jdobbin Posted August 31, 2009 Author Report Posted August 31, 2009 This thread is a joke. When you strip away the Dobbin-style spin, it's basically titled Harper appointing Conservatives to Senate.I'm shocked I tells ya, shocked! When you strip away your reply, it shows a unhealthy infatuation with me. Quote
Shady Posted August 31, 2009 Report Posted August 31, 2009 When you strip away your reply, it shows a unhealthy infatuation with me. Not at all. It just shows how unbelievably weak your argument is. Breaking news! Harper a Conservative, is appointing Conservatives! How dare him! Quote
Smallc Posted August 31, 2009 Report Posted August 31, 2009 No, it's: Breaking news, Harper confirms he's a hypocrite. Watch me do what I said I wouldn't....again. Quote
jdobbin Posted August 31, 2009 Author Report Posted August 31, 2009 Not at all. It just shows how unbelievably weak your argument is. Breaking news! Harper a Conservative, is appointing Conservatives! How dare him! Breaking news! You can't get enough of me! The Harper Infatuation Syndrome that you have makes you overlook the hypocrisy of him doing what he accused Liberals of doing. Quote
g_bambino Posted August 31, 2009 Report Posted August 31, 2009 No, it's: Breaking news, Harper confirms he's a hypocrite. Watch me do what I said I wouldn't....again. So, then, does it boil down to: Harper made promises without the forethought to first check and see if he could actually carry through on them? (If yes, I'd believe it, given his shock when it was pointed out to him last December that he wasn't President of Canada.) Quote
Smallc Posted August 31, 2009 Report Posted August 31, 2009 I would say that's the bulk of the situation. It's similar to certain promises on income trusts as well as promises (while he was in opposition) dealing with the removal of the GST on gasoline over $0.85. He was forced to say, in the words of Cledus Delroy Spuckler: "I can't. I-I simply can't." Quote
Mr.Canada Posted August 31, 2009 Report Posted August 31, 2009 (edited) Yeah Harper should have appointed some OCAP terrorists to the Senate what was he thinking appointing Tories/ Oh yes, he is a Tory. Wow...mind blowing stuff that. Edited August 31, 2009 by Mr.Canada Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Bryan Posted August 31, 2009 Report Posted August 31, 2009 No, it's: Breaking news, Harper confirms he's a hypocrite. Watch me do what I said I wouldn't....again. Harper very clearly warned well in advance that he WOULD appoint Senators if the provinces did not get off their butts and actually elect some. The claim that Harper has done anything even remotely untoward here is not just hyper-partisan, it's deliberately dishonest. Quote
Smallc Posted August 31, 2009 Report Posted August 31, 2009 The only people being deliberately dishonest are the people defending what is clearly an example of a broken promise. This has nothing to do with being partisan at all. Quote
madmax Posted August 31, 2009 Report Posted August 31, 2009 Interesting, if true. That would mean they want their upper house back; they abolished their Legislative Council in 1951. Good for New Zealand... LOL. Quote
jdobbin Posted August 31, 2009 Author Report Posted August 31, 2009 Harper very clearly warned well in advance that he WOULD appoint Senators if the provinces did not get off their butts and actually elect some. The claim that Harper has done anything even remotely untoward here is not just hyper-partisan, it's deliberately dishonest. He also said he wouldn't appoint party flacks and use the Senate as a dumping ground. Quote
Wild Bill Posted August 31, 2009 Report Posted August 31, 2009 He also said he wouldn't appoint party flacks and use the Senate as a dumping ground. I think I'm seeing a common pattern in the posts from those against Harper. Apparently, Harper is at fault because he recognized the hypocrisy and fault with the traditional ways of picking Senators but ended up having to do it the traditional way himself. Meanwhile, the Liberals are somehow a better choice because they have never had a problem with how they picked Senators. So while they may be knaves, they are superior to Harper because they are not hypocrites. I would have thought that deliberately and gleefully doing wrong is less moral than reluctantly sinning but I guess many in this thread disagree. My head is spinning. I have to sit down. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
jdobbin Posted August 31, 2009 Author Report Posted August 31, 2009 I would have thought that deliberately and gleefully doing wrong is less moral than reluctantly sinning but I guess many in this thread disagree. Look, it is Harper who said he would do things differently. This idea he has no choice is bunk. He does have a choice. Quote
Wild Bill Posted August 31, 2009 Report Posted August 31, 2009 Look, it is Harper who said he would do things differently. This idea he has no choice is bunk. He does have a choice. And as I have said many times, it is not enough to knock the other choice without giving reason as to why your own choice is better! Without being presented with a BETTER alternative simple games theory would say it makes more sense to stick with "the devil you know". Frankly, I find such argument rather juvenile! When I was small, if I was caught doing wrong one tactic I would try would be to divert my parent by pointing out something one of my brothers had done wrong. If I was lucky, the attention would shift to them and I was off the hook. Glass houses and stones, jdobbin! Attacking Liberals attacking Harper for Senate patronage is like Charles Manson calling down Jack the Ripper for being a hypocrite about it! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
jdobbin Posted August 31, 2009 Author Report Posted August 31, 2009 And as I have said many times, it is not enough to knock the other choice without giving reason as to why your own choice is better!Without being presented with a BETTER alternative simple games theory would say it makes more sense to stick with "the devil you know". It was Harper that knocked the choices the Liberals made. He said he had a better choice and well, he didn't. Frankly, I find such argument rather juvenile! When I was small, if I was caught doing wrong one tactic I would try would be to divert my parent by pointing out something one of my brothers had done wrong. If I was lucky, the attention would shift to them and I was off the hook.Glass houses and stones, jdobbin! Attacking Liberals attacking Harper for Senate patronage is like Charles Manson calling down Jack the Ripper for being a hypocrite about it! I can't help Harper being hoisted on his petard. It is your argument that is juvenile. Harper said he had a better choice and was elected on that. It is obvious that he didn't have a better choice or was unwilling to try something different. This idea that stacking the Senate will lead to reform is supportable. It will just give Harper a rubberstamp for non-constitutional legislation. This was another thing that annoyed Harper. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted August 31, 2009 Report Posted August 31, 2009 Look, it is Harper who said he would do things differently. This idea he has no choice is bunk. He does have a choice. In order to do that he'd have to change the constitution which the Liberals and NDP wouldn't allow him to do. Call up your local MP and let him/her know you'd like to have it opened up and see how fast you get the dial tone. You liberals always seem to leave out this tidbit. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
jdobbin Posted August 31, 2009 Author Report Posted August 31, 2009 In order to do that he'd have to change the constitution which the Liberals and NDP wouldn't allow him to do. So all he needs is a majority in the Senate to this? Quote
Mr.Canada Posted August 31, 2009 Report Posted August 31, 2009 So all he needs is a majority in the Senate to this? Let me get this out in the open. If it were up to you and you alone were deciding who sits in the unelected Senate you would appoint people who held opposite views to your own? This is what you're seem to be expecting the PM to do. If any PM did this they'd be turfed out very quickly. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
jdobbin Posted August 31, 2009 Author Report Posted August 31, 2009 Let me get this out in the open. If it were up to you and you alone were deciding who sits in the unelected Senate you would appoint people who held opposite views to your own? This is what you're seem to be expecting the PM to do.If any PM did this they'd be turfed out very quickly. It isn't what I said I would do, it is what Harper said he would do. He said he would not make the Senate a dumping ground. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted August 31, 2009 Report Posted August 31, 2009 It isn't what I said I would do, it is what Harper said he would do. He said he would not make the Senate a dumping ground. So I guess you're saying that you WOULD continue to stack the Senate with partisan appointments. Quote Back to Basics
Mr.Canada Posted August 31, 2009 Report Posted August 31, 2009 It isn't what I said I would do, it is what Harper said he would do. He said he would not make the Senate a dumping ground. He cannot change the Senate without someone another parties support. Until he gets a majority then he can change it, I'm sure you know this so I don't understand why you insist on constantly playing these games. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
jdobbin Posted August 31, 2009 Author Report Posted August 31, 2009 (edited) So I guess you're saying that you WOULD continue to stack the Senate with partisan appointments. The Senate is set up for party politics. Barring abolition which I don't think will happen based on the problems of the amending formula, I would select people to ensure the best ensure that passage of well written legislation. That usually requires people with political experience of some sort. I certainly wouldn't say, as Harper did, that I wouldn't appoint certain people and then go ahead and do just that. I know that he trying to sell this as reform by indicating and that all he needs is a majority to bring term limits but I don't find that supportable based on what we know of the Constitution. In short, you can't force people out in eight years because it requires an amendment that provinces must support. I can easily see Tory appointed Senators now saying they won't step down later on. Edited August 31, 2009 by jdobbin Quote
jdobbin Posted August 31, 2009 Author Report Posted August 31, 2009 He cannot change the Senate without someone another parties support. Until he gets a majority then he can change it, I'm sure you know this so I don't understand why you insist on constantly playing these games. He cannot change the Senate unless he gets the provinces to agree which they do not. Please read your Constitution. He can't force elections, term limits or equal representation without the provinces agreeing. If you suggesting he can, then you are mistaken. Quote
Dave_ON Posted August 31, 2009 Report Posted August 31, 2009 This is not a surprising move by Mr. Harper in the least. Do I fault him for making patronage appointments even though he said he wouldn't do that? No I don't. The difference between the CPC and the LPC is that the LPC never pretended to be something that they weren't, in the CPC's case reformers. This pseudo 8 year term Harper has placed on his appointees carries as much constitutional clout as his sham of a fixed election date law. Neither can be enforced as both are counter manned by measures enshrined in the constitution. All Harper has done is given the appearance of senate reform, which by far and in large is a non-issue for most Canadians. Say what you will, the senate is not going to change nor will it be abolished in the foreseeable future. Mr. Harper needs to try a new tactic and be up front with us. Say you tried reform and it failed so you're going to maintain the status quo. Then again I'm far too cynical to expect honesty from a politician. Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
Keepitsimple Posted August 31, 2009 Report Posted August 31, 2009 The Senate is set up for party politics.Barring abolition which I don't think will happen based on the problems of the amending formula, I would select people to ensure the best ensure that passage of well written legislation. That usually requires people with political experience of some sort. Just so I clearly understand - these people with political experience - you would choose Liberals? Quote Back to Basics
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.