June 1st Question Period zinger of the day
- Thread starter BitWhys
- Start date
RE: June 1st Question Per
Our neo-cons don't have a very highly developed sense of humour. They don't have much development of any sense for that matter. I can't wait till they start the scandals and the thievery, this lot should be particularly prone to it considering thier republican trainers.
Our neo-cons don't have a very highly developed sense of humour. They don't have much development of any sense for that matter. I can't wait till they start the scandals and the thievery, this lot should be particularly prone to it considering thier republican trainers.
Maybe the senate would be taken more seriously if they actually did what they were supposed to. Instead, the only two times I can remember the senate either stopping legislation or threatening to, is a liberal dominated senate with a conservative government. Please don't tell me that the senate was acting in the best interests of Canadians, because they were only acting in the best interests of the liberal party. Which is all the liberals ever do all the time, what is best for the party, and the hell with the country.
I would in fact suggest that the Senate does do its job in a most honourable fashion — with much less partisanship than one would see in the House of Commons. The fact that the Senate makes many amendments to legislation, and that the Commons rarely rejects the advice of the Senate, should make it quite apparent that the Commons trusts the Senate's opinion.
Re: RE: June 1st Question Period zinger of the day
...or in the case of a conservative government has no choice, and in the case of a liberal government, probably agrees with them. Either way, we have a bunch of unelected patronage appointments messing with laws and legislature passed by elected members of parliament. I use Tommy Banks as a perfect example of what is wrong with the Senate, good musician, but what does that have to do with making laws? He was and is a Liberal supporter and that is why he is there. Same thing with Nick Taylor, another Liberal from Alberta. Could not win an election in Alberta, but he has qualifications for the Senate. Give me a break. Given the voting patterns of Alberta, the senators should all be conservative, but no, Chretien and Martin appoint Liberals. Tell me that is fair in a province that consistently votes Conservative both federally and provincially. How are Banks and Taylor representing the views of this province? Answer is they don't, but they sure represent the Liberal viewpoint, even though in election after election, the citizens of Alberta reject the Liberal message.
That, my friend Five, is a microcosm of what is wrong with the Senate, and why many in Alberta either want to reform it, or abolish it.
FiveParadox said:
...or in the case of a conservative government has no choice, and in the case of a liberal government, probably agrees with them. Either way, we have a bunch of unelected patronage appointments messing with laws and legislature passed by elected members of parliament. I use Tommy Banks as a perfect example of what is wrong with the Senate, good musician, but what does that have to do with making laws? He was and is a Liberal supporter and that is why he is there. Same thing with Nick Taylor, another Liberal from Alberta. Could not win an election in Alberta, but he has qualifications for the Senate. Give me a break. Given the voting patterns of Alberta, the senators should all be conservative, but no, Chretien and Martin appoint Liberals. Tell me that is fair in a province that consistently votes Conservative both federally and provincially. How are Banks and Taylor representing the views of this province? Answer is they don't, but they sure represent the Liberal viewpoint, even though in election after election, the citizens of Alberta reject the Liberal message.
That, my friend Five, is a microcosm of what is wrong with the Senate, and why many in Alberta either want to reform it, or abolish it.
I continue to question the suggestions by many that the Senate is entirely incapable of doing good work for Canada. The chance of the Senate attempting to outright reject legislation from the Commons is quite unlikely — as it should be. If the Senate were elected, then it would become a new Chamber of legislative initiative, competing with the efforts of the Lower House, rather than acting as a Chamber of second thought and review.
Re: RE: June 1st Question Period zinger of the day
hehe I'll quote you as such. lol.
Paradox If I were PM and ran into the streets and chose people at Random to be in the Senate it would be more democratic and more beneficial then the current system of croynism.
Also Five I have waisted my time to see what they have done. But I do not, nor ever will support such a system of croynism and a quasi-parliment which is unelected by the people or provinces. This is a democratic principle which we expect other nations to follow yet we do not follow it ourselfs. As I stated before, the USA has bombed nations with Senates elected in a more democratic way then our own.
FiveParadox said:
hehe I'll quote you as such. lol.
Paradox If I were PM and ran into the streets and chose people at Random to be in the Senate it would be more democratic and more beneficial then the current system of croynism.
Also Five I have waisted my time to see what they have done. But I do not, nor ever will support such a system of croynism and a quasi-parliment which is unelected by the people or provinces. This is a democratic principle which we expect other nations to follow yet we do not follow it ourselfs. As I stated before, the USA has bombed nations with Senates elected in a more democratic way then our own.
Whatever you say, Finder.
You continue to refuse to make any sort of attempt to see where I am coming from, nor do you have any intention of listening to my arguments in favour of an unelected Senate. Once you see the word "unelected", you more-or-less stop reading and scream treason. I have compromised with you on this issue in other discussions, going so far as to compromise on systems of Senate selection to use, and whatnot — however, you've never made any effort to do the same. You're right, I'm a dumbass, let's leave it at that and discontinue this line of conversation.
You continue to refuse to make any sort of attempt to see where I am coming from, nor do you have any intention of listening to my arguments in favour of an unelected Senate. Once you see the word "unelected", you more-or-less stop reading and scream treason. I have compromised with you on this issue in other discussions, going so far as to compromise on systems of Senate selection to use, and whatnot — however, you've never made any effort to do the same. You're right, I'm a dumbass, let's leave it at that and discontinue this line of conversation.
Re: RE: June 1st Question Period zinger of the day
Or it may work somewhat like the American system does, with compromises necessary to ensure passage of legislation. There may be less partisan politics.
But the main bitch us dissenters have is that the Senate is unelected, and thus, unaccountable. Reverse things for a bit, Five, and ask yourself if you would still support the Senate if it was made up of Randy White types and not only would gay marriage not be a topic, but anything to do with the gay community would be a bad thing. I suspect that your feelings would change.
If we keep the Senate, I would much prefer it to be a regional house of representation, not a partisan filled house of appointees. Triple E comes to mind. If not, then we should abolish it.
FiveParadox said:
Or it may work somewhat like the American system does, with compromises necessary to ensure passage of legislation. There may be less partisan politics.
But the main bitch us dissenters have is that the Senate is unelected, and thus, unaccountable. Reverse things for a bit, Five, and ask yourself if you would still support the Senate if it was made up of Randy White types and not only would gay marriage not be a topic, but anything to do with the gay community would be a bad thing. I suspect that your feelings would change.
If we keep the Senate, I would much prefer it to be a regional house of representation, not a partisan filled house of appointees. Triple E comes to mind. If not, then we should abolish it.
I understand what you mean, bluealberta, but the purpose of the Senate is not to be a new House of legislative initiative, but rather to be a House of second-thought and review. If the Senate is elected (in particular, if the Senate is elected through the population directly), then we could end up with a Senate that would have the "mandate" to exercise its powers all the time (as opposed to our present Senate, who only exercises its powers in the most serious of circumstances) — and if the legislative to give us fixed election dates indeed passes, then we could end up with a hostile and cohabitating Senate and Commons, unable to do anything useful for four years. My concerns arise from the effectiveness, and the purpose, of the Senate.
I think it is safe to say that we will agree to disagree on this subject. However, I do think there is a move afoot in Canada, and not just from the right, to do something with the Senate. This will take a lot of time, but I think term limits are a good first baby step.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree with the premise of a more "representative" Senate. However, I think that Senators should be appointed by the Legislative Assemblies of the Provinces, rather than by the Prime Minister of Canada. I think that this would ensure that their Senators would represent a province, rather than any particular party in the Commons.
Re: RE: June 1st Question Per
Remember I said "somewhat", not "exactly like".
I would prefer to think that the art of compromise might work, not gridlock.
In any event, the current Senate, IMO, is a respository for failed politicians and political hacks, mostly Liberal, but from both the major parties.
BitWhys said:
Remember I said "somewhat", not "exactly like".
I would prefer to think that the art of compromise might work, not gridlock.
In any event, the current Senate, IMO, is a respository for failed politicians and political hacks, mostly Liberal, but from both the major parties.
OH MY
Reports of a rude arm gesture and the commons going wild!
These chidren being paid in excess of a hundred grand a year should be out in the playground where they belong. And it doesn't matter whether its conservatives or liberals or any particular party, they all demonstrate contempt and disdain for Canadian taxpayers.
One-quarter of question period devoted to rude gestures...
What a bunch of assholes!
Reports of a rude arm gesture and the commons going wild!
These chidren being paid in excess of a hundred grand a year should be out in the playground where they belong. And it doesn't matter whether its conservatives or liberals or any particular party, they all demonstrate contempt and disdain for Canadian taxpayers.
One-quarter of question period devoted to rude gestures...
What a bunch of assholes!
Re: RE: June 1st Question Period zinger of the day
I would remind the above member to please ensure that his posts are not unnecessarily heated, in the interest of continuing this discussion with an air of order and decorum.
Gestures such as those that were seen from some members of the Conservative Party of Canada were not in order, and were indeed in contempt of the Parliament of Canada, in my opinion. Some members, in particular The Honourable Pierre Poilievre, P.C., M.P., the Member for Nepean—Carleton and the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, have shown continuous disrespect for the institution, and yet The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P., the Member for Calgary Southwest and the Prime Minister of Canada, seems to consent to their behaviour.[i said:
The only party who demonstrated contempt for Canada during that session of Question Period was that of the Government of Canada — the arrogance of this Government in relation to their disrespect for not only members of the House of Commons, but for the institution of Parliament, is astounding.[i said:
As I have noted above, the time dedicated to this subject was quite warranted.[i said:
I would remind the above member to please ensure that his posts are not unnecessarily heated, in the interest of continuing this discussion with an air of order and decorum.
"If it was misinterpreted, I apologize," Gourde said.
no, Sonny, we all know EXACTLY what you meant.
So up your's too.
no, Sonny, we all know EXACTLY what you meant.
So up your's too.
A horrible thing this......sign language used in the House!
We know all the Liberals prefer their insults to be mouthed.......and fuddle-duddle to them as well.
This is a tempest in a teapot. The Conservative should not have lost his temper, the opposition should have been mature enough to ignore it..........everyone concerned is behaving badly.....
Edited to say.....
I know if I were in Parliament, especially when the Liberals were in power, I would have been over the rails into the gov't benches swinging at least once a month........(in the best Canadian hockey tradition
)
Good reason not to be a politician, I guess. :?
We know all the Liberals prefer their insults to be mouthed.......and fuddle-duddle to them as well.
This is a tempest in a teapot. The Conservative should not have lost his temper, the opposition should have been mature enough to ignore it..........everyone concerned is behaving badly.....
Edited to say.....
I know if I were in Parliament, especially when the Liberals were in power, I would have been over the rails into the gov't benches swinging at least once a month........(in the best Canadian hockey tradition
)Good reason not to be a politician, I guess. :?