Why the hate for harper?

PIK · May 18, 2010

He can sing and play the piano, looks good in a blue sweater, but really, sure he is not warm and fuzzy , but not as cold as the media lets on. He keeps his minister in line as best he can and kept scandals down to a minimum, holds alot of clout out in the world right now.Maybe if Mr Chretien kept his ministers on a tighter leash , the libs might be in such a hole. Mr Chretien let his guys say whatever they wanted knowing he would not be doing most of what they promised. Yes some of harpers promises did not come thru but that is expected , but I think he came thru with more then the red book.He is totally against the bank tax ,which IMO and I could be wrong, that the libs would have agreed with it.

ToadBrother · May 18, 2010

He can sing and play the piano, looks good in a blue sweater, but really, sure he is not warm and fuzzy , but not as cold as the media lets on. He keeps his minister in line as best he can and kept scandals down to a minimum, holds alot of clout out in the world right now.Maybe if Mr Chretien kept his ministers on a tighter leash , the libs might be in such a hole. Mr Chretien let his guys say whatever they wanted knowing he would not be doing most of what they promised. Yes some of harpers promises did not come thru but that is expected , but I think he came thru with more then the red book.He is totally against the bank tax ,which IMO and I could be wrong, that the libs would have agreed with it.

I dislike him because he so clearly despises those ancient institutions that created and guarantee our liberties. He's a classic autocrat.

Michael Hardner · May 18, 2010

He can sing and play the piano, looks good in a blue sweater,

Bob Rae too.

Maybe if Mr Chretien kept his ministers on a tighter leash , the libs might be in such a hole. Mr Chretien let his guys say whatever they wanted knowing he would not be doing most of what they promised.

Uh, Chretien retired in 2003 ?

Shady · May 18, 2010

I dislike him because he so clearly despises those ancient institutions that created and guarantee our liberties.

Complete nonsense.

ToadBrother · May 18, 2010

Complete nonsense.

Really? Then explain the obviously false argument that the executive in our system of government can withhold information from Parliament? If that isn't contempt for the system created after much blood in 1689, then how do you care to define it?

Shady · May 18, 2010

Really? Then explain the obviously false argument that the executive in our system of government can withhold information from Parliament? If that isn't contempt for the system created after much blood in 1689, then how do you care to define it?

I'd define it quite differently. More like how the Speaker of the House of Commons defined it. A balance between access, while protecting national security interests.

ToadBrother · May 18, 2010

I'd define it quite differently. More like how the Speaker of the House of Commons defined it. A balance between access, while protecting national security interests.

And with what constitutional justification would you define that? Can you cite any other Parliament in the Commonwealth whose requests for information can be overridden by the executive? Can you come up with any opinion of any constitutional expert who would agree with what you wrote? How, for instance, does your view jive with the powers Parliament gained by the Bill of Rights 1689? What I'm looking for here isn't just you aping the Conservative line.

Tell me, what was the significance of the execution of Charles I? Why did Parliament fight a civil war against him? Why did Parliament throw James II out of England? What exactly was the significance of the Bill of Rights 1689 as far as Parliament's relationship to to the executive? Where in the BNA Act is Parliament's privileges abrogated? Where in the Constitution Act, 1982?

There is no balance for any interest. Parliament has absolute power to compel the Executive. You're literally arguing that the English Civil War had no effect, that the Bill of Rights 1689 did not make the Executive accountable in absolute and unlimited terms to Parliament. You're a revisionist, which is a fancy word for liar. Okay, maybe that's too harsh. Maybe you're just an idiot who doesn't know our system but is marginally capable of echoing Tory talking points.

Edited May 18, 2010 by ToadBrother

Shady · May 18, 2010

And with what constitutional justification would you define that? Can you cite any other Parliament in the Commonwealth whose requests for information can be overridden by the executive? Can you come up with any opinion of any constitutional expert who would agree with what you wrote? How, for instance, does your view jive with the powers Parliament gained by the Bill of Rights 1689? What I'm looking for here isn't just you aping the Conservative line.

Tell me, what was the significance of the execution of Charles I? Why did Parliament fight a civil war against him? Why did Parliament throw James II out of England? What exactly was the significance of the Bill of Rights 1689 as far as Parliament's relationship to to the executive? Where in the BNA Act is Parliament's privileges abrogated? Where in the Constitution Act, 1982?

There is no balance for any interest. Parliament has absolute power to compel the Executive. You're literally arguing that the English Civil War had no effect, that the Bill of Rights 1689 did not make the Executive accountable in absolute and unlimited terms to Parliament. You're a revisionist, which is a fancy word for liar. Okay, maybe that's too harsh. Maybe you're just an idiot who doesn't know our system but is marginally capable of echoing Tory talking points.

You're acting like a crazy person. There's no need to refer to Kings of England several hundreds of years ago. :rolleyes:

I'm simply agreeing with the Speaker of the House of Commons. There has to be a balance between national security, and accessibility. Any rational person would understand this. You're just not being rational.

GostHacked · May 18, 2010

You're acting like a crazy person. There's no need to refer to Kings of England several hundreds of years ago.

Yeah screw history and learning from it.

You're just not being rational.

Something about a pot and a kettle being black something something.

ToadBrother · May 18, 2010

You're acting like a crazy person. There's no need to refer to Kings of England several hundreds of years ago.

There's no need to refer to our constitution? You are aware, I do hope, that a number of the clauses in the Bill of Rights 1689 are still part of our constitution, right? I mean, you're not a complete moron are you?

I'm simply agreeing with the Speaker of the House of Commons. There has to be a balance between national security, and accessibility. Any rational person would understand this. You're just not being rational.

The Speaker explicitly stated that no new rights were being created, but rather he was reiterating long-held rights. Have you ever even bothered reading the ruling? Have you ever even bothered finding out what makes up our constitution?

Edited May 18, 2010 by ToadBrother

ToadBrother · May 18, 2010

Yeah screw history and learning from it.

If Harper doesn't hate our system of government, his weak-minded followers sure do, as they grandly rewrite history, or just ignore it, as the case may be.

Smallc · May 18, 2010

You're acting like a crazy person. There's no need to refer to Kings of England several hundreds of years ago.

Wow, do you honestly have that little understanding of our system of government?

ToadBrother · May 18, 2010

Wow, do you honestly have that little understanding of our system of government?

When making unconstitutional arguments, it's always best to start from a position that amounts to "constitution, what constitution?"

scorpio · May 18, 2010

He can sing and play the piano, looks good in a blue sweater, but really, sure he is not warm and fuzzy , but not as cold as the media lets on. He keeps his minister in line as best he can and kept scandals down to a minimum, holds alot of clout out in the world right now.Maybe if Mr Chretien kept his ministers on a tighter leash , the libs might be in such a hole. Mr Chretien let his guys say whatever they wanted knowing he would not be doing most of what they promised. Yes some of harpers promises did not come thru but that is expected , but I think he came thru with more then the red book.He is totally against the bank tax ,which IMO and I could be wrong, that the libs would have agreed with it.

Yep, starts a thread on hate for Harper and it turns real quick to hate for Chretien. Typical right wing strategy.

Edited May 18, 2010 by scorpio

ToadBrother · May 18, 2010

Yep, starts a thread on hate for Harper and it turns real quick to hate for Chretien. Typical right wing strategy.

I think it's jealousy.

Shady · May 18, 2010

Wow, do you honestly have that little understanding of our system of government?

I have a great understanding of our system of government. I also can discuss our system of government without having to refer to the execution of Charles I in 1649. :rolleyes:

Edited May 18, 2010 by Shady

ToadBrother · May 18, 2010

..deleted.

Edited May 18, 2010 by ToadBrother

ToadBrother · May 18, 2010

I have a great understanding of our system of government. I also can discuss our system of government without having to refer to the execution of Charles I in 1649.

Really? How do you propose to explain the Supremacy of Parliament over the Executive? Oh, that's right, you conveniently excise that part of our history and constitution.

You have clearly stated that the Speaker said something he did not say. What's more you clearly have stated a view of our system of government that is clearly false (namely, that national security allows the executive to withhold information from Parliament). You would know that was false if you knew why exactly Charles I ended up lighter the weight of his head and why James II was given the boot and William of Orange and James II's daughter Mary were offered the Crown, and what conditions were set upon their acceptance of the Crown, and how those conditions remain to this very day.

So tell me, what constitutional documents have terminated Parliament's supremacy over the Crown?

Edited May 18, 2010 by ToadBrother

Shady · May 18, 2010

You have clearly stated that the Speaker said something he did not say.

Actually, he did say it.

What's more you clearly have stated a view of our system of government that is clearly false (namely, that national security allows the executive to withhold information from Parliament). You would know that was false if you knew why exactly Charles I ended up lighter the weight of his head and why James II was given the boot and William of Orange and James II's daughter Mary were offered the Crown, and what conditions were set upon their acceptance of the Crown, and how those conditions remain to this very day.

Once again, you're acting like a crazy person. We can discuss this issue without bringing up every historical figure from the past 500 years. Charles I, James II, his daughter Mary, William of Orange, etc, etc. What about Henry VIII? Or William Wallace? Or Mary Queen of Scots? What's their impact on the national security issues involved, and the sharing of information? :lol:

Smallc · May 18, 2010

I have a great understanding of our system of government.

Really? You once told me that if someone wanted a monarchy, they should go to England....

Shady · May 18, 2010

Really? You once told me that if someone wanted a monarchy, they should go to England....

You're mischaracterizing my words. I never specifically said that.

Smallc · May 18, 2010

You're mischaracterizing my words. I never specifically said that.

It wasn't far off of that.

PIK · May 18, 2010

Well I hope this would have been educational, to see how peole think ,but if this is going to turn into another king charles thread ,then screw it.

Oleg Bach · May 18, 2010

I dislike him because he so clearly despises those ancient institutions that created and guarantee our liberties. He's a classic autocrat.

When the stupid merchant class force out the good nobles through economic warfare- they hired front men...like Harper the hockey player - and Harris the golfer...the elite need front guys- and Harper fits the mold- how smart can a guy be who really wanted to play in the NHL but had to settle for a second choice adventure- being the PM.

PIK · May 18, 2010

When the stupid merchant class force out the good nobles through economic warfare- they hired front men...like Harper the hockey player - and Harris the golfer...the elite need front guys- and Harper fits the mold- how smart can a guy be who really wanted to play in the NHL but had to settle for a second choice adventure- being the PM.

And it looks like we will need another harris to clean up daltons mess.