Why the hate for harper?

[scribblet]

yes a Machiavellian fanatic, be grateful he does not a have a majority, be grateful the majority of Canadians do not share his fundy views...he's not pragmatic he's afraid of being found out...he knows that Canadians would reject him in a second should he reveal himself instead he chooses a path of incremental change, a death of a thousand cuts...

power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely....

You sound like a fanatic yourself, please show where Harper is some kind of rabid fundamentalist and where he spoken about this. Please note that Stephen Harper actually attended the United Church ( you know the NDP of prayer)until he went out west.

Please show where it says that any non atheist is not allowed a democratic voice, or where only atheists are allowed to run for office.

[jbg]

Best PM ever? Very hard to claim that since he's never even had a majority government, so obviously many if not most Canadians easily disagree with you.

I predict it will be hard for anyone other than a Francophone Quebecker (thus excluding Paul Martin) from forming a majority government unless the Bloc miraculously implodes.

[waldo]

Please note that Stephen Harper actually attended the United Church ( you know the NDP of prayer)until he went out west.

and it is written that the, "charged 1988 decision by the United Church General Council to approve the ordination of homosexuals", was what instigated Harper's father's defection from the United Church... as the father goes, so goes the son! Apparently, you can thank Preston Manning and Diane Ablonczy, for Harper's "redemption" and call to the evangelical Alliance Church.

[Dave_ON]

No, actually it isn't. National security has always been an issue when certain information is asked to be made public. And Canada isn't close to 3 centuries old. It's good you know you're history!

If you know so much about our system as you claim you do, you know this to be an out and out lie. This is precisely why the speaker called the government to account, albeit far more gently than I would have. He gave the government a gracious out, one he did not need to give them. The constitution states parliament is supreme, there are no addendums, no provisions, no interpretations contrary to that. It's all really quite black and white. The crown is subject to parliament who speaks on behalf of the people, whom they represent. If they compel the crown to do something, the crown must comply, no if's ands or buts. To state otherwise is to wax idiotic.

[Shady]

If you know so much about our system as you claim you do, you know this to be an out and out lie. This is precisely why the speaker called the government to account, albeit far more gently than I would have. He gave the government a gracious out, one he did not need to give them. The constitution states parliament is supreme, there are no addendums, no provisions, no interpretations contrary to that. It's all really quite black and white. The crown is subject to parliament who speaks on behalf of the people, whom they represent. If they compel the crown to do something, the crown must comply, no if's ands or buts. To state otherwise is to wax idiotic.

That simply isn't true.

As a matter of Canadian constitutional law, the situation is clear. The federal Cabinet can, without parliamentary approval or consultation, commit Canadian Forces to action abroad, whether in the form of a specific current operation or future contingencies resulting from international treaty obligations.

Under the Canadian Constitution (Constitution Act, 1867, sections 15 and 19), command of the armed forces – like other traditional executive powers – is vested in the Queen and exercised in her name by the federal Cabinet acting under the leadership of the Prime Minister. As far as the Constitution is concerned, Parliament has little direct role in such matters.

[Alta4ever]

FUNDAMENTAL christians do you even know what they are? these are the same type of extreme nuts that run Iran...the same type of nutters that are F****** up US politics...

the electoral system is F***** up regardless of what party wins...

Again you have problems comprehending "FUNDAMENTAL". I don't see the Alliance church preaching murder and terrorism do you.

Its people like you that try to radicalize the debate with these over the top assertions, thats what makes you the nutter, the radical, the extremist, the fanatic.

[ToadBrother]

That simply isn't true.

As a matter of Canadian constitutional law, the situation is clear. The federal Cabinet can, without parliamentary approval or consultation, commit Canadian Forces to action abroad, whether in the form of a specific current operation or future contingencies resulting from international treaty obligations.

Under the Canadian Constitution (Constitution Act, 1867, sections 15 and 19), command of the armed forces – like other traditional executive powers – is vested in the Queen and exercised in her name by the federal Cabinet acting under the leadership of the Prime Minister. As far as the Constitution is concerned, Parliament has little direct role in such matters.

Neither you nor the Yankee interloper who first posted it understand the relationship between Parliament, the Sovereign and the armed forces. Parliament does not directly command the armed forces, that is a Royal Prerogative, and thus exercised by the Governor General on the advice (read: command) of the Government.

However, as I amply showed, the Government itself is still firmly under the hand of Parliament, and therefore, indirectly, so is the armed forces. The collapse of Asquith's government in 1916 is a demonstration of how Parliament's role, even in times of open warfare, still amounts to supremacy.

If you weren't just aping someone else's mistaken understanding of our system, you would know this, but because you pretty lack any comprehension of the Westminster system, you simply aren't up to the task. I'm sure your ignorance is curable, but first you have to suspend your bizarre fixation on the Conservative Party.

In fact, other than during the English Civil War and the Commonwealth under Cromwell (and, in the latter case, with the New Model Army, only nominally so), Parliament has never directly commanded the armed forces. Since the time of the Anglo-Saxon kings the power to raise and command the army has always been in the hand of the Sovereign. You might know this, if you knew anything about the history of our system of government, which you so clearly do not.

Edited May 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bjre]

Done know who hate Harper and why. But some people said:

51 per cent people had an unfavourable impression of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

He was viewed favourably by 42 per cent

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100518/national/poll_ignatieff_leadership

[M.Dancer]

Well, I know when I swore an oath it was to Elizabeth R,,,not the house of C

[bush_cheney2004]

Neither you nor the Yankee interloper who first posted it understand the relationship between Parliament, the Sovereign and the armed forces. Parliament does not directly command the armed forces, that is a Royal Prerogative, and thus exercised by the Governor General on the advice (read: command) of the Government.

More circular doublespeak from the Magna Carta Parrot....let me translate for you in Yankee-speak....your Parliament doesn't directly command dick...and is routinely irrelevant.

[ToadBrother]

More circular doublespeak from the Magna Carta Parrot....

let me translate for you in Yankee-speak....your Parliament doesn't directly command dick...

Um, the Constitution says otherwise.

and is routinely irrelevant.

Routinely the government has enjoyed a majority in the House of Commons, so this isn't an issue. I do forgive you, though, because you're just an American who doesn't understand how parliamentary systems function. Majority governments, by definition, control Parliament, and thus the issue of supremacy could hardly ever come up.

In other words, DUH!

Edited May 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Shady]

Um, the Constitution says otherwise.

Routinely the government has enjoyed a majority in the House of Commons, so this isn't an issue. I do forgive you, though, because you're just an American who doesn't understand how parliamentary systems function.

So you're still refusing to acknowledge security concerns regarding sensitive information being made public huh? Pathetic.

[Argus]

he's a christian fundamentalist fanatic

Harper is certainly a Christian. And I guess that's all it takes for some people to call him a fanatic. What's odd is they're generally the same people who are oh-so-culturally sensitive and enlightened - or think they are - and rejoice in difference. I mean, if we elected a Muslim or Hindu or Sikh as PM you'd be so orgasmic with joy you'd be calling up strangers in Bolivia to crow about how inclusive and progressive we were. And their religious dedication wouldn't bother you at all.

something not part of our culture it's not even part of our Conservative governments of our past,

Oh come on, be honest, you haven't read a history book since grade six and you don't know a damned thing about the religious beliefs of previous PMs.

he is not popular now nor will he ever be in the future...

And yet he's consistently more popular than Liberal leaders....

[ToadBrother]

So you're still refusing to acknowledge security concerns regarding sensitive information being made public huh? Pathetic.

Are you illiterate, or just a moron? No one ever proposed that sensitive information be made public.

As it stands, there is no constitutional amendment that I am aware of preventing Parliament, if it so wished, from releasing such information. Perhaps you could point me to said amendment.

Edited May 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Shady]

Are you illiterate, or just a moron? No one ever proposed that sensitive information be made public.

As it stands, there is no constitutional amendment that I am aware of preventing Parliament, if it so wished, from releasing such information. Perhaps you could point me to said amendment.

So you're still refusing to acknowledge security concerns regarding the release of sensitive information? You think that Parlaiment can release whatever information they choose? Are you that dense?

Do you think Parliament can ask for and release Canadian troops movements in Afghanistan?

Do you think Parliament can ask for an release information regarding new technologies the Canadian military is researching and developing?

Do you think Parliament can ask for and release present and future military operations planned in Afghanistan?

You're still talking like a crazy person.

[Argus]

Where I criticize him is his abandoning of all the economic principles he claimed he would

follow and creating huge debts from gov. spending. I appreciate world markets and economic

conditions he had no control over may have forced his hand on much of that.

You can only do what you've got the seats to do, and most of his spending was driven either by opposition demands or the deterinationto buy our love in a minority government.

I find his disrespect for the independence of the judicial decison making process questionable.

You mean his disrespect for liberal judges or for the means of appointing liberal judges? Paul Martin showed the level of respect he had for the SC when he used two appointments to stack the court for an upcoming decision on gay marriage.

I find his deliberate patronage and partisan spending highly questionable considering he came to office claiming to be righteous and above such behaviour and now engages in the exact same

behaviour as Chretien did with gov. spending and doling out of patronage appointments.

There's inevitably going to be some of that but he's been a lot less brazen about it, used it a lot less than any of the men who preceded him going back to Pearson.

I also find him to be petty, snarky, smarmy, petulant and thin skinned.

So were Chretien, Mulroney and Trudeau.

Unfortunately Harper is typically Canadian small town.

He should be running a Ford dealership in Red Deer and serving as head of the local Kiwanis club.

As opposed to Chretien and Mulroney? That's just eastern urbanite snobbery talking.

[ToadBrother]

So you're still refusing to acknowledge security concerns regarding the release of sensitive information? You think that Parlaiment can release whatever information they choose? Are you that dense?

I'm not doing any such thing, because no one was proposing the open release of information.

Do you think Parliament can ask for and release Canadian troops movements in Afghanistan?

If it passed legislation, yup.

Do you think Parliament can ask for an release information regarding new technologies the Canadian military is researching and developing?

If it passed legislation, yup.

Do you think Parliament can ask for and release present and future military operations planned in Afghanistan?

If it passed legislation, yup.

You're still talking like a crazy person.

I think you're confusing what Parliament could constitutionally compel the government to do with what Parliament has actually asked the government to do. But more than that, your questions are leading questions. So maybe I'm leaning towards you just being dishonest, as opposed to an idiot. Perhaps we can compromise and say you're both.

But one thing at a time. I want the constitutional amendment that surely must have been passed so that the Executive is now supreme over Parliament again.

Edited May 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[YEGmann]

Are you illiterate, or just a moron? No one ever proposed that sensitive information be made public.

As it stands, there is no constitutional amendment that I am aware of preventing Parliament, if it so wished, from releasing such information. Perhaps you could point me to said amendment.

What about looking at youself?

Slowly for you:

Releasing secret information to Members of Parliament in legal terms is equivalent to releasing the information to public. Trully, there is no any specific considerations for MPs. What you are propagating is putting the MPs above the law.

[g_bambino]

Well, I know when I swore an oath it was to Elizabeth R,,,not the house of C

The Queen forms a part of all three branches of government - the legislature, executive, and judiciary.

[ToadBrother]

What about looking at youself?

Slowly for you:

Releasing secret information to Members of Parliament in legal terms is equivalent to releasing the information to public.

It is?

Trully, there is no any specific considerations for MPs. What you are propagating is putting the MPs above the law.

In the House of Commons MPs have long been above the law (they can't be sued for libel for what they say and any arrests of MPs has to go through the Speaker, so normal jurisdictions don't apply). What do you suppose the rights and privileges of Parliament means? What's more, what do you suppose the Supremacy of Parliament means?

At any rate, no one was proposing a general release of information in the House.

Edited May 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

Releasing secret information to Members of Parliament in legal terms is equivalent to releasing the information to public.

No, it isn't; which renders the rest of your illiterate post pointless.

[ToadBrother]

The Queen forms a part of all three branches of government - the legislature, executive, and judiciary.

Well he is right. The Armed Forces do not serve Parliament, and never have, save during the period between the beginning of the English Civil War and the Restoration (when Parliament did, at least nominally, command the New Model Army). For the Armed Forces, swearing allegiance to the Queen is very much swearing allegiance directly to the Sovereign, and not to the more general notion of the Crown.

[Argus]

I think an obsession with obeying constitutional constraints would be considered a positive, as opposed to being a slavish partisan.

Obsession speaks of mental disorders. And you've been bananas on this subject from early on. Desperately fighting for the rights of parliament is kind of pointless given that parliamentarians have been trained seals since Trudeau's day. And in the main, pariament has been, other than this minority period, slavishly obedient to the will of the PM for the last forty years. If the next parliament were a majority, even a liberal majority, the will of the PM will become he will of Parliament, and all those troublesome committees will instantly fall in line and disapear from view.

[ToadBrother]

Obsession speaks of mental disorders. And you've been bananas on this subject from early on. Desperately fighting for the rights of parliament is kind of pointless given that parliamentarians have been trained seals since Trudeau's day. And in the main, pariament has been, other than this minority period, slavishly obedient to the will of the PM for the last forty years. If the next parliament were a majority, even a liberal majority, the will of the PM will become he will of Parliament, and all those troublesome committees will instantly fall in line and disapear from view.

As was pointed out when Harper was trying to justify the bizarre claim that his government somehow had magically spawned executive privilege, even during majority governments, committees made up of government and opposition members had been privy to highly sensitive information in the past.

[g_bambino]

In other words, DUH!

I recommend you follow the rest of us who long ago put B-C on ignore. I only wish his inane posts didn't still show up quoted in people's responses.