PM to appoint Tory insiders to Senate

[g_bambino]

The Constitution was created during a depression by Trudeau.

What Trudeau and what depression was there in 1867?

[g_bambino]

I have no problem if Harper appoints Tories. I have a problem saying that he was going to do something different or that he was unilaterally going to chance the Senate.

I don't think madmax or fellowtraveller are going to get it. They'd rather randomly gripe as a distraction from Harper's hypocricy.

_[sp.]

Edited September 2, 2009 by g_bambino

[fellowtraveller]

Explain how abolishing it will do that, ever.

You claimed the Senate was doing the work it was intended too.

Support your argument or shut yer piehole.

[lictor616]

You claimed the Senate was doing the work it was intended too.

Support your argument or shut yer piehole.

pffff woah... attitude... calm your toe down.

this isn't the 60's anymore buddy.

[nicky10013]

The Constitution was created during a depression by Trudeau. The Constitution was tinkered with by Mulroney twice, once in an upturn and once in a downturn.

Opening up the Constitution is just an ugly act. An act people would prefer to avoid, then the LOUDEST people to scream when the CPC appoints are LIBERALS and the LOUDEST people to scream when the LPC appoints are CONSERVATIVES.

You started this thread, because you wanted it to be an issue. Now you wish it to go away because you have a new set of talking points for the upcoming Election showdown.

The Economy is in a recession all on its own.

However, if we are going to open the constitution, when the shit hits the fan, Abolition will find its way to the top of the chart amongst the publice once the squabbling begins.

Traditional Liberals enjoy their patronage appointments and having the cow pasture handy for their friends. They do not like it when the Conservatives sneak in and milk it.

OF course the Liberals don't like it, but in the end, as bad as some Liberals appointments have been, at least they didn't appoint someone who is illiterate.

Anywho, as I mentioned in a previous thread, honestly, people who get tied up in "having an elected senate" are really just donkey's shilling partisan drivel without any real knowledge of our government institutions and how they work.

In the end, put term limits and make it a rule that they've got to show up while the HoC is sitting but in the end making it elected, besides the constitutional trouble opens up a can of beans. Making it an effective check on the HoC leads to getting even less done. I'd rather see it abolished rather than an elected body. Just because people are elected doesn't make it the best institution. Look at the malarky going on down south. No wonder they get nothing done, nothing can get through. In the end, we vote for the people that actually write the legislation and no one is taking that right away. Why make it worse?

[g_bambino]

Support your argument or shut yer piehole.

So, in other words, you can't. Thought so.

[madmax]

What Trudeau and what depression was there in 1867?

Yeah... typing ahead of myself. PET. And the Constitution Act of 1982

Depression. Some in the west would call that the NEP, those in the east refer to it as the 82 recession.

[madmax]

I don't think madmax or fellowtraveller are going to get it. They'd rather randomly gripe as a distraction from Harper's hypocricy.

I join jdobbin in the griping over the hypocrisy.

I have no intention of praising the Senate.