The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Canadian Politics: Proroguery Electric Boogaloo (with epic Harper evil picture in OP)

1505153555662

Posts

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Aegis wrote: »
    I wonder if one could write in Bloc outside of Quebec.

    Theoreticly...

    But honestly, this kind of bullshit needs to be brought to an end. If the Conservatives had a shred of integrity, they'd refuse to support him as prime minister and remove him and his cronies from there positions of power. Doing so would be a horribly damaging act, but by virtue of doing so I'd like to think that they'd gain support for showing that they have a god damm conscience and appreciation for how parliament is supposed to work.

    The other end of it, the part I'd give my left nut for, is to see the opposition parties form a coalition and not back down. To have the governor general come out and say "I threw you a bone once harper. I'm not going to go against the will of the people to prop you up. The coalition is now the majority party".

    It'll never happen. But god damm would I weep for joy if somthing so magical happened on parliament hill.

    Gaddez on
    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Yeah at least the bloc respect the idea of a parliament. Harper seems to have realized that he has basically unlimited power through the PMO when parliament isn't sitting, and realizes that the intensely regional nature of MP elections and how few actual battleground ridings exist where a Tory could potentially lose a seat... we're boned.

    It's not that he's pushing a conservative agenda. I respect a politician running on a platform, being elected, and enacting it. I will campaign and fight against it, but I respect it. It's this absolute horseshit perversion of every principle behind the parliamentary process that gets my goat. The Tory spokesmen are still going on the air and talking about open, accountable governance, the fucking PMO is still introducing surprise budgets that take the entire conservative party by surprise (reportedly even the finance minister hadn't seen the draft before public release), and nobody on the hill is in a postion to fight this man.

    MacKay has been utterly broken through the Afghanistan ordeal (Harper's only real potential replacement in the party right now), the senate is about to get stacked up so Harper can enact his horribad vision of Real America a la Palin, and there's absolutely nothing we can do as a nation until the next great Liberal leader appears and shuts down both the NDP and the Conservatives hard.

    Robman on
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    When they come back, can they forme the same sort alliance of the 3 parties they where talking of last time?

    Disco11 on
    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    Yeah at least the bloc respect the idea of a parliament. Harper seems to have realized that he has basically unlimited power through the PMO when parliament isn't sitting, and realizes that the intensely regional nature of MP elections and how few actual battleground ridings exist where a Tory could potentially lose a seat... we're boned.

    What is happening reminds me very much of Rodney MacDonald's PC minority government in Nova Scotia. The Legislature spent very little time in session under that incarnation of the Tories and they made every effort to have decisions made by the Premier or his ministers rather than putting them to a vote and having a debate.
    It's not that he's pushing a conservative agenda. I respect a politician running on a platform, being elected, and enacting it. I will campaign and fight against it, but I respect it. It's this absolute horseshit perversion of every principle behind the parliamentary process that gets my goat. The Tory spokesmen are still going on the air and talking about open, accountable governance, the fucking PMO is still introducing surprise budgets that take the entire conservative party by surprise (reportedly even the finance minister hadn't seen the draft before public release), and nobody on the hill is in a postion to fight this man.

    Honestly, Harper is not really pushing the Conservative agenda very vigorously. Most of what he has actually done is completely at odds with the stated principles of the party. Power has been centralized in the PMO's office (in principle they promote decentralization), the balance of power has shifted more toward Ottawa and away from the Provinces (HST as an example here), the Senate has been stacked along party lines (remember the old Reform mantra about the "Triple-E" senate?), and the deficit is out of control due to a combination of ideologically motivated tax cuts and government handouts to industry (so much for the glories of free market capitalism, eh?). Government accountability and transparency are simply non-existent. Due to the PM's decision to prorogue Parliament a second time, the government has also thrown out its long-touted "tough on crime" legislation. Even for those in the electorate who support the Conservative platform, all that remains of these promises is the word of a proven liar.

    Edith_Bagot-Dix on


    Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
  • ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Decius wrote: »
    Shadowen wrote: »
    Decius wrote: »
    Canadians can be so apathetic sometimes...

    *shurg* but whadya gonna do?

    I'd call you for plagiarizing That Canadian Guy, but I really don't care and he probably did the same from some other joke.

    You don't need to call me on it. I love Glen Foster. That line is funny because it's true.

    I...I know.

    I was...trying to continue the joke. And failing, apparently.

    Shadowen on
  • KastanjKastanj __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2010
    What is Mark Steyn saying?

    Because, I have found out that in 90 % of all cases, simply doing the opposite of what he tells me to do is the best course of action.

    Kastanj on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    9lbrds.jpg

    Azio on
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Happy New Year.

    I hope you’re starting off 2010 in the spirit of the season, with friends and family, reflecting on the year that’s been and the one that’s just begun.

    It seems unbelievable that the Conservative government has prorogued Parliament for the second time in a year. Canadians are rightly starting to wonder if Conservatives intend to shut down government whenever things don’t go their way.

    While Conservatives will be in hiding, Liberals will be hard at work over the next few months.

    Well, I guess they're going to at least run with it in their internal supporter pamphlets, though I wonder how much traction it will grab.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    So, in light of this latest bout of bullshit, what does everyone figure the odds of a spring election are? From a strategic point, odds are pretty good most of the populist rage from the torture scandal will have burnt itself out, but I'd like to think that the people will be angry enough to toss dickface out of office for pro-roguing government for a 2 month period to dodge a legitimate question of morality.

    Unless, of course, the voting public is actually stupid enough to belive that the olympics is so important that government as a whole shuts down.

    Gaddez on
    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Unless, of course, the voting public is actually stupid enough to belive that the olympics is so important that government as a whole shuts down.

    Or if the voting public is stupid enough to not realize what's going on or not care about it. But that wouldn't happen. I mean, it's not like Canadians are dumb enough to believe the PM telling them that the Leader of the Opposition is part of an unelected undemocratic coup and that he has no choice but to close down the government to save the government.

    Richy on
    sig.gif
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Richy wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Unless, of course, the voting public is actually stupid enough to belive that the olympics is so important that government as a whole shuts down.

    Or if the voting public is stupid enough to not realize what's going on or not care about it. But that wouldn't happen. I mean, it's not like Canadians are dumb enough to believe the PM telling them that the Leader of the Opposition is part of an unelected undemocratic coup and that he has no choice but to close down the government to save the government.

    Well yeah, there is that, but I'm less sure that they can get away with it again. The conservatives favorite Rag (the toronto sun) has turned against them and questioned the legitimacy of this action.

    Honestly, this is no longer an issue of right vs. left, but a choice between a legitimate functional government or an autocracy. No matter your political affiliation you have to recognize that this is very bad for canada and the PM can not be supported in this endeavor.

    Gaddez on
    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Which is why there should be mandatory civics classes (along with money management classes) in high-school.

    Narian on
    Narian.gif
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Narian wrote: »
    Which is why there should be mandatory civics classes (along with money management classes) in high-school.

    Ah, but that's a provincial responsibility!

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Scuttlebutt is an election on April 13th. Get ready for Government of Canada funding to be used to promote the Tory platform for the next three months (I kid, I hope).

    I really want Ignatieff to resign at this point. He's had almost zero media presence since this boondoggle was announced, and the latest polls put him ranked lower then Jack "Car Salesman" Layton.

    Robman on
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Jack Layton does look like he could get you a great deal on a '07 Malibu

    Disco11 on
    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    saggio wrote: »
    Narian wrote: »
    Which is why there should be mandatory civics classes (along with money management classes) in high-school.

    Ah, but that's a provincial responsibility!

    There is around here. Except when I ask my brother how he feels about Harper, he's still like... (Wait a minute, going to go do it right now, brb...)

    "How do you feel about Stephen Harper?"
    "I hate Stephen Harper."
    "Why?"
    "Because he doesn't do anything."
    "So how do you feel about him proroguing government again?"
    "Pro-whatting?"
    "Prorogue. P-R-O-R-O-G-U-E."
    "..."
    "When he shuts down Parliament?"
    "When?"
    "When did you last take Civics?"
    "Right now. It's a half-course from December to February."

    hippofant on
  • Torso BoyTorso Boy Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I don't know what the general condition of civics classes is, but mine didn't teach me shit. The impression I get is that this is pretty common.

    Torso Boy on
    Rent wrote: »
    So that's what having no idea what you are talking about looks like
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Torso Boy wrote: »
    I don't know what the general condition of civics classes is, but mine didn't teach me shit. The impression I get is that this is pretty common.

    You learn about things like the history of canada, the mace in the parliament, and that there exists a senate and the supreme court.

    Robman on
  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    There is a serious gap in learning of the existence of government bodies, and how they are supposed to work...

    oldmanken on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    oldmanken wrote: »
    There is a serious gap in learning of the existence of government bodies, and how they are supposed to work...

    Sure, but expecting to capture people's interest in politics in high school over getting laid and where the next party is is naieve at best

    Robman on
  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    oldmanken wrote: »
    There is a serious gap in learning of the existence of government bodies, and how they are supposed to work...

    Sure, but expecting to capture people's interest in politics in high school over getting laid and where the next party is is naieve at best

    Doesn't mean you don't try...

    oldmanken on
  • ImperfectImperfect Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    oldmanken wrote: »
    There is a serious gap in learning of the existence of government bodies, and how they are supposed to work...

    Sure, but expecting to capture people's interest in politics in high school over getting laid and where the next party is is naieve at best

    It should happen well before high school. Seriously, we expect our kids to grasp history and some pretty complex mathematics in elementary school, there's no reason they couldn't also learn a good deal about how the government works then, too. This should be BASIC knowledge Canadians just have - you can spell, do long division, and tell me the role of the Governor General.

    Imperfect on
  • CorporateGoonCorporateGoon Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Imperfect wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    oldmanken wrote: »
    There is a serious gap in learning of the existence of government bodies, and how they are supposed to work...

    Sure, but expecting to capture people's interest in politics in high school over getting laid and where the next party is is naieve at best

    It should happen well before high school. Seriously, we expect our kids to grasp history and some pretty complex mathematics in elementary school, there's no reason they couldn't also learn a good deal about how the government works then, too. This should be BASIC knowledge Canadians just have - you can spell, do long division, and tell me the role of the Governor General.

    Well, apparently the role of the Governor General is to do exactly what the PM tells her and to eat some seal hearts every now and then. In fact, I think it's probably best to keep children ignorant of the way government works so they won't get jaded at too young an age.

    CorporateGoon on
  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    In fact, I think it's probably best to keep children ignorant of the way government works so they won't get jaded at too young an age.

    Might as well get it out of the way early, as it is inevitable. Plus, maybe it will spur them on to be more vociferous about the shit sandwich that is our political system.

    oldmanken on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    oldmanken wrote: »
    In fact, I think it's probably best to keep children ignorant of the way government works so they won't get jaded at too young an age.

    Might as well get it out of the way early, as it is inevitable. Plus, maybe it will spur them on to be more vociferous about the shit sandwich that is our political system.

    I prefer forcing people to pass a knowledge test before they can vote. Like, you must understand the role of the senate, you must understand what "first past the post" means, you must understand that you are electing an MP who sits with their national leader and not the national leader, etc.

    Sure, it's not very inclusive, but I'm highly educated and thus naturally trend towards a rule by philosopher kings :P

    Robman on
  • ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    oldmanken wrote: »
    In fact, I think it's probably best to keep children ignorant of the way government works so they won't get jaded at too young an age.

    Might as well get it out of the way early, as it is inevitable. Plus, maybe it will spur them on to be more vociferous about the shit sandwich that is our political system.

    I prefer forcing people to pass a knowledge test before they can vote. Like, you must understand the role of the senate, you must understand what "first past the post" means, you must understand that you are electing an MP who sits with their national leader and not the national leader, etc.

    Sure, it's not very inclusive, but I'm highly educated and thus naturally trend towards a rule by philosopher kings :P

    Granted, if you're a functional illiterate you probably won't even vote for whom you're intending to anyway, and I get that you're joking, but no.

    I consider myself an effete, latte-sipping, opera-attending intellectual (...well, I prefer milk to coffee and I have seen Cats in a theater), but I think things are fine the way they are now. According to my junior high social studies course (...what?), the only people in Canada of age who can't vote are those who have been convicted of election fraud. (The teacher asked a question, and the got closer to the answer, until I figured out that if murderers and the insane can vote but there is a group of people who can't, then it must have something to do with elections themselves.)

    And if that's not the case, then that's how it should be. :D

    Shadowen on
  • CorporateGoonCorporateGoon Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    oldmanken wrote: »
    In fact, I think it's probably best to keep children ignorant of the way government works so they won't get jaded at too young an age.

    Might as well get it out of the way early, as it is inevitable. Plus, maybe it will spur them on to be more vociferous about the shit sandwich that is our political system.

    I prefer forcing people to pass a knowledge test before they can vote. Like, you must understand the role of the senate, you must understand what "first past the post" means, you must understand that you are electing an MP who sits with their national leader and not the national leader, etc.

    Sure, it's not very inclusive, but I'm highly educated and thus naturally trend towards a rule by philosopher kings :P

    I figure that nowadays the people who would actually pass that test are the ones who've become so disgusted with the state of politics that they stay home on election day.

    CorporateGoon on
  • ImperfectImperfect Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    oldmanken wrote: »
    In fact, I think it's probably best to keep children ignorant of the way government works so they won't get jaded at too young an age.

    Might as well get it out of the way early, as it is inevitable. Plus, maybe it will spur them on to be more vociferous about the shit sandwich that is our political system.

    I prefer forcing people to pass a knowledge test before they can vote. Like, you must understand the role of the senate, you must understand what "first past the post" means, you must understand that you are electing an MP who sits with their national leader and not the national leader, etc.

    Sure, it's not very inclusive, but I'm highly educated and thus naturally trend towards a rule by philosopher kings :P

    I figure that nowadays the people who would actually pass that test are the ones who've become so disgusted with the state of politics that they go out and spoil their ballot on election day.

    Fixed that for you.

    Imperfect on
  • OatsOats Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    First past the post is a pretty worthless name for our electoral system. The post bloody well moves.

    Single member plurality is better, but it hardly rolls off the tongue.

    Moreover, with the growing power of PMO and the nature of our extreme party discipline you are in effect voting for Prime Minister. MPs aren't delegates. They only represent you in the barest of terms. If they bring up Simcoe North in a meeting, and argue what Tay township wants, they'll likely be told to shut up. Hell, Jack Layton even said "I'm running for Prime Minister" last election. Technically he was not, and realistically he was not really in the running, but he (accidentally) made a valid point. People don't vote for their MPs anymore, they vote for a party. Whichever party disgusts them the least or did the least bad things last time they were in office or who they really want to have a buck ninety-five is the one people vote for.

    Oats on
  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/01/sunday-senatewatch-five-vacancies-why-not-a-bakers-dozen-instead.html
    But let's leave aside the issue of Senate committees for a moment, and consider the even more intriguing possibility that the prime minister is poised to invoke Section 26 of the Constitution Act, and appoint not five, but thirteen new Conservative senators, thus giving his party an absolute majority in the Red Chamber, with 59 seats out of 113.
    UPDATED: Sunday SenateWatch: Five vacancies? Why not a baker's dozen instead?

    * January 3, 2010 11:43 AM |
    * By Kady O'Malley

    Okay , first of all, don't blame me for getting the ball o' rampant speculation rolling before the sun has set on the last long weekend until Easter. It's all Susan Delacourt's fault for pointing out that, as of today, there are five empty seats* in the Upper House, just waiting to be filled with loyal and deserving Conservatives from New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and Ontario.

    For the first time since this prime minister took office in 2006, the government is on the brink of a working majority - or, at least, plurality - in the Senate, which would be comprised of 51 Conservatives, 49 Liberals, 2 Progressive Conservatives, 2 Independents and 1 Anne Cools, which, as some Hill reporters have been telling you over and over again, is likely the real impetus for prorogation, since it means that the Conservatives may finally take control of Senate committees, although as I noted a few days ago, that's not a sure thing.

    While those committees will, indeed, "reset" at the start of the new session in March, membership -- including the numbers of seats allotted to each party -- is decided through negotiations between Senate party leaders, which means that we could see a similar formula to what is currently in place in the House of Commons, where the government holds the plurality, but not the majority, of committee seats. (Former Colleague Wells, incidentally, questions the recent conventional wisdom that a prorogatory reboot was necessary to rejig the numbers; based on his reading of the Senate rules, committee membership can be adjusted at any point during a session, provided that both government and opposition Senate leaders sign off on the change.)

    But let's leave aside the issue of Senate committees for a moment, and consider the even more intriguing possibility that the prime minister is poised to invoke Section 26 of the Constitution Act, and appoint not five, but thirteen new Conservative senators, thus giving his party an absolute majority in the Red Chamber, with 59 seats out of 113.

    Now, that particular provision has only been used once before: in 1990, when Brian Mulroney appointed the momentarily infamous "GST Eight" after the Liberals, who held the majority in the Senate at the time, threatened to block the bill implementing the tax for as long as it took to kill it off --- they couldn't simply vote it down, since it was a money bill, but they could have tied it up in procedural red tape for years.

    The only other occasion in which a prime minister tried to do so was in 1873, when Canada's very first Liberal PM, Alexander Mackenzie, asked Queen Victoria to appoint an additional six senators to balance an Upper House that was, at the time, dominated almost entirely by MacDonald-appointed Conservatives, a plea that was politely, but firmly rejected, on the advice of the British Cabinet:

    The Earl of Kimberley, on the 18th February, 1874, answered; that after careful examination of the question, which was one of considerable importance, he was satisfied that the intention of the framers of the 26th Section of " The British North America Act, 1867," was, that this power should be vested in Her Majesty, in order to provide a means of bringing the Senate into accord with the House of Commons, in the event of an actual collision of opinion between the two Houses.

    That Her Majesty could not be advised to take the responsibility of interfering with the constitution of the Senate, except upon an occasion when it had been made apparent that a difference had arisen between the two Houses of so serious and permanent a character that the Government could not be carried on without Her intervention, and when it could be shown, that the limited creation of senators allowed by the Act would apply an adequate remedy.

    Although initially unpublicized, the still-Conservative dominated Senate eventually found out about Mackenzie's attempt to stack the Senate, and subsequently passed a resolution expressing "its high appreciation of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in refusing to advise an Act for which no Constitutional reason could be offered." (For more about the history of Section 26 than you ever wanted to know, I heartily recommend reading the Library of Parliament's backgrounder on the subject.)

    But that was back in the dusty, pre-repatriation days. Since 1982, the use of Section 26 has been, at least in theory, entirely the prerogative of the prime minister of the day, as the approval of the Crown is no longer required, which means that there is nothing to stop the PM from appointing thirteen senators as early as this afternoon, provided he follows the approved formula of one - or two - from each of the four divisions. The only question, really, is why he didn't do so last December, when the threat of losing power to the coalition led to him to break his pledge not to appoint a single one.

    Perhaps his advisors convinced him that it could be one of the few parliamentary precedents that he might want to avoid setting, what with the potentially troublesome optics, and the inevitable comparison to the last PM to do so. But given his persistent grumbling about the current state of the Senate, and the fact that his party won't have a majority until December 2010, he may finally be ready to roll the dice if it means getting the upper hand in at least one House of Parliament without having to go back to the polls.

    And the best part of all, from PMO's perspective, at least? With Parliament standing prorogued, there's not a thing that the opposition can do to stop him. Unlike the House of Commons, the Senate rules allow the Speaker to recall the Senate during adjournment, should "public interest" require it. (The Standing Orders, in contrast, authorize the Speaker to recall the House only on the request of the government.)

    So, given all that -- will we be seeing five new Conservative senators take their seats in March -- or a baker's dozen?

    Thoughts, commenters -- on section 26, or, alternately, your guesses for possible senators-in-waiting?

    *Yes, according to the official list of party standings on the parliamentary website, there are only four vacancies, but as of yesterday, a second slot has opened up in Ontario. Happy Belated 75th Birthday to Jerry Graftstein!

    UPDATE: As Commenter OttawaGuy613 notes, the Queen may, in fact, still be required to sign off on any S26-appointed senators, as repatriation did not explicitly transfer that responsibility to the Governor General. But what, really, are the chances that, if asked, she'd say no?

    This just gets more fucked up.

    saggio on
    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • ImperfectImperfect Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    An interesting (and frightening) idea, but where's the proof? It reads as just wild speculation. Sure, he could do that. He could also initiate legislation to build a wall around Quebec. There's nothing saying he's going to do either, but hey he COULD OMG THE GUY IS EVIL RAWR.

    Imperfect on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Imperfect wrote: »
    An interesting (and frightening) idea, but where's the proof? It reads as just wild speculation. Sure, he could do that. He could also initiate legislation to build a wall around Quebec. There's nothing saying he's going to do either, but hey he COULD OMG THE GUY IS EVIL RAWR.

    Uh I'm pretty sure it's been clearly established that Harper wants retarded American-style 20 year minimum jail terms for petty theft, 3 strikes you're out rules, tyrannical internet IP rules, basically unlimited police power, and the rest of the absolutely gob-smackingly alien American mix of neoliberalism and neoconservative values.

    Robman on
  • ImperfectImperfect Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I understand that he wants some pretty awful stuff - I'm not debating that.

    But there's no evidence to support him appointing an extra 8 senators. There's no inside source quoting that he's considering it, there's no prior action towards that direction, there's absolutely no indications that he's planning on doing this. It's just pure, wild speculation.

    I'll engage in a little of my own, just for the fun of it:
    Stephen Harper is planning on sitting down to dinner tonight, we all know this. But he's a connected fellow, right? And connected fellows know other connected fellows, and oftentimes, they know connected fellows in... "less than legal" positions. With me so far?

    Well, if Stephen Harper knows the right people, it raises the intruiging possibility that he's poised to sit down to a dinner of COOKED BABY tonight. That's right, if you know people who can get you a fresh baby, AND you know people who are willing to cook a baby, you can eat it, and Stephen Harper is a connected-enough man that he could know BOTH kinds of people.

    We should all be very concerned about our babies.

    Unless I read Kady O'Malley's piece entirely wrong, I provided just as much evidence for my speculation as she for hers.

    Imperfect on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I would say Harper senses he's finished next election cycle, but I really think that man can't imagine himself not ruling the house with a majority regardless of any shenanigans he pulls.

    Robman on
  • ImperfectImperfect Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I dunno. I hate disagreeing with your Robman - you're normally right (although caustic) - but Harper's conservatives are poised to have a plurality in the Senate, and are looking really good come any election. His control on the party is legendary, and there just *aren't* any good contenders from the other parties.

    IMHO, he's far from finished. In fact, he's pretty close to solidifying his power and making some sweeping changes across Canada.

    Imperfect on
  • NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Imperfect wrote: »
    IMHO, he's far from finished. In fact, he's pretty close to solidifying his power and making some sweeping changes across Canada.

    Most depressing post of 2010.

    Narian on
    Narian.gif
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Are the libs ready to elect Justin Trudeau as party leader yet? It's the only way they will be getting more votes next election.

    Disco11 on
    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • ImperfectImperfect Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Narian wrote: »
    Imperfect wrote: »
    IMHO, he's far from finished. In fact, he's pretty close to solidifying his power and making some sweeping changes across Canada.

    Most depressing post of 2010.

    I'm so sorry.

    Imperfect on
  • hawkboxhawkbox Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    Imperfect wrote: »
    Narian wrote: »
    Imperfect wrote: »
    IMHO, he's far from finished. In fact, he's pretty close to solidifying his power and making some sweeping changes across Canada.

    Most depressing post of 2010.

    I'm so sorry.


    You should be. I want to cry now. And I am Albertan and live in oil country! I'm 720% more redneck than Decius and this still makes me nauseated.

    hawkbox on
  • DeciusDecius Registered User regular
    edited January 2010
    I don't know whether to be insulted or complimented.

    Decius on
    camo_sig2.png
    I never finish anyth
This discussion has been closed.