Moonbox

In his case things were too far along to ignore it and it was about something Canadians cared about: Money. He couldn't ignore it or sweep it aside because it was pretty much the sole focus of federal politics at the time. Clearly it didn't work out for him but things were going down the shitter either way for him and most of the fault lay elsewhere. Being oblivious was his problem.

The polls at the time showed most were strongly against the coalition, regardless of whether they liked Stephen Harper, which is completely irrelevant. If they didn't want Stephen Harper as PM, they should have voted accordingly. The system is the way it is, and it works better than most. The solution, therefore, is for those people to vote smarter and whine less.

delete please double post

Everyone leans a certain way. I've been posting here awhile and reading your posts for awhile gives every indication that you've got beef with the CPC. I don't care who you support. Parliament is the boss, sure, but only within the framework we've given the system to operate. We have a party-based system with a prime-minister and that's a fact and pretty pointless to argue. YOU say what Harper did was an abuse of power but you haven't been able to given us a compelling argument as to why. The GG didn't think so and that MIGHT have had something to do with the results of a VERY recent election and the onset of a serious recession. As it turns out, the Canadian public CLEARLY agreed with her. I don't know about you, but stalling an EXTREMELY big decision in parliament and letting things settle down for the public to mull over and make their feelings heard doesn't sound like an abuse of power to me. The truly telling part of this is how even the opposition and coalition agreed. Your argument seems to be for some incomprehensibly silly reason that it was a usurpation of democracy for Harper to use an established tool of government to stall something that the majority of Canadians CLEARLY didn't want. Let the will of the People NOT be heard right???? I didn't bother because I didn't care and you haven't convinced anyone why it matters. Like I said, your arbitrary standards for when it is and isn't okay to prorogue are as meaningless as they are unjustified by your arguments. Use your brain. That's a pretty dumb conclusion. It fell apart because it was a dumb idea and Ignatieff, a good number of Liberals (Bob Rae not included) as well as the majority of Canadians wanted nothing to do with it. Sharing power with the Bloc and NDP was obviously the problem, since that's what everyone didn't like and that's what the coalition was all about LOL. If it was simply a matter of Dion then there's been ample opportunity since to give it another go. Sadly for you, there's been no takers, again for obvious reasons.

You're probably right, and like I said I could care less what the Afghans do to their own, but the amateur lies and half-assed cover-ups just make things look worse. People have chosen to make a stink about it. Now what's the government to do about it?

Unfortunately for you Toadbrother, not everyone holds your standards for when proroguing is acceptable. You've chosen a confidence motion as the standard for when proroguing should not be allowed, and that seems to stem from a partisan dislike for the Tories rather than based on any reasonable argument. Democracy and the workings of government were not usurped and upended. All proroguing does is delay. Harper doesn't have the ability to stop a confidence motion and if Parliament wanted him out he'd be removed. Your indignation and seemingly personal issues with the CPC don't change that. Proroguing, IMO, is a contemptable abuse of power, and virtually every one of its uses have been for personal/political gain. Bob Rae did it 3 times in one term. Chretien did it 4 times. Go back and you have a long list of Canadian politicians who have flipped us all the bird and gone on vacation for variously convenient reasons. Trying to tell us that Harper's use of this power was PARTICULARLY sinister and should be set apart from the rest simply because it allowed him to DELAY a confidence vote for a short time is pretty flimsy ground to stand on. Nothing was stopping the coalition from forming after parliament resumed last year other than public opinion, which I'd say is probably a better reason than any for it to have not happened. LoL. My thoughts exactly.

He didn't avoid the confidence motion. He delayed. That's ALL he did. He gave the opposition time to sober up and for the Canadian public to digest how they felt about it. It turned out they didn't even want to table a confidence motion. Ho hum. That's nice, but that's what the title of the thread implies that we're talking about.

People have short memories. Even if problems began under the Liberals, most people would blame the government in power now. Regardless, one concern I sincerely do have with Harper's government is its secrecy about everything and its ineptitude on things like this. Far better to launch an inquiry and say, "This is unacceptable and we're going to change it," rather than pretend it doesn't happen and try to convince everyone it doesn't happen. Personally, I couldn't care less what Afghani police do with their prisoners, but I don't appreciate being lied to about it and I DO care about that.

LoL. I think you're failing to see the irony here. He calls you out for throwing childish, thoughtless insults around and you respond by calling him an idiot. Brilliant Right...nothing going on anymore. There's no possibility whatsoever that this has anything to do with the HST or bi-elections right? None at all? Oh my god *facepalm*. Politics is ALWAYS partisan. Realistically, there's never a reason to prorogue. We elect our officials to govern, not to go on vacation for months at a time. It wasn't right for Harper to do it, or McGuinty. You're calling opposing views partisan, and at the same time you're flat out dismissing the possibility that McGuinty prorogued for politically convenient reasons himself. I've yet to see one from you on this board...like ever. HAHAHAHA. We raise the possibility that there is a significant media bias and double standard, and thus we are poorly educated. This is getting so good. Forgive me, but I'd love to know how far your education extends. Given the childish insults, the unfailing consistency of your partisanship on this board, and your wet-noodle grasp of logic, I'm suspecting your education was rather brief. Such a solid, unassailable claim: "You can't argue against me because I'm right and therefore there's no good argument against me because I'm right." For someone with such profound intellect and higher education, I'm saddened that you haven't been able to put it to good use. Maybe you're just a late bloomer?

Dude, it's not pathetic to bring up another side of the story. Basically everything you post on this forum is anti-Harper, regardless of what we're talking about. Talk about being a drone. If you're going to criticize proroguation, do so with a fair perspective. There's a long history of unnecessarily prorogued governments. You've chosen to focus solely on those executed by a party you clearly dislike and seem to take fairly personal. Hmmm... Harper proroguing last January was a delaying tactic that helped him call the opposition's bluff. Honestly, the coalition was a bad idea, especially at the onset of a recession. The Liberals would have cooked themselves and the time off helped THEM realize that.

He seemed like a forum troll to me the minute he started posting here. Sometimes I wonder if he's really as dumb as his posts are though....

An interesting take on things. I never really thought of this myself. Having Quebec set its own standards in this regard is incredibly dumb but we'll see how it pans out.

Can we get this clown banned already?

Oh okay good. Carry on then.

I'm surprised nobody has commented on the fact that this guy has absolutely no clue as to how government borrowing works.

My god. Are you taking up Jdobbin's torch? Get a life.

It was four times. He also had a majority at the time. This might have already been discussed but it seems that the precedent was established long ago and it's kind of funny seeing the Liberals frothing at the mouths over this...

Ya no kidding. What the f is this guy smoking?

The birth rate is certainly a problem. Bringing productive immigrants to Canada is a potential solution. Bringing unproductive, useless leeches on society is unfortunately NOT a solution, and there's enough evidence out there to support the possibility that our immigration policies are much too generous. The unemployment rate for new immigrants in Canada is something like twice as high as it is for native Canadians. That in itself is pretty damning.

That'd be a joke if it's true. I hope Albertans would start lynching people.

I'd like that question answered.

Regardless of whether or not Argus is making blanket statements, should we not be making sure that new immigrants to Canada have some worthwhile qualifications? I don't care if they're PhD's. Plumbers, electricians and trained construction workers and manufacturers would be fine with me as well. What I don't like is the 'family reunification' programs, which bring refugees and immigrants here simply because they already have family. We need immigrants in this country, it's a fact, but we need ones that have proven they're hard working and willing to contribute. You might revile Argus for saying Haitian or Jamaican immigrants are generally undesirable, but there's something to be said for that. What do you think would be the results if we compared the percentage of Chinese immigrants on pogie to the percentage of Haitians?

Like I said, these things are good for some and bad for others. A lower dollar is good for exporters but bad for importers and consumers. The opposite is true as well, although prices are a bit stickier on the way down. No need to teach me economics 101. I get it.

The more I read the more I'm sure that everyone is just getting trolled/baited. That's actually pretty funny....