Argus Posted June 15, 2014 Report Posted June 15, 2014 Tax freedom day is such bull. No one pays over 40% of their income in tax. I certainly do. 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 June 15, 2014 Report Posted June 15, 2014 The money was moved, not taken.DND can't spend its entire budget, and won't be able to for the foreseeable future, so, why give them the money just to take it back? DND can't spend its entire budget because the department basically is Canada's record holder for purchasing incompetence. Rather than address that, by firing everyone over the rank of sergeant who has anything to do with purchasing, the government seems to have just thrown up its hands and said "No more purchasing ever!" because it just causes bad press when DND inevitably screws it up. I would agree with those who say the conservative government has done NOTHING for the military since the recession started except loot its budget to spend the money elsewhere. Where are the new icebreakers? The new supply ships? The new tanks and APCs? The new helicopters they've been waiting what seems like ten years for now? 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
Smallc Posted June 16, 2014 Report Posted June 16, 2014 I certainly do. I misspoke. No average person pays that. Quote
Smallc Posted June 16, 2014 Report Posted June 16, 2014 DND can't spend its entire budget because the department basically is Canada's record holder for purchasing incompetence. Rather than address that, by firing everyone over the rank of sergeant who has anything to do with purchasing, the government seems to have just thrown up its hands and said "No more purchasing ever!" because it just causes bad press when DND inevitably screws it up. I would agree with those who say the conservative government has done NOTHING for the military since the recession started except loot its budget to spend the money elsewhere. Me too....they've really disappointed me on this file. Quote
jacee Posted June 16, 2014 Report Posted June 16, 2014 Harper's too proud to resign. He'll die in office if it's up to him. Unless he gets a better offer. I'm sure it's bugging the hell out of him having to let his wife manage his OIL investments! . Quote
Keepitsimple Posted June 16, 2014 Report Posted June 16, 2014 Unless he gets a better offer. I'm sure it's bugging the hell out of him having to let his wife manage his OIL investments! . Another childish comment - how about adding something worthwhile to the discussion? Quote Back to Basics
On Guard for Thee Posted June 16, 2014 Report Posted June 16, 2014 I'm sure the SCC would like to see him go, they have to keep smacking him down and reminding him we have a constitution that he should read sometime. I think right now the score is SCC 6, Harper 0. And I see he is poised to have another lesson in SC eligibility with his latest appointment attempt. And as a taxpayer I think there is better uses of my money than getting inot fights he can't win. Quote
Argus Posted June 16, 2014 Report Posted June 16, 2014 I'm sure the SCC would like to see him go, they have to keep smacking him down and reminding him we have a constitution that he should read sometime. I think right now the score is SCC 6, Harper 0. It's funny how not so long ago there was this great expression of anxiety on the Left that Harper was going to stack the court with yes-men who would allow any kind of nastiness he had in mind, yet now that he's appointed a majority of the judges on the court people are cheering on the court for 'standing up to him'. 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
waldo Posted June 16, 2014 Report Posted June 16, 2014 It's funny how not so long ago there was this great expression of anxiety on the Left that Harper was going to stack the court with yes-men who would allow any kind of nastiness he had in mind, yet now that he's appointed a majority of the judges on the court people are cheering on the court for 'standing up to him'. uhhh! "Standing up to Harper"??? I thought the Supreme Court was simply providing rulings in regard its interpretations of the Constitution... what does it tell you that 6 (and counting) of those latest rulings have "stood up to Harper" shown that Harper Conservatives can't seem to be bothered to consider the Constitution before their proposals are pushed out/forward? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 It's funny how not so long ago there was this great expression of anxiety on the Left that Harper was going to stack the court with yes-men who would allow any kind of nastiness he had in mind, yet now that he's appointed a majority of the judges on the court people are cheering on the court for 'standing up to him'. He certainly has stacked it but it's certainly not achieving the outcomes he had hoped for. Apparently even his choices are jurors who DO understand the constitution. The Harper supporters that now sit on that bench must be pulling their hair out. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 uhhh! "Standing up to Harper"??? I thought the Supreme Court was simply providing rulings in regard its interpretations of the Constitution... what does it tell you that 6 (and counting) of those latest rulings have "stood up to Harper" shown that Harper Conservatives can't seem to be bothered to consider the Constitution before their proposals are pushed out/forward?Exactly. It's not about standing up to Harper. The fact of the matter is that the Harper Conservatives seem to have trouble making legislation that's legal. But then, what do you expect from the only government in our history that has been found in contempt of Parliament. Quote
jacee Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Exactly. It's not about standing up to Harper. The fact of the matter is that the Harper Conservatives seem to have trouble making legislation that's legal. But then, what do you expect from the only government in our history that has been found in contempt of Parliament.Harper & Co. complained about the Supreme Court ever since Trudeau's repatriation of the Constitution, which they also hold in contempt.They expected political pressure to make a difference. It's reassuring that the law is the law and the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court regardless of who is in power and how much they try to corrupt the Court to their political views and bring the court under political power. It may well be the only democratic check on the PM's power that we have left. . Quote
cybercoma Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Harper & Co. complained about the Supreme Court ever since Trudeau's repatriation of the Constitution, which they also hold in contempt.Harper complained about the Supreme Court in 1982? Are you sure about that? Quote
Argus Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 uhhh! "Standing up to Harper"??? I thought the Supreme Court was simply providing rulings in regard its interpretations of the Constitution... what does it tell you that 6 (and counting) of those latest rulings have "stood up to Harper" shown that Harper Conservatives can't seem to be bothered to consider the Constitution before their proposals are pushed out/forward? You're sneakweaseling your way out of dealing with the point I made. The Left were wailing about that evil Harper dude and how he was going to stack the Supreme Court with his evil lackeys. Clearly this did not 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 June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 It's reassuring that the law is the law and the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court regardless of who is in power and how much they try to corrupt the Court to their political views and bring the court under political power. Would you like to give us examples of how Harper tried to uhm, "corrupt the court"? 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 June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 He certainly has stacked it but it's certainly not achieving the outcomes he had hoped for. Apparently even his choices are jurors who DO understand the constitution. The Harper supporters that now sit on that bench must be pulling their hair out. I'm confused about your confusing statement. You first say that the people he appointed DO understand the constitution, then go on to say they must be pulling their hair out. Could you rationalize these statements please? 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 June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Exactly. It's not about standing up to Harper. The fact of the matter is that the Harper Conservatives seem to have trouble making legislation that's legal. But then, what do you expect from the only government in our history that has been found in contempt of Parliament. Given the parliament that found them in contempt, that ought to be read as a badge of honor. Most of the legislation the SC has invalidated has to do with the government's attempt to toughen up on prisoner sentencing, something the vast majority of the population, both Conservative and Liberal, support. In that context, the SC's innovative and unique interpretations of the law can be seen as fundamentally anti-democratic. 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
Keepitsimple Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 I'm confused about your confusing statement. You first say that the people he appointed DO understand the constitution, then go on to say they must be pulling their hair out. Could you rationalize these statements please? The answer would be just as confusing Quote Back to Basics
Keepitsimple Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Given the parliament that found them in contempt, that ought to be read as a badge of honor. Most of the legislation the SC has invalidated has to do with the government's attempt to toughen up on prisoner sentencing, something the vast majority of the population, both Conservative and Liberal, support. In that context, the SC's innovative and unique interpretations of the law can be seen as fundamentally anti-democratic. I think you've hit on the key. Law and Order really does strike a very populous chord - all across Canada. Harper plays the long game - always has. While the Left smugly snickers about Harper's "defeats" by the SCC......he no doubt has a plan that will use these defeats to his advantage. Time will tell. Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Given the parliament that found them in contempt, that ought to be read as a badge of honor. Most of the legislation the SC has invalidated has to do with the government's attempt to toughen up on prisoner sentencing, something the vast majority of the population, both Conservative and Liberal, support. In that context, the SC's innovative and unique interpretations of the law can be seen as fundamentally anti-democratic. most of it? Well... there's the "elimination of credit for pre‑sentence jailing"... that's one I'll give you. Care to relate the rest of your "most"? I can think of senate reform, the Nadon appointment, the prostitution ruling... what's the rest of your most? as for your "the SC's innovative and unique interpretations of the law", is that of the law... or the constitution? as for your claim I "sneakweasled" out of your "the left" comment, that's quite the broad statement you're making, hey? In any case, I will then note you sneakweasled out of my comment that Harper Conservatives can't seem to be bothered to utilize it's vast (government supplied legal assests) to presume to validate it's proposals with the constitution in mind... before pushing out it's proposals. but hey now, given the most recent SC ruling concerning online privacy, perhaps Harper Conservatives can learn something from it and apply it toward their "cyber-bullying" proposal... before it winds up for yet another SC ruling. What a concept! Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 I'm confused about your confusing statement. You first say that the people he appointed DO understand the constitution, then go on to say they must be pulling their hair out. Could you rationalize these statements please? Simply because Harper seems to keep indicating that HE does not understand (or respect) the constitution. Quote
Smallc Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 The Nadon appointment apparently was approved of by constitutional experts. The court disagreed. Move on. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Given the parliament that found them in contempt, that ought to be read as a badge of honor. Most of the legislation the SC has invalidated has to do with the government's attempt to toughen up on prisoner sentencing, something the vast majority of the population, both Conservative and Liberal, support. In that context, the SC's innovative and unique interpretations of the law can be seen as fundamentally anti-democratic. BTW. He was found in contempt by a parliamentary comittee. That in turn led to a non-confidence vote which brought the government down. If the "contempt" had have reached a full vote in the house and had carried, depending on which legal opinion you listen to, Harper could have ended up in jail, or at least been expelled from the House. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Given the parliament that found them in contempt, that ought to be read as a badge of honor.That Parliament was democratically elected, so your anti-democratic rhetoric is duly noted. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 The Nadon appointment apparently was approved of by constitutional experts.What Constitutional experts? Grad students still doing their articling? Because the Nadon appointment had near universal criticism from experts. 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.