Harper's 2008 election call to be challenged

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The experiment is failing dude. Do you really think that citizens are happy? Do you think they want this election? Do you think that citizens are happy with the political parties we have?

You are very idealistic, that is both to be expected and to be respected yet it is not a condition you will likely retain. The older you get the more pessimistic you get. That is because you get to see first hand how the system works and how much it costs to deliver what it does.

[Molly]

So... choose to elect someone who values the national interest over party interest. The ball is in the voters court.

We get the government we deserve... the one we choose.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Just keep in mind that the public places much trust in what the media says.

[Argus]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Its called a confidence vote and that is the measure.

100% cooperation from the LPC was the lame excuse Harper gave for pulling the plug. 100% cooperation wasn't good enough for him, and he pulled the plug on himself.

My recollection is Liberal "Cooperation" was something less than 100%.

[Argus]

Of course they are possible. If they were binding the parities would have no choice but come to an agreement on issues, because they couldn't use an election or the threat of one as an out. Our present system abuses the public and its wallet because it doesn't force our representatives to reach compromise.

Idiocy.

You cannot force people to "come to an agreement."

When the government wants to so something, and the opposition says no, then it doesn't get done. Plain and simple. Too much of that and you have a government which can't get anything done. You want that to go on for four years until another election?

[Wilber]

Idiocy.

You cannot force people to "come to an agreement."

When the government wants to so something, and the opposition says no, then it doesn't get done. Plain and simple. Too much of that and you have a government which can't get anything done. You want that to go on for four years until another election?

Is this the way you run your life? If you take away the threat to force an election from both sides, that dog won't hunt. Sorry boys and girls, you are stuck with each other for four years so act like adults and deal with it. Kind of like life.

When people ask for our vote and are elected to represent us, that is a contract. I expect contracts to be honoured, not spend half their time trying to figure out how to change the result.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Wouldn't that be nice. It is a good solution for our current problems, take away the non-confidence motion.

[g_bambino]

Actually the Fathers of Confederation adopted a system that evolved from disputes between the British Monarchy and the British nobility. Why, because it was the only system we were allowed to adopt. A system that resulted from efforts by the nobility to protect its interests. The average joe wasn't even a consideration when the parliamentary sytem came about.

Wrong.

We can now take advantage of the experience of the last seventy-eight years during which [the US] Constitution has existed, and I am strongly in the belief that we have in a great measure avoided in this system which we propose for the adoption of the people of Canada the defects which time and events have shown to exist in the American Constitution.

I believe that while England has no desire to lose her Colonies... if the people of British North America, after full deliberation, had stated that they considered it was for their interest, for the advantage of the future British North America, to sever the tie, such is the generosity of the people of England that, whatever their desire to keep these Colonies, they would not seek to compel us to remain unwilling subjects of the British Crown. If, therefore, at the conference, we had arrived at the conclusion that it was for the interest of these Provinces that a severance should take place, I am sure that her majesty and the imperial Parliament would have sanctioned that severance.

-- John A. Macdonald, 1865,

On Canadian Confederation

[jdobbin]

My recollection is Liberal "Cooperation" was something less than 100%.

But they certainly didn't lose a confidence vote.

[g_bambino]

So all your checks come from non elected political appointees. I knew you didn't believe in democracy.

Wilber, you have a juvenile concept of democracy. Democracy does not reside solely in the ballot box; such a system leads to the tyranny of the majority that every sane constitutional framer has gone to pains to avoid. Even in the holiest shrine of democracy -- *cough* -- that is the United States, there are elements of the government that are not elected - eg. the President's Cabinet. Though it may take slightly different forms, the broad concept of democracy is a society wherein civil liberties and human rights are guaranteed, even to the point of being protected from the power of the majority of voters.

[Wilber]

Wilber, you have a juvenile concept of democracy. Democracy does not reside solely in the ballot box; such a system leads to the tyranny of the majority that every sane constitutional framer has gone to pains to avoid. Even in the holiest shrine of democracy -- *cough* -- that is the United States, there are elements of the government that are not elected - eg. the President's Cabinet. Though it may take slightly different forms, the broad concept of democracy is a society wherein civil liberties and human rights are guaranteed, even to the point of being protected from the power of the majority of voters.

I realize it doesn't reside solely in the ballot box however I don't think people realize how little of it resides in the ballot box in our society. Civil liberties and human rights are not guraranteed in our society, if they were we wouldn't have such things as human rights tribunals which regularly stomp all over peoples rights in the name of political correctness.

[Wilber]

Wrong.

How is it wrong?

[Smallc]

Civil liberties and human rights are not guraranteed in our society,

Yes they are. They simply aren't absolute, as is true of all societies.

[Wilber]

Yes they are. They simply aren't absolute, as is true of all societies.

There's double talk for ya.

[Smallc]

It's not double talk at all. There is no society with rights that are completely absolute, and ours is no exception. In the case of this country, the rights are negated only by the principles of fundamental justice. In some cases, I suppose that includes human rights tribunals.

[Wilber]

It's not double talk at all. There is no society with rights that are completely absolute, and ours is no exception. In the case of this country, the rights are negated only by the principles of fundamental justice. In some cases, I suppose that includes human rights tribunals.

Where are your rights when a politicaly appointed tribunal can deny them while bankrupting you in your attempt to defend them.

[Wilber]

I value history and tradition greatly but to assert the parliamentary system was handed to us by a bunch of great thinkers for the purpose of giving the populace control over their own governance isn't history, it's bunk.

Parliament originated as a loosely associated club composed of the ruling elite for the purpose of protecting its own members interests. Over the centuries it evolved into a quasi democratic system that allows the public to elect some of its members. Those members are then subject to the control of their own ruling elite who are chosen not by the public but the members of political parties during members only conventions. This evolution hit a brick wall in 1982 when we adopted a constitution which for all practical purposes is unamendable, regardless of how the country and mankind evolve around it. An amending formula that is much like BC's recall law, we have one but with conditions that are impossible to meet. Kind of like sentencing yourself to drive an 82 Chevy for eternity.

But don't worry be happy because Smallc says unlike our present day mortals, our pre 1983 legislators were able to see centuries into the future and allow for all contingencies.

[Smallc]

Where are your rights when a politically appointed tribunal can deny them while bankrupting you in your attempt to defend them.

This need to have everything elected goes against the exact principles of fundamental justice of which I was speaking. I don't think you understand Canada or it's government system. I can't see where you're coming from at all.

[g_bambino]

How is it wrong?

Did the quotes from our first Prime Minister not show up in my post?

[Wilber]

Did the quotes from our first Prime Minister not show up in my post?

They did but that is one man's opinion of the situation as he saw it and much of it is conjecture. A man born in Britain, raised and educated under a parliamentary system with an aversion to anything Yankee, so what do you expect. Who knows what might have happened if we had pushed for a republic.

[g_bambino]

Civil liberties and human rights are not guraranteed in our society, if they were we wouldn't have such things as human rights tribunals which regularly stomp all over peoples rights in the name of political correctness.

Oh, come now. Human creations aren't absolute, and that goes the same for the governing tenets of our societies. We have a strong tradition of human rights and liberties that has evolved over centuries since the Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights, if not the Magna Carta; you complain about how our system emerged from wrestling power away from absolute monarchs, but is that not merely the vehicle for the emergence of liberal democracy as most western nations understand it - a balance between totalitarian restriction and absolute anarchy? On top of merely the deeply rooted conventions inherited from Britain, our constitution contains written elements, à la United States, that spell out our rights and freedoms. Though these concepts are strong in our society, given the complexity of that same society, how the notions are expressed can fluctuate, and, over time, the fine line between liberty and suppression can be crossed and then returned to. Human Rights Tribunals are a travesty, I admit. But I also understand that our democracy allows for them to be studied, evaluated, and then either maintained, changed, or tossed out.

[g_bambino]

They did but that is one man's opinion of the situation as he saw it.

Yes, indeed; why would the opinion of the man who orchestrated Canada's origins be of any worth against your personal opinion?

You said the Canadians had no choice in their governmental system. John A. Macdonald's own words prove that claim to be wrong.

[Wilber]

This need to have everything elected goes against the exact principles of fundamental justice of which I was speaking. I don't think you understand Canada or it's government system. I can't see where you're coming from at all.

Tribunals that can operate outside of our legal system to deny a persons rights fly in the face of fundamental justice.

I believe I understand the system quite well. I have never maintained a need to have everything elected. All I am asking is for our elected representatives to exercise personal responsibility toward those who elected them instead of concentrating on how to change the results of the last election. I don't think that is a lot to ask.

[Smallc]

Tribunals that can operate outside of our legal system to deny a persons rights fly in the face of fundamental justice.

I am not all that big a fan of the tribunals either, but I don't think it's much more than an opinion that they fly in the face of fundamental justice, being that they have not been struck down by this country's laws.

[Wilber]

Yes, indeed; why would the opinion of the man who orchestrated Canada's origins be of any worth against your personal opinion?

You said the Canadians had no choice in their governmental system. John A. Macdonald's own words prove that claim to be wrong.

I believe the Fathers told them what kind of system they would have. When was the referendum held?

The anti confederation party in Nova Scotia won 18 of 19 seats in the 1867 federal election and 36 out of 38 seats in the 1868 provincial election.