[EyeBrock]

Scape wrote:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/11/12/liberals031112.html

There is the article about Jean's Prorogue. That was a transition to the Martin Government but there is no precedent that proroguing is a routine matter in a minority Parliament. It's not routine when you have dozens of bills on the table and work left undone. And it's not routine to do it two years in a row, and in both cases when you're under intense political pressure from the opposition. That argument simply does not hold up to scrutiny.

What about the prorogue that killed the Judicial Inquiry into Somalia, just as they were getting to things that would have been embarrassing to the Liberals?

Read Hurley's post on the other thread. Picking sides on this is just for the partisans. Both Harper and Chretien have prorogued parliament for their own partisan reasons. There is no difference to either of them using parliamentary procedures for their own political gain. It's the system.

To vilify Harper for using the very same tactics well used by Chretien is disingenuous and a tad hypocritical. .

[BluesBud]

I don't usually comment on these since they have such a right wing slant. I did however notice something of interest. Under Things that make you go,.....Hmmm?

On the hats on each of the Politicos featured is the party affiliation of each....except for harper. He does not have a "C" for Conservative Party of Canada, but an "H" for Harperite?

[JJ]

I did that to confuse people who over-think things.

[Sucros]

My initial reaction was "Business as usual". But I'm actually really excited that Canadians are *finally* getting off their arses and getting upset about the undemocratic nature of things. At least a decade late, but it's a start. It's pretty despairing that the candidate who's most appealing aspect of his platform was democratic reform turned out to be just as much of a despot.

So what the heck, I'm getting mad about this.

[EyeBrock]

Senate reform is Harper's reason for doing this sucros.

[Scape]

EyeBrock wrote:

To vilify Harper for using the very same tactics well used by Chretien is disingenuous and a tad hypocritical. .

I don't buy that. That would have meant that I would have been a loyal member of the Liberal party at the time and clearly I wasn't because I ran against them primarily on the get back to the GATT and get scrap NAFTA but also as protest vs the general atmosphere of graft under both the cons and the grits. Also, what happened then was just as much an assault against the house, not against the conservatives at the time just as the current action is against the house and not against the liberals. What else would you have me do?

[EyeBrock]

Now that you put it that way.....

I was lumping you in with all the Libs who ne'er said a whit against Chretien but now rant against Chretien-like tactics employed by Stevie.