WWWTT

edited

Ya I think if I knew everything in the world I wouldn't be here right now. But it looks like that you haven't spent much time thinking about how a system that somehow overlooks the fact that allows someone to not have a seat in parliament become PM of Canada, would still have a strict definition of a term used to define which house a member of parliament would be sitting in. Lets all just forget about the fact that you have to have a seat in parliament (either house) to introduce a bill or vote ay or nay on any! Guess all that strict rules stuff is left for trivial matters that make up 50% of forum traffic Thank God we got MLW regulars to tear the flesh off of anyone who steps out of line! WWWTT

I agree this is true in Canada. But referring to an senator as an MP is not wrong either, just not commonly done. You are correct in implying that I should not do it on a frequent basis cause it may lead to confusion. Maybe we can leave it at that and move on? WWWTT

Ok so let me get this straight, the PM of Canada does need not be an MP, and everyone here is cool with that. But I stumble across a minor title loophole or glitch, and several posters here on this site are taking turns ripping a pound of flesh off of me! Take all the time you need to think about that one! WWWTT

Actually I'm highlighting and debating our system. Or a minor glitch or loopholeish term/name/title I have stumbled across. Absolutely NOTHING WRONG in this debate and it is completely in line with the spirit of this forum and within context of this thread! WWWTT

LOL! You're funny buddy! Totally ignore the fact that a senator can be a minister or even a PM in Canada! Duffy has an official seat in Canada's parliament! Does the GG have the ability to introduce a bill or vote on an bill? In fact, if you are arguing that a senator IS NOT AN MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, then you are exhibiting your limited knowledge OF parliament! The distinction is that Duffy is not an elected member but an senator. Still an MP. WWWTT

Sorry but MP is short for member of parliament. Senate is still parliament. WWWTT

Ya actually this thread on MLW pretty much told me that already. But thanks for showing how ugly some Canadians can be! Most of my FB friends see her as evil and/or conservative as any other US president. WWWTT

Nope, sorry but YOU are wrong! Senator is the usual common name for MP's from the red chamber, not the categorically defined term. The term senator is a distinction that is used for MP's sitting in the senate or the upper house. Senators or MP's of the upper house have been cabinet ministers and even an PM for a short term in the past! Harper himself even appointed one as an minister! Doesn't take much to get you all fired up hey buddy! WWWTT

Still is unless he is convicted. See above. WWWTT

No sorry bro, senate is still a part of parliament therefore he is still an member of parliament or MP for short. The senate is also called the upper house of parliament. It is only traditional that members of parliament residing in the upper house are referred to as senators, and members in the lower house as MP's. But member's in the upper house are still MP's. WWWTT

And why is that? Why is violence a problem in the US? Is it the people's fault? Or is it something the government allows or even escalates? WWWTT

Deleted!

Deleted!

edited

Looks like this is going to get more and more ugly! http://newsforontarioninetyninepercent.ca/privatizing-hydro-one-will-benefit-bay-st-interests/ WWWTT

I bear NO RESPONSIBILITY for what you may think! WWWTT

Lets see some examples to back up your claim. Reasonable request, reasonable request, reasonable response to your comments. Still not an example of her debate tactic used. But just keep spewing out, over and over and over again about "oh you can't read" or "oh you're using a strawman" to avoid actually backing up your opinion. Each time you avoid, I will again ask you to provide an example to support your argument! WWWTT

Thanks for providing the link! Little more info does help. WWWTT

Yes we are in agreement. I asked for examples from him are where to support his claim of Rachel's use of debate material is considered weak. Interest and a strong work ethic MUST exist within the subject to pursue and endure to become an accomplished master. Regardless of the discipline! These core values by my definition can be/are naturally existing. Perhaps my use of the word "natural" is misinterpreted? WWWTT

This comment isn't an example of what you claim. Once again, how about posting an example of how her debating strategy makes her a weak politician. WWWTT

LOL! You like avoiding giving Rachel any credit hey. You commented or rather discredited her strong performance as a debater. Back it up with some examples or you're just spewing UNSUBSTANTIATED opinion! WWWTT

Ya you're going to have to start posting some examples of what you are talking about to substantiate your opinion. WWWTT