punked Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 So your are admitting that the whole thing is totally corrupt - and you are willing to continue to participate? Not much for your character. Do you really believe that this corrupt and insidous elite will reward you? There is a primary rule amongst the rulers - If you can not remain loyal to your own country men - then how the hell are will you ever be truely loyal to your crimminal bosses...they loath your type. I think the Senate needs to die off, I toe the NDP party line on most issues. I was saying that what you said relates to nothing in this thread. Quote
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 Yeah. The Conservatives should leave the seats empty. This way when the Liberals get back into power, they can add even more Red to the Upper House. Quote
jdobbin Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 Yeah. The Conservatives should leave the seats empty. This way when the Liberals get back into power, they can add even more Red to the Upper House. Excellent idea. Quote
punked Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 Yeah. The Conservatives should leave the seats empty. This way when the Liberals get back into power, they can add even more Red to the Upper House. Jesus get past it, Harper promised reform. He didn't give us that. He told me saving 30 million in public financing would save Canada well 9 million might be a good start to that. LET THE SENATE DIE ALREADY. Look thing this something where you Cons on the right and us NDP on the left can agree and now we can leave the middle to suck it. Quote
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 (edited) Who are you calling "you Cons"? Regardless... Stephen Harper doesn't have the ability to reform the senate single-handedly. Edited December 13, 2008 by cybercoma Quote
punked Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 Who are you calling "you Cons"?Regardless... Stephen Harper doesn't have the ability to reform the senate single-handedly. He has the backing of both his party and NDP if he is willing to get ride of it. That is a Majority. Plus the only thing he has to do is wait it out. I think he might have a year left in him. So right now he should wait it out. 9 million to a body he does not like or support seems a bit sketchy. You guys keep coming up with excusing as to why he is doing the right thing making appointments and we all know he isn't. The Liberals might think he is doing the right thing, or the smart thing. Come on this is something I can get behind he needs to move to get ride of it. Quote
noahbody Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 He has the backing of both his party and NDP if he is willing to get ride of it. But not the senate. Quote
punked Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 But not the senate. Who cares then he should wait until all the seats are given up, or he should wait for a majority and then pass reform through quickly. Screw costing us 9 million on these senators and another 9 million on the next batch and so on. Quote
Smallc Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 Who cares then he should wait until all the seats are given up, I don't think parliament can legally work that way. Quote
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 Regardless, we're back to the point that the senate will be filled with Liberals if they did that. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 Harper could save us 9 million and more by not filling them, if that 30 million was sooooo important in the economic update why is this different?I trust the NDP on this one they don't got any horses in the race. I see so if Harper doesn't fill them you expect the Liberal, NDP,Bloc coalition not to fill them either? Give me a break. The Senate will be filled not matter what. The sitting PM decides who sits in those seats. I don't remember hearing you complain when Paul Martin filled many seats. This is just more partisanship. I repeat, those seats will be filled no matter what. The Liberal, NDP, Bloc coalition would fill them in a hurry if tey were in power but of coarse that would be fine with you right? Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Mr.Canada Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 Instead of appointing more useless party hacks to that retirement home in Ottawa, they should either completely abolish the Senate or elect it's members through equal representation from each province and territory, to specific terms in office, and to term limits. Politicians both federal and provincial should also be subject to term limits. You mean now that it appears that for the first time in 40 years it's looking like we'll have a Tory controlled Senate in a few years, so lets abolish it instead. Right? Liberals will stop at nothing to gain power will they. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
punked Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 I see so if Harper doesn't fill them you expect the Liberal, NDP,Bloc coalition not to fill them either? Give me a break. The Senate will be filled not matter what. The sitting PM decides who sits in those seats. I don't remember hearing you complain when Paul Martin filled many seats. This is just more partisanship.I repeat, those seats will be filled no matter what. The Liberal, NDP, Bloc coalition would fill them in a hurry if tey were in power but of coarse that would be fine with you right? I SAY IT AGAIN THE NDP DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE SENATE. So no I do not think the NDP will appoint anyone. Plus the if Harper actually works with the other parties the coalition is dead. Iggy already told us this. Keep demonizing the coalition and you lose Quebec forever BTW. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 (edited) I SAY IT AGAIN THE NDP DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE SENATE. So no I do not think the NDP will appoint anyone. Plus the if Harper actually works with the other parties the coalition is dead. Iggy already told us this. Keep demonizing the coalition and you lose Quebec forever BTW. Totally and utterly false. Harpers numbers are rising in Quebec with the federalists. Your above statement is a complete myth based on fantasy. Edited December 13, 2008 by Mr.Canada Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Smallc Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 The sitting PM decides who sits in those seats. Yes, and there wouldn't be a problem with it except for the fact that Harper is breaking yet another promise. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 (edited) Yes, and there wouldn't be a problem with it except for the fact that Harper is breaking yet another promise. He promised senate reform. How do you propose he do that with a Liberal controlled Senate? In case you didn't know, the Senate is the body that passes the laws and bills. It will get defeated every time without a Tory controlled Senate. Once the Senate is Tory controlled then he can start to make changes. DOn't just repeat you last post either smallc. I want to hear how he can change the senate that is Liberal controlled right now and get the Senate reform bills passed. Please tell us. Edited December 13, 2008 by Mr.Canada Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
ToadBrother Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 You mean now that it appears that for the first time in 40 years it's looking like we'll have a Tory controlled Senate in a few years, so lets abolish it instead. Right?Liberals will stop at nothing to gain power will they. All this talk of abolishing, wherever it's coming from is ludicrous. That would require a constitutional amendment, and that's about as likely to happen as pigs flying. Quote
Smallc Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 It's another stupid promise that he can't keep. He knew that the senate was Liberal controlled, and so he shouldn't have promised not to appoint any more senators when he should have known that he would probably have to. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 It's another stupid promise that he can't keep. He knew that the senate was Liberal controlled, and so he shouldn't have promised not to appoint any more senators when he should have known that he would probably have to. Yep, he tried to get some measures passed but they were defeated by the Liberals so the next best thing to do is to stack the Senate with Tories til they control it, then make some changes. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Smallc Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 Yep, he tried to get some measures passed but they were defeated by the Liberals so the next best thing to do is to stack the Senate with Tories til they control it, then make some changes. Yeah, and he's being a hypocrite. Quote
Topaz Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 The PM has the right to appoint senators and fully they will be equal men and women from all back gounds and they do need them because they can't get all the committee meeting done because they are short senators BTW, did you know that Paul Martin picked a PC for the senate? Huey Segal. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 Yeah, and he's being a hypocrite. So he should leave them open for King Ignatieff and the Separtist Bloc to pick Liberals to fill the spots right? Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Smallc Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 So he should leave them open for King Ignatieff and the Separtist Bloc to pick Liberals to fill the spots right? I don't have a problem with him appointing senators. I do have a problem with him going back on his word....over...and over...and over. If he can't keep promises, he shouldn't make them...that goes for all of them. They really shouldn't be making promises. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 I don't have a problem with him appointing senators. I do have a problem with him going back on his word....over...and over...and over. If he can't keep promises, he shouldn't make them...that goes for all of them. They really shouldn't be making promises. Harper tried to get the bills passed. Dion said he would never enter a coalition with the NDP. He did. Chretien said he'd scrap the GST in 1993. He didn't. Politicians lie all the time, that's how it goes. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Smallc Posted December 13, 2008 Report Posted December 13, 2008 Chretien said he'd scrap the GST in 1993. He didn't. Not really what he said, although he wasn't able to keep the promise that he was making either. He wanted to get every province on the HST, but many wouldn't agree to it. Anyway, Harper never should have said what he did as many times as he did. it makes him look like a liar. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.