Moonbox

Nice try, except you don't need to prorogue to give another Throne Speech or set a new agenda. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here.

Yes, that's generally how things work. People with no money can't buy things. Oh dear.... Rental costs may be on par with 35 year mortgages, but that's pretty irrelevant. The problem is that most people who can't afford a down payment also can't give a compelling reason for a bank to lend them the money. If you haven't been able to save any sort of down payment, its also quite likely that your financial situation is pretty unsecure. Nope. That just means they might have to demonstrate the ability to save up a down payment beyond 5%. If you knew anything about banking or underwriting, or if you ever had to ask for the keys to someone's house, you'd know why. Guess what demographic faces the highest percentage of foreclosures? the poor. Guess why? Because they couldn't afford it in the first place. Haha. More like it's preventing the poor from being pushed into bad situations that they've already shown they can't afford.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you couldn't do anything without a formal agenda. Parliament has always functioned within the agenda and never added anything or subtracted anything in between...that's how you're saying it is, right? Here's an idea...crazy as it may be: Give another Throne Speech and set a new agenda at the end of the previous one. I wish it worked that way in the real world. "Sir I met my target for the year yesterday. I'm going to take the rest of the year off with pay. Thanks."

That's about how I feel Shady. The job security, benefits and pension of federal civil servants are generally far beyond that which similarly qualified people get in the private sector. I'll vote for anyone who's looking to cut expenses and deal tough with those people.

Parliament would remain in session until either an election or recess. WOW! That was hard to answer wasn't it!?!?!?

I wasn't talking about Zimbabwe either. I was talking about us and those same neighbours. Prorogation is not at all necessary. Life would go on in Canada without it.

I think you missed my sarcasm in my last post... It's only because the government chooses to not have enough to do. Parliament isn't an assembly line, and we NEVER run out of problems to look after. Multiple nations' governments also swindle their people for millions and go soft of corruption. The fact that other governments do it is hardly a point for its legitimacy.

So...the free-market fundamentalists are in cahoots with the socialists. Scary....

LOL...So THAT'S what proroguing is for. Now I get it! Thanks Smallc! What would I do without you!?!? I'm sure everyone could use an extra month or so of paid time off at the end of the year for some deep soul searching. The rest of us, however, seem to get by without it. Funny that....

I'm pretty much done arguing on this thread as we're just going to keep repeating ourselves. To me it seems that you take particular exception to this because Harper did it and you've made it clear you have issues with him. As for the precedent that you 'think' has been established, and its potential to derail Canadian democracy, that's based on some bad assumptions. I've listed above how silly I think your scenarios are and I won't bother repeating it again. I'd be happier to see an end to proroguing altogether as I think it shows blatant contempt for voters, but that's just my opinion.

I lol'd

Yeah...that had everything to do with Chretien, and nothing to do with the fact that Montreal wanted nothing to do with seperation....

Okay. It's just as likely however, that the GG would have dissolved parliament and we would have gone to our second election, which could very like have ended up with a CPC majority. Either way, you still haven't convinced me on the dangerous precedent. The circumstances of the boondoggle last year were unsual in numerous ways. First, it was immediately after an election that gave the current gov't a stronger mandate than it had last time. Second, it was at the onset of a recession. The governor general is there to prevent the scenarios you are throwing at us. I know the role is largely symbolic, but there are potential exceptions. If not, what's the point in having her at all?

Any modelling back that far is based on giant assumptions. Our data even the last few hundred years is AT BEST testimonial, disregarding the last century or so. Core samples etc tell us very little. There are plenty of things we have no way of understanding about what the world was like 1000's of years ago and thus any 'modelling' done going backwards are based on tremendous assumptions. Total rubbish. Climate science is still in its infancy and we know very little. We have trouble predicting weather from one day to another. That's pretty telling of our ability to predict long term climate phenomena. For good reasons. Particularly in the way mainstream media and asshats like Al Gore have mobilized the masses through sensationalism and fear-mongering.

The problem is that the 'scientists' haven't been able to explain or predict any of the outside variables. They can't even really explain why temperatures cooled in the 60's and 70's. If they can't explain that, how can they explain the natural factors, and what significance they play, in the warming over the last decade and a half??? My point is that their 'models' are based on fantasy and assumptions. They don't even understand the data they're putting in, so how can we expect them to make accurate predictions and models? The scientists don't understand solar output, ocean currents, weather, the relation of Co2 to plants and their robustness and innumerable other factors. The globe was something like 10 degrees colder 6000 years ago than it is today. The 10-15 years of Global Warming data, and the amount the planet has warmed since then, is statistically insignificant. We don't know enough to make huge decisions. The matter obviously deserves plenty of attention and further research as none of us want our kids living in a wasteland, but things like Copenhagen are blatant abuses of people's fears and ignorance.

They really didn't. There was no chance whatsoever that a party with (77?) seats in the house would even come close. They would have needed the cooperation of ALL three opposition parties to keep government afloat, which meant a coalition.

double post

Face, meet palm. There's plenty of evidence supporting the growth of Antarctic ice. There's also plenty of evidence showing the world hasn't really warmed at all in the last few years. These facts aren't even in dispute. Do yourself a favor next time and spend the 30 seconds necessary on Google before you make yourself look like an idiot again. Half the issue people have with Global Warming theory are the rabid zealots who start wetting themselves if anyone so much as QUESTIONS canonical GW theory. It's as if people aren't allowed to use their brains in this matter. Maybe that's why so many flock towards the cause? LoL Interesting how you've decided an 8 year time frame is insignificant, but the 10 year one from NASA is? Also, the Earth has warmed and cooled on ~30-40 year cycles for as long as temperatures have been recorded. The 1920's-1950's were significantly warmer than the 50's to the late 80's. Back in the 70's temperatures cooled and 'scientists' were telling us we were headed for an ice age Since the late 80's we've started warming up again, and not even very quickly at that. There are cycles, both long (hundreds or thousands of years) and short (decades) at work here that we can't simply explain by Co2 emissions alone, and thus it's worth questioning what factor they're playing.

Jean's role in this regard is to ensure parliament functions properly. She has the power to make it happen. If Harper was doing this merely to stall an inevitable confidence motion then that WOULD have threatened the operation of government. As it turned out, the coalition was a poorly thought-out mess and to have allowed the government to fall WOULD have threatened the operation of government. We would have either ended up with a brain-dead coalition that would have operated by committee (generally works out poorely) and would have fallen within months. Either that or we would have gone back to the polls a couple months after the election. I understand that the GG almost ALWAYS follows the PM's advice and that the BP system and common law operate on a great deal of precedence. That being said, however, our systems also operate on common sense. Last January, things worked out the way they should have. You can go on and on about how Harper abused the political system for his own gain blah blah whine whine, but the coalition in and of itself was a terrible idea put together by a bunch of self-interested morons (particularly Dion).

This article mirrored my thoughts exactly. It's refreshing to see it from a newspaper I don't normally take too seriously. Maybe there are intelligent human beings there after all.

It's not you, it's me. I was beyond slow last night I guess. I meant to refer to eyeball's post. Meh.

Don't be stupid. She was already considering it well before the confidence motion was going to be tabled. If you and I were considering it, you can be damn sure the GG was too. Being an intelligent and thoughtful person, she considered her 'potential' options in advance. One was to allow Harper to prorogue and let the opposition wake the f up. If not, option 2 was to refuse and allow the non-confidence to go through. Next she either had to refuse their offer to form a coalition or accept it. Neither of those two were good options by pretty much any standards save the NDP's and Bloc's. Can you see my eyes rolling? Some people don't seem to be able to argue within the framework of rational human behaviour, such as the above.

Well there's your bias then. Totally false. If she felt that the coalition could have formed a working government she could have allowed it. We both know that wasn't the case. The government hadn't lost confidence. If it had then they would have been voted out at the resumption of parliament. The GG wouldn't have allowed Harper to prorogue if it was clear that the government would just collapse after the fact. She chose what she felt was the better option. Your argument is based PURELY on the fact that you don't like Harper. If in your make believe situation we had a truly terrible minority government that was hell-bent on Canada's destruction, the Governor General would not allow them to prorogue. There. Problem solved. There's nothing unconstitutional about what he did. That's you being butt-hurt and not liking it. Nothing else. No dangerous precedent has been set. All that happened last January was an idiotic idea was brought to the table by Dion that mostly just the Bloc and NDP wanted anything to do with. The Governor General agreed that it was a stupid idea. Canada agreed it was a stupid idea. This is a perfect example of the system WORKING. Your scenarios of doom are based on the assumption that the GG, the Senate and the House would all be drooling while everything unfolded. It wouldn't. Your argument isn't making sense and it appears to be because you REALLY don't like Harper. I don't like him either. We can have a Harper hate party. Let's hope someone better comes along to replace him yes? (Not Ignatieff though) You're missing something here. The coalition was Dion and Bob Rae's baby. They came up with the idea. It's completely irrelevant that the Liberals weren't happy about it. Most of Parliament and Canada wasn't either. The GG prevented an idiot from taking over government with an NDP, Bloc and Liberal cabinet. It would have been the biggest mess in Canadian political history. I think Ignatieff will take what he can get right now. He was prepared to bring down the government in the fall over EI reform remember? The polls weren't showing him anywhere near majority territory then. It was only when he realized that he was polling around Dion's numbers because of the issue that he backed down.

Haha I was just kidding. Very wordy post though

Well I guess we agree then? Either way, I'll leave it to the politicians to interpret the polls, and the opposition at the time clearly didn't like what was cookin'