This to me was the only thing beneficial aspect of it.


According to this site LEGISINFO - The Library of Parliament's research tool for finding information on legislation

and towards the bottom of the above page "Coming into force" this link LEGISINFO - The Library of Parliament's research tool for finding information on legislation

provided the following information


> LEGISinfo
> 40th Parliament - 2nd Session
> (Jan. 26, 2009-Dec. 30, 2009)
> 
> ...


That's all I got


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> Not to derail, but wasn't Bill C-6 one of the one's that died with prorogtion? This to me was the only thing beneficial aspect of it.


Nope, it received Royal Assent just before Christmas.

*Edit: I maybe wrong on this particular point. I was (possibly) mistaken that I had read a News Release on the matter and subsequent news clippings, but I may have mistaken it for another Bill. When I get back to work I will double check, If I was wrong, my most humble apologies*.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> Of course, I know MPs who insist on writing personally to all e-mails and snail mail that isn't a form letter. Note: *Not a Form Letter*.
> 
> Ok to be clear I am not suggesting that in general it is not worth writing to your MP about an issue. To the contrary it can be important, but the issue we are talking about is this particular prorogation at this particular point in time. I do not believe that a form letter campaign is going to make a difference on this issue at this point in time.


If I misunderstood and then misrepresented the point you were making yesterday, I humbly apologize. From what you wrote I took it to mean that you thought writing one's MP was a waste of time, but since then it appears that's not what you meant. 

It sounds like you work in some form of Parliamentary communications and if so then your opinion is something to be paid attention to. But it also sounds like you either work for the Conservatives or are at least sympathetic to their cause, so in that case you'll have to excuse me if I take a helping of salt with your posts. 

I think politicians of all stripes find it far too easy to take their constituents for granted and forget that we are watching them. And in many cases they are right, we aren't watching them and we are lulled into apathy in many instances. This is the way many of them like things to be.

I think many of us often feel a huge amount of helplessness about politics, especially now with our deadlocked and dysfunctional Parliament and ineffective electoral system. We assume that speaking up is a waste of our time, even if that time might only represent a few minutes. Politicians who are anti-democratic by nature hope we keep thinking this way.

The truth is that the waste of time assumption is correct, but ONLY if the numbers of people speaking up are small. A few hundred people can scream at the top of their lungs 24/7 and politicians can safely ignore this. But if thousands or millions start to take a few seconds to say "NO!" in the simplest of ways (for instance by writing a letter) then this can cause tectonic shifts in the political landscape. 

I think that most people severely underestimate the effect that a few minutes of their time can have, when those few minutes are multiplied en masse. The protests that eventually caused the totalitarian Soviet and Warsaw pact states to collapse, involved only a small percentage of the total population actively involved, but those people represented the wishes of the great majority. The pressure of such a movement is impossible for any government to resist, even a totalitarian one, unless they are prepared to mercilessly mow down protesters, as we've seen in Iran and previously in China. Not that this issue is of the same order of magnitude as the rigging of elections in Iran, or the student democracy movement in China in the 80s.

Whether this issue continues to gain steam or fade away is entirely dependant on whether enough people who don't normally participate take that little step to say "NO!" to Stephen Harper. The polls already show that most Canadians disagree with what Harper has done, but if enough people speak for themselves, it is far more powerful than passive polls.

When I was at the Victoria rally, I was amazed how many people who were there who said they'd never been to a political rally before or hadn't been to one since they were young. And the demographic at these rallies was well over 30 on average, many grey and bald heads were in evidence. This is all significant. I think Harper has possibly banked on the apathy of Canadians one too many times and it's a possibility that he's overplayed his hand. We'll see.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

screature said:


> Nope, it received Royal Assent just before Christmas.
> 
> *Edit: I maybe wrong on this particular point. I was (possibly) mistaken that I had read a News Release on the matter and subsequent news clippings, but I may have mistaken it for another Bill. When I get back to work I will double check, If I was wrong, my most humble apologies*.


Indeed mea culpa on my part. Bill C-6 did pass through the Senate on December 14 but with amendments meaning that it would have to come back to the House so as such it did not receive Royal Ascent.

I should have known better than to rely on the media to provide me with actual facts and gone to LegisInfo to see the state of the Bill.

This is the article that I had read that led me to believe it had indeed passed through the Senate without amendments.

Senate passes consumer product safety bill
Several Liberal senators skip vote; bill passes as is

It was a CanWest story and obviously I didn't follow up on it thoroughly enough before making my posts here. This egg's on me.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Indeed mea culpa on my part. Bill C-6 did pass through the Senate on December 14 but with amendments meaning that it would have to come back to the House so as such it did not receive Royal Ascent.
> 
> I should have known better than to rely on the media to provide me with actual facts and gone to LegisInfo to see the state of the Bill.
> 
> ...


No big. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Conservative MP In California Vacationing Focused On Making Parliament Work?



> Conservative MP Randy Hoback in a local Prince Albert newspaper oblivious to the irony:
> 
> "Our constituents have more concerns on their minds," he said by phone Tuesday from California, where he is vacationing. "They want us to concentrate on jobs, get people back to work, and get the budget back in order. And that's what I'll focus on when I get back to Parliament *and that's what I'm focusing on now.*" (Emphasis added)


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

A law professors investigates the issues around prorogation:

Law Times - Prorogation an issue of law, not just a technicality



> If Harper did nothing technically — or, by extension, legally — wrong, then it may be thought that law professors have nothing further to add to the debate. The issue is one of political morality and democratic legitimacy, not of law or legality.
> 
> I think this position is deeply mistaken. “In our constitutional tradition,” to quote the Supreme Court of Canada from its opinion in the Quebec secession reference, “legality and legitimacy are linked.” It was in that opinion that the court affirmed that the principle of democracy is not just central to our political culture but is also one of the unwritten foundational principles of law upon which our written Constitution is constructed.
> 
> Indeed, the court went so far as to say that in certain circumstances, these unwritten constitutional principles might have full legal force binding upon governments. In our legal tradition, questions of legality and political morality are intimately connected, and when a prime minister does anything that is arguably undemocratic, he or she has done something that is arguably unlawful.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Reckless media coverage



> For the most part, Canadians are well served by the country's media. But one has to wonder about the endless attention journalists are devoting to the prorogation of Parliament. A month ago, the word "prorogue" was not even part of the vocabulary of 90 per cent of Canadians. In the last few weeks, however, it has become the one and only issue for pundits, columnists and editorial writers.
> 
> Prime Ministers have always taken advantage of the opportunity to suspend the sitting of Parliament when it suits the party in power. Jean Chretien did it four times during his reign; including shutting down the House of Commons on the eve of the release of the Gomery Report which documented a legacy of corruption and kickbacks orchestrated by senior officials in the Liberal party. Naturally, this was barely mentioned in the media. For some reason it's only newsworthy when a Conservative Prime Minister exercises this option.
> 
> No politician has been more vicious and vile on the prorogue issue than Bob Rae; surely the next leader of the Liberals. But you'd have to look long and hard to find a single mention of the fact that Rae himself prorogued the legislature a total of four times during his disastrous and ruinous reign as Ontario premier. Historically, the Prime Minister of the day tends to prorogue Parliament once a year; slightly above the rate at which Stephen Harper has chosen to do so.





> So why the fuss? Why are the country's editorial writers virtually unanimous in their condemnation of Stephen Harper's use of prorogation when such a move has never been considered the least bit newsworthy when other Prime Ministers have used and abused it? Part of the answer must lie in the well established fact that the overwhelming majority of journalists would identify themselves as left, or very left of centre and have never seen the need to hold liberals to the same level of account they do conservatives. We could also attribute some of the insatiable attention of prorogue to an otherwise slow news cycle.
> 
> Regardless, despite the cynicism out there, Members of Parliament work their butts off around the clock for a lot less compensation than they would receive in the private sector... MPs of all political stripes are to be commended for their community and constituency efforts. The notion that the country's business is not being attended to unless Parliament is in session is absurd.
> 
> The nation's media have been shamefully reckless and irresponsible on this matter.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

^^

That pretty much sums up the real story.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I expect the excitement will drop to zero as all the MPs find their way to the Olympics. Wonder if they will be subjected to the same security searches as the general public?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> The nation's media have been shamefully reckless and irresponsible on this matter.


My goodness. That's a hair away from being a FOX News editorial. 

Ah yes. A conspiracy. A Left Wing conspiracy. Made up of all the good stuff conspiracy theories are made up of. Speculation, paranoia and denial. Funny how so many in the news media are Left leaning. Could it be perhaps that they are educated people who simply find the views that Conservative Governments hold repugnant? 

Or, in this instance, are they simply displaying the same contempt Harper has shown them? The PM getting a bit of what he gives.

Again in the FOX News tradition, end the article by trumpeting the hard working Parliamentarians. A move designed to make us feel guilty for our opinion. Sort of like saying you don't care about the troops because you believe in an inquiry.

Nice to see the desperation there if nothing else.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> Reckless media coverage





SINC said:


> ^^
> 
> That pretty much sums up the real story.


Oh! I thought the reference to Reckless Media Coverage was the Op Ed piece itself.......pardon me.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> My goodness. That's a hair away from being a FOX News editorial.
> 
> Ah yes. A conspiracy. A Left Wing conspiracy. Made up of all the good stuff conspiracy theories are made up of. Speculation, paranoia and denial. Funny how so many in the news media are Left leaning. Could it be perhaps that they are educated people who simply find the views that Conservative Governments hold repugnant?
> 
> ...


Perhaps when your that far over there everything looks left.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I still don't get the anger. Harper is the democratically elected Prime Minister of our country. He has the constitutional ability to prorogue Parliament. What's the big deal about not having political fights while the World focus is on our country?

It really bothers me that the opposition parties are trying to make hay on this. Aren't they the ones who tried to overthrow our PM via a secret coalition with Separatists? Aren't the Liberals the Party who don't show up to vote on bills?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If I misunderstood and then misrepresented the point you were making yesterday, I humbly apologize. From what you wrote I took it to mean that you thought writing one's MP was a waste of time, but since then it appears that's not what you meant.
> 
> It sounds like you work in some form of Parliamentary communications and if so then your opinion is something to be paid attention to. But it also sounds like you either work for the Conservatives or are at least sympathetic to their cause, so in that case you'll have to excuse me if I take a helping of salt with your posts.


Why would you only take what I have to say with a *helping *of salt because I may or may not have conservative sympathies? Are you suggesting that only the views of those with left leaning sympathies are capable of having any credibility? 

I have worked in communications for both the Government and Opposition at different times. I have no affiliation to any political party whatsoever. I do a job and am paid to see things from both sides and yes to communicate specific messages to specific audiences in such a way as to be convincing. That is a large part of what I do. I am essentially satisfying a clients communication needs.

When it comes to the opinions that I am expressing here, my emphasis has been on how Parliament actually works because I have extensive experience with it. I have also tried to focus on the fact that regardless of who is in power the vast majority of the tactics being used by the current government have/would be used by the Opposition if the shoe were on the other foot. Why do I say this? Because I have seen it over and over again. As such it may come across as though I am a conservative sympathizer (more on this in a second) when in reality for the most part what I am trying to indicate is that things most often in politics cut both ways and no Party has a lock on ethics or morality.

Do I have conservative sympathy's? On certain issues absolutely. On others not. The matter of prorogation just happens to be one on which I do sympathize because of the history of the use of it and the fact that the media is the primary driver behind the "outrage".

The media has been for some time now the "third" party in politics and have had in the past held a somewhat sacrosanct position as the watchdog and defenders of democracy. That time has long gone and they are now more often than not merely partisan news *makers* (not reporters) of the worst kind, effectively directing and deflecting the public's attention to whatever they feel will generate the most sales.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think politicians of all stripes find it far too easy to take their constituents for granted and forget that we are watching them. And in many cases they are right, we aren't watching them and we are lulled into apathy in many instances. This is the way many of them like things to be.


I can't speak for all MPs but this is not even remotely true of the ones I know. They are constantly under public scrutiny and are intensely aware of it.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think many of us often feel a huge amount of helplessness about politics, especially now with our deadlocked and dysfunctional Parliament and ineffective electoral system. We assume that speaking up is a waste of our time, even if that time might only represent a few minutes. Politicians who are anti-democratic by nature hope we keep thinking this way.


I think this is a fair assessment of the general public's feelings and attitudes toward politics. I do not think politicians are anti-democratic by nature and hope we keep thinking this way at all, again not at least the ones I know.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The truth is that the waste of time assumption is correct, but ONLY if the numbers of people speaking up are small. A few hundred people can scream at the top of their lungs 24/7 and politicians can safely ignore this. But if thousands or millions start to take a few seconds to say "NO!" in the simplest of ways (for instance by writing a letter) then this can cause tectonic shifts in the political landscape.
> 
> I think that most people severely underestimate the effect that a few minutes of their time can have, when those few minutes are multiplied en masse. The protests that eventually caused the totalitarian Soviet and Warsaw pact states to collapse, involved only a small percentage of the total population actively involved, but those people represented the wishes of the great majority. The pressure of such a movement is impossible for any government to resist, even a totalitarian one, unless they are prepared to mercilessly mow down protesters, as we've seen in Iran and previously in China. Not that this issue is of the same order of magnitude as the rigging of elections in Iran, or the student democracy movement in China in the 80s.
> 
> ...


I have no significant disagreement with these statements.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> ...Again in the FOX News tradition, end the article by trumpeting the hard working Parliamentarians...


You can call it what you will but the statement:



> Regardless, despite the cynicism out there, Members of Parliament work their butts off around the clock for a lot less compensation than they would receive in the private sector... MPs of all political stripes are to be commended for their community and constituency efforts. The notion that the country's business is not being attended to unless Parliament is in session is absurd.


Is bang on the money for the MPs I know.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I still don't get the anger. Harper is the democratically elected Prime Minister of our country. He has the constitutional ability to prorogue Parliament. What's the big deal about not having political fights while the World focus is on our country?
> 
> It really bothers me that the opposition parties are trying to make hay on this. Aren't they the ones who tried to overthrow our PM by a secret coalition with Separatists? Aren't the Liberals the Party who don't show up to vote on bills?


Sadly it not a party political issue any longer, it resonates on Main Street. 

When the so called apathetic are tired of being taken for granted, the PM's strategy has really goofed on this issue of Proroguing Parliament. Maybe not the issue itself but the lame reasons offered justifying the necessity to do so. Might go to the PM's creditability.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

BigDL said:


> Might go to the PM's creditability.


I don't think so. Harper has had strong vocal opposition and negative media coverage long before Iggy came back to Canada. Yet, he was still able to get elected as PM twice and is entering his fifth year. For some reason, Harper strikes a chord in the left wing of this country and they will jump on anything to criticize him.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> You can call it what you will but the statement:
> 
> Is bang on the money for the MPs I know.


My point being, that it's an attempt to silence debate by putting a human face to the group or action being criticized. It's an old tactic used commonly* in relation to the military. Nothing shuts up a war critic faster than painting them unsympathetic to the troops. Both you and I know that this is nonsense, but used when most if not all other options have been exhausted. 

* Often by Conservative Journalists and pundits alike.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> My point being, that it's an attempt to silence debate by putting a human face to the group or action being criticized. It's an old tactic used commonly* in relation to the military. Nothing shuts up a war critic faster than painting them unsympathetic to the troops. Both you and I know that this is nonsense, but used when most if not all other options have been exhausted.
> 
> * Often by Conservative Journalists and pundits alike.


I just don't see it that way. It is merely a statement of fact and one that it seems very few in the public realize. For some reason there is this misbegotten notion (I think largely spread by the media even though they know it is a lie) that the House of Commons is the only place where the business of Government and the work of MPs gets done and it couldn't be further from the truth.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I don't think so. Harper has had strong vocal opposition and negative media coverage long before Iggy came back to Canada. Yet, he was still able to get elected as PM twice and is entering his fifth year. For some reason, Harper strikes a chord in the left wing of this country and they will jump on anything to criticize him.


:lmao: :clap:

Canadians, in my experience, do not vote for the Prime Ministers, literally and figuratively, they vote against parties and in this case the Liberals. 

The adscam scandal gave the Conservatives a leg up and the Liberals can gain no traction with voters with Dion and Iggy at the helm. So I'll have to disagree.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> :lmao: :clap:
> 
> Canadians, in my experience, do not vote for the Prime Ministers, literally and figuratively, they vote against parties and in this case the Liberals.
> 
> The adscam scandal gave the Conservatives a leg up and the Liberals can gain no traction with voters with Dion and Iggy at the helm. So I'll have to disagree.


I completely agree with this, Canadians historically don't vote for things/people they vote against them.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> I just don't see it that way. It is merely a statement of fact and one that it seems very few in the public realize. For some reason there is this misbegotten notion (I think largely spread by the media even though they know it is a lie) that the House of Commons is the only place where the business of Government and the work of MPs gets done and it couldn't be further from the truth.


I am in agreement on these points. Parliamentarians should hold most of the power, sadly, successive PMO have taken more power away from the MP's.

Committee work and constituant work are the bread and butter of MP's. I feel many MP's put in long hours into their jobs. I may not agree with some MP's objectives, I commend them on their efforts.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> Why would you only take what I have to say with a *helping *of salt because I may or may not have conservative sympathies? Are you suggesting that only the views of those with left leaning sympathies are capable of having any credibility?


It was an attempt at a joke, hence the smiley. Possibly not a good attempt.



screature said:


> The media has been for some time now the "third" party in politics and have had in the past held a somewhat sacrosanct position as the watchdog and defenders of democracy. That time has long gone and they are now more often than not merely partisan news *makers* (not reporters) of the worst kind, effectively directing and deflecting the public's attention to whatever they feel will generate the most sales.


I don't think this is anything new, in fact I think this has gone on since the beginnings of the mass media.



screature said:


> I can't speak for all MPs but this is not even remotely true of the ones I know. They are constantly under public scrutiny and are intensely aware of it.


I don't think all MPs take their constituents for granted, but I think many do. Especially "safe" seats. The example I posted of the Con MP yesterday who announced that he was working hard for his constituents, while conducting an interview from his vacation spot could be an example of this.



screature said:


> I think this is a fair assessment of the general public's feelings and attitudes toward politics. I do not think politicians are anti-democratic by nature and hope we keep thinking this way at all, again not at least the ones I know.


I don't think all politicians are anti-democratic by nature, but I think some definitely are. Harper in my opinion is one of those. Parliament to him is just something that gets in his way.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I don't think all MPs take their constituents for granted, but I think many do. Especially "safe" seats. The example I posted of the Con MP yesterday who announced that he was working hard for his constituents, while conducting an interview from his vacation spot could be an example of this.


Consider that many medical professionals encourage overworked people to take a break, ie: a vacation to both reflect, and renew energy. I know from personal experience that many a vacation I spent a lot of time plotting a new course for when I returned to work.

Thus IMO it is possible to be "working hard" on a vacation and often the resulting return with new ideas and energy has been of great benefit on the job front.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

wow. Til March too. Wonder if I can, take off til March, mull over my 'new direction' a bit.

Sign me up!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I still don't get the anger. Harper is the democratically elected Prime Minister of our country. He has the constitutional ability to prorogue Parliament. What's the big deal about not having political fights while the World focus is on our country?
> 
> It really bothers me that the opposition parties are trying to make hay on this. Aren't they the ones who tried to overthrow our PM via a secret coalition with Separatists? Aren't the Liberals the Party who don't show up to vote on bills?


I think you are seeing it through a partisan lens.

I admit my bias, I don't like Harper and his Conservative party. I figure that's obvious. But I'm no fan of the Libs either, and I'm constantly disappointed even in parties that are closer to my views like the NDP and the Greens. I don't have a lot of faith in politicians of all stripes and I think the only hope for our democracy, if it has a hope, is for the citizen's to be engaged and to constantly remind these people that they are representing us, and that they are not our rulers. 

I see the impulse to believe they are our rulers coming from governments of every political persuasion, Glen Clark (former BC NDP Premier) and some of his associates had much of that going on. Ironically because of this they managed to jump start the Green Party in BC in the 90s which came back to bite them hard in the next election, when Green vote-splitting reduced their numbers.

I think this issue has resonated with many people, even a number of Conservatives, because this is about a basic issue of respect for democracy.

What I don't get is thinking that this is all OK. Yes, Harper has the ability because of very old rules, to prorogue Parliament. His abuse of this rule, his failure to give any credible reason for prorogation (it's not about the Olympics, a recess would have accomplished that if desired) and his assumption that nobody would notice fuels the protests. He has not been alone in his abuse of this rule, Chretien may have abused it similarly on one occasion and also Sir John A probably did. This is not an argument in favour of the PM having this prerogative, in fact it says why we should restrict this power.

It is not OK, whether it's a Lib or a Con, to dismiss the highest power in the land, Parliament, the body from which the PMs authority to govern comes from, without that body's approval, unless the government has dissolved and is going to the people to gain a mandate. This rule should be changed. This is the issue. 

And the anger comes from the arrogance of just assuming that we would all just accept it, that nobody would care.



> Anyone sustaining permanent head injuries falling off the turnip truck might actually believe one of the Conservative government’s many official reasons Stephen Harper shut down parliament.
> 
> Our favourite so far was the prime minister’s initial claim that he was asking the Governor General to keep the lights off in parliament until March so Canadians could enjoy the Olympics.
> 
> ...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It is not OK, whether it's a Lib or a Con, to dismiss the highest power in the land, Parliament, the body from which the PMs authority to govern comes from, without that body's approval, unless the government has dissolved and is going to the people to gain a mandate. This rule should be changed. This is the issue.


Don't hate the player, hate the game. 

The PM has the authority to do what he did. Parliament doesn't.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Don't hate the player, hate the game.
> 
> The PM has the authority to do what he did. Parliament doesn't.


The public can register their displeasure and the media can reflect the public's mood.

Don't hate the..... ahhh ya know.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Don't hate the player, hate the game.
> 
> The PM has the authority to do what he did. Parliament doesn't.


That's no argument. I don't like the player in question but as I explained I think the game is a problem too.

Tell me, because the PM also has the unilateral power to declare war, would you also say that he can't be questioned if he decided to use that power? We should all shut up and live with it? He has the power and that is that? Say some future PM is suffering from an undiagnosed mental disorder, do we really want one person in our democracy to have that kind of unilateral power? Because this tradition exists currently is not argument for its retention.

I don't understand how someone can defend the PM having these kind of powers. We don't elect the PM, we elect MPs who form government's whose power is the result of their standing in Parliament and flows from Parliament, which is the supreme authority in our system.

It's as if a business owner hires someone, who then has the power to fire the owner. It makes no sense in this day and age and the tradition is a relic from the British prerogative of Kings. This power technically belongs to the Queen and her representative, not the PM, but because it has evolved that the GG must follow the advice of the PM in modern times, that power became a power the PM holds. But technically it is the GG who can prorogue and declare war, not the PM. It hasn't been an issue because no one has abused this reserve power as blatantly or as frequently as Harper.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> no one has abused this reserve power as blatantly or as frequently as Harper.


That's just sensationalist bullsh!t and you know it GA. Gimme a break. Chretien alone used prorogation twice as much as Harper. And he used it to cover up crimes against the people of Canada for God's sake. Get real.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

screature said:


> I just don't see it that way. It is merely a statement of fact and one that it seems very few in the public realize. For some reason there is this misbegotten notion (I think largely spread by the media even though they know it is a lie) that the House of Commons is the only place where the business of Government and the work of MPs gets done and it couldn't be further from the truth.


Everyone knows that Parliament is the place where politics is played, for better or worse. The Cabinet, PMO and Ministry's are the ones keeping the government running, based on the laws and budgets passed in Parliament.

But the important distinction here is that the power and legitimacy of that government comes directly from Parliament as the place where our elected MPs represent the citizen's of Canada. No government or PM is above this.

It may be that Parliament is dysfunctional and full of grandstanding, but that is not the fault of Parliament, that is the fault of the calibre of those we elect.

Harper is suggesting that Parliament doesn't matter and this is offensive to democracy. We do not elect a President and we did not elect Harper to form an executive government. "We" did not elect Harper at all, his party elected him.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> That's just sensationalist bullsh!t and you know it GA. Gimme a break. Chretien alone used prorogation twice as much as Harper. And he used it to cover up crimes against the people of Canada for God's sake. Get real.


It is not SINC and the oft-repeated argument that Chretien did it is the logic of children. Does that make it right? 

"Why did you steal a cookie, Stevie?" Stevie stamps his feet, pouts and says "Well Johnny did it too!" Is this the best Cons can come up with? I've already admitted that Chretien may have used a non-standard prorogation to avoid the judgement of Parliament and Sir John A. probably did as well. Harper was avoiding a subpoena from Parliament produce documents relating to a potential crime on the part of his government. If it's true that Chretien's prorogation was bad, then how are Harper's two prorogations any better? 

Please SINC, how about some adult arguments? Get real yourself, my friend?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

At least I don't spend every waking breath worried sick about something I can do nothing about.

And yes, when Chretien uses it to conceal criminal theft from the people of Canada he and his party are far, far worse than any prorogation by Harper.

That is the real part you cannot see. You are blinded by hatred of a man, not by a perfectly legal process used many times before for much more nefarious purposes.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> At least I don't spend every waking breath worried sick about something I can do nothing about.
> 
> And yes, when Chretien uses it to conceal criminal theft from the people of Canada he and his party are far, far worse than any prorogation by Harper.
> 
> That is the real part you cannot see. You are blinded by hatred of a man, not by a perfectly legal process used many times before for much more black purposes.


No need to get personal SINC. You have no idea what I spend every waking breath worried about or not. I guess if you can't muster an argument that's the best you can do.

Your opinion that Chretien used it to conceal theft has no basis in any fact that you can prove. But it is a fact that Harper still has not given anyone a believable reason for his prorogation. It is a fact that with his last prorogation Harper ignored a legal request to produce documents relating to the Afghan inquiry. He shut down an ongoing legal action by the nations highest authority and hoped nobody would notice.

But Mr. Pot if you want to cast aspersions about blind hatred you might look at your charges against Chretien for years. You must have accused him of being a criminal hundreds of times so far, but as far as I know, he was never charged with anything.

Perfectly legal, is an interesting phrase. Perfectly legal never, ever equals perfectly just in all cases. What you can not see is that Harper through his actions, and yes probably Chretien through his action, usurped Parliament. This is undemocratic, "perfectly legal" or not.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It is not SINC and the oft-repeated argument that Chretien did it is the logic of children. Does that make it right?
> 
> "Why did you steal a cookie, Stevie?" Stevie stamps his feet, pouts and says "Well Johnny did it too!" Is this the best Cons can come up with? I've already admitted that Chretien may have used a non-standard prorogation to avoid the judgement of Parliament and Sir John A. probably did as well. Harper was avoiding a subpoena from Parliament produce documents relating to a potential crime on the part of his government. If it's true that Chretien's prorogation was bad, then how are Harper's two prorogations any better?
> 
> Please SINC, how about some adult arguments? Get real yourself, my friend?


I've tried to use this reasoning a number of times. After listening to conservatives supporters, endlessly going on about the big bad wascally wiberals, and, I had to agree with them, now, we hear the same justifications. Well "Johnny did it tooooo!"

Sigh. Childish, adult, how about just some reasonable ideas?

Disclaimer: this post is not intended to insult, belittle, just address the posts. In case anyone gets excited.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The thing everyone is overlooking is that it is not undemocratic under current law. It is a legal option available to the PM. Until such time as the law is changed, all you can do is suck it up, no matter what PM has used it or for what purpose.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> The thing everyone is overlooking is that it is not undemocratic under current law. It is a legal option available to the PM. Until such time as the law is changed, all you can do is suck it up, no matter what PM has used it or for what purpose.


we know this. It's been emphasized, oh about 50 times. It's been established, and well known, it isn't, illegal.

Is there a difference, between illegal, and undemocratic?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> At least I don't spend every waking breath worried about something I can do nothing about.
> 
> And yes, when Chretien uses it to conceal criminal theft from the people of Canada he and his party are far, far worse than any prorogation by Harper.
> 
> That is the real part you cannot see. You are blinded by hatred of a man, not by a perfectly legal process used many times before for much more nefarious purposes.


Are you saying that if Chretien jumped off a bridge then that justifies Harper to jump off the same bridge?

Well how ....no wait you might be on to something there.:clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> No need to get personal SINC. You have no idea what I spend every waking breath worried about or not. I guess if you can't muster an argument that's the best you can do.


Not every waking breath, but it is clearly consuming your attention as you inspect the same ground over and over again. You may not like it, but it's the law. So change the law so that Prime Minister May can't do the same thing one day.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> But the important distinction here is that the power and legitimacy of that government comes directly from Parliament as the place where our elected MPs represent the citizen's of Canada. No government or PM is above this.


I don't agree. The power and legitimacy of our government stems from our Constitution and the Crown. The Constitution, along with precedent, defines the nature of our democracy, not the citizens. The role of the citizens is to elect MPs who in turn select a Prime Minister. There are all sorts of roles in our democracy that have nothing to do with the people or democratic process. For example, the PM has the ability to pick Senators himself, not Parliament and not the citizens. The same is true of the GG, who represents the highest power of the land, the Queen.

You might not like it or agree with it, but that's the reality of the situation.

It's good for the Left in the country to feel what 'undemocratic' acts feel like. Conservatives have had these feelings for years and have been the group trying to push for change. 

If we are going to make changes, then let's do the whole thing, not just creating rules around proroguing. Short of that, I will continue to say this is mostly about sour grapes against Harper. 



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Harper is suggesting that Parliament doesn't matter and this is offensive to democracy. We do not elect a President and we did not elect Harper to form an executive government. "We" did not elect Harper at all, his party elected him.


See above.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Not every waking breath, but it is clearly consuming your attention as you inspect the same ground over and over again. You may not like it, but it's the law. So change the law so that Prime Minister May can't do the same thing one day.


I wouldn't have to go over the same ground repeatedly if people would quit responding to me with the same discredited arguments. "Because Chretien did it" must have been posted here a couple of dozen times already.

And at the risk of repeating myself, I have already indicated many times that I know it is the law and I have advocated for a change in the law in several posts. 

It's hard not repeat myself when you and several others say the same thing over and over. It's hard not repeat myself when you and several others say the same thing over and over. It's hard not repeat myself when you and several others say the same thing over and over.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I don't agree. The power and legitimacy of our government stems from our Constitution and the Crown. The Constitution, along with precedent, defines the nature of our democracy, not the citizens. The role of the citizens is to elect MPs who in turn select a Prime Minister. There are all sorts of roles in our democracy that have nothing to do with the people or democratic process. For example, the PM has the ability to pick Senators himself, not Parliament and not the citizens. The same is true of the GG, who represents the highest power of the land, the Queen.


You might not agree but you would be wrong. The highest power of the land are the citizens, represented in the Commons.

Several hundred years of history in the UK have given us the Parliamentary system we now have. The legitimacy of our government does not come from the Queen of Canada and the Constitution is a work of Parliament. This long history has resulted in a form of government that retains the Crown as our head of state, who must at all times be answerable to and accede to the Commons. Our Queen and GG are figureheads, as stated in law.

You say that it is not the will of the people that is supreme. That it is the Crown that grants us our privileges. This is what Kings and Queens used to believe, before the citizens gradually forced democracy on them. If what you believe were to be true, we would not be a democracy. 

In a democracy it is the people who elect representatives to the Commons to carry out our wishes. How those competing wishes are decided are through the rules of Parliament. Those who frustrate the will of Parliament, by using archaic loopholes in the law and forcing the GG to use her archaic prerogative to usurp Parliament are not democrats.

Harper has twice put the GG in an untenable situation. Should she listen to the PM and go against the express wish of Parliament or should she provoke a King-Byng-like crisis by ignoring the advice of the PM? Each time she took the easier path.

Some commentators think that Harper may have provoked a Parliamentary crisis by his government's ignoring the legitimate subpoena of the Afghan committee to produce the documents they demanded. 



> How should Parliament respond to the government’s apparent rejection of its demands? [Derek] Lee is unequivocal. “There are only two or three times every century when parliaments have an opportunity to benchmark their powers,” he says. “This is one of those moments in time, when Parliament says the king must submit to the will of the people’s House.”
> 
> Should the Commons vote to find the government in contempt, it has a range of punishments at its command, even as far as banishing the Prime Minister from the House. And should the government deem this a confidence vote? “This is so fundamental it’s not even a matter of confidence. Parliament might not allow itself to be dissolved, and the Governor General should be aware of this.”
> 
> (Lee is the author of The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers & Records: A Sourcebook on the Law and Precedent of Parliamentary Subpoena for Canadian and Other Houses. 1999)





Vandave said:


> It's good for the Left in the country to feel what 'undemocratic' acts feel like. Conservatives have had these feelings for years and have been the group trying to push for change.


So you are admitting this is undemocratic then? 

Yes, the Cons when they won their first minority promised change, but have never done anything about it. Harper made an election law and broke it. None of the reforms and transparency he promised have ever been brought forward. And he has disrespected Parliament by deed with his prorogations and by word with his recent interview comments about Parliament being a sideshow. The only change he has brought is by trying to pretend he's our President.



Vandave said:


> If we are going to make changes, then let's do the whole thing, not just creating rules around proroguing. Short of that, I will continue to say this is mostly about sour grapes against Harper.


I'd agree to that, but you and I know a new constitutional conference is not going to happen. In the meantime if we can patch some mouldy and archaic holes in our democratic institutions we should do so. 

Whether my or others objection to Harper's actions is motivated by sour grapes, or hatred of his choice of sweaters or hairstyle is completely irrelevant. Refute our points then, don't argue ad hominem.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Parliament may be out of session, but did anyone catch Pres. Obama's State of the Union address last night? Great speech and an amazing finish. I have never seen the combined Congress and guests so quiet as he spoke from the heart at the conclusion of his speech.

"The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people.

We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us.

We don't quit. I don't quit. Let's seize this moment, to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more." Pres. Barack Obama.

Transcript: Obama's first State of the Union speech - CNN.com


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> "The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people."


I should hope so, since it clearly does not reside in Mr. Obama.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I should hope so, since it clearly does not reside in Mr. Obama.


Guess we did not hear the same speech, Macfury .............. Such is Life.
Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

"Feelings...oh, oh, oh... Feelings."

C'mon 'sauce you're dancing around the issue. The highest power is the citizens? OK, they've invested their power in the Commons, who have established and agreed to the laws that allow the PM to prorogue parliament. This makes it neither illegal nor undemocratic--just part of our form of democracy.You can slicce that ham anyway you like, but it's still ham.




GratuitousApplesauce said:


> You might not agree but you would be wrong. The highest power of the land are the citizens, represented in the Commons.
> 
> Several hundred years of history in the UK have given us the Parliamentary system we now have. The legitimacy of our government does not come from the Queen of Canada and the Constitution is a work of Parliament. This long history has resulted in a form of government that retains the Crown as our head of state, who must at all times be answerable to and accede to the Commons. Our Queen and GG are figureheads, as stated in law.
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Guess we did not hear the same speech, Macfury .............. Such is Life.
> Paix, mon ami.


We certainly did. I particularly liked the part where he blamed his failure at health care reform on the fact that he did not succeed at making people understand it. They did, and did not like it. The people have asked for cost control reform, not government health care. Obama still backhandedly blames the people for "not getting it."

His cost control measures are a tiny drop in the bucket of his gluttonous pork barrel spending.

I don't see anything to be cheered about here. I hope his term of office passes quickly and I pray, uneventfully, considering his lack of leadership.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> We certainly did. I particularly liked the part where he blamed his failure at health care reform on the fact that he did not succeed at making people understand it. They did, and did not like it. The people have asked for cost control reform, not government health care. Obama still backhandedly blames the people for "not getting it."
> 
> His cost control measures are a tiny drop in the bucket of his gluttonous pork barrel spending.
> 
> I don't see anything to be cheered about here. I hope his term of office passes quickly and I pray, uneventfully, considering his lack of leadership.


Macfury, let's agree to disagree. I don't see "... his gluttonous pork barrel spending", not when Congress is packing on the "pork". That is why I have always supported a line item veto for a president. 

I recall the end of a poem which is appropriate here -- 

"Two men looked out from behind their prison bars,
One saw mud, the other saw stars."

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> "Two men looked out from behind their prison bars,
> One saw mud, the other saw stars."
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


(Mud. Not good to look at or to throw.)

A nice sentiment Dr.G. Good way to start the day.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I think this is the mud that macfury sees. I'm having trouble seeing the stars as well.










Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Just how did American politics derail a thread on the proroguing of the Canadian parliament?

It has no place in this thread.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> (Mud. Not good to look at or to throw.)
> 
> A nice sentiment Dr.G. Good way to start the day.


True, but I was not slinging mud at Macfury. We disagree, but in an adult manner without any anger.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> True, but I was not slinging mud at Macfury. We disagree, but in an adult manner without any anger.


I know that. I was simply refering to mud in general.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Ok, now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Prorogation 'Aha! moment' punishes Tories in poll - The Globe and Mail



> Tory tipping point Public anger over Stephen Harper’s decision to shut down Parliament is “the real deal,” EKOS pollster Frank Graves says. And one way for the Prime Minister to recover is to recall the House.





> The poll of 3,206 Canadians was conducted between Jan. 20 and Jan. 26. Mr. Graves says the fact *the Haiti response is not blunting the anger over prorogation* may indicate “a growing reticence to give credit to the government for things that are seen as a people-of-Canada response or a taxpayers response.”
> 
> His poll also shows the *Liberals regaining their hold in Ontario.* It had been slipping, but the latest EKOS numbers show the Liberals with 39.2 per cent in Ontario compared to 31.6 per cent for the Conservatives. *The Liberals also have a stronger base now in the other key voter battleground: Quebec.* There, the Liberals are at 29.1 per cent compared to 16.2 per cent for the Tories.
> 
> ...


I know, I know. Polls this and polls that. We've had this argument any times before. The point here is:

:clap:

Thanks Stephen. No seriously, thanks!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> In a democracy it is the people who elect representatives to the Commons to carry out our wishes. How those competing wishes are decided are through the rules of Parliament.


And proroguing is one such rule.

Our MPs don't have to carry out our wishes. They ignore us all the time and do what they want. We elect them, and they can vote how they wish. Our MPs also get to decide who our Prime Minister is. We don't. Our Prime Minister doesn't even have to be an elected official. You or I could be Prime Minister tomorrow if we could secure a majority vote in the Commons. 

We aren't as 'democratic' as you seem to think or want to believe.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So you are admitting this is undemocratic then?


Yes and no, which is why I had it in quotes. My position is that these acts are completely within the bounds of our Parliamentary democracy so it is inaccurate to call them undemocratic. We have a democratic system and Harper is acting within his legal bounds. My point is that many are unfairly taring him, rather than our system. Again, that's why I question the motives of many protestors because they aren't the ones who have been complaining about our system when it benefited them.

I think our system needs change, which is why I made the point that many are now seeing these issues from the other perspective (i.e. when it doesn't benefit them). Proroguing is maybe 1 of a 100 issues that need to be fixed.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> You might not agree but you would be wrong. The highest power of the land are the citizens, represented in the Commons.


GA, here's a Multiple Choice Question for you. Pick A, B or C.

A bill comes into law when:

1. The Commons vote on the Bill and it receives a majority endorsement by elected representatives; 
2. A Bill passed by Commons (as per Answer 1) is voted on or modified by an unelected Senate (appointed by Prime Ministers), subsequent to which the Queen's representative gives the Bill her blessing (i.e. Royal Assent); or,
3. The highest power of the land, the Royal Beaver, wags it's tail. 

Based on your statement, I am guessing you would choose A.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I agree with SINC. We'll move Obama elsewhere. As to one earlier comment, I would never sling mud at the honourable doctor from Newfoundland and Labrador. We are simply never going to agree on everything (although I have spoken out loudly aganst the armed invasion of St. John's). Dr. G and I disagree diametrically on some points, but we are never at odds.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave said:


> GA, here's a Multiple Choice Question for you. Pick A, B or C.
> 
> A bill comes into law when:
> 
> ...


It's a trick question VanDave--you enumerated the answers!


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

To clarify Canada is not a representative democracy. It is a parliamentary government where candidates are elected in a semi democratic manner. That is the big guns give the voters a choice of substandard candidates to choose from.

After that the job of the MP is to represent the view of his party or the PM to his voters and pray that the voters don't choke on the worst of the lunacy.beejacon

Beyond that MPs can occasionally be useful in helping victims of the bureaucracy disentangle themselves from the reams of red-tape.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I agree with SINC. We'll move Obama elsewhere. As to one earlier comment, I would never sling mud at the honourable doctor from Newfoundland and Labrador. We are simply never going to agree on everything (although I have spoken out loudly aganst the armed invasion of St. John's). Dr. G and I disagree diametrically on some points, but we are never at odds.





mrjimmy said:


> (Mud. Not good to look at or to throw.)


Just to clarify, I was never suggesting *you or anyone else* was slinging mud at the good Doctor. I was simply making a generic observation regarding mud. 

I wonder how many posts are wasted in forums over complete misunderstandings. I'm sure it's mind boggling.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Liberals edge ahead. Liberals: 31.6%, Conserv: 31.1%, NDP: 14.6%, Green: 11%, Bloc: 9.1%


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"The Liberals' revival is strongest in Ontario, which was a longtime Liberal stronghold that had been taken over by the Conservatives through the fall.

Support for the Liberals is also strong in Quebec and the party is edging up in British Columbia as well."

Herein lies the key. The Atlantic Province can do what they want to and it won't matter (PM Harper has already said that he does not need NL's seven MPs), and Alberta will go for the Conservatives. So, BC will be a swing province, and ON and Quebec will decide who will be our next minority PM. We shall see.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

With the Federal Parliament not working at least in New Brunswick we have Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA's) hard at work providing serious consideration and debate to matters of importance to the citizens of the Province of New brunswick.

At this critically important juncture when the Provincially owned Utility NB Power is being sold to the people of Quebec through Hydro Quebec NB MLA TJ Bourque offers a decidedly serious take on the oppositions objections as seen here 



+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"NB Power will have to sell electricity to 50 big customers at a substantial loss under a new deal negotiated between New Brunswick and Hydro-Québec.

According to the terms announced Wednesday, NB Power will buy electricity from Quebec at a set price of 7.35 cents/kwh but then must resell it to its largest industrial customers for 5.3 cents/kwh, including all transmission and distribution costs."



Read more: CBC News - (none) - NB Power deal will subsidize industry


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

My Premier said it's a good deal, so it must be. We have his boy TJ making salient points on this important subject.

Many in New Brunswick were very pleased to have a Majority Government after the minority Conservative government of Bernard Lord. I now wonder how many voters would like a do over of the last election that we might end up with a minority government.

The head of NB Power resigned last week after renewing a three year contract last year.

The only good news seem to be that NB still owns the transmission facilities after this current deal goes through. NL and NS power alternatives might help NB delima.

Maybe a move back to Nova Scotia. This idea is looking good.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> "Feelings...oh, oh, oh... Feelings."
> 
> C'mon 'sauce you're dancing around the issue. The highest power is the citizens? OK, they've invested their power in the Commons, who have established and agreed to the laws that allow the PM to prorogue parliament. This makes it neither illegal nor undemocratic--just part of our form of democracy.You can slicce that ham anyway you like, but it's still ham.


Well 'fury, I think you have your thumb on the butcher's scale.

Supremacy of Parliament is an important concept in our democracy. Yes, that's the ideal of course, we both know that practice isn't what it's supposed to be. Doesn't mean that I have to shut up about it, just as I'm sure you'll never shut up about your libertarian ideals.

But shades of repeating yourself, your point has been made a number of times in this thread and dispensed with as a fallacy. Legal does not equal democratic, fair or just as I've answered repeatedly, I am in favour of amending the archaic loopholes. I'm sure that the Iranian government when executing their two dissidents today had "legality" on their side also.

I'm not dancing around anything, I'm being as clear as I can be. Now do you have any points to make that haven't been covered already?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> And proroguing is one such rule.
> 
> Our MPs don't have to carry out our wishes. They ignore us all the time and do what they want. We elect them, and they can vote how they wish. Our MPs also get to decide who our Prime Minister is. We don't. Our Prime Minister doesn't even have to be an elected official. You or I could be Prime Minister tomorrow if we could secure a majority vote in the Commons.
> 
> We aren't as 'democratic' as you seem to think or want to believe.


I wasn't arguing that we were. It's clear from Harper's actions as well as many others that our elected reps leave a lot to be desired in that area. Does that mean that I shouldn't then expect our PM or any other rep to act based on what is democratic? I know Harper has talked that talk a lot in the past, but like many things he says, all conveniently forgotten.

I frankly don't know if the concept of prorogation is enshrined in some musty Statute in Ottawa or is just some kind of archaic cruft that is an unwritten but practised tradition and handed down from our British Parliamentary heritage. It comes from old prerogatives of the Crown and should be weeded out or at least made to be answerable to Parliament.



Vandave said:


> Yes and no, which is why I had it in quotes. My position is that these acts are completely within the bounds of our Parliamentary democracy so it is inaccurate to call them undemocratic. We have a democratic system and Harper is acting within his legal bounds. My point is that many are unfairly taring him, rather than our system. Again, that's why I question the motives of many protestors because they aren't the ones who have been complaining about our system when it benefited them.
> 
> I think our system needs change, which is why I made the point that many are now seeing these issues from the other perspective (i.e. when it doesn't benefit them). Proroguing is maybe 1 of a 100 issues that need to be fixed.


You are making the same argument that MF did and that has been made earlier in this thread. It may be legal, but this does not necessarily mean it's therefore democratic. Faulty logic.

Questioning the motives of those who are questioning Harper is irrelevant, as i said before. Just because I may not like Harper doesn't mean my points are not valid. If we were both on ehMac during Chretien's questionable prorogation and I had defended it just because I didn't like Harper, you could call me a hypocrite. But I don't defend it. It's wrong for the government to usurp Parliament, no matter who does it.



Vandave said:


> GA, here's a Multiple Choice Question for you. Pick A, B or C.
> 
> A bill comes into law when:
> 
> ...


I do know the answer to this and it's B or 2. But Royal Assent does not mean what you think it means, my friend.

Here's a quiz for you. If the GG refused Royal Assent on one of the Conservative Government's bills, what do think would happen:

A. Vandave, Macfury, SINC as well as Harper and all Con supporters would say, "What's the big deal, the GG has that power on paper? It's a routine practice."
B. Canadians of all persuasions would be calling for the GG's head on a pike.
C. We'd all take several weeks off to watch the Olympics and "re-calibrate".

Of course, Royal Assent is an archaic phrase which means nothing other than traditional theatrics. It clear that the Crown must obey the Commons and has been so for a very long time.

As for the unelected Senate - let's quit screwing with it, or using it as some kind of balancing tool to give the West more regional leverage. Let's just can it and be done with it. It gives us nothing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'm not dancing around anything, I'm being as clear as I can be. Now do you have any points to make that haven't been covered already?


You keep making the same point, essentially--that what is considered legal need not be considered democratic. While I may go on about my libertarian ideals, I don't spend a lot of time telling people that taxation may be legal, but that it is undemocratic to force people to give up their money against their wills, since the people have the power. It's just semantic twaddle.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As for the unelected Senate - let's quit screwing with it, or using it as some kind of balancing tool to give the West more regional leverage.


It's been the tool of the Liberal left for generations. Just as it might benefit Conservatives, GA wants to can it. Purely random timing don't you know?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> You keep making the same point, essentially--that what is considered legal need not be considered democratic. While I may go on about my libertarian ideals, I don't spend a lot of time telling people that taxation may be legal, but that it is undemocratic to force people to give up their money against their wills, since the people have the power. It's just semantic twaddle.


And you keep making the same point also, that legal equals democratic. Well twaddle-dum, let's turn it around. So does legal always equal democratic? Are there no exceptions?



Macfury said:


> It's been the tool of the Liberal left for generations. Just as it might benefit Conservatives, GA wants to can it. Purely random timing don't you know?


Sorry to disappoint but I've had that opinion for years. I know you like to see everything in politics as the ends justifying the means, just as Harper does, but I believe that there are democratic principles that should stand above everything. If the game is rigged why bother? I don't care who is doing the rigging, I don't believe that should be allowed. I think I've been pretty clear in my years of posts here that I know that there are unprincipled power-mongers on the left as well as the right. 

Again I'm hearing the same argument from you and Dave, that this is nothing but a convenient attack on Harper. Hey, I'll attack Harper at any time, granted, but I would attack any pol trying to pull this crap, right or left. You'll have to trust me on that.

Furthermore I think this is precisely the reason that this issue continues to have legs and why the Libs, the NDP and the Bloc have been floundering around trying to figure out how to best harness it, but not doing too well. They may benefit, but it's not about them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> And you keep making the same point also, that legal equals democratic. Well twaddle-dum, let's turn it around. So does legal always equal democratic? Are there no exceptions?


The legality of this was decided in democratic fashion. It could be undone in similar democratic fashion. Until then, it is neither undemocratic, nor illegal.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Sorry to disappoint but I've had that opinion for years. ...
> 
> Again I'm hearing the same argument from you and Dave, that this is nothing but a convenient attack on Harper. Hey, I'll attack Harper at any time, granted, but I would attack any pol trying to pull this crap, right or left. You'll have to trust me on that.


You joined here just before the end of the lengthy four-month prorogation that Chretien engineered in November 2003. There were no cries of outrage from you at the time, though clearly you did not care for the man.

...but you crapped on the Senate almost immediately, so you're good to go on that one.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Again I'm hearing the same argument from you and Dave, that this is nothing but a convenient attack on Harper. Hey, I'll attack Harper at any time, granted, but I would attack any pol trying to pull this crap, right or left. You'll have to trust me on that.


Didn't you say this was your first protest since the 60's?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GA, I think we mostly agree and that we are debating semantics. I would not have taken exception to your statement it you said 'SHOULD' instead of 'IS' (i.e the highest power SHOULD be the citizens).

I don't agree with you that we are the highest power. It seems you agree with me on the Senate part, but perhaps not the Crown. If the Senate isn't elected and can say no or change bills, then the Commons is not the highest power. $0.02.

I agree, let's change it.

I'll give you a pass for being consistent. I still think the bulk of protesters are there more for their hatred of Harper than anything else. Be honest... was that the mood of the crowd?

I don't think we will be talking about this come next election. It's only an issue because nothing else is. A good budget debate will kill this pretty quick.


----------



## rhapsody (Jul 12, 2008)

I was at the protest in Toronto. It was pretty upbeat and awesome, but there were the usual hordes of hipsters who had no idea why they were there, but they always have the cutsiest (albeit off-topic) signs, so I let it slide. 

My favourite was the cheer the people on the stage got going: "Who's parliament? OUR PARLIAMENT!" over and over to the point where I got annoyed and felt I had to shout the necessary correction: "Who's parliament? THE QUEEN'S. FOR SOME REASON...".

Honestly, though, between eating raw seal hearts and teleconferencing away our elected representatives, worst GG ever... Byng wouldn't have rolled over. 



> ...nine times out of ten a Governor General should take the Prime Minister's advice on this as on other matters. But if the advice offered is considered by the Governor General to be wrong and unfair, and not for the welfare of the people, it behooves him to act in what he considers the best interests of the country.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> here's the scorecard for the 21 criminal justice bills introduced during the last session: The vast majority -- 15, to be specific -- were still before the House of Commons at the time of prorogation -- six at committee, nine awaiting second reading. Of the six remaining bills, three were in the Senate -- although one had passed third reading, albeit with amendments -- and just three had made it all the way to Royal Assent.
> 
> Or, for an even simpler breakdown: 15/3/3. Wouldn't that make a lovely pie chart? Well, less lovely if you happen to be in charge of writing the government's anti-Senate talking points, of course, but still.



MinisterialSpinWatch: Justice Delayed? Don't blame the Senate.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Mark, that is a stinging editorial cartoon.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> Stephen Harper unilaterally shuts down Parliament with an astounding rationale: Parliament is just a bother, an impediment to doing real work, and people don’t care if it’s shut down.
> 
> You’ll remember that this is the language used by generalissimos plotting coups: Democracy doesn’t work — it’s just a bunch of squabbling factions, scheming intellectuals and protesting students — so authoritarian measures are needed to break the logjam and get things done.


(Ralph Surette, The Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> (Ralph Surette, The Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


I found this part of Surette's article also interesting .......... and sadly true.

"In the U.S., the picture is even more mind-boggling. Despite the unprecedented havoc wreaked by the Bush-Cheney Republicans — two lost wars, a near-depression, unprecedented deficits, the constitution and due process grievously undermined, the hurricane Katrina bungle, America’s reputation as a world leader and the ultimate can-do nation badly bruised — and despite being decisively routed in the last presidential election, the dregs of this party are still having their way."


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> The Conservative government has violated the Constitution and will be in contempt of Parliament if it continues to refuse to release uncensored documents regarding the Afghan detainee issue, a constitutional law professor says.
> 
> "The executive is really placing itself above Parliament. For the first time that I know in Canadian history, the executive is saying we are superior to Parliament," said Errol Mendes, a University of Ottawa professor who was speaking at an informal hearing of the parliamentary committee looking into the Afghanistan detainee issue.
> 
> ...



Harper government violating Constitution: prof


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I notice now that when someone quotes from a CBC story by copy and paste as in the post above, it leaves a yellow highlight on the web page,

Is this tied to their recent announcement re copyright protection?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ottawaman owes the CBC $300 for that post.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> The Canadian concept of fair dealing is similar to that in the UK and Australia. The fair dealing clauses[1] of the Canadian Copyright Act allow users to engage in certain activities relating to research, private study, criticism, review, or news reporting. With respect to criticism, review, and news reporting, the user must mention the source of the material, along with the name of the author, performer, maker, or broadcaster for the dealing to be fair. It is important to note that unlike fair use in the United States, which recognizes that parody can be fair, fair dealing in Canada has not definitely been found to contain exceptions for parody.


Fair dealing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Interesting. If you access the same story on the CBC site, there is no yellow highlight, yet if you use the link on ehMac, the highlight appears as on the right below:


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

*Tories aim to cancel March and April parliamentary breaks*



> OTTAWA – Stung by public criticism that they put Parliament on an extended Christmas break, the federal Conservatives want to cancel week-long breaks in March and around Easter, saying that MPs have a “lot of work to do.”
> 
> Government Whip Gordon O’Connor warned Tory MPs Wednesday to “arrange your schedules accordingly” as the government made plans to sit through scheduled breaks the weeks of March 15 and April 12.
> 
> ...


Tories aim to cancel March and April parliamentary breaks - thestar.com

Looks like a reaction to the polls. There's "a lot of work to do". Give me a break.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Ottawaman said:


> Tories aim to cancel March and April parliamentary breaks - thestar.com
> 
> Looks like a reaction to the polls. There's "a lot of work to do". Give me a break.





The Star said:


> After hearing the news, the NDP argued that the House of Commons should resume sitting immediately.
> 
> “Instead of playing silly games, the PM should recall Parliament right away to deal with all the important issues facing Canadians,” said Karl Belanger, spokesperson for NDP Leader Jack Layton.


If the Conservative thought it so important to get at 'er, then "just do it™"


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Wild conspiracy time.beejacon

Starts with the crotch bomber. Complete moron, nobody with half a brain would trust him with any useful information at all. Yet the US government based on interviews with the same, claim a terrorist attack in North America is an 100% imminent certainty. Now the only reason they could know this is if they are the ones planning the attack. The only reason for such an attack is to to further bankrupt the US by creating an excuse to invade Iran.

The most likely target would be the Olympics. Hence Harpo prorogues Parliament so he can do a little brown-nosing and more importantly commit Canadian troops to the fray without having to deal with parliament.beejacon

Like I say just a wild theory.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan: Why not?. The management of the U.S. economy couldn't go worse if it had been planned that way on purpose.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

So true! MF

Still as Dr.G. says; "We shall see."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

eMacMan said:


> So true! MF
> 
> Still as Dr.G. says; "We shall see."


That will cost you, eMacMan. Of course, had you quoted my full "We shall see what we shall see when we see it", you would have really been into big royalty/copyright fees. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> That will cost you, eMacMan. Of course, had you quoted my full "We shall see what we shall see when we see it", you would have really been into big royalty/copyright fees. Paix, mon ami.


Pay, mon ami!


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

> While some call it smart politics, the government's sudden push to cancel two weeks of spring recess after Parliament returns in March reeks of panic-laced desperation.
> 
> Read more: Harper all but admits mistake on prorogation
> The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.


Harper all but admits mistake on prorogation


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Ottawaman said:


> Harper all but admits mistake on prorogation


No way!!!!!!!!!! PM Harper may have backed down on many of his long-help conservative principles, but there is no way he would admit he was wrong on this closing of Parliament. If it is in the National Post, a known left-wing pinko rag, it must have been the NDP that put them up to printing such lies and slander against our Prime Minister. 

PM Harper would sooner send NL Premier, Danny Williams, some get well flowers after his successful heart surgery.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> That will cost you, eMacMan. Of course, had you quoted my full "We shall see what we shall see when we see it", you would have really been into big royalty/copyright fees. Paix, mon ami.


Just change your name to Goldman-Sachs and you will be able to print what you need.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

eMacMan said:


> Just change your name to Goldman-Sachs and you will be able to print what you need.


True. And my bonus will be tax deductable. Cool. Merci, mon ami. Consider your debt free and clear.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Prorogation Penalty Wearing Off*



SINC said:


> By the time parliament resumes, everyone will have forgotten about it anyway.
> 
> Then it will be onward to win yet another election while Iggy dies a slow and painful political death.


Seems I was right . . .



> Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives would coast to an easy victory -- but not necessarily a majority -- if a federal election were held today, according to a new poll done exclusively For Canwest News Service and Global National.
> 
> The Conservatives enjoyed the support of 37 per cent of voters across the country, followed by the Liberals with 29 per cent and the NDP with 16 per cent.
> 
> ...


Poll shows Tories in minority territory


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: I think Harper guessed right. On the heels of a good showing at the Olympic Games, nobody cares.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And least of all that "groundswell" on Facebook.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> And least of all that "groundswell" on Facebook.


Well, SINC, if it weren't for Facebook, Harper would have been looking at a majority!!!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Well, SINC, if it weren't for Facebook, Harper would have been looking at a majority!!!


Oh yeah, I forgot.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Well, SINC, if it weren't for Facebook, Harper would have been looking at a majority!!!


Well maybe yes maybe no, but if it weren't for Robert Fife, Peter Mansbridge and numerous journalists at the Star, et. al. all making mountains out of mole hills, the Facebook "phenomenon" wouldn't have happened in the first place...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> Well maybe yes maybe no, but if it weren't for Robert Fife, Peter Mansbridge and numerous journalists at the Star, et. al. all making mountains out of mole hills, the Facebook "phenomenon" wouldn't have happened in the first place...


OMG! I'm shocked! Peter controls Facebook? (I just know there's a joke in there somewhere.  )


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

still making fun of the facebook group.

The real story was the tories' support having dropped like a rocket. Facebook group, or no.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> The real story was the tories' support having dropped like a rocket.


Nope, the real story is the Conservatives regaining ay losses due to prorogation. It just didn't matter.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

The real story here is that the electorate is deadlocked. The Conservatives and Harper will likely maintain their minority for quite a while. The electorate isn't going to want political change at a time of economic trouble. It's going to take something big to cause an electoral shift. I don't see it right now. 

The longer Harper holds power, the more people will warm to him and trust his leadership. I think Harper will eventually get himself a majority, but that might still be 2 or 3 elections away.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Nope, the real story is the Conservatives regaining ay losses due to prorogation. It just didn't matter.


You just are so desperate to drink the cool aid.

Sinc of all people I figured you could stand back, take a deep breathe, and see things for how they are. But you have your nose so far.... oh never mind.

The truth is, their support dropped like a rock. Any party in power, over the olympics, would have to be the worst scum in history not to experience a bounce from that, and anyone over 10 would know that. And they could lose that little bounce when parliament resumes, after the afterglow subsides and everybody is faced with the real deal.

But keep drinkin the kool aid, I guess it must taste real good.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> The real story here is that the electorate is deadlocked. The Conservatives and Harper will likely maintain their minority for quite a while. The electorate isn't going to want political change at a time of economic trouble. It's going to take something big to cause an electoral shift. I don't see it right now.
> 
> The longer Harper holds power, the more people will warm to him and trust his leadership. I think Harper will eventually get himself a majority, but that might still be 2 or 3 elections away.


Well you had it right in the first part of your post vandave.

But honestly, you and the rest of the conservatives have been talking about this 'warming up' thing for years now, and years later, Harper still drops to 30%. I don't see any real improvement here. What am I missing? A hunch you have perhaps?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Any party in power, over the olympics, would have to be the worst scum in history not to experience a bounce from that, and anyone over 10 would know that.


OK, why don't you show us the historical precedent for that?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> OK, why don't you show us the historical precedent for that?


get an internet connection, read the news.

EVERYBODY and their brother, has predicted the bounce macfury. EVERYBODY.

Did you have your head in the ground?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> get an internet connection, read the news.
> 
> EVERYBODY and their brother, has predicted the bounce macfury. EVERYBODY.
> 
> Did you have your head in the ground?


I asked you which other parties in power have historically received a bounce from the Olympics?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't care what inane question you asked macfury. Go find another merry go round to play on.

Contact all the news agencies and tell them they were wrong. Go. Quick like a bunny.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So you don't you have any historical support for your premise that the Olympics create a popularity bump for parties in power. In that case, how do we surmise that this is the reason for the improvement in the Conservative numbers? Did someone conduct a poll asking if the Olympic Games had made them more or less likely to vote for each of the major parties?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

once again, why don't you ask all the news agencies that reported why. Perhaps macfury, they can be of assistance to you. I don't have time to research your nonsense.

You're like the little kid that suddenly discovered the word, "why".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No need to get insulting,groove. If "all the news agencies" have answered the question already, why not just use the same supporting data they used? On the other hand, if you're just intending to dodge the question, let me know now before I invest any more time in this.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think I was spot on after you annoy someone with incessant whining for me to waste time researching what everybody already has.

Here macfury, maybe he, can help you.




+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why not post that YouTube link every time you don't intend to support your statements? It will be a sign to the rest of us to stop investing any more energy in the discussion.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MF: He's still got nothing and he's still using it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

And you whine when I make a reference to the kid that says why every 2 minutes.

So whenever anyone refers to something mentioned by EVERY NEWS AGENCY IN COUNTRY, you're going to whine for more links to back it up?

And you want someone to take that seriously?

BAH ha ha ha ha. Ok macfury. See youtube link.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> MF: He's still got nothing and he's still using it.


And neither do you sinc, neither, do you....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: You'd think it would be easier to provide a little supporting evidence than creating multiple posts explaining why he isn't going to.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Groove, I saw that remarkable link to the joyous Russian man singing on FB... in a sense, his stance provides marvelous clarity and perspective for this very thread.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> And neither do you sinc, neither, do you....


Oh, I dunno gt, I_’ve got this_:



> OTTAWA — Prime Minister *Stephen Harper's Conservatives would coast to an easy victory* — but not necessarily a majority — if a federal election were held today, according to a new poll done exclusively for Canwest News Service and Global National.
> 
> The Conservatives enjoyed the support of 37 per cent of voters across the country, followed by the Liberals with 29 per cent and the NDP with 16 per cent. In Quebec, 39 per cent of voters would cast their vote for the Bloc Quebecois, pollster Ipsos Reid says. The Liberals were second in Quebec, with 25 per cent support, following by the Conservatives at 17 per cent and the NDP at 11 per cent.


Voters would elect another Tory minority: Poll


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> Groove, I saw that remarkable link to the joyous Russian man singing on FB... in a sense, his stance provides marvelous clarity and perspective for this very thread.


I thought so. Though not everyone sees the humour.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Oh, I dunno gt, I_’ve got this_:
> 
> 
> 
> Voters would elect another Tory minority: Poll


OH BOY EVERYBODY! SINC FOUND OUT HARPER WOULD GET ANOTHER MINORITY!!!!



WOOOOOHOOOO!!!!

Now THAT. Is truly something!


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

The only reason he would get another minority is because of all the pussies in Canada that can't seem to get it out of their heads that the liberal party is not the natural governing party for this great country.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well hot damn. So -that's- why.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Wow, it's been busy in here! Good to see.

Ahh the folly of polls. Here's one from this morning:

Tories, Liberals deadlocked in poll - thestar.com



> The two-week survey conducted Feb. 18-28 by The Canadian Press/Harris-Decima gives the Tories and Liberals 31 per cent each. The NDP had support from 16 per cent of respondents, the Greens 12 and the Bloc Québécois 8.
> 
> Despite some blips in which Liberal or Conservative support has climbed slightly, neither has been able to solidify those gains.
> 
> ...


Seems to refute the Ipsos Reid poll. 

Discounting the prorogation issue I think is simply wishful thinking. Canadians have just come off the absolute feel good high of the Olympics and the body is still warm. Anybody looks good after that. Even Harper.

I never for an instant thought the 'groundswell' (love that word) and the backlash would move the Liberals into Majority country, merely putting one more nail in the coffin of _Harper's dream_ of a Majority. Remember, there was big talk of that prior to prorogation. 

In response to Vandave's assertion that Harper will be around 2 to 3 elections from now still trying to land his elusive Majoirty? Good luck with that.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Maybe Harper can't move beyond a majority because of other reasons, imnothng... namely, that not everyone likes Stephen Harper and the way he and his people tend to do things.

It's a great country indeed - but it's also a nation which is intrinsically difficult to govern. I sometimes wonder if we're not sliding into the same vicious and crippling partisanship that's afflicting the nation to the south of us, swiftly rendering it essentially ungovernable.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Groove, I saw that remarkable link to the joyous Russian man singing on FB... in a sense, his stance provides marvelous clarity and perspective for this very thread.


Come now, Max, just because he's Russian, this is no reason to associate him with "a shocking insult to democracy."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Wow, it's been busy in here! Good to see.
> 
> Ahh the folly of polls. Here's one from this morning:
> 
> ...


absolute feel good high from the olympics?

Careful or you'll be pestered with demands for more data.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> absolute feel good high from the olympics?
> 
> Careful or you'll be pestered with demands for more data.


mrjimmy has stated it as opinion. You insisted it was historical fact.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> It's a great country indeed - but it's also a nation which is intrinsically difficult to govern. I sometimes wonder if we're not sliding into the same vicious and crippling partisanship that's afflicting the nation to the south of us, swiftly rendering it essentially ungovernable.


All modern nations are ungovernable. When government attempts to do everything, it does very little well. 

In the U.S., one of the biggest factors is the rapid devolution of one of the linchpins of the U.S. Constitution--States Rights. When each state was free to forge its own destiny within the framework of a fairly unobtrusive federal government, the country was governable. You like the way California does things, then move to California. If not, move to Texas. Attempting to impose a federal framework on all programs, concerns and social policies has created the monstrous stand-off below the 49th. Any major federal initiative is likely to be opposed by about half the population.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

True, MF.

You feel we are at risk of catching the same disease up here?

When the province/state becomes paramount over the federation itself, then what binds the nation together? I mean, why bother? There must be some sort of blurred line of balance; I suspect most Canadians feel it's important to stick together - even as we squabble over how different provinces and regions tend to approach the same shared problems - this on top of addressing problems unique to each jurisdiction, of course.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> You feel we are at risk of catching the same disease up here?
> 
> When the province/state becomes paramount over the federation itself, then what binds the nation together? I mean, why bother? There must be some sort of blurred line of balance; I suspect most Canadians feel it's important to stick together - even as we squabble over how different provinces and regions tend to approach the same shared problems - this on top of addressing problems unique to each jurisdiction, of course.


I think we're at risk of succumbing to a divide based on cultural differences. Canada is essentially broken into strips of culture along a north-south axis. Even Americans in U.S. States on the other side of the border along that axis often have more in common with the people of that province than those people might have with other Canadians: B.C./The Prairies/Ontario/Quebec/The Maritimes.

Federalism helps keep the country together when it trades on values Canadians seem to espouse ("free" health care for example), but acts as a divider when those policies go too far (Canadian Energy Policy/Cap and Tax/ Gun Registry) and tread on valid and important differences between the five regions.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Seemingly Harpo has learned nothing from the Olympic Hiatus. Just days after sitting through the John FarTooLong ramblings, he has given the GG the chore of delivering an epic 1.5 hour throne speech.beejacon


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Seemingly Harpo has learned nothing from the Olympic Hiatus. Just days after sitting through the John FarTooLong ramblings, he has given the *GG the chore of delivering an epic 1.5 hour throne speech*.beejacon


Where did you hear that?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> Where did you hear that?





> Parliament resumes on Wednesday following a controversial two-month break, with the Conservatives expected to unveil an extensive speech from the throne focusing on the economy and plans to rein in the federal deficit.
> 
> The throne speech, to be delivered by Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean, will lay out the government’s economic vision and its plans for job creation and innovation.
> 
> ...



CBC News - Canada - Economy, deficit control focus of throne speech


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> mrjimmy has stated it as opinion. You insisted it was historical fact.


sure MF. If it pleases you.

There's a hero's sandwich out there for you.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> CBC News - Canada - Economy, deficit control focus of throne speech


We shall see... It would be extraordinary if it lasted that long.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I think we're at risk of succumbing to a divide based on cultural differences. Canada is essentially broken into strips of culture along a north-south axis. Even Americans in U.S. States on the other side of the border along that axis often have more in common with the people of that province than those people might have with other Canadians: B.C./The Prairies/Ontario/Quebec/The Maritimes.
> 
> Federalism helps keep the country together when it trades on values Canadians seem to espouse ("free" health care for example), but acts as a divider when those policies go too far (Canadian Energy Policy/Cap and Tax/ Gun Registry) and tread on valid and important differences between the five regions.


I do hope that Canadians realize that healthcare is not free. The US taxpayers give massive cash infusions to the Military/Industrial complex and to the banksters. On top of that many families spend over $1000/month on health care insurance that is designed to avoid ever helping someone that gets sick. 

In Canada the money goes directly to supporting a reasonably good health care system. But the truth is the nation has to choose between spending the money on slaughtering innocents abroad or providing health care at home. The taxpayers wallet is not big enough to handle both.

Still beyond health care I believe that Albertans have far more in common with their Montana neighbours than with someone living in the GTA vortex.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Polling muddle emerges as MPs return

3 Different polls and three different results.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

An update on the polling situation:

CBC News - Politics - Tories, Liberals hold steady in EKOS poll

I love these stats:



> Canadians continue to be split in their opinion about whether the government is moving in the right or wrong direction.
> 
> While 46 per cent feel that the government is moving in the right direction, another 44 per cent believe it is going in the wrong direction.
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

They're a real yawner, huh mrjimmy? It doesn't take much effort to show that members of other political parties tend to oppose governments formed by other political parties. I guess Quebec is supposed to be the real shocker here.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Here's another stat:



> The Conservatives' support slipped during the Afghan detainee issue and the prorogation of Parliament, but the Liberals were only able to a make a small gain from the Tories' decline. As in past weeks' polling, *Conservative support continue to come primarily from Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.* It is also stronger among men and Canadians aged 65 or older.
> 
> Liberal Party support comes mostly from Atlantic Canada and Ontario, but in both regions Liberal support is within the margin of error with the Conservative support. *Liberal support also comes from those with university-level educations.*


It's the western versus educated statistic that I find amusing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> It's the western versus educated statistic that I find amusing.


It isn't surprising. University is where they get steeped in the small "l" liberal gibberish that confuses them in later life.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Great comeback Macfury! :clap:


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> It isn't surprising. University is where they get steeped in the small "l" liberal gibberish that confuses them in later life.


Aah, I see...

Edumacation bad... Edumacation confuses us poor gullible folk. I'm guessing you must be one of the rare Conservative supporters that has an education...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Great comeback Macfury! :clap:


I like the 'we're not worthy' emoticon!


----------

