g_bambino Posted September 10, 2009 Report Posted September 10, 2009 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. I believe you just answered your own question. Quote
Wilber Posted September 10, 2009 Report Posted September 10, 2009 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. Our laws must be perfect then. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted September 10, 2009 Report Posted September 10, 2009 Our laws must be perfect then. Our laws are only as perfect as the people who make them. We can't hope for anything more from humanity. Quote
Wilber Posted September 10, 2009 Report Posted September 10, 2009 I believe you just answered your own question. Yes, Canadians did not choose their own system, it was done for them. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
g_bambino Posted September 10, 2009 Report Posted September 10, 2009 Yes, Canadians did not choose their own system, it was done for them. Their votes were cast for them? Really? Quote
Wilber Posted September 10, 2009 Report Posted September 10, 2009 Their votes were cast for them? Really? Cast for who? Cast for what? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
g_bambino Posted September 10, 2009 Report Posted September 10, 2009 Cast for who? Cast for what? You're the one who brought up elections. Quote
Wilber Posted September 10, 2009 Report Posted September 10, 2009 You're the one who brought up elections. Well you've lost me now. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
g_bambino Posted September 10, 2009 Report Posted September 10, 2009 Well you've lost me now. I have? To quote you again: 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. Did someone else cast the votes that elected the individuals from that party? Confederation was obviously debated by our elected representatives not only before July 1, 1867, but afterwards as well; that's how the "referendum" took place. Quote
Topaz Posted September 10, 2009 Report Posted September 10, 2009 So this election and Harper wants one no matter what he says to the public, he wants a majority government before he has to go. This part will try and say anything so lwt see how far they are willing to play dirty to keep the PMO. Nothing should surprise us, nor believe what they have to say. Desperate people do desperate things. Save some tax dollars and vote them out so they don't earn their pensions! Quote
Wilber Posted September 10, 2009 Report Posted September 10, 2009 I have? To quote you again:Did someone else cast the votes that elected the individuals from that party? Confederation was obviously debated by our elected representatives not only before July 1, 1867, but afterwards as well; that's how the "referendum" took place. Obviously not since an overwhelming number of Nova Scotians voted against it the first oportunity they had. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
g_bambino Posted September 10, 2009 Report Posted September 10, 2009 Obviously not since an overwhelming number of Nova Scotians voted against it the first oportunity they had. So the votes cast elected nobody, then? Or did the MPs merely take a vow of silence before taking their seats in the Commons? Quote
Wilber Posted September 10, 2009 Report Posted September 10, 2009 So the votes cast elected nobody, then? Or did the MPs merely take a vow of silence before taking their seats in the Commons? The anti confederationists elected 18 out of 19 Nova Scotial federal seats in 1867 and 36 out of 38 provincial seats in 1868, obviously to no avail. Based on the Nova Scotia experience, I guess then that no matter how overwhelmingly Quebec votes for separation, we are stuck with each other. Stuck in Hotel California so to speak, they can check out any time they want but can never leave. That's comforting I guess. I could be wrong but it seems to me the only province that gave it's citizens a direct vote on whether they joined Confederation was Newfoundland. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
g_bambino Posted September 10, 2009 Report Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) The anti confederationists elected 18 out of 19 Nova Scotial federal seats in 1867 and 36 out of 38 provincial seats in 1868, obviously to no avail. Yes, obviously to no avail. That's not the point of this discussion though; the fact that they voted is evidence that Nova Scots did have their say on Confederation. They couldn't have been terribly vociferous for very long, though, given that their anti-confederate leader was soon serving in the Cabinet of John Macdonald. [sp.] Edited September 10, 2009 by g_bambino Quote
Wilber Posted September 10, 2009 Report Posted September 10, 2009 Yes, obviously to no avail. That's not the point of this discussion though; the fact that they voted is evidence that Nova Scots did have their say on Confederation. They couldn't have been terribly vociferous for very long, though, given that their anti-confederate leader was soon serving in the Cabinet of John Macdonald.[sp.] Only after it was a done deal. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted September 10, 2009 Report Posted September 10, 2009 It seems that Wilber is not a fan of Confederation either....and there are set conditions under which a province can seceded. Quebec has never net those and probably never will. What this has to do with anything is.....well...questionable. Quote
g_bambino Posted September 10, 2009 Report Posted September 10, 2009 Only after it was a done deal. Hardly. The premier of Nova Scotia was at all the conferences leading up to Confederation and the legislature voted on the union in 1866. Quote
g_bambino Posted September 10, 2009 Report Posted September 10, 2009 What this has to do with anything is.....well...questionable. It seems to me that some are pegging the reason for this useless court challenge on our entire constitutional system. Quote
Smallc Posted September 10, 2009 Report Posted September 10, 2009 A useless court challenge of a useless law says more about the people currently in charge of this country than the Constitutional framework of the country in my view. Quote
g_bambino Posted September 10, 2009 Report Posted September 10, 2009 A useless court challenge of a useless law says more about the people currently in charge of this country than the Constitutional framework of the country in my view. I agree. Hence, I'm trying to show wilber the weakness of his argument. Quote
Wilber Posted September 11, 2009 Report Posted September 11, 2009 It seems that Wilber is not a fan of Confederation either....and there are set conditions under which a province can seceded. Quebec has never net those and probably never will.What this has to do with anything is.....well...questionable. It seems that you and bambino think the public should never be allowed to vote for anything other than a rubber stamp for a party leader chosen by party members. Aside for the fact we don't have a one party system, that sounds very much like communism. So much for your commitment to democracy. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted September 11, 2009 Report Posted September 11, 2009 It seems that you and bambino think the public should never be allowed to vote for anything other than a rubber stamp for a party leader chosen by party members. You can vote however you want. You may not get the result you want, but, that's democracy. Quote
Wilber Posted September 11, 2009 Report Posted September 11, 2009 You can vote however you want. You may not get the result you want, but, that's democracy. As long as it is for a rubber stamp for a party leader chosen by party members. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted September 11, 2009 Report Posted September 11, 2009 No one is forcing you to vote for a major party. I had 5 choices on my last election ballot. I think that you should learn the definition of communism also. Quote
Wilber Posted September 11, 2009 Report Posted September 11, 2009 No one is forcing you to vote for a major party. I had 5 choices on my last election ballot. I think that you should learn the definition of communism also. You had 5 choices for a rubber stamp for a party leader. In the former Soviet Union the party "chose " the leader and all elected candidates were subservient to that leader. Aside from our having more than one party, more than one party leader and not putting the losers in front of a firing squad or in a Gulag on Melville Island, how is our system different? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.