g_bambino Posted November 23, 2012 Report Posted November 23, 2012 Sheez, are you drinking the kool aid or what Actually he/she is right about the office of the prime minister being nowhere in the constitution (besides a passing mention in a clause relating to a constitutional conference); the written parts, anyway. The office is there purely by convention. Quote
g_bambino Posted November 23, 2012 Report Posted November 23, 2012 They wanted him there because the topics were ALL controlled by the feds and they wanted to work together with HIM, so they could plan THEIR budgets. Then they should be organising a first ministers' conference. Quote
login Posted November 23, 2012 Report Posted November 23, 2012 (edited) I think you need to learn the law as that tirade sounded a tad insane. Oh your insane detector went off. That is reassuring, mr. Singals.Cpl to say what is sane and what isn't. I know the law quite well thank you very much. Just because you like the idea of the PM as president doesn't erase the fact he can be sacked by the Governor General or Queen. It also doesn't erase the fact that the house can bring down his government. It also doesn't place the PM beyond the law. They arn't they have no immmunity that heads of state enjoy in other countries. So it is you who is living in a fantasy land. None the less I'm quite sane thankyou. Keep to looking for aircraft and subs and leave your insane detector to no one as calling someone insane due to their expression is unconstitutional and just showing you to not support the values that Canadians are to hold, that being support of Charter Rights as an essential mechanism for respect within soceity, and one that all authority should purport in their interactions with the public. Its unfortunate people who don't support the constitution are employed by the Canadian Forces. You are just programmed to see communications as "normal" fact is lots of people arn't normal, live with it. Edited November 23, 2012 by login Quote
PIK Posted November 23, 2012 Report Posted November 23, 2012 Brad Wall did not go either ,said it was a waste of money, so he phoned in. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Signals.Cpl Posted November 23, 2012 Report Posted November 23, 2012 Oh your insane detector went off. You have that magic touch... That is reassuring, mr. Singals.Cpl to say what is sane and what isn't. Its a sh*tty job, but someone has to do it. I know the law quite well thank you very much. Explain how any of the things that Argus posted constitute "Treason" or make him a "traitor" , "corrupt" and/or "disloyal". Having an opinion different then you does not make any of us traitors, corrupt or disloyal, it makes us people with different opinion then you. Just because you like the idea of the PM as president doesn't erase the fact he can be sacked by the Governor General or Queen. A Prime minister with a majority can get away with as much as their party is willing to accept, the Queen may use any power assigned to her only as a last resort and will thus let the PM do just about anything before the Queen interferes. It also doesn't erase the fact that the house can bring down his government. It does not erase the fact that a PM with a majority government has as much power as his MP's are willing to give him/her. It also doesn't place the PM beyond the law. Please inform me as to where anyone even suggested that the PM was above the law. They arn't they have no immmunity that heads of state enjoy in other countries. Again, nobody suggested that the PM is immune from prosecution. So it is you who is living in a fantasy land. Sorry, you live in a make believe land where everyone must be of your opinion or they are traitors. corrupt or disloyal. The fact is that at this point in time, the CPC MP's are the once who decide how much power the PM has and it will be a loon time before the Queen or the GG even contemplate any interference in the internal affairs of this country. None the less I'm quite sane thankyou. To be fair, your post sounded insane besides I am not a qualified practitioner of medicine hence I cannot make a judgement either way Keep to looking for aircraft and subs and leave your insane detector to no one as calling someone insane due to their expression is unconstitutional and just showing you to not support the values that Canadians are to hold, And what does calling people disloyal, corrupt and traitors make you? that being support of Charter Rights as an essential mechanism for respect within soceity, and one that all authority should purport in their interactions with the public. And where have I shown any lack of support for the Charter of Rights? Its unfortunate people who don't support the constitution are employed by the Canadian Forces. Gee there you go with the insane accusations again. You are just programmed to see communications as "normal" fact is lots of people arn't normal, live with it. You are not normal if you accuse people of crimes against this country simply because they hold an opinion contrary to your own, it is not a dictatorship people are entitled to their opinions, fi you don't like that Argus or anyone else holds a different opinion the you should keep that to yourself and make scarce with the accusations. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
g_bambino Posted November 23, 2012 Report Posted November 23, 2012 It does not erase the fact that a PM with a majority government has as much power as his MP's are willing to give him/her. Good grief; does nobody remember this country has a constitution? Quote
Signals.Cpl Posted November 23, 2012 Report Posted November 23, 2012 Good grief; does nobody remember this country has a constitution? And as long as the PM remains within the bounds of the constitution he has tremendous power. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Argus Posted November 23, 2012 Report Posted November 23, 2012 And the constitution, the provinces, the Supreme Court, the governor general, the monarch, and the electorate of course. [ed.: +] There is virtually no check on a majority parliament. It can do anything it wants. That includes appointing a friendly governor general and appointing friends to the Supreme Court ... or overriding the Charter. I suppose in theory the Queen could fire her GG and then fire the PM herself and call for elections. But things would have to get enormously out of line before that would ever happen. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 23, 2012 Report Posted November 23, 2012 false, it takes 1 person to sack the pm it takes the whole senate to sack a president (normally You mean the person the PM appoints in the first place? Your view is corrupt and disloyal. You are a traitor for beleiving the PM is a state power. They are not. You are a shrill caricature embarrassing yourself more every day. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 23, 2012 Report Posted November 23, 2012 What an odd statement. Do you believe that politics is a team sport in which you have to blindly support every action a party takes? Criticizing Harper's no show, doesn't equate to blanket support for every historical Liberal decision. His words were blind partisanship, as are yours in their defense. So where's the hypocrisy, hmm? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 23, 2012 Report Posted November 23, 2012 I heard the Premier of NS say they changes the agenda just so Harper didn't feel he was being piled on,like other PMs have felt. They wanted him there because the topics were ALL controlled by the feds and they wanted to work together with HIM, so they could plan THEIR budgets. So they could plan their budgets? That seems to make it patently obvious they wanted him there so they could try to get more cash out of the feds. I think Harper has already been more than fair by saying he would not decrease transfers. He's cutting at the federal level and it's up to them to make cuts at their level. As one reporter said, Harper likes to talk to each of them on the phone because then he likes to divide and conquer the provinces. He probably says one thing to the Tory premiers , while telling others the opposite. What a wonderful ability for a reporter to have: the ability to read Harper's mind. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 23, 2012 Report Posted November 23, 2012 And as long as the PM remains within the bounds of the constitution he has tremendous power. Including the power to override the Charter, and to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court he wants. All of this is semantics anyway. No one has actually disagreed that the PM enjoys far more power than any President in a country specifically designed to have separate and competing centres of power. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted November 24, 2012 Report Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) There is virtually no check on a majority parliament. You are the same poster that complains about the judiciary's power, aren't you? Edited November 24, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Keepitsimple Posted November 24, 2012 Report Posted November 24, 2012 I heard the Premier of NS say they changes the agenda just so Harper didn't feel he was being piled on,like other PMs have felt. They wanted him there because the topics were ALL controlled by the feds and they wanted to work together with HIM, so they could plan THEIR budgets...is that asking too much of a PM? As one reporter said, Harper likes to talk to each of them on the phone because then he likes to divide and conquer the provinces. He probably says one thing to the Tory premiers , while telling others the opposite. Perhaps you're forgetting the "Trust Survey" that found the media at the bottom of the heap. Topaz - it appears you are one of the naive who believe a contrived story from your "one reporter". Quote Back to Basics
Smallc Posted November 24, 2012 Report Posted November 24, 2012 or overriding the Charter. No, a majority government cannot do anything to the Charter. Quote
punked Posted November 24, 2012 Report Posted November 24, 2012 No, a majority government cannot do anything to the Charter. Thank God! Quote
login Posted November 24, 2012 Report Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) Including the power to override the Charter, and to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court he wants. All of this is semantics anyway. No one has actually disagreed that the PM enjoys far more power than any President in a country specifically designed to have separate and competing centres of power. People are individuals. You seem to espouse this blind loyalty even if individuals don't support. I find that view disgusting. People who do their jobs will act based upon their opinions and not simply act as yesmen. You are basically saying the CPC is a bunch of puppetted shills. While sure some MPs do appear to be, I don't think that is universal. There have been falling outs, sure it has been in the PMs favour to date but time is catching up. The same is true for courts or the senate. Personally I think people are not braindead, if a position is strong enough people will be won over. Its a hard time to get through programming but if it is true enough and the posturing is correct,the light of day will be seen even if the PM doesn't agree. By supporting your view, you are more or less saying it is acceptable. Its not. Edited November 24, 2012 by login Quote
login Posted November 24, 2012 Report Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) Explain how any of the things that Argus posted constitute "Treason" or make him a "traitor" , "corrupt" and/or "disloyal". Having an opinion different then you does not make any of us traitors, corrupt or disloyal, it makes us people with different opinion then you. My view is that making the PM into a head of state is a distortion of reality and constitutes treasonous rhetoric because it acts as an eclipse of power, and semantically turns the PM into a power able to conduct a bloodless coupe and seize powers and status that isn't rightfully theirs. A Prime minister with a majority can get away with as much as their party is willing to accept, the Queen may use any power assigned to her only as a last resort and will thus let the PM do just about anything before the Queen interferes. No they can't the political realm isn't the end all of justification. It does not erase the fact that a PM with a majority government has as much power as his MP's are willing to give him/her. No he doesn't. He may be an equal but he is an equal. Meaning he is subject to the law like anyone else. Please inform me as to where anyone even suggested that the PM was above the law. Heads of state are above the law. Passing him off as a head of state is indirectly supposing that. the CPC MP's are the once who decide how much power the PM has No they arn't. And what does calling people disloyal, corrupt and traitors make you? Expressive. And where have I shown any lack of support for the Charter of Rights? Calling people insane to limit equality on basis of disability. Gee there you go with the insane accusations again. There you go making character attacks again in a way that shows disrespect on grounds of disability. You are not normal if you accuse people of crimes against this country simply because they hold an opinion contrary to your own, it is not a dictatorship people are entitled to their opinions, fi you don't like that Argus or anyone else holds a different opinion the you should keep that to yourself and make scarce with the accusations. Its not because its different from my own, its because it is a distrotion of the truth which creates a power inbalance and gives power to people that arn't suppose to have it. Edited November 24, 2012 by login Quote
login Posted November 24, 2012 Report Posted November 24, 2012 You mean the person the PM appoints in the first place? The PM nominates the PM does not appoint. You are a shrill caricature embarrassing yourself more every day. I don't feel it. Quote
Topaz Posted November 24, 2012 Author Report Posted November 24, 2012 Well, now we know why Harper never wwne tot the Premiers meeting, he had somehting more important to do.... give Justin Bieber a Diamond Jubilee Medal. I guess this is more importan than getting together with the Premiers and the economy and jobs. BTW, I don't think the Biebers is all that and I not sure what he did to earn this but I'm sure he'll be bragging about over in the US. http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/11/24/tweeps-dress-down-justin-bieber-for-choice-of-attire-for-meeting-with-pm/ Quote
scribblet Posted November 24, 2012 Report Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) You don't know that was the read, I doubt it was, sheez, you guys take speculation and so on to a whole new level. Edited November 24, 2012 by scribblet Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
Argus Posted November 24, 2012 Report Posted November 24, 2012 You are the same poster that complains about the judiciary's power, aren't you? I complain about their making up laws to suit their own agenda. And note that I am not complaining here about how much power a prime minister with a majority has. I am merely stating it as a comparison with an American president. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 24, 2012 Report Posted November 24, 2012 Thank God! The notwithstanding clause allows them to override most of the Charter. They can't override the right to vote etc., but the bulk of legal rights can be set aside. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 24, 2012 Report Posted November 24, 2012 People are individuals. You seem to espouse this blind loyalty even if individuals don't support. I find that view disgusting. People who do their jobs will act based upon their opinions and not simply act as yesmen. You are basically saying the CPC is a bunch of puppetted shills. First of all, I haven't said anything about a particular PM or party. Second, what I HAVE said is that a PM with the support of a majority in parliament can do about anything he wants. Was it too complicated for you to understand I clearly meant that would only apply if his party supported him? Cuz I think everyone else got that... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 24, 2012 Report Posted November 24, 2012 The PM nominates the PM does not appoint. There is no practical difference. I don't feel it. You're the only one. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
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.