NDP sets up roadblocks to budget bill

[Cabbagesandking]

Ya so?

"Besides the fact that you read the publishing date, did you bother to read the article?

There's a lot of facts in there that will make you uncomfortable. Which is likely why you didn't read it."

I don't have to read it. I have been familiar with taht since, from the tenor of your "arguments" before you learned what Time Allocation is. Now, if you read it, you will see the fears raised by the Conservatives of what would happen to Parliamentary government if TA was allowed. It has existed only since the 60s btw.

"So? According to the gov't that legislated it, it is neither unethical, or illegal, or undemocratic."

Exactly! But its abuse is unethical and undemocratic

"Harper has used Section 75C to push through legislation 8 times."

I don't know where you get your figures from but they are bunk. This is the 18th time in this short period.

"Chretien used it a total of 49 times, in two terms, Mulroney same, in one term."

Chretien did not overuse it. Read this for some accurate perspective.
"The Liberals have released figures documenting what they believe to be Mr. Harper’s abuse of power.
By their reckoning, 21 government bills have been debated over the first 66 days of this Parliament. Five of those bills (23.8%) have been subject to time allocation motions and time allocation motions have been passed a total of nine times. By comparison, they say, under the last Liberal majority government Parliament sat for 419 days and debated 153 government bills. Eight of those (5.2%) were subject to time allocation motions and a total of ten time allocation motions were passed.
The Liberals report that, per sitting day, the Harper government has used time allocation more than any government since time allocation was added to the standing orders in the mid-1960s. Furthermore, they say time allocation has been invoked after an average of three hours and 53 minutes of debate, while the last Liberal majority did so after an average of eight hours and 22 minutes."

"Whether he lumps it together, or breaks it down, it's all the same. The media and the Opposition is making this into a spectacle and the Usual Suspects and bobbleheads suck it up like so much pap."

How on Earth is it "all the same?"

"I read the synopsis of Bill C-38 the other day. Lots of legislation I disagree with fundamentally, but can understand realistically. Lots of legislation I completely dislike. But nothing in there is anything like the nonsense you've been trying to peddle. Like denying Canadians freedom."

Of course it denies freedom - if you complete what I did say. It denies them the freedom tp participate in certain charitable organisations while encouraging those that are likely to engage in activities that this government does not approve of.

"Let's take a quick walk back through that nonsense...


BS.

No more or less so than with any other majority gov't.

What utter BS. Harper still hasn't prorogued as many sessions as previous gov'ts. "

Never in Parliamentary history in any country (it is used only in Canada to any extent at all) has prorogation been used before a legislative session has come to an end. Chretien's last use was when there were just two Bills left on the order paper and Chretien was retiring. It was the right thing to do to allow Martin to start with a fresh slate.

Harper prorogued to shut down a committee investigating this government's complicity in the torture of Afghanis on one occasion. The other was to avoid a contempt of Parliament finding against the government. That would have been a first in Canadian history.

On both occasions, the session was barely half way through. On one of them there were about 34 Bills that died on the order paper. not two.

"Which in and of themselves, were based on the Opposition doing something no previous Opposition would even think of doing, demanding documents pertaining to an ongoing combat mission."

The opposition did not demand papers relating to a combat mission as I wrote above.

""What a load of sh!t. Harper has used Section 75C 8 times.

Read above

"You mean we never introduced the Charter?"

This means what?

"NEP nad NAFTA come immediately to mind, without any real research."

And what fundamental social changes did those bring?"

Again BS.

You simply dismissed the article I posted that proves that to be a lie.

I proved that to be a lie.

The Liberals that enacted it, and used it, didn't think so.

Accept for ones like NEP NAFTA and the Charter.

And that there is the biggest load of manure you've posted thus far."

It would appear that you should do that "real research."

 

[DaSleeper]

I see you can't quote just like you can't read:roll:

 

[SLM]

I see you can't quote just like you can't read:roll:

Where's Tonnington's "This is how to quote" thread?

 

[Cabbagesandking]

I see you can't quote just like you can't read:roll:

What a perceptive and insightful response! And delivered with such wit and brevity.

Move over Oscar Wilde.

 

[DaSleeper]

Where's Tonnington's "This is how to quote" thread?

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/troubleshooting/102498-nitpick-alert-how-use-quote.html

And my little contribution...for for the cabbagepatchkid:lol:

Here is a re-post of a tutorial....

How to quote.....

Tutorial - How to Quote a Forum Post - PhilosophyForum.com - YouTube

How to multiquote....

Tutorial - How to Multi-Quote PhilosophyForum.com - YouTube

 

[CDNBear]

What a perceptive and insightful response!

I'd say on par with your posts, but his was actually correct.

I don't know where you get your figures from but they are bunk. This is the 18th time in this short period.

Even If I conceded to that, 18 doesn't beat Chretiens 49, or Trudeau or Mulroney.

Chretien did not overuse it.

49 times in two terms seems pretty high to me.

Maybe instead of dismissing evidence provided, you should actually read it. Even if it was authored in 2000.

Since your argument is that time allocation has never been used so often, the history of it's use since creation, is important to your position.

Here it is again, brush up on how often it's been used in the past, before you embarrass yourself any further...

http://iog.ca/sites/iog/files/Time-allocationEN.pdf

Read this for some accurate perspective.

Something you gleaned from the LPC website is an accurate perspective? LOL!!!

By their reckoning, 21 government bills have been debated over the first 66 days of this Parliament. Five of those bills (23.8%) have been subject to time allocation motions and time allocation motions have been passed a total of nine times.

5 of those bills? Time allocation motions have passed a total of 9 times?

Which is it? 5? 9? 14? Or 18?

By the way, you should give Aaron Wherry credit for that paragraph. Plagiarism is frowned on here.

The Liberals report that, per sitting day, the Harper government has used time allocation more than any government since time allocation was added to the standing orders in the mid-1960s.

I already proved that to be a lie.

How on Earth is it "all the same?"

Because if he breaks it down and pushes it through one by one, or lumps it together and pushes it through, it's going to end the same way. Just like it has since Section 75C was created and has been used by majority gov'ts.

Of course it denies freedom - if you complete what I did say. It denies them the freedom tp participate in certain charitable organisations while encouraging those that are likely to engage in activities that this government does not approve of.

No it doesn't.

Never in Parliamentary history in any country (it is used only in Canada to any extent at all) has prorogation been used before a legislative session has come to an end. Chretien's last use was when there were just two Bills left on the order paper and Chretien was retiring. It was the right thing to do to allow Martin to start with a fresh slate.

You prove the first sentence wrong, with your second sentence.

Harper prorogued to shut down a committee investigating this government's complicity in the torture of Afghanis on one occasion.

Chretien prorogued to shut down the Somali inquiry. Chretien prorogued to avoid the fall out from Adscam, and left Martin to face that music.

The other was to avoid a contempt of Parliament finding against the government. That would have been a first in Canadian history.

If it ever happened. Your opinion isn't based in fact, it's conjecture.

On both occasions, the session was barely half way through. On one of them there were about 34 Bills that died on the order paper. not two.

So? If you speed over the limit by 10 or 20, you're still speeding. Your application of moral relevancy is funny though.

The opposition did not demand papers relating to a combat mission as I wrote above.

LOL. Yes they did. Thanks for proving again, you don't know what you're talking about.

Read above

5 times according to you.

This means what?

Society changing legislation.

And what fundamental social changes did those bring?

8O

It would appear that you should do that "real research.

Says the guy that hasn't offered anything but his own uneducated opinion, without any thing substantial to back it up.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

I am not going to waste time responding to such unmitigated nonsense.

As I told you, I read that years ago. You are not the first to try to justify the Fascist activity of this government. And, you should read what I posted insted of applying your funny math. It was five when that was written.

And it was not plagiarism. Get thee to academia!

To say, as you did in one of your comments, that the second sentence disproves the first, is an indication that you are mentally ill equipped for this or that you deliberately spray falsehoods hoping that they stick. Most of your statements are in that category.

The prorogations, for example. Prorogations have never been used as Harper used them. Chretien did not shut down to avoid the Somalia inquiry. There was an ongoing investigation.. Harper shut down Parliament and the committee.

Talk to me when you have something with merit, and fact, to say. Dozens of unsupported and unargued statements are not the stuff of debate

 

[CDNBear]

I am not going to waste time responding to such unmitigated nonsense.

Is that because it's irrelevant to you, or because you can't counter it with some facts or evidence?

As I told you, I read that years ago.

You didn't tell me that, you said it was authored in 2000, like that negates the historic evidence that your posts and claims are full of sh!t. And I believe you're lying, btw.

You are not the first to try to justify the Fascist activity of this government.

LOL, I'm not defending it. I'm just showing that your claims are false.

And, you should read what I posted insted of applying your funny math. It was five when that was written.

I did read it, it was a good laugh.

And it was not plagiarism. Get thee to academia!

No accreditation = plagiarism. Get thee some ethics.

To say, as you did in one of your comments, that the second sentence disproves the first, is an indication that you are mentally ill equipped for this or that you deliberately spray falsehoods hoping that they stick.

No, your two sentences canceled each other out.

Most of your statements are in that category.

Which is why they're backed up by evidence, unlike yours. Gotchya.

The prorogations, for example. Prorogations have never been used as Harper used them. Chretien did not shut down to avoid the Somalia inquiry. There was an ongoing investigation.. Harper shut down Parliament and the committee.

Like Chretien shut down Parliament and the committee, gotchya.

Talk to me when you have something with merit, and fact, to say.

You mean like the evidence I've offered that shows your lie/conjecture filled posts, which have had nothing but one plagiarized paragraph from Aaron Wherry?

Dozens of unsupported and unargued statements are not the stuff of debate

So why do you post them?

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Bear, you are becoming a waste of time. You post nothing with any substance and deny reality.

Chretien did not shut down the investigation into Somalia and there was appropriate punishment given to the perpetrators of that. But you, in typical Right Wing fashion, try to slide around the truth.

The same applies to your every statement.

 

[CDNBear]

Bear, you are becoming a waste of time.

Ya ideologues usually claim that when they get pwnd.

You post nothing with any substance and deny reality.

I posted a link to an article that proved the bulk of your claims were out right lies. That has to count for something.

Chretien did not shut down the investigation into Somalia and there was appropriate punishment given to the perpetrators of that.

Speaking of a detachment from reality...

You should read "Somalia Cover Up" by Peter Desbarats.

Here's a Globe and mail article that might refresh your fuzzy memory on the Somalia inquiry and Adscam...

But Jean Chrétien (a.k.a. the Friendly Dictator) cynically prorogued Parliament before the Auditor-General delivered her damning report on the sponsorship scandal. He also shut down the Somalia inquiry, which, you may recall, was set up to investigate the behaviour of Canadian soldiers on a “humanitarian” mission and the torture and murder of a Somali teenager.

Yup, still old-style politics - The Globe and Mail

Cabbagefart gets pwnd again...

But you, in typical Right Wing fashion, try to slide around the truth.

Actually, I'm one of the most left leaning individuals on CC, barring military expenditures. But feel free to make as many erroneous claims as you like. They're entertaining to read.

The same applies to your every statement.

Is that because you can't formulate a reasoned and supported response, or because you're tired of getting pwnd?

 

[DaSleeper]

Cabbagpatchkid=unsupposted statesment=no links= so much hot air.:smile:

 

[CDNBear]

Cabbagpatchkid=unsupposted statesment=no links= so much hot air.:smile:

The odoriferous byproduct of cabbage.

 

[captain morgan]

The odoriferous byproduct of cabbage.

Hmmmmm.... Reminds me of a Darwin Award


(25 March 1993)
A terrible diet and room with no ventilation are being blamed for the death of a man killed by his own gas. There were no marks found on his body, but an autopsy revealed the presence of large amounts of methane dissolved in his blood.


His diet had consisted primarily of beans and cabbage, just the right combination of foods to produce a severe gas attack. It appears that the man died in his sleep from breathing the poisonous cloud that was hanging over his bed.


Had his windows been open, the flatulence wouldn't have been fatal, but the man was shut up in a nearly airtight bedroom. He was an obese man with an unlimited capacity for creating the deadly gas. Three rescuers became sick and one was hospitalized.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

You post nothing but tripe, Bear. You continue to talk of the link you gave but have clearly not read your own source. It supports what I said. I actually quoted for you the nub of the objection as stated in that paper. An objection I agree with and that Harper is proving justified. Ironically, it was an objection by the Conservatives. Or not so ironically since they were genuine conservatives then.

I gave you facts, many of them. I gave you real numbers, but you continue with the repetitious lies that I have not given them.

I gave you an actual breakdown of the use of Time Allocation but you repeat your erroneous interpretation.

Never in the history of Parliamentary government has it been used so often as Harper has used it. Not even close. And never has the anti democratic nature of its abuse been so clear.

Never in the history of Parliamentary government has prorogation been used before a legislative session has come to an end until Harper used it twice half way through. On one of those occasions 34 Bills died on the Order Paper. Some had already had First Reading but Harper pretended going into an election that the Opposition had prevented them from being heard. You still try to insist that "Chretien did it too. Even if that were not a lie, would it matter? Would it justify Harper's abuse? Or do you need a description of the logical fallacy that such an appeal is?

And you and the other apathetics swallowed that.

 

[captain morgan]

You still try to insist that "Chretien did it too. Even if that were not a lie, would it matter?

Try this link, straight from the left leaning G&M... Keep up fighting the good fight, oh, and please pass the Kool Aid

Prorogation: Jean Chrétien did it too - The Globe and Mail

 

[CDNBear]

You post nothing but tripe, Bear.

Says the guy that hasn't posted anything but a plagiarized paragraph.

It supports what I said.

LOL, now you're just making things u... oh wait, that's all you do, make things up. Well that and unethically plagiarize other peoples work.

I actually quoted for you the nub of the objection as stated in that paper.

Uh huh.

I gave you facts, many of them.

Your imagination isn't fact.

I gave you real numbers, but you continue with the repetitious lies that I have not given them.

You gave me the number 18. And the plagiarized work of Aaron Wherry. Full stop.

I gave you an actual breakdown of the use of Time Allocation but you repeat your erroneous interpretation.

No you didn't. You gave me a blog post by Aaron Wherry. That doesn't support your silly claims.

Never in the history of Parliamentary government has it been used so often as Harper has used it. Not even close. And never has the anti democratic nature of its abuse been so clear.

I already proved that to be a lie. Chretien, 49 times in two terms. To the tune of 43.7% of bills introduced that were imposed.

Never in the history of Parliamentary government has prorogation been used before a legislative session has come to an end until Harper used it twice half way through. On one of those occasions 34 Bills died on the Order Paper.

Chretien killed sessions with bills on the floor. In fact he killed the same bills several times by proroguing.

You still try to insist that "Chretien did it too.

Only in the context that you're lying.

Even if that were not a lie, would it matter?

Only in the context that you're lying. And Captain Morgans link does a nice job of making you look silly again.

Would it justify Harper's abuse?

Of course not. I just like using the fact, to show your outrage is ideologically driven.

Or do you need a description of the logical fallacy that such an appeal is?

No, because I'm not using a logical fallacy. I'm just showing your selective outrage is silly, and based on your ideology and not fact.

And you and the other apathetics swallowed that.

Swallowed what?

I noticed you conveniently ignored the fact that you got pwnd on Adscam and Somalia.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Left leaning Global Mail! Where do you get your political beliefs?

Try reading it yourself. Then try reading what I posted. There were two Bills outstanding when Chretien prorogued. There were 34 at Harper's first prorogation. There was a Commission of Enquiry intothe affair and it brought in its conclusions.

Harper, by prorogation, shut down the committee looking into the Afghanistan detainees AFTER refusing to provide the information it needed. He refused to set up a commission to investigate.

So quit the nonsense.

 

[CDNBear]

Left leaning Global Mail!

LOL, just a minute ago you were calling me right wing. Yer funny.

Where do you get your political beliefs?

Critical thinking and varied sources of intel.

I'd ask you the same thing, but you've posted nothing but one plagiarized paragraph from a Macleans blogger. So I gather, you just make it up as you go along, based on the evidence at hand.

Try reading it yourself.

I did read it.

Then try reading what I posted.

I did read your entertaining posts. Besides trying to obfuscate the issues, your posts are filled with all manner of lies and fallacies.

There were two Bills outstanding when Chretien prorogued.

There were 34 at Harper's first prorogation.

Speaking of logical fallacies.

There was a Commission of Enquiry intothe affair and it brought in its conclusions.

Not without being cut short by Chretien proroguing in 1997. Ultimately the inquiry submitted a report. That was incomplete. That Chretien was able to avoid answering for until after the election.

I'm sure that is irrelevant in some way.

Harper, by prorogation, shut down the committee looking into the Afghanistan detainees AFTER refusing to provide the information it needed.

Ultimately, the gov't was found in contempt. For something that no sitting gov't, has ever been called to do, while in a state of conflict.

So quit the nonsense.

Talking to yourself is sure sign of serious issues.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

I am beginning to wonder whether you are all there. Chretien did not shut down the Commission of Enquiry. He could not. That was independent of Parliament.

I don't have time to give you the lesson in politics that you are badly in need of but I recommend that you read the article that you pretend to have read, again. Time Akkocation was used by Mulroney as often as Chretien. One very big difference was that Chretien used it as often with a minority government with the support for TA of opposition Parties.

You still cannot get it into your head that Harper has now imposed. Imposed, not introduced motions only, TA 18 times in this one year. Something unheard of. And, if you try very hard, it may penetrate the lead shield around your head, that there are many things that enter deeper into TA. The most significant is at what stage it is used.

Harper uses it at First Reading. That means there is no debate on significant Bills. The others used it often at Second or Third reading. That means that there had been more or less full debate over the totality of the Bills but less on some contentious parts.

Try a little harder. Think and research before you post your one liners about profound matters.

 

[gerryh]

What a perceptive and insightful response! And delivered with such wit and brevity.

Move over Oscar Wilde.

Instead of being a smart ass, learn to fu cking quote so people can actually read what you are saying instead of having to figure out who said what and when.

I am not going to waste time responding to such unmitigated nonsense.

As I told you, I read that years ago. You are not the first to try to justify the Fascist activity of this government. And, you should read what I posted insted of applying your funny math. It was five when that was written.

And it was not plagiarism. Get thee to academia!

To say, as you did in one of your comments, that the second sentence disproves the first, is an indication that you are mentally ill equipped for this or that you deliberately spray falsehoods hoping that they stick. Most of your statements are in that category.

The prorogations, for example. Prorogations have never been used as Harper used them. Chretien did not shut down to avoid the Somalia inquiry. There was an ongoing investigation.. Harper shut down Parliament and the committee.

Talk to me when you have something with merit, and fact, to say. Dozens of unsupported and unargued statements are not the stuff of debate

Bear, you are becoming a waste of time. You post nothing with any substance and deny reality.

Chretien did not shut down the investigation into Somalia and there was appropriate punishment given to the perpetrators of that. But you, in typical Right Wing fashion, try to slide around the truth.

The same applies to your every statement.

You post nothing but tripe, Bear. You continue to talk of the link you gave but have clearly not read your own source. It supports what I said. I actually quoted for you the nub of the objection as stated in that paper. An objection I agree with and that Harper is proving justified. Ironically, it was an objection by the Conservatives. Or not so ironically since they were genuine conservatives then.

I gave you facts, many of them. I gave you real numbers, but you continue with the repetitious lies that I have not given them.

I gave you an actual breakdown of the use of Time Allocation but you repeat your erroneous interpretation.

Never in the history of Parliamentary government has it been used so often as Harper has used it. Not even close. And never has the anti democratic nature of its abuse been so clear.

Never in the history of Parliamentary government has prorogation been used before a legislative session has come to an end until Harper used it twice half way through. On one of those occasions 34 Bills died on the Order Paper. Some had already had First Reading but Harper pretended going into an election that the Opposition had prevented them from being heard. You still try to insist that "Chretien did it too. Even if that were not a lie, would it matter? Would it justify Harper's abuse? Or do you need a description of the logical fallacy that such an appeal is?

And you and the other apathetics swallowed that.

I don't have the patience today to go through all the bullshyte like Bear has. I'll just put it this way, if you want to play with the big boys on this forum, then you damn well better have all your ducks in a row and the links to back up your assertions. So far you haven't had either. When you're assertions are proven incorrect, then best to stand down and acknowledge or risk being shoved into the "self righteous ideologue" box to be ignored or only be brought out for fun time ridicule like eao et. al.


btw..... Harper is my MP and I wouldn't vote for helmet hair for anything.