Quit picking on the Shiny Pony

[JLM]

Re: More shiny ponyness

O K lets see Senate Scandal .
First prorogation scandal 2008
CFIA scandal
F35 Jet scandal
ETS scandal
ROBO CALL scandal
IN & OUT scandal
JULIE COUILLARD scandal
SHOE STORE PROGRAM scandal
PETER MACKAY Helicopter scandal in Newfoundland

These are just the ones I could come up with on short notice but I guess to a Tory these were all just big misunderstandings

The Senate scandal and the Robocall scandal may qualify as scandals, the rest are mere blips. We don't want to dramatise these minor events. You want a scandal, check the tea dome scandal.

 

[Colpy]

Re: More shiny ponyness

O K lets see Senate Scandal .
First prorogation scandal 2008
CFIA scandal
F35 Jet scandal
ETS scandal
ROBO CALL scandal
IN & OUT scandal
JULIE COUILLARD scandal
SHOE STORE PROGRAM scandal
PETER MACKAY Helicopter scandal in Newfoundland

These are just the ones I could come up with on short notice but I guess to a Tory these were all just big misunderstandings

Yep. Three senators went off the rails on expenses. Not good. SCANDAL

Prorogation is a normal part of Parliamentary procedure. NO SCANDAL.

Canada Food Inspection Agency? The gov't had HIRED 600 inspectors since 2006, and no gov't MP made any advantage from the incident of tainted meat. NO SCANDAL.

F35? The program started by the Liberals to buy fighters to replace our VERY aged CF 18s? NO SCANDAL.

ETS...perhaps. We'll let the courts sort it out.

Robocalls.....the courts have ruled repeatedly...no effect on the election, no involvement by the CPC, thus NO SCANDAL

In and Out was a misunderstanding of the rules........ SCANDAL (although very minor)

JULIE COUILLARD Some idiot left papers in her bedroom, to the benefit of no one. Showed the MP was an ***, but NO SCANDAL

SHOE STORE PROGRAM scandal...no idea what you are talking about. NO SCANDAL.

PETER MACKAY Helicopter scandal in Newfoundland. Yep. SCANDAL (although very minor)

You are proving my point.

This is a CLEAN gov't.

 

[Corduroy]

Re: More shiny ponyness

Well, there was that time the guy working for the government (and therefore a "close associate" of Harper) was 10 cents short on his medium coffee and ten Timbits, and asked them to let him slide. That was pretty scandalous.

Only ten Timbits? Typical Conservative party ethics. Wouldn't even buy a box for the office. They don't know how the Canadian economy works. You go out to Tims, you bring back a box of ****ing donuts or you toss your passport in the nearest snowdrift and NEVER COME BACK.

O K lets see Senate Scandal .
First prorogation scandal 2008
CFIA scandal
F35 Jet scandal
ETS scandal
ROBO CALL scandal
IN & OUT scandal
JULIE COUILLARD scandal
SHOE STORE PROGRAM scandal
PETER MACKAY Helicopter scandal in Newfoundland

These are just the ones I could come up with on short notice but I guess to a Tory these were all just big misunderstandings

You're also forgetting the Stephen Harper HAIR scandal. $2 haircut is a national disgrace. We can't afford another 4 years of it. That's why we absolutely must elect Justin Trudeau and his gorgeous mane before too much time passes and that hideous bowl-shaped mat ends up on our money.

 

[waldo]

Re: More shiny ponyness

That's why we absolutely must elect Justin Trudeau and his gorgeous mane before too much time passes and that hideous bowl-shaped mat ends up on our money.

​

 

[peoplesadvocate]

Re: More shiny ponyness

Yep. Three senators went off the rails on expenses. Not good. SCANDAL

Prorogation is a normal part of Parliamentary procedure. NO SCANDAL.

Canada Food Inspection Agency? The gov't had HIRED 600 inspectors since 2006, and no gov't MP made any advantage from the incident of tainted meat. NO SCANDAL.

F35? The program started by the Liberals to buy fighters to replace our VERY aged CF 18s? NO SCANDAL.

ETS...perhaps. We'll let the courts sort it out.

Robocalls.....the courts have ruled repeatedly...no effect on the election, no involvement by the CPC, thus NO SCANDAL

In and Out was a misunderstanding of the rules........ SCANDAL (although very minor)

JULIE COUILLARD Some idiot left papers in her bedroom, to the benefit of no one. Showed the MP was an ***, but NO SCANDAL

SHOE STORE PROGRAM scandal...no idea what you are talking about. NO SCANDAL.

PETER MACKAY Helicopter scandal in Newfoundland. Yep. SCANDAL (although very minor)

You are proving my point.

This is a CLEAN gov't.

lets see ... look it up ( shoe store scandal )
#2 prorogation Normal ..hardly when was last time it was used ?
#3 Helicopter scandal ( Small hardly ) what if that chopper was needed elsewhere at that time for a real emergency and minutes counted .. But I guess that is a Tory response.
#4 Couillard scandal What party was he from and NOT just papers.
#5 in and out a misunderstanding? Really ?

You see, you make my point that no matter what happens the Harper gov't will use the old adage tell a lie and get enough sheep to believe it and it becomes the truth the Tory truth.
Oh and please lets not forget the ASBESTOS SCANDAL or if you will " CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY "
I think some people are in need of some extra knowledge .
If you can say the deaths caused by this party mean nothing then it tells me a lot about your mind set.

 

[Sal]

Re: More shiny ponyness

​

:toothy7:

that picture rocks it over

 

[Colpy]

Re: More shiny ponyness

#2 prorogation Normal ..hardly when was last time it was used ?
.

How often does “prorogation of parliament” actually occur and why?

Technically, the prorogation of parliament occurs several times in each Parliament. This is because it can occur in between all sittings. It is the mechanism by which a sitting is ended. For example, at a Christmas break or summer holiday break. In general, once a government feels that is has accomplished most of its plans from the current session, it requests a prorogation. With a prorogation, the government can then re-cast its plans and agendas, and set a new plan in a new speech from the throne in the next session. It is, however, rare to prorogue parliament for other reasons.
So is prorogation legal?

Yes. However, a prorogation cannot last longer that one year, as section 5 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: states that: “[t]here shall be a sitting of Parliament […] at least once every twelve months.”



Canadian Legal FAQs- Prorogation of Parliament

 

[peoplesadvocate]

come on don't be like that now . Tell everyone why it was used and when it was last used in such a way.

I don't think it gets cut looks like a plant job.

come on don't be like that now . Tell everyone why it was used and when it was last used in such a way.

I don't think it gets cut looks like a plant job.

oh here I will help you for all the readers out there.
PM abuses prorogation - Winnipeg Free Press

 

[Colpy]

come on don't be like that now . Tell everyone why it was used and when it was last used in such a way.

I don't think it gets cut looks like a plant job.


oh here I will help you for all the readers out there.
PM abuses prorogation - Winnipeg Free Press

The first line in your link:

"Parliament has been prorogued 120 times in the 143 years since Confederation in 1867."

Which was your original question.

Now, personally I think the "scandal" was the Liberals and NDP, after hiding their intentions in the election, getting together to plan a "no confidence" vote. What makes that even more outrageous is they included the Bloc, a party dedicated to the destruction of Canada, in their nefarious plot.

That the people generally agree with me is shown by the MAJORITY gov't the Conservatives won 2 years later.

Oh.....and the Governor-General and the constitution both are in agreement: Harper's move was legitimate.

What you and some reporter think is irrelevant.

 

[peoplesadvocate]

Re: More shiny ponyness

How often does “prorogation of parliament” actually occur and why?

Technically, the prorogation of parliament occurs several times in each Parliament. This is because it can occur in between all sittings. It is the mechanism by which a sitting is ended. For example, at a Christmas break or summer holiday break. In general, once a government feels that is has accomplished most of its plans from the current session, it requests a prorogation. With a prorogation, the government can then re-cast its plans and agendas, and set a new plan in a new speech from the throne in the next session. It is, however, rare to prorogue parliament for other reasons.
So is prorogation legal?

Yes. However, a prorogation cannot last longer that one year, as section 5 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: states that: “[t]here shall be a sitting of Parliament […] at least once every twelve months.”



Canadian Legal FAQs- Prorogation of Parliament

Wrong

The first line in your link:

"Parliament has been prorogued 120 times in the 143 years since Confederation in 1867."

Which was your original question.

Now, personally I think the "scandal" was the Liberals and NDP, after hiding their intentions in the election, getting together to plan a "no confidence" vote. What makes that even more outrageous is they included the Bloc, a party dedicated to the destruction of Canada, in their nefarious plot.

That the people generally agree with me is shown by the MAJORITY gov't the Conservatives won 2 years later.

Oh.....and the Governor-General and the constitution both are in agreement: Harper's move was legitimate.

What you and some reporter think is irrelevant.

Serious you are in love with Harper and I am sorry for the fact that facts mean nothing to you or Harper .
Oh did you see where you were wrong about Prorogation ... by your meaning how many times would it have been used in this country? and how many actual times has it been used ? and how many times to save the sitting governments asses ?
That's what I thought.
I have a question... Have you ever heard the saying that the closest you will ever come to a brain storm is a light drizzle.
Just asking.

 

[Colpy]

Re: More shiny ponyness

Wrong


Serious you are in love with Harper and I am sorry for the fact that facts mean nothing to you or Harper .
Oh did you see where you were wrong about Prorogation ... by your meaning how many times would it have been used in this country? and how many actual times has it been used ? and how many times to save the sitting governments asses ?
That's what I thought.
I have a question... Have you ever heard the saying that the closest you will ever come to a brain storm is a light drizzle.
Just asking.

And you wonder why I insult.

You ask about prorogation, I give you a legal definition and opinion, and the history, and you tell me I'm wrong.

Please submit your CV, so I may judge your qualifications on the matter.

You're a fvcking moron, a troll, and you have a tendency towards neurotic obsession.

I get the feeling that if I strolled through your deepest thoughts, I wouldn't get my ankles wet (as Clyde wells said about Brian Tobin)

Now, do you want to debate, or trade insults?

I will beat your ar$e at either.

 

[waldo]

Re: More shiny ponyness

And you wonder why I insult.

You ask about prorogation, I give you a legal definition and opinion, and the history, and you tell me I'm wrong.

Please submit your CV, so I may judge your qualifications on the matter.

You're a fvcking moron, a troll, and you have a tendency towards neurotic obsession.

I get the feeling that if I strolled through your deepest thoughts, I wouldn't get my ankles wet (as Clyde wells said about Brian Tobin)

Now, do you want to debate, or trade insults?

I will beat your ar$e at either.

apparently, insulting is your forte! The point you're obviously purposely ignoring is the Harper perogies in question had nothing to do with the normal/typical ending of a session within Parliament or a so-called "reset". They were used to save his government and/or avoid scandals. It's quite humourous to read you speak of it's legitimacy in the context of Harper avoiding the potential coalition... a coalition that would have been equally legitimate within the Parliamentary construct. Of course that didn't stop Harper Conservatives from campaigning coast-to-coast about the "illegal seizure of power" comtemplated by the NDP/Liberals/BQ! Harper Conservative hypocrites!

 

[Colpy]

Re: More shiny ponyness

apparently, insulting is your forte! The point you're obviously purposely ignoring is the Harper perogies in question had nothing to do with the normal/typical ending of a session within Parliament or a so-called "reset". They were used to save his government and/or avoid scandals. It's quite humourous to read you speak of it's legitimacy in the context of Harper avoiding the potential coalition... a coalition that would have been equally legitimate within the Parliamentary construct. Of course that didn't stop Harper Conservatives from campaigning coast-to-coast about the "illegal seizure of power" comtemplated by the NDP/Liberals/BQ! Harper Conservative hypocrites!

The idea that the prorogation was not usual is absolutely correct.

The circumstances were not usual.

The NDP and Liberals hatched a nefarious plot that would have given the Bloc power in the federal gov't. That would not have been illegal, but it was sure as hell immoral, as none of the opposition parties ran on that option in the election, and the resulting coalition would have brought the Bloc, sworn to destroy the nation, into the corridors of power..

That makes Harper's action not only legitimate, but necessary.

As I said, both the Governor-General and the constitution agree that the use of prorogation is at the PM's pleasure, which makes your opinion of the matter irrelevant.

 

[Zipperfish]

I think using the machinery of government to go after anyone with the audacity to disagree with you is a scandal. People expect their civil insitutions to act impartially, but that is impossible with this government. Harper has referred to environetmnalists as radicals. I myself consider myself an environmentalist, but not a radical. I know lots of others who certainly wouldn't be construed as radical by any reasonable yardstick. Now he's going after environmental charities.

But it ain't working. Not in BC. Northern GAteway and Kinder Morgan are going nowhere fast, because people know when they are being railroaded.

 

[captain morgan]

I think using the machinery of government to go after anyone with the audacity to disagree with you is a scandal. People expect their civil insitutions to act impartially, but that is impossible with this government.

How about when Chretin prorogued gvt to avoid the Sponsorship Scandal? His gvt prorogued Parliament 4 times in his tenure.. Pearson and Trudeau combined 11 times.

Further, disagreement by the ecotards has morphed into actions that violate the laws.... That is far more than a difference of opinion

Harper has referred to environetmnalists as radicals. I myself consider myself an environmentalist, but not a radical. I know lots of others who certainly wouldn't be construed as radical by any reasonable yardstick. Now he's going after environmental charities.

Trespassing, vandalism and other illegal actions qualify these groups as nothing more than run-of-the-mills criminals. Just because they have convinced themselves of a different ideal does not transform their actions.

Look at the 'charities' that have broken the laws that allow them to benefit from charitable status... They have consistently broke those rules and then play the victim card when they lose their charitable status.

No sympathy here

But it ain't working. Not in BC. Northern GAteway and Kinder Morgan are going nowhere fast, because people know when they are being railroaded.

All it takes is the Feds to declare that those projects are in the national interest... No more debate at that point.

Kinder Morgan is also taking a more aggressive tack in filing a lawsuit against the groups and individuals that have blocked their operations.... We'll see how committed these folks are when there is the very real potential that they will have to ante-up in terms of hard cash

 

[waldo]

Re: More shiny ponyness

As I said, both the Governor-General and the constitution agree that the use of prorogation is at the PM's pleasure, which makes your opinion of the matter irrelevant.

as is the coalition construct a legitimate vehicle within the Westminister Parliamentary system... which makes your opinion of the matter irrelevant. The BQ was/is a legitimate party within Canada... it is quite clear how Quebecers have used that party for (presumed) regional gain rather than any attachment to a sovereignty pursuit. As far as any discussions went before Harper played his perogy, my understanding is the BQ were accepting to conditions being placed on them as a part of their inclusion within a possible coalition. In any case, you're simply parroting the "coalition boogeyman" theme that Harper Conservatives trotted out... claiming "democracy would be stolen"!

Look at the 'charities' that have broken the laws that allow them to benefit from charitable status... They have consistently broke those rules and then play the victim card when they lose their charitable status.

I'm aware of Harper Conservatives authorizing the hiring of additional CRA inspectors to "go after the enemies of the state charities"... I'm not aware of any results that suggest, as you say, "laws have been broken". I'd ask you to cite your claim, but why give you another opportunity to play your, "I'm not your google bitch" card.

 

[taxslave]

Re: More shiny ponyness

as is the coalition construct a legitimate vehicle within the Westminister Parliamentary system... which makes your opinion of the matter irrelevant. The BQ was/is a legitimate party within Canada... it is quite clear how Quebecers have used that party for (presumed) regional gain rather than any attachment to a sovereignty pursuit. As far as any discussions went before Harper played his perogy, my understanding is the BQ were accepting to conditions being placed on them as a part of their inclusion within a possible coalition. In any case, you're simply parroting the "coalition boogeyman" theme that Harper Conservatives trotted out... claiming "democracy would be stolen"!



I'm aware of Harper Conservatives authorizing the hiring of additional CRA inspectors to "go after the enemies of the state charities"... I'm not aware of any results that suggest, as you say, "laws have been broken". I'd ask you to cite your claim, but why give you another opportunity to play your, "I'm not your google bitch" card.

Well you have managed to convince yourself that bull$hit is fact but I don't see many thinking people buying it.

 

[waldo]

Re: More shiny ponyness

Well you have managed to convince yourself that bull$hit is fact but I don't see many thinking people buying it.

I only care enough about your post/input to suggest I don't care... about your post/input. Carry on.

 

[petros]

If that were true we'd see no reply at all.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Prorogation is when the PM sends 'em all home, right?