PIK Posted October 31, 2016 Report Share Posted October 31, 2016 I think this might come back and haunt the liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 31, 2016 Report Share Posted October 31, 2016 It very well might, but I'd prefer this to more party bagmen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 31, 2016 Report Share Posted October 31, 2016 It's definitely a step in the right direction compared to any PM in the past. Do you people honestly think that Harper's appointments to the Senate were done in a better manner than this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted October 31, 2016 Report Share Posted October 31, 2016 Harper did mostly refuse to appoint senators due to wanting reform. Â Trudeau doesn't really want reform. Though how he's pretended to do reform is politically impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted November 1, 2016 Report Share Posted November 1, 2016 3 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said: Harper did mostly refuse to appoint senators due to wanting reform. Â Trudeau doesn't really want reform. Though how he's pretended to do reform is politically impressive. Harper refused to appoint Senators..... Â until he appointed a whole bunch of political bagmen and hacks as Senators. Â Awesome defence of Harper... Â He made a process that is better than any other process that has ever been used to appoint Senators. Â Is it "reform"? Â I think so.... Â it doesn't go as far as I would like, but it is better than anything we've had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted November 1, 2016 Report Share Posted November 1, 2016 So instead of appointing senators directly, you appoint people to appoint them for you. Â Basically same thing, but the second one costs tax payers more money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted November 1, 2016 Report Share Posted November 1, 2016 5 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said: So instead of appointing senators directly, you appoint people to appoint them for you. Â Basically same thing, but the second one costs tax payers more money. Having selection criteria other than being a party hack is a step forward. How is it the same thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted November 1, 2016 Report Share Posted November 1, 2016 He didn't reform the senate. There was nothing that prevented people from appointing either people from other parties or non-affiliated people. Pretty sure Harper said he would appoint people from other parties if they were elected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 1, 2016 Report Share Posted November 1, 2016 Harper didn't try to reform the senate either, by that logic  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted November 1, 2016 Report Share Posted November 1, 2016 1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said: He didn't reform the senate. There was nothing that prevented people from appointing either people from other parties or non-affiliated people. Pretty sure Harper said he would appoint people from other parties if they were elected. Harper said he would appoint Liberals?  And you believed him?  LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted November 1, 2016 Report Share Posted November 1, 2016 What do you think trudeau just did, they may not be members of the liberal party but they all travel the same road. If anybody here thinks this is non partisan, you have drank Kool aid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 1, 2016 Report Share Posted November 1, 2016 So show us their partisan credentials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 Trudeau said he would appoint people for diversity, but he certainly didn't want diversity in the only way that mattered - thought. There will be no such diversity among his appointees. They will all be dedicated members of the liberal elites, with the same wildly out-of-touch cultural values which are so far to the left of that of most Canadians. Do you think you'll find a single one of these appointees who would agree that there should be a values test for potential new immigrants, or that face coverings shouldn't be worn for citizenship ceremonies? Not a chance! There will be no one in this group who is anti abortion, who doesn't love multiculturalism and bilingualism, and doesn't ooze sympathy for natives. None will be anything but aghast at the thought of the death penalty. And you know how opposition in cabinet and the polls showing public disfavor put a damper on McCallum's desire to increase immigration by 50%? I'm willing to bet every single appointee would vote to double or triple immigration if they could. As for budget deficits the more the better! These are the kind of people who believe we need to spend spend, spend on each and every one of society's ills, real or imagined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 25 minutes ago, Argus said: members of the liberal elites, with the same wildly out-of-touch cultural values which are so far to the left of that of most Canadians.  Yes, those psychiatrists and police officers and their liberal bias. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Smallc said: Yes, those psychiatrists and police officers and their liberal bias. The police officer in question was the one considered much responsible for the mishandling by the OPP of the native uprising in Calidonia, where she ordered OPP officers to let the natives do anything they wanted, and then had to resign and flee the country, much like Dalton McGuinty. As for the psychiatrist, if you think you're going to find anything but leftists in a social science class, you need one. Edited November 2, 2016 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 2, 2016 Report Share Posted November 2, 2016 Psychiatrists are doctors (hard science) that prescribe medicine, not counselors. Â You're thinking of psychologists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 On 10/31/2016 at 8:53 PM, The_Squid said: Harper refused to appoint Senators.....  until he appointed a whole bunch of political bagmen and hacks as Senators.  Awesome defence of Harper...  He made a process that is better than any other process that has ever been used to appoint Senators.  Is it "reform"?  I think so....  it doesn't go as far as I would like, but it is better than anything we've had. Ummmm... hello.....Harper left 25 empty Senate chairs for Trudeau to fill with Independent Senators Who Always Vote Liberal by Sheerest Coincidence Who Could Have Guessed?.  In another astonishing coincidence, the new Senators will barely have time to settle into the daily slog in their new careers of stealing per diems before Trudeau will require them to immediately pass as and when instructed by Peter Harder carefully consider his legislation to pass ranked ballots as 'electoral reform'. Next spring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 On 11/2/2016 at 0:16 PM, Smallc said: Psychiatrists are doctors (hard science) that prescribe medicine, not counselors. Â You're thinking of psychologists. We will need numerous cites and links to demonstrate that psychiatry is 'hard science'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 On 10/27/2016 at 0:23 PM, PIK said: Activists need to be removed form government and schools. Yes, we need pencil pushing drones instead. No need for opinions in those that are tasked with forming our laws. What we need are personalities that can go out on the campaign trail and repeat a script. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 1 hour ago, overthere said: We will need numerous cites and links to demonstrate that psychiatry is 'hard science'. A psychiatrist is a doctor. Â A medical doctor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 1 hour ago, Smallc said: A psychiatrist is a doctor. Â A medical doctor. No cites or links provided. Has a psychiatrist ever provided a cure other than making people comfortably numb? Â At best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 On 11/2/2016 at 1:23 PM, Argus said: As for the psychiatrist, if you think you're going to find anything but leftists in a social science class, you need one. What about economics classes? What about psychologists like Jordan Peterson? I think your claim is not correct. Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 4, 2016 Report Share Posted November 4, 2016 (edited) 34 minutes ago, overthere said: No cites or links provided. Has a psychiatrist ever provided a cure other than making people comfortably numb? Â At best. I didn't think I needed a cite for a well known fact: Psychiatrists are medical doctors (MDs) who graduate from medical school, have a year of medical internship, and have 3 years of residency in the assessment and treatment of mental health disorders. http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/psychologist-or-psychiatrist-which-for-you Edited November 4, 2016 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 Ok - thanks for the definition. Â This bit of drift has been closed off now, so back to the topic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted November 5, 2016 Report Share Posted November 5, 2016 On 10/27/2016 at 9:12 PM, bcsapper said: They are the best people for the job, given who the PM is. I think that's the point of the OP. Agreed.  Their job is to rubber stamp whatever legislation the PMO puts in front of them.  I think this pack of muppets will pretend to consider it for a while.  I don't know how that represents an upgrade from the old system, where they didn't pretend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.