Mulroney was elected by the Canadian people. Are you suggesting that the GST was brought in with the will of the Canadian people?
What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
Mulroney was elected by the Canadian people. Are you suggesting that the GST was brought in with the will of the Canadian people?
Cannuck, the circumstances of the passage of the GST were unique. That legislation would not pass, because the Honourable the Senate of Canada had refused to do so. The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney P.C., C.C., G.O.Q., the 18th Prime Minister of Canada, had to appeal to Her Majesty The Queen of Canada, under a rarely-used provision of the Constitution Act, 1867, to expand the membership of the Senate with extra senators for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. So, while the actions of the prime minister and the passage of the GST were constitutional, it would be argued that they were against the wishes of the Canadian people (because the representatives as elected were unable to pass the GST unassisted).
So Mulroney and the Conservatives can act against the wishes of the people but Obama and the Democrats can't? Careful, your bias is showing.
Quinnipiac University Poll. July 27-Aug. 3, 2009. N=2,409 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are handling their job?"
Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
7/27 - 8/3/09
29 59 12 6/23-29/09
29 57 14 5/26 - 6/1/09
30 56 15 4/21-27/09
27 59 14 3/24-30/09
30 59 11 2/25 - 3/2/09
30 58 11Congress: Democrats
Quinnipiac University Poll. July 27-Aug. 3, 2009. N=2,409 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 2.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job?"
Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
7/27 - 8/3/09
35 55 10 6/23-29/09
38 50 12 5/26 - 6/1/09
43 45 11 4/21-27/09
43 46 11 3/24-30/09
40 49 11 2/25 - 3/2/09
45 45 10Thanks for the link Gopher. One could easily argue that the Reps are holding their own while the Dems are steadily dropping. I'm not quite sure why a card carrying Democrat like you would post such unflattering poll info. Did you misread it or did you only look at the polls focused on the Republicans.
The Gallup poll on this one is interesting.
Obama: Job Ratings
It shows a pretty clear trend to me. One would think if health care reform was so important to Americans, King Barak's numbers should be going the other way.
CNN! America's version of Pravda.
At any rate...it is dropping... 6 points in one month according to CNN and CBS!
Ouch!
His handling of the economy has dropped to 48%!
Double Ouch!
Still yearning for the Bush days are you?
Still yearning for the Bush days are you?
EagleSmack, you mean you are not? I thought Bush days were the glory days, the golden age of USA (before the Dark Ages started with the election of Obama).
EagleSmack, you mean you are not? I thought Bush days were the glory days, the golden age of USA (before the Dark Ages started with the election of Obama).
Nah... the glory days were with Reagan.
Dark Ages? That's your opinion.
I am enjoying watching the infighting between the Liberals and Democrats. It was a treat watching them stumble at every Town Hall Meeting.
They did not stumble, the extreme right made fools of themselves at the Town Hall meeting. I remember seeing a CNN poll which said that the disgusting, threatening antics of far right clowns actually made people more sympathetic to Obama’s health care reform proposal.
Anyway, yesterday Barnie Franks showed the proper way to deal with the trouble makers, the rent a mob yahoos. He did not pull any punches; he went after an extreme right wingnut with full force in his Town Hall meeting.
COMPLETELY stumbled! They had no clue on what to do.
Those so called "fools" put all the Democrats on notice too... and the Dems listened. Now the Liberals are stamping their feet whining...
"Obama...You PROMISED!"
Oh you mean our "glorious" congressman who ran a prostitution ring out of his Washington DC apartment? The QB of the Housing collapse? That Barney?
He was booed and laughed at throughout no matter how immature he acted. You think the people were going to let Barney continue to spout off his liberal agenda.
Re: Accusation of Bias
I’m not sure what you mean.
I said that I don’t believe that the president is acting against the wishes of the people, and I said that I thought that the prime minister was. I didn’t say that he should have been able to, I just said that he had done so. These were two separate circumstances—the Democrats have the numbers to pass health care reform based on the numbers elected to the Senate and the House. With the Progressive Conservatives in the situation you cited, they did not have the numbers to do so, and had to use a constitutional provision to overload the Senate.
Your accusation of bias is mistaken.
I’m not sure what you mean.
I said that I don’t believe that the president is acting against the wishes of the people, and I said that I thought that the prime minister was. I didn’t say that he should have been able to, I just said that he had done so. These were two separate circumstances—the Democrats have the numbers to pass health care reform based on the numbers elected to the Senate and the House. With the Progressive Conservatives in the situation you cited, they did not have the numbers to do so, and had to use a constitutional provision to overload the Senate.
Your accusation of bias is mistaken.
No, what you said was
That statements more than implies that governments can't act against the wishes of the people. I have merely pointed out how that idea is flawed. I'm not surprised though that (being a card carrying Liberal) you would have different standards or measuring stick when discussing Conservative politicians and Democratic politicians. Hypocrisy is, after all, a founding principle of The Liberal Party of Canada.
He was booed and laughed at throughout no matter how immature he acted. You think the people were going to let Barney continue to spout off his liberal agenda.
Really EagleSmack? You live in Massachusetts, so are you ready to make a prediction that Barney Frank will be defeated in 2010?
If you think that people laughed and booed at him, then you should confidently be able to predict that he will lose in 2010? Do you dare to make such a prediction?
Could it be that only the right wing extremists, Republican far right base, Linden La Rouch supporters (I understand quite a few of them were present at the meeting, warmly welcome by the far right Republican nut cases) were the only ones who booed?
Are you saying that Frank’s constituency has turned against him? If so, then you should be confidently be able to predict that he will lose in 2010. Will you make that prediction? I will hold you to it.
Really EagleSmack? You live in Massachusetts, so are you ready to make a prediction that Barney Frank will be defeated in 2010?
If you think that people laughed and booed at him, then you should confidently be able to predict that he will lose in 2010? Do you dare to make such a prediction?
Could it be that only the right wing extremists, Republican far right base, Linden La Rouch supporters (I understand quite a few of them were present at the meeting, warmly welcome by the far right Republican nut cases) were the only ones who booed?
Are you saying that Frank’s constituency has turned against him? If so, then you should be confidently be able to predict that he will lose in 2010. Will you make that prediction? I will hold you to it.
EagleSmack, Murtha is another Democrat whom the Republicans hate with a passion; they hate him as much as they hate Franks.
I remember last election Republicans were foaming at the mouth, apoplectic at Murtha. I read many reports by the Republican nut cases, who went to his constituency, talked to voters there, reported how dissatisfied they were with Murtha and confidently predicted that Murtha was as good as gone (but then they also predicted that McCain will carry Pennsylvania by 2 points). In the end, Murtha won by double digit.
Many times Republicans are so blinded by hate that they cannot see tree from wood. I just want to see how much you hate Franks. So are you saying that he will be defeated come next election?
I remember last election Republicans were foaming at the mouth, apoplectic at Murtha. I read many reports by the Republican nut cases, who went to his constituency, talked to voters there, reported how dissatisfied they were with Murtha and confidently predicted that Murtha was as good as gone (but then they also predicted that McCain will carry Pennsylvania by 2 points). In the end, Murtha won by double digit.
Many times Republicans are so blinded by hate that they cannot see tree from wood. I just want to see how much you hate Franks. So are you saying that he will be defeated come next election?
Oh you mean our "glorious" congressman who ran a prostitution ring out of his Washington DC apartment? The QB of the Housing collapse? That Barney?
Indeed EqgleSmack, the same Barney Franks (except that he was not responsible for sub prime fiasco, that was the doing of Republicans and your idol, Bush). The one whom you and other Republicans hate with a passion, who makes you apoplectic, foaming at the mouth. The one who does not apologize for his liberalism, who is not afraid to take on the rent a mob, yahoo hate mongers who attend the Town Halls with the single purpose of trashing, destroying the meeting.
That Barney Franks, whom you wish would be gone, but keeps coming back again and again like a bad penny, and gives you and other Republicans nightmares.
Indeed EqgleSmack, the same Barney Franks (except that he was not responsible for sub prime fiasco, that was the doing of Republicans and your idol, Bush). The one whom you and other Republicans hate with a passion, who makes you apoplectic, foaming at the mouth. The one who does not apologize for his liberalism, who is not afraid to take on the rent a mob, yahoo hate mongers who attend the Town Halls with the single purpose of trashing, destroying the meeting.
That Barney Franks, whom you wish would be gone, but keeps coming back again and again like a bad penny, and gives you and other Republicans nightmares.
Again, Cannuck, the president’s plan would be passed by the Senate and House of Representatives, both selected by the American people. Therefore, they have the elected mandate to represent the population and pass whatever they wish. With the Senate and Commons of Canada, the prime minister did not have the numbers to pass the GST—he used a constitutional provision to overload the Senate’s membership to pass it, and therefore he was not able to pass the legislation with Canada’s representatives; he had to change things up. I’m not saying what the prime minister did was improper, but it was against the wishes of the people.
The prime minister passed the GST against the wishes of Canada’s representatives—that is against.
Under this scenario, the president already has the numbers to pass health care reform. That is with.
Governments absolutely can act against the wishes of the people, the elected representatives—the fact of the matter is that Mr. Mulroney did do so, whereas under this situation the president would not be doing so because the people have consented to the Democratic agenda, through the election of a majority Democratic Congress.
Again, there is no bias here, only facts. (I can understand why that would make you uncomfortable, though, Cannuck.)
The prime minister passed the GST against the wishes of Canada’s representatives—that is against.
Under this scenario, the president already has the numbers to pass health care reform. That is with.
Governments absolutely can act against the wishes of the people, the elected representatives—the fact of the matter is that Mr. Mulroney did do so, whereas under this situation the president would not be doing so because the people have consented to the Democratic agenda, through the election of a majority Democratic Congress.
Again, there is no bias here, only facts. (I can understand why that would make you uncomfortable, though, Cannuck.)
It's irrelevant how it is done. The point is that it can be done. We could sit here all day pointing out times when politicians went against the population (unless, of course, you believe that George Bush acted in complete accordance with the wishes of the American people) but I know you would twist it in a way that shows that Liberals are good and Conservatives are bad.
The simple reality (whether you can accept it or not) is that politicians can and do act against the will of the people. In fact, more often than not this occurs when leaders (on both sides of the border) control both houses. It's much easier then.
The simple reality (whether you can accept it or not) is that politicians can and do act against the will of the people. In fact, more often than not this occurs when leaders (on both sides of the border) control both houses. It's much easier then.
It’s entirely relevant.
There are circumstances where acts against the majority are warranted and essential to the good governance of a country, and that is what Mr. Mulroney had done through his expansion of the Senate membership. It sounds as though you are spinning my words to suggest that I am simply anti-conservative—that’s not the case. I agree with the former prime minister’s decision to circumvent standard practice to pass the GST—I think it was a completely appropriate decision, and that the longer-term advantages that Canada experienced as a result of the GST were worth the controversy.
I never suggested that politicians don’t act against the ‘will of the people’. You may have understood that, had you read through my posts thoroughly instead of searching for soundbites with which to accuse me of bias or other such nonsense. I maintain, however, that when elected chambers pass legislation, they have done so representing the people who elected them—the electors consent to whatever the representatives may do; the recourse for them is to refuse to elect representatives again when there is a disagreement over the correct course of action.