Bryan Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 Was this some attempt at a meaningful response? Oh, I get it, you want to cast aspersions on the entire system, so you insist that somehow the Speaker is a tool of the government. This seems to be a Tory tactic as well, to make the whole system seem so rotten that their own defiance and hatred of Parliament and our constitution seems perfectly normal. And that was supposed to me a meaningful response? It's got nothing to do with contempt for the system. It's about understanding that there is a vast difference between how the system actually works and how the public ceremony is presented. Quote
Smallc Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 And that was supposed to me a meaningful response? It's got nothing to do with contempt for the system. It's about understanding that there is a vast difference between how the system actually works and how the public ceremony is presented. You really don't understand the role of the Speaker at all. It isn't in any way what you seem to imagine. The roles of the Queen and Governor General are closer to what you say (though, again, not in every circumstance), but when it comes to the speaker, you aren't even close. Quote
ToadBrother Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) And that was supposed to me a meaningful response? It's got nothing to do with contempt for the system. It's about understanding that there is a vast difference between how the system actually works and how the public ceremony is presented. You have yet to demonstrate how the Speaker is at all beholden to the PM. Even in the old days when the Government of the day had a lot more influence over who became Speaker, Speakers were notoriously incorruptible, and were just as likely to rule government MPs out of order as Opposition MPs. Speakers of the House have since long before Canada existed taken their roles as not only the maintainers of order in the House, but in fact the voice of the House as well very seriously. You have no idea what you're talking about. Milliken wasn't chosen by Harper, he was chosen by the House. I know you have some bizarre need to cheapen Parliament, it seems to be a Tory strategy of late, but thus far you have not provided a single shred of evidence. I doubt you were even aware before today as to how the Speaker has been chosen for the last quarter century. Edited February 23, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
a.gee Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/muzzle-02-21-2011 Oda seems to be keeping quiet under the direction of the PMO. No surprise here that there's more to the story behind the falsifying of documents. If she is found to be in contempt of Parliament and is invited to testify, will she reveal any details? The way I see it, if she is going to be forced to leave caucus because she lied on behalf of her party, then that very party has turned her into its scapegoat. Oda is in a very tough position. Quote
Bryan Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 You have yet to demonstrate how the Speaker is at all beholden to the PM. I never said he was. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 This should not get as far as the Speaker, she should be fired. Harper puts his whole transparent accountable government into question as long as she sits as a Minister. Even Iggy can make hay out of this one. Yeah right. Transparency is nothing more than a talking point. Having a female minority cabinet minister, that's votes in the bank. Let's not forget that this sets up an important precedent for denying funding to NGOs that even Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party don't want to ruin. Give it another week and the situation disappears. Quote
madmax Posted February 23, 2011 Author Report Posted February 23, 2011 The No Side has just taken the lead on MLW> Still a dogfight I see... Quote
ToadBrother Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 I never said he was. Your words: If he was really half as powerful as people (and the media) tend to think he/she is, Harper would not have appointed* a Liberal. Especially not with a rabid coalition-ready united opposition inventing faux scandal after faux scandal. *Yes, I know there is a vote in the house. But that too is just ceremony. The house votes for the one that the Prime Minister appoints You very much did state a number of absurd and patently false things about the office and person of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Quote
ToadBrother Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 Yeah right. Transparency is nothing more than a talking point. Having a female minority cabinet minister, that's votes in the bank. Let's not forget that this sets up an important precedent for denying funding to NGOs that even Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party don't want to ruin. Give it another week and the situation disappears. Do you think if the Speaker agrees that Oda was in breach that the Opposition won't roast her alive? Maybe on your planet having a Minister censured by Parliament or potentially even thrown out of the House isn't a big deal, but I think on most other planets, yeah, that will have some sort of an effect, if to, nothing else, trigger Harper to steer straight to an election. Quote
Bryan Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 You very much did state a number of absurd and patently false things about the office and person of the Speaker of the House of Commons. What I stated is 100% accurate. As seems to be a pattern here, the issue is your limited reading comprehension. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Do you think if the Speaker agrees that Oda was in breach that the Opposition won't roast her alive? Maybe on your planet having a Minister censured by Parliament or potentially even thrown out of the House isn't a big deal, but I think on most other planets, yeah, that will have some sort of an effect, if to, nothing else, trigger Harper to steer straight to an election. I don't think the Speaker will agree. So no I don't think the Opposition will roast her alive; I don't think a Minister will be censured by parliament or potentially thrown out of the House and I don't think this will be the catalyst for an election. What I do think will happen is everyone will forget about this entire mess by the end of next week. Of course, I may be wrong and that would be great. I'm certainly aware of how cynical I'm being. Edited February 23, 2011 by cybercoma Quote
Smallc Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 What I stated is 100% accurate. No it isn't. Prove that it is. Quote
ToadBrother Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 I don't think the Speaker will agree. So no I don't think the Opposition will roast her alive; I don't think a Minister will be censured by parliament or potentially thrown out of the House and I don't think this will be the catalyst for an election. What I do think will happen is everyone will forget about this entire mess by the end of next week. Of course, I may be wrong and that would be great. I'm certainly aware of how cynical I'm being. I think you're wrong. The Speaker already ruled on the document itself, but because of a procedural gap, could not go after the Minister herself. The Opposition has now asked the Speaker to rule on the Minister's conduct. Quote
ToadBrother Posted February 23, 2011 Report Posted February 23, 2011 What I stated is 100% accurate. As seems to be a pattern here, the issue is your limited reading comprehension. There was nothing accurate about it. The PM has had no role in choosing the Speaker since the 1980s, and even prior to that, Speakers, once they were elected, were renowned for their independence. This predates even Confederation and was a facet of the Speaker's role in Britain. What you did, from what I can tell, was to essentially try to muddy the waters by suggesting the Speaker is a political appointment, that somehow the Speaker cannot be reliable, or be relied on, because somehow Harper is pulling the strings. You displayed ignorance of how the Speaker is chosen and how Speakers have historically behaved even before the Commons had a much more expansive role in choosing the Speaker. Since I don't think you're ignorant, I suspect that this is simply a new angle being tried to besmirch the office and person of the Speaker of the House. You Tories really do despise our system of government, don't you? Quote
Dithers Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 There was nothing accurate about it. The PM has had no role in choosing the Speaker since the 1980s, and even prior to that, Speakers, once they were elected, were renowned for their independence. This predates even Confederation and was a facet of the Speaker's role in Britain. What you did, from what I can tell, was to essentially try to muddy the waters by suggesting the Speaker is a political appointment, that somehow the Speaker cannot be reliable, or be relied on, because somehow Harper is pulling the strings. You displayed ignorance of how the Speaker is chosen and how Speakers have historically behaved even before the Commons had a much more expansive role in choosing the Speaker. Since I don't think you're ignorant, I suspect that this is simply a new angle being tried to besmirch the office and person of the Speaker of the House. You Tories really do despise our system of government, don't you? Hell, you don't have to be Conservative to despise our system of governance. Politburo please. Quote DEATHCAMPS BLARG USA! USA! USA!
Smallc Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Hell, you don't have to be Conservative to despise our system of governance. What about it, exactly, is so terrible? It is one of the most successful systems in history. Quote
Dithers Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 What about it, exactly, is so terrible? It is one of the most successful systems in history. I challenge you to detect the sarcasm embedded in my post. Quote DEATHCAMPS BLARG USA! USA! USA!
Smallc Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 I challenge you to detect the sarcasm embedded in my post. ....I guess it doesn't translate well over the internet. Quote
Dithers Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 ....I guess it doesn't translate well over the internet. I thought the crack about instituting a politburo, which you cut out, conveyed the sarcasm. Quote DEATHCAMPS BLARG USA! USA! USA!
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 I thought the crack about instituting a politburo, which you cut out, conveyed the sarcasm. Honestly... There's a few right wing kooks here that actually think we are living in some quasi Communist state... I thought that's what you were aiming at.... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Dithers Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Honestly... There's a few right wing kooks here that actually think we are living in some quasi Communist state... I thought that's what you were aiming at.... Certainly hope not.... Ok, I lie. Extremists score well for entertainment value. Quote DEATHCAMPS BLARG USA! USA! USA!
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Certainly hope not.... Ok, I lie. Extremists score well for entertainment value. Talk to Mr.Canada... Ask him about his Gay Pride Film Festival and his feelings on Fascism... You'll probably start bleeding from the mouth because of laughter... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
William Ashley Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Why stop with ODA? Quote I was here.
Dithers Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 Why stop with ODA? Hmm....well, because she is the subject of this topic? If you like, I can expand the scope of the discussion to all sorts of meaningless fun. Quote DEATHCAMPS BLARG USA! USA! USA!
cybercoma Posted February 24, 2011 Report Posted February 24, 2011 What about it, exactly, is so terrible? It is one of the most successful systems in history. Maybe not our system of governance, aside from the Senate... but our electoral system is broken. Quote
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.