drummindiver

The Libs or NDP are capable of buying the same space and criticizing the Cons. We are already paying for that criticism via the CBC, what's a little more?

Are you refuting the facts or the source? Just because an opposing view stated facts do not make facts any less factual, and that's a fact.

You are proven wrong. 4 times each. Harper will win another majority, and probably prorogue parliament again. Then you can say he has done it the most. btw, the fact that the Cons prorogued for more days is really moot. Everything dies on the table, so the fact they stayed out longer in total is irrelevant. The fact that Jean Chretien's prorogation is the longest on record is also not worthy of discussion, although that is a record Libs do hold. Again, you are not man/woman enough to admit when you are wrong.

Unethical? Who stated it's unethical? Have they been charged? Is there a law against a political party utilizing News Canada? Do you have examples? Are you certain the Libs or NDP are not utilizing News Canada? Can you prove they are not? To be clear, I don't approve of News Canada. I think all political entities ought to be transparent. That being said, I surmise that basically 100% are not. Does this make it acceptable? Of course not, but let's attack the status quo, not single out one example. You gave one example. The CBC is another. http://www.ezralevant.com/the_cbcs_leftwing_bias/

I watched a few videos. Pretty obvious they are "paid for", unlike the less obvious "reporting" done on CBC.

Won't go my way? How do you mean? I should adjust my opinions to match the majority here? If we all agreed, this forum would be rather boring, wouldn't it? Kind of like posting at Rabble.ca...boring. And ppl like me waving my "c" flag are not welcome there. I like debates and arguments. So,uh, please, Guyser, don't ever change.

You can objectively state that it's the "most violent' You're right. It's been proven beyond a doubt that Islam is a violent religion. The most violent.

Oh. You mean like Chretien to avoid the report on the sponsorship scandal? Things like that? Anyways, you were saying about records, not reasons. Love the way you change the debate in the middle when proven wrong. All bills on the table die. And it's obvious no matter what source I used you would find fault, but regardless, facts are facts. You just don't have the class to admit when you're wrong.

Guyser, I realize this is a left leaning forum, so you may call ppl names without any fear of reprisal from the mods. Did I delete my post? Yup. I quoted the constitution. This: (2) If he takes an Oath or makes a Declaration or Acknowledgment of Allegiance, Obedience, or Adherence to a Foreign Power, or does an Act whereby he becomes a Subject or Citizen, or entitled to the Rights or Privileges of a Subject or Citizen, of a Foreign Power: Yes, Guyser, I understand that if they are already Senators, they can maintain their dual citizenship. Thank you. Do I agree with this? No. Why is there no mention of whether the PM may have dual citizenship. He appoints senators, you would think they would mention this? (I know you are going to say the GG appoints the senate. Only on the advice of the PM. Look it up) Is it because when they wrote the law they took it for granted the PM would want to be, well, Canadian? My reasons for not agreeing with Mulcair has nothing to do with my smallc, but rather the fact I am proud to be a Canadian, and can't understand why somebody who aspires to lead this country would want citizenship with another. It turned into the normal name calling, putting others' opinions down, so it seemed useless to even argue. I thought I would just leave it for those obviously smarter than myself to worry about. So Guyser, to answer some of your questions. Who does PM ask to prorogue? Yup, GG. Who does PM ask about an election? Yup, GG Who holds the source of power to govern? Nope, not the GG. It is the PMO. You must also realize that the GG is not our head of state. The Queen is. The GG is merely a representative of the queen.. You do realize the difference between a head of state and the head of government, don't you? If you don't understand that Head of State in our case is ceremonial, you don't understand our political system circa 2015. You must also realize the GG must remain neutral in all dealings with government? Would you then not find it difficult to govern? You do know how the Statute of Westiminster 1931 and the Canada Act 1982 works, right? patriate /ˈpætrɪˌeɪt; ˈpeɪtrɪˌeɪt/ verb (transitive) 1. to bring under the authority of an autonomous country, for example as in the transfer of the Canadian constitution from UK to Canadian responsibility Anyways, Guyser, thank you for your continued rudeness and obstinacy.

You are being purposely disingenuous. The Prime Minister, as being first among equals, is elected to govern. The GG is appointed for five years in a ceremonial role. They do have prerogative powers, but only used during extreme trials and tribulations. If your position is that the GG is more powerful than the PM, I see your face palm and up you a nuclear face palm.

"Aww...since following along is hard, it states a Senator (<----that means one who ALREADY is one) cannot swear another countries allegiance. But if they already have it...so be it." And this advances your argument how? If anything, it substantiates mine. As you say, if they already have it, so be it. But, if you are going to serve, you'd better serve the ppl paying your way ie Canadians. If having dual (duel, as some of you learned ppl are wont to say) is as acceptable as you claim, why then is it forbidden? That doesn't seem right, does it?

Yes, I've directly quoted the Constitution. Sorry, you must be right because you said you are with no supporting evidence except your say so. Which is of course all you need, Oh Omnipotent One.

lol. Are you Guyser in disguise, because this is beyond ludicrous. It directly says something about their loyalty. Didn't mention the PM? Who/what are we talking about, because you've absolutely lost me if we aren't.

Oral history gave us Christianity and Islam amongst others. We've seen how well that turned out. Spot on?

You need to work in several EU countries as PM? You need this to travel in EU countries as PM? Really? I didn't realize that the PM would want to work in EU countries as a PM. I also didn't realize how difficult it would be for him to travel there. I'm glad some of you have dual citizenship. If you become PM of Canada, that is when it would be of concern to me, regardless of how "stupid and shallow" some of you may find my concern.

Your point? Do you believe David Johnston more powerful/important than Harper? How many ppl can even identify Johnston as GG.. It's very quaint that he holds parties and entertains Canada's guests. I guess for some that is where the real power lies. My point, is that if you should not have dual citizenship as a senator in Canada, then why should you be allowed as Prime Minister, the head of government in Canada. Whether this happened in 1763, 1867, 2012, or today is irrelevant to me. And please, I know we weren't a country during the Proclamation of 1763..we are just paying for it as if we were. Thank you for your interest in my Canadian knowledge. As usual, Guyser has not added one iota of intelligent contribution to anything. If you find this debate shallow and stupid it is well above your level of comprehension and intelligence level.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/royal-proclamation-of-1763/ Your post still makes no sense.

b

Jacee wrote "But as I said, the Constitution only recognizes "existing" rights: those rights existed before and would continue to exist regardless." Again, I/everybody in the world doesn't understand your logic. I don't mean to sound flippant when I say that, but you throw out many accusations of others not understanding our country, constitution, reality, that this just strikes me as hilarious. Are you stating that before the constitution, Aboriginals had a CONSTITUTIONAL right to lands? Existing rights seems legit. CONSTITUTIONAL rights would exist if there were no CONSTITUTION or if the CONSTITUTION were legally changed?

Pretty sure I've heard it a time or two. In Canada.

post

If the thrown shoe fits.

Uh, Michael, I like to point out the fact that Muslims killing innocent ppl in the name of Islam is not the result of something bad inside us, it is something bad inside Islam. Until apologists get over their pc stance and admit this, there are going to be a hell of alot more full body bags. You want to point out crusades, yes, something bad inside Christianity. Fully admit this. Who doesn't?

Just google. Allahu-Akbar. It was never in the Quran, and is stated over and over again it is a call to jihad. https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/26035713/call-for-muslim-army-in-australi a/ Some may find these vids funny. In the current state of events, I don't. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/allahu-akbar I love Family Guy, but again, I don't know about this. Very telling IMO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuGpVNVrQ-o You can find this over, and over again. A call to prayer? Yeah, maybe. Call for non-Muslim deaths..absofuckinlutely http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/12/france-muslims-in-car-screaming-allahu-akbar-mow-down-12-pedestrians https://news.vice.com/article/france-searching-for-answers-after-allahu-akbar-attacks http://shark-tank.com/2014/09/14/imam-chants-allah-akbar-during-911-memorial-at-catholic-university-in-florida/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2908147/Major-security-alert-triggered-jihadists-boasted-killed-British-soldier-amid-growing-fears-ISIS-style-attacks-UK.html