madmax Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 Vitriol it is, then. If it doesn't pass the acid test it has no strength. A lapped thread doesn't hold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 Because his party will guarantee his income from other sources, that's why! Harper moves his bagman and party hacks into the Senate and gets them off the Conservative Party payroll and onto the public payroll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 The real reason why the CPC appointed so many hacks. A top Conservative strategist, speaking on background, dismissed public backlash to the Senate appointments "I just don't think people care," Because they can.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 No surprise here, always knew Harper was a LIAR and a hypocrite. MAYBE HE WILL GIVE HIS NON-POLITICAL ILLITERATE BUDDY A CABINET POSITION? He has already shown that he has no problem using unelected hacks in his cabinet. Time to throw this piece of blue shit out on his ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 Even the Globe & Mail supports what Harper is trying to do for heaven's sake. Here's some of what they had to say in their editorial which was in print and also online: Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister, was right to fill nine vacancies in the Senate yesterday, though he should also work harder toward making it into an elected chamber. The Senate is in any case part of the Canadian form of government. The Constitution established, and continues to require, a bicameral Parliament. The Senate should be enabled to function, not left to wither away......snip..... Complaints about cronyism and “Harpocrisy” in these appointments are misplaced; party allegiance is no disqualification. The opposition should instead work co-operatively with the Conservatives toward an elected Senate. Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinio...article1267551/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 No surprise here, always knew Harper was a LIAR and a hypocrite. MAYBE HE WILL GIVE HIS NON-POLITICAL ILLITERATE BUDDY A CABINET POSITION? He has already shown that he has no problem using unelected hacks in his cabinet. Time to throw this piece of blue shit out on his ass. Yeah, so the other guys can go back to putting THEIR hacks into the Senate! Same old, same old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 I guess they're OK with Hypocrisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 I guess they're OK with Hypocrisy. As ok with it as you and the liberals are. BTW you should be tickled pick with Harpers ambassador to the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 Harper made an excellent choice for US Ambassador and a couple of the Senators too. It's the hypocrisy of appointing party hacks that I have a problem with. Polls show that a majority in all provinces want an elected Senate (even if I don't see the benefit). I don't know what's stopping Harper from getting the Constitutional change that required....or even trying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 Harper made an excellent choice for US Ambassador and a couple of the Senators too. It's the hypocrisy of appointing party hacks that I have a problem with.Polls show that a majority in all provinces want an elected Senate (even if I don't see the benefit). I don't know what's stopping Harper from getting the Constitutional change that required....or even trying. You don't remeber what happened the last time constitution was opened do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 Harper made an excellent choice for US Ambassador and a couple of the Senators too. It's the hypocrisy of appointing party hacks that I have a problem with.Polls show that a majority in all provinces want an elected Senate (even if I don't see the benefit). I don't know what's stopping Harper from getting the Constitutional change that required....or even trying. Do you not REALLY understand how difficult it is to re-open the Constitution? It's never about just one change.....it's like opening Pandora's box. So Harper has been trying to take baby steps towards Senate reform. As for party hacks, go back and read the Globe & Mail article a couple of posts back.......it doesn't mean that the Globe is right - it just means that there is another informed view that is counter to your position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 (edited) I know how difficult it is to open and change the Constitution, but there is no other way to make the change that he wants. Either do it, or suck it up. As for party hacks.....he's a hypocrite, and there's no way around that. Edited August 29, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 Of course there is another way to do it! It just takes a little integrity. Harper can appoint whoever he wants to the senate, so the constitution say. He can appoint the folks that the provinces tell him to. He can appoint the people that provincial citizens decide through democratic process. The fact that he does not speaks volumes doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 Yes, he's a giant hypocrite. But what I'm talking about is the lasting change that he says he wants. There's only one way to achieve that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted August 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 Do you not REALLY understand how difficult it is to re-open the Constitution? It's never about just one change.....it's like opening Pandora's box. So Harper has been trying to take baby steps towards Senate reform. As for party hacks, go back and read the Globe & Mail article a couple of posts back.......it doesn't mean that the Globe is right - it just means that there is another informed view that is counter to your position. Without Constitutional change, the term limits Harper has said his appointments will serve is unenforceable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted August 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 (edited) BTW you should be tickled pick with Harpers ambassador to the US. Mulroney picked Stephen Lewis to be his U.N. ambassador. It doesn't mean that he didn't make many other appointmernts of party faithful. Likewise, Harper appointing Doer shouldn't shade the fact that top people from Harper's office who have been rewarded a Senate seat. Edited August 29, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 He can appoint the folks that the provinces tell him to. He can appoint the people that provincial citizens decide through democratic process.The fact that he does not speaks volumes doesn't it? The provinces can't be forced to hold senatorial elections. The fact that only one has ever bothered to try speaks volumes, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 It does, doesn't it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 Without Constitutional change, the term limits Harper has said his appointments will serve is unenforceable. Keep in mind that term limits would grandfather the current 75 year retirement for sitting Senators and new Senators would be giving their word that they would step down after 8 years. Knowing that, what do you think the public opinion would be if the Senate voted in favour of such term limits followed by this scenario: the Conservative appointees keep their word and start to step down after 8 years, and a Liberal Senator declines to do so? It's not too difficult to imagine the outrage.....and that's why even without a Constitutional ammendment, term limits could be effectively established. And that would be Step 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 Without Constitutional change, the term limits Harper has said his appointments will serve is unenforceable. Which is why he specifically had to put people in those positions who are party faithful that he can trust. Unless and until senate reform happens, the best he can do right now is appoint people who believe in reform, and agree to conditions that he can't actually force them to uphold. If the Provinces elect senators, he'll appoint them. He's done it before, and he's made it very clear to the provinces that if they don't elect senators, he will appoint them. Anyone calling these appointments anything other than a pragmatic move is an idiot in my books. "He's a hypocrite!" "He's a hypocrite!" . Great. So what should he have done with a minority parliament, vacant seats, no elected senators in waiting, and a red chamber vehemently opposed to reform? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 He shouldn't have promised not to do something and then done it multiple times. It's not the first promise he's had to break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 Keep in mind that term limits Again, term limits are a terrible idea given the current appointment system. They allow a single government to stack the house after 8 years. It's a terrible idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 It does, doesn't it. Yes it does. It means the sheeple of the rest of the nation can't see the political reality of the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 What political reality is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 29, 2009 Report Share Posted August 29, 2009 Keep in mind that term limits would grandfather the current 75 year retirement for sitting Senators and new Senators would be giving their word that they would step down after 8 years. It wouldn't grandfather anything. The age 75 limit is set by the constitution. No 8 year word-of-honour agreement will trump that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.