Argus Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Then apparently you need to think a little deeper. Ever heard of contempt of parliament by chance... The smallest beer there ever was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 The smallest beer there ever was. Not sure what this beer reference is all about...drink up, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Not sure what this beer reference is all about...drink up, I guess. Your so-called scandals are pitiful little things amounting to nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Your so-called scandals are pitiful little things amounting to nothing. What is pitiful is calling the thwarting of parliamentary process nothing. And if you just want to look at it from a cost POV, that little number of Harpers cost us an unnecessary election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 What is pitiful is calling the thwarting of parliamentary process nothing. And if you just want to look at it from a cost POV, that little number of Harpers cost us an unnecessary election. Didn't the election end up with a Conservative majority? Seems worth while to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Didn't the election end up with a Conservative majority? Seems worth while to me. Doesn't to me. Apparently not to the majority of voters either. Waste of money as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Doesn't to me. Apparently not to the majority of voters either. Waste of money as well. Apparently, a large enough plurality of voters agreed with me (though I didn't personally vote Conservative). People were so mad about what the Conservatives did that their vote percentage went up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Apparently, a large enough plurality of voters agreed with me (though I didn't personally vote Conservative). People were so mad about what the Conservatives did that their vote percentage went up. All the way up to 39%, wow ad they get a majority. Thats whats wrong with our current system. I suspect what Harper actually did with regard to the contempt slid by a lot of people, simply due to the timing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancouver King Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Conservatives are 10-12% behind their finish last time around with minimal upside potential. Now that Harper's vision of a fossil fueled energy super power lies in ruins, his foes - as well as the electorate - smells the unmistakeable stench of failure. Edited June 17, 2015 by Vancouver King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Upside potential will not be known until the election. The polls now don't tell us anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 All the way up to 39%, wow ad they get a majority. Thats whats wrong with our current system. I suspect what Harper actually did with regard to the contempt slid by a lot of people, simply due to the timing. Wow - are you ever historically ignorant. Going back to 1962 only one elected government (Mulroney in 1984) has gotten 50% of the votes. This great country was built on pluralities in the high 30's and low 40's in terms of percentage of the vote. You're such a whiner. http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Wow - are you ever historically ignorant. Going back to 1962 only one elected government (Mulroney in 1984) has gotten 50% of the votes. This great country was built on pluralities in the high 30's and low 40's in terms of percentage of the vote. You're such a whiner. http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present.html And your current whinge enforces my point. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) What is pitiful is calling the thwarting of parliamentary process nothing. And if you just want to look at it from a cost POV, that little number of Harpers cost us an unnecessary election. Look, I have a very low bar to surpass when it comes to government. I want the leader to be reasonably honest, in that he's not shoving bagsful of taxpayer cash into the hands of his friends and relatives and supporters, and his government be reasonably capable and efficient. Despite my low requirement, Harper's is the only federal government which has met it in forty years. Trudeau was incompetent and dishonest. Clark was honest but incompetent. Mulroney was competent but a crook. Chretien was barely competent, except that he was lazy and didn't care to do anything, and another crook. Martin was probably competent, but dishonest. Harper is better than all of them, easily. Your whining about little cosmetic stuff doesn't have any impact against that. Your indignation that 'Parliament found them in contempt" is so much partisan BS. Harper isn't Mister Happy. So what? I don't need the PM to be my buddy. I only need him to be competent and leave me the hell alone. If you don't have any friends join a social club. Don't vote for a politician on the basis you think he likes you and cares about you. Because he doesn't. If you think otherwise you've been taken in. As for "unnecessary election' LOL. You're the guy speaking in favour of a system which would likely result in elections every 2 years if not even more frequently than that. Edited June 17, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) And your current whinge enforces my point. Thanks. You ignored his point completely. It's never been thought of as unfair before. Trudeau's daddy never thought any changes needed to be made when he was winning majorities with less than 50%. It was fine when Mulroney won and when Chretien won, because they were from Quebec, too, and kind of center left. But the moment some guy who's only slightly to the right of center gets in (the first non Quebecer to be in power for more than a year since the early '60s) suddenly you lefties are all throwing your arms up in the air, running around in circles, and crying that the system is unfair and needs to be changed. And I have no doubt whatever that no matter what it changes to, if your party doesn't get elected you'll be screaming and crying and calling the system unfair and demanding it be changed again. Edited June 17, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 You ignored his point completely. It's never been thought of as unfair before. Trudeau's daddy never thought any changes needed to be made when he was winning majorities with less than 50%. It was fine when Mulroney won and when Chretien won, because they were from Quebec, too, and kind of center left. But the moment some guy who's only slightly to the right of center gets in (the first non Quebecer to be in power for more than a year since the early '60s) suddenly you lefties are all throwing your arms up in the air, running around in circles, and crying that the system is unfair and needs to be changed. And I have no doubt whatever that no matter what it changes to, if your party doesn't get elected you'll be screaming and crying and calling the system unfair and demanding it be changed again. Where the PM comes from matters not to me. I would just prefer to see a system that would likely involve more voters and return a better reflection of the wishes of the electorate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Where the PM comes from matters not to me. I would just prefer to see a system that would likely involve more voters and return a better reflection of the wishes of the electorate. Canadian voters want stable and competent...and to be left with their hard earned money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Look, I have a very low bar to surpass when it comes to government. I want the leader to be reasonably honest, in that he's not shoving bagsful of taxpayer cash into the hands of his friends and relatives and supporters, and his government be reasonably capable and efficient. Despite my low requirement, Harper's is the only federal government which has met it in forty years. Trudeau was incompetent and dishonest. Clark was honest but incompetent. Mulroney was competent but a crook. Chretien was barely competent, except that he was lazy and didn't care to do anything, and another crook. Martin was probably competent, but dishonest. Harper is better than all of them, easily. Your whining about little cosmetic stuff doesn't have any impact against that. Your indignation that 'Parliament found them in contempt" is so much partisan BS. Harper isn't Mister Happy. So what? I don't need the PM to be my buddy. I only need him to be competent and leave me the hell alone. If you don't have any friends join a social club. Don't vote for a politician on the basis you think he likes you and cares about you. Because he doesn't. If you think otherwise you've been taken in. As for "unnecessary election' LOL. You're the guy speaking in favour of a system which would likely result in elections every 2 years if not even more frequently than that. Well Im afraid I dot share your confidence in Harper with regard to either his competence of honesty. I still think it would have been interesting if the contempt finding had of been put to a vote in the house. If it had of ad been upheld, he wouldnt have been able to sit in the house. I guess nobody wanted to go down that road (since it had never happened before) so they shifted things on the order paper and brought the gov. down on a budget bill. Imagine that, a PM not allowed in the house of commons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Where the PM comes from matters not to me. I would just prefer to see a system that would likely involve more voters and return a better reflection of the wishes of the electorate. The vast majority of the electorate (who are not reflected on this site) don't care about the government except that they want it to administer things efficiently and with a reasonable degree of fairness. I will take Harper's dull competence and honesty over Chretien's fake bonhomme routine and Mulroney's sleazy Irish partyboy any day. If you want someone who can laugh and act friendly but steal you blind while screwing up the country then vote for someone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Well Im afraid I dot share your confidence in Harper with regard to either his competence of honesty. I still think it would have been interesting if the contempt finding had of been put to a vote in the house. If it had of ad been upheld, he wouldnt have been able to sit in the house. I guess nobody wanted to go down that road (since it had never happened before) so they shifted things on the order paper and brought the gov. down on a budget bill. Imagine that, a PM not allowed in the house of commons. That was all partisan BS and I am supremely uninterested in it. No one showed more contempt for Parliament than Trudeau senior and you all loved him for it. Meanwhile the next two PMs were stuffing bags of money into their pockets. No thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) You ignored his point completely. It's never been thought of as unfair before. Trudeau's daddy never thought any changes needed to be made when he was winning majorities with less than 50%. It was fine when Mulroney won and when Chretien won, because they were from Quebec, too, and kind of center left. But the moment some guy who's only slightly to the right of center gets in (the first non Quebecer to be in power for more than a year since the early '60s) suddenly you lefties are all throwing your arms up in the air, running around in circles, and crying that the system is unfair and needs to be changed. And I have no doubt whatever that no matter what it changes to, if your party doesn't get elected you'll be screaming and crying and calling the system unfair and demanding it be changed again. Where do you get the idea one sudden moment is all it takes to make a lefty feel like some change is due? Try living with a couple of decades of really incompetent and dishonest fisheries management. Our governance is like a pus-filled boil that needs lancing. Edited June 17, 2015 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Canadian voters want stable and competent...and to be left with their hard earned money. I guess that's how the LPC earned the title of Canada's natural governing party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 That was all partisan BS and I am supremely uninterested in it. No one showed more contempt for Parliament than Trudeau senior and you all loved him for it. Meanwhile the next two PMs were stuffing bags of money into their pockets. No thanks. It was not partisan BS, it was thwarting the rules of parliament by Harper not providing information he is required to provide, and on a couple of very important issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 I guess that's how the LPC earned the title of Canada's natural governing party. Yes they generally did that. So did Harper. I'm not confident of Trudeau. Mulcair...we'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 Yes they generally did that. So did Harper. I'm not confident of Trudeau. Mulcair...we'll see. We will indeed..... ----- And so it begins: Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 He did also say he would bring corp taxes in line with the rest of G7, so maybe we taxpayers wont have to keep coming to the party to top up deficit budgets, while big oil runs all the way to the bank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.