iamcanadian2 Posted March 16, 2007 Author Report Posted March 16, 2007 ....Lawyer with a very prestigious law firm downtown is sleazy? Every lawyer with a prestigious law firm is sleazy. They would not be good lawyers (and the firm not considered prestigious) if they are not sleazy. Hence why no one in their right mind will ever vote for a lawyer to be a judge. This is also why we don't have elected judges in Canada. One of the few places on earth that are not communist or fascists that deliver justice by dictum of unelected "elites". Lord Acton: I cannot accept... that we are to judge pope and king (or judges) unlike other men, with a favorable presumption that they do no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way against holders of power ... Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Quote
jbg Posted March 16, 2007 Report Posted March 16, 2007 I am an attonrey. Both myseof an dothers I know hold to extremely high standards. So do many judges. These attacks may be comical, but they are very unfair. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
guyser Posted March 16, 2007 Report Posted March 16, 2007 I am an attonrey. Both myseof an dothers I know hold to extremely high standards. So do many judges. These attacks may be comical, but they are very unfair. jbg, these attacks are not even comical. Oh sure lawyer jokes can be funny , but these posts are nothing but unwarranted vindictive rants aginst something they obviously have no working knowledge of. Ignorance, stupidity shown by the ignorant stupid. (is it Friday afternoon drinking session in council today ..?...I mean the spelling is... ) Quote
guyser Posted March 16, 2007 Report Posted March 16, 2007 Every lawyer with a prestigious law firm is sleazy. They would not be good lawyers (and the firm not considered prestigious) if they are not sleazy.Hence why no one in their right mind will ever vote for a lawyer to be a judge. This is also why we don't have elected judges in Canada. One of the few places on earth that are not communist or fascists that deliver justice by dictum of unelected "elites". Couple of tomatoes short of a sauce huh? Quote
jbg Posted March 16, 2007 Report Posted March 16, 2007 I am an attonrey. Both myseof an dothers I know hold to extremely high standards. So do many judges. These attacks may be comical, but they are very unfair. I can give myself me own medicine on spelling, since I know I give others a hard time sometimes: I am an attonrey attorney. Both myseof an dothers myself and others I know hold to extremely high standards. So do many judges. These attacks may be comical, but they are very unfair. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
iamcanadian2 Posted March 17, 2007 Author Report Posted March 17, 2007 We seem to have gotten off track in this thread. The two sides of opinions on legal professionals, nemely the one held by lawyers about themselves which your here seem to profess and the contrary view held by all those who have ever experienced Canada's version of what is call's a Legal System (unique in the world I may add), which would not be allowed to survive in any honest country and only survives in Canada due to our Police State status (that Stalin would envy). This thread is about disolving unecessary governments and banning and disbarring the men with the mentality of gangsters that rule over them from further holding of possitions of public trust and public resposibilities. The best candidate we have identified of organizations that should be disolved and disbanded are the Nine Regional (Second Tier/Layer of Municipal) Governments of Ontario. Any other candidates? Quote
jbg Posted March 17, 2007 Report Posted March 17, 2007 The best candidate we have identified of organizations that should be disolved and disbanded are the Nine Regional Governments of Ontario. Any other candidates? Not really a division of government, but I'd cap the size of the Cabinet, and think about allowing appointment of non-Parliamentarians. In other words, a professional, meritocratic Cabinet, like another country Canadians love to hate has. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
iamcanadian2 Posted March 17, 2007 Author Report Posted March 17, 2007 Well you are quite off the mark on this topic. Disolving redundant and unecessary government levels involves removing the bureacracries that we can do without and that serve no purpose other than to line people's pockets with unecessary profesional public employment. What you are talking about instead is fracturing an aready broken system even further by eliminating elected possition which have the integrity and reinforcing the non-elected and appointment possitions where all the corruption is created and where integrity receives lip service but is non-existent. Nothing that is appointed can ever be better than something elected. Elected is the only means of ensuring integrity. It's not perfect but it is the best way to manage the evils of mankind that arrises in all holders of power. Quote
jbg Posted March 17, 2007 Report Posted March 17, 2007 Well you are quite off the mark on this topic.What you are talking about instead is fracturing an aready broken system even further by eliminating elected possition which have the integrity and reinforcing the non-elected and appointment possitions where all the corruption is created and where integrity receives lip service but is non-existent. Nothing that is appointed can ever be better than something elected. Elected is the only means of ensuring integrity. It's not perfect but it is the best way to manage the evils of mankind that arrises in all holders of power. I respectfully disagree. When one votes for their MP, they have only a small idea as to whether that MP makes the Cabinet and with what portfolio. In no sense are Cabinet members elected for their portfolio; they're elected by 30,000 or so from their riding. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
iamcanadian2 Posted March 17, 2007 Author Report Posted March 17, 2007 The most important reason to elect someone into a possition every 4 or 5 years is not for the people to pick the best person for the job. It's to be able to get rid of the wrong people every 4 or 5 years at the most. Apointed possitions may result in some better people getting picked more often, but when any wrong people are appointed they are in and stay in there for 30 years or more and can get even passed on for generation with the resulting nafariousness and corruption being too much to risk and the damage they do much too great to let go. Better to elect and unelect 6 different people in thirty years because the public makes errors in judgement than to let one man with the mentality of gangsters stay get an appointed job that lasts for 30 years abusing the public trust and betraying the public interest from employed possitions. Quote
August1991 Posted March 17, 2007 Report Posted March 17, 2007 Couldn't agree more. Federal and municipal is all we really need. The rest is fat.You're from Toronto, no? Quote
August1991 Posted March 17, 2007 Report Posted March 17, 2007 I just finished reading Seymour Martin Lipset's book about US-Canadian distinctions called Continental Divide. It was excellent.One of the points it made was that Canada, unlike the US, has a Tory tradition (spanning both Left and Right) of deference to authority and higher class. The US, be contrast, has little use for either. Maybe. But most of Canada at the time didn't speak English, so a Tory tradition is weird. Deference to authority has more sense. Quote
iamcanadian2 Posted March 17, 2007 Author Report Posted March 17, 2007 The most important reason to elect someone into a possition every 4 or 5 years is not for the people to pick the best person for the job. It's to be able to get rid of the wrong people every 4 or 5 years at the most.Apointed possitions may result in some better people getting picked more often, but when any wrong people are appointed they are in and stay in there for 30 years or more and can get even passed on for generation with the resulting nafariousness and corruption being too much to risk and the damage they do much too great to let go. Better to elect and unelect 6 different people in thirty years because the public makes errors in judgement than to let one man with the mentality of gangsters stay get an appointed job that lasts for 30 years abusing the public trust and betraying the public interest from employed possitions. Have to revise my gramar on this truism... The reason we must elect people is not because the public will tend to elect the better people for the job but because the people will be able to remove the wrong people they elected. We need more elected possitions and less employed possitions in Canada's governance. Better to elected and unelect 10 different people to a post over a period of 30 years based on the chance that the public vote may be an error in judgement every four or five years.....rather than letting even one wrong man get appointed on purpose by men with the mentality of gangsters who can't be removed for 30 years or more. The chances that the public will make the same mistake 10 times when voting in open elections is not that great and the chance that a small group will appoint a man with the mentality of a gangster on purpose is almost a certainty every time. Quote
jbg Posted March 17, 2007 Report Posted March 17, 2007 Apointed possitions may result in some better people getting picked more often, but when any wrong people are appointed they are in and stay in there for 30 years or more and can get even passed on for generation with the resulting nafariousness and corruption being too much to risk and the damage they do much too great to let go. In the US, Cabinet ministers serve at the President's pleasure, and it is very rare for them to carry over to a new Administration. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted March 17, 2007 Report Posted March 17, 2007 I just finished reading Seymour Martin Lipset's book about US-Canadian distinctions called Continental Divide. It was excellent.One of the points it made was that Canada, unlike the US, has a Tory tradition (spanning both Left and Right) of deference to authority and higher class. The US, be contrast, has little use for either. Maybe. But most of Canada at the time didn't speak English, so a Tory tradition is weird. Deference to authority has more sense. Most of Canada didn't speak English in 1990? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
madmax Posted March 17, 2007 Report Posted March 17, 2007 The way it works today only lawyers who are not good enough to make a living as lawyers accept appoitments as judges. Good Lawyers make too much money in private practice to ever become public employees. A lawyers ability to make profit has little to do with ones knowledge of law. Just because the Lawyer follows the money, doesn't suggest that he would make a good judge. The only thing determined, is that the Lawyer is practicing in a profitable market. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I think you have it in for lawyers. Quote
madmax Posted March 17, 2007 Report Posted March 17, 2007 they first desire to be crooked sleezy lawyers, they train to be liers and cheaters in a legal forum, So successful crooked Sleezy Lawyers work for the Banks and the Corporations behalf. While the unsuccessful crooked Sleazy Lawyers become civil servants of the court? Their are alot of Lawyers out there, many of them politicians in the CPC party. I am concerned. Unfortuneately my brush stroke doesn't include all the Lawyers in the profession. Quote
madmax Posted March 17, 2007 Report Posted March 17, 2007 Have to revise my gramar on this truism... My grammer in these forums in not so great either. Sometimes I imply the opposite of what I mean while typing in a hurry. Same as with spelling mistakes. We are all going to make a few. Keep doing your best. Quote
jbg Posted March 18, 2007 Report Posted March 18, 2007 Their are alot of Lawyers out there, many of them politicians in the CPC party. I am concerned.There are CPC politicians that are not lawyers. The MP from Calgary Southwest comes to mind. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
iamcanadian2 Posted March 18, 2007 Author Report Posted March 18, 2007 The reason we must elect people is not because the public will tend to elect the better people for the job but because the people will be able to remove the wrong people they elected. We need more elected possitions and less employed possitions in Canada's governance.Better to elected and unelect 10 different people to a post over a period of 30 years based on the chance that the public vote may be an error in judgement every four or five years.....rather than letting even one wrong man get appointed on purpose by men with the mentality of gangsters who can't be removed for 30 years or more. The chances that the public will make the same mistake 10 times when voting in open elections is not that great and the chance that a small group will appoint a man with the mentality of a gangster on purpose is almost a certainty every time. Lets get back on topic of disolving unecessary government, increasing the number of elected representatives and reducing the number of non-elected governing possitions. Quote
iamcanadian2 Posted March 18, 2007 Author Report Posted March 18, 2007 Millions upon millions of people have died throughout history to remove non-elected appointed tyrants from public positions. Why does Canada persist in undermining the public interest by maintaining people in important and higher possitions of public governance without ensuring there are effective means of summarily removing and disbaring them from ever holding public possitions of responsibility and trust once they are found wanting? Quote
madmax Posted March 18, 2007 Report Posted March 18, 2007 Lets get back on topic of disolving unecessary government, increasing the number of elected representatives and reducing the number of non-elected governing possitions. The Senate is unnecessary. I don't want it elected. I want it disolved. So do many Senators. The Conservative Government in Ontario had reduced the number of elected officials from 130 to 103 in 1999. In 1967 there were 108 seats in Ontario. They went up to 117 then 125 by 1975 and 130 by 1987. Now you are implying they should increase them. Are Conservatives coming and going at the same time? Quote
iamcanadian2 Posted March 19, 2007 Author Report Posted March 19, 2007 The Senate is unnecessary. I don't want it elected. I want it disolved. So do many Senators. The Conservative Government in Ontario had reduced the number of elected officials from 130 to 103 in 1999. In 1967 there were 108 seats in Ontario. They went up to 117 then 125 by 1975 and 130 by 1987. Now you are implying they should increase them. Of course. The non-elected have been usurping power from the People by reducing the number of elected representatives supervising them. In 1967 Ontario's population was 6.0 Million and from your number we had 108 seats. Today we have a population of 12.0 Million and we should have 216 seats all things being equal. At the same time we saw increadible advances in computer technology making people 1000's of time more efficient. This should be reflected in 1000's of time less non-elected administration since it takes less people to look after the public's interest. The people never the less deserve as much personal attention per capita as always which we means we should have a significant increase in elected representation to listen to the growing number of people. This would go with a dramatic decrease in non-elected administration. I have no problem with increasing vocational and working public workers which should also increase with population, however the administration and bureacratic levels can be slashed my several magnatudes without noticiable effects other than huge reduction in intentional public waste that they represent. Quote
Wilber Posted March 19, 2007 Report Posted March 19, 2007 In 1967 Ontario's population was 6.0 Million and from your number we had 108 seats.Today we have a population of 12.0 Million and we should have 216 seats all things being equal. To do that you would have to double the size of the Commons. One of the criteria for alloting the number of seats a province gets is determined by its population in respect to the rest of the country. BC has approx 1/3 the population of Ontario and approx 1/3 the number of seats. Double Ontario's and you would have to double BC's. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
jbg Posted March 19, 2007 Report Posted March 19, 2007 It's not the number of elected officials that count, but the role of elected and unelected officials. If the Senate basically "rubber-stamps" legislation it's harmless. If it bogs down significant legislation and is unelected, it's quite harmful. If the Senate is elected, it should be elected by a different formula than the "FPTP" House of Commons, in order to increase its consensus-building functions. I am not sure what voting method would be best. Perhaps, as in the US, EEE, or, possibly, elected by provincial Parliaments. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
.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.