[kenmore]

what we need to do is ground harper to a halt.. get rid of him and Canada would be a better place for all...

[mtbr]

kenmore kenmore:

what we need to do is ground harper to a halt.. get rid of him and Canada would be a better place for all...

[uwish]

mtbr mtbr:

kenmore kenmore:

what we need to do is ground harper to a halt.. get rid of him and Canada would be a better place for all...

[poquas]

mtbr mtbr:

poquas poquas:

Another reason not to go back to the bastards.

you voting for the Conservatives is as believable as Derby sending the Liberals a donation.

And your presence here is a sneaky Liberal plot to make the Conservatives look ignorant, partisan and terribly ill informed.




It’s working.

[jason700]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Bah, at least he's finally doing his job. I don't see the hypocrisy in continuing to perform a function that is your present duty even as you try to delegate that duty. This way, even if his senate reforms fail, we will have had these Conservative governments represented in the upper chamber.

The first guy appointed, and still sitting, is Willie Adams, appointed in '77. Since '77, we've had about 19 years of Liberal rule, and 13 of PC/C rule, or 1.46 years of Liberal rule to every year of PC/C. If Harper fills the 18 vacancies with Conservtives, the standings will be 58 Liberal to 41 PC/C, or 1.41 Liberal senators per PC/C Senator. That's a 3% difference - pretty damn close. I can't argue with that.

I've been saying all along that Harper's not been doing his job allowing these senate vacancies to go unfilled. I'm glad he finally is.

Well said.

[uwish]

And your presence here is a sneaky Conservative plot to make the Liberals look ignorant, partisan and terribly ill informed

fixed it up for you.

there you go.

[bootlegga]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Insofar as stacking the Senate goes, how about a compromise position of "Chretien, bad, Martin bad, Harper bad."

Sounds fair to me.

[hurley_108]

Scape Scape:

I'm fine with the appointments and this man made crisis has forced Harper to do his job as you point out. However, his foot dragging was for two years during which he held to a platform of elected senate reform. He can't have it both ways. He either needs to throw himself on the gears of the senate and grind it to a halt like he promised to or commit to making the senate work by not placing gag/sabotage orders on committees. Since he is locked in perpetual minority status he won't have brute force as an option.

The politics of it stink for sure, but having studied as a physicist, I like it when two different measures of what ought to be the same thing (in this case, Canada's long-term average political leanings) have the same result.

[bootlegga]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

That you did was enough , like i said at the time it merely higlights that you dont have any other ideas than "Haper is bad". And Harper didnt make any flip flops, but i also not that you didnt answer any of the qutes of Iggy in that threAD. . You spoort a leader that agreed with the Iraq invasion, agrees with torture and has disregard for Jews

Considering you're accsusing me of posting and running. Let's see you answer some of the facts ive presented about the Liberals time in power here. Let's see if your principles , which you claim to be so elevated that you can not do what you laim i did and answer the question about why the Liberal party puts itself before the country.

But i imagine you won't you'll come up with some excuse , say "Harper bad , Chretien, Martin, Dion, Iggy good" and move on. That's cool, every time to skedaddle off and back-peddle it just shows that you and the liberal party dont like to be caught in the cold light of day whree you have to explaing anyhting

Consdering that the Supreme court today found thar the Liberal government illegally collected money from tax-payers to pay down the national debt i wouldnt be surprised if you simply ran off to a dark corner and waited for the latest bad news to blow over. But i you would like to talk about how the liberals brought in a hidden tax on Canaidans and now have been cuaght red handed, i'm happy to hear you apologize to Canadians for taking thier money illegally

First off, if you can't handle internet debating, go cry to mommy, princess. Like I said, if you live in a glass house, don't throw stones. If you can't take being called a facist, then stop calling everyone socialists.

Second, I never said Chretien good, Martin good, Harper bad. When it comes to the topic of senate reform, all of them are now equally guilty of ignoring it. Frankly, I couldn't care less if Harper appoints 50 senators. You just have to admit that Harper's gone back on another promise.

Third, I never liked the Liberals padding surpluses with EI. The only good that came from that is that it was used to maintain surpluses and pay down the debt. Still, it never should have happened. (See how easy it is? Your turn!).

Fourth, thanks for proving my point, in not addressing the issue of Seante reform and simply pointing to a Liberal issue...

There's lot of things I didn't like about the Liberals, which is why I never voted for them the last two times Chretien was still running them. I gave Martin the benefit of the doubt, but he never really got a chance to do much, after Harper used the Bloc to oust him from power (sounds awfully familiar). And I didn't support Dion's party this time around, mostly because he was too focussed on the Green Shift and not on real problems facing Canada. Had Harper continued the way he did in the first about six months of 2006, he would have got my vote. However, he began worrying more about his career and legacy than about Canada. He totally lost any chance at my vote after he decided to cancel several large defence purchases, which is the only thing attractive to me politically about the Conservatives. If he isn't going to be any better than the Libs in that regard, why should I vote for him? Iggy, well, I haven't decided if I'll vote for his party or not. He's going to have to do a lot better than Dion ever did, that's for sure.

[RUEZ]

poquas poquas:

mtbr mtbr:

poquas poquas:

Another reason not to go back to the bastards.

you voting for the Conservatives is as believable as Derby sending the Liberals a donation.

And your presence here is a sneaky Liberal plot to make the Conservatives look ignorant, partisan and terribly ill informed.




It’s working.

Only a freak would judge a political party by one or two people on a forum. Are you a freak?

[ryan29]

Canadaka Canadaka:

what a liar

he's not lying , he had talked about doing this rate after the election , was several articles on it then ( not just since the coalition issues )

and its within his rights as PM to appoint these senators like others before him have , paul martin during his short minority appointed a bunch of senators so this is not that usually for a minority parliament .

myself i hope the senate is one day elected but for the time being this will have to do and the liberals allready have a majority in the senate so a few more conservatives there will not hurt .

[ryan29]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ridenrain ridenrain:

You do see that this whole hypocrisy thing just isn't working, don't you?

I'm just posting the list of senators and the readers can see who appointed how many and make up their own mind.

No. Your silence is hypocracy. Harper appointing a bunch of senators in a partisan fit of panic just in case the coalition succeeds is his hypocracy.

He broke his own election law when it was convenient and now he is breaking his own word about partisan appointments because its convenient.

I told you he and the CPC weren't different.

well the liberals did the same thing for years and did not appoint any of the elected senators from alberta when they had the chance . the liberals ignored the option of making the senate more democratic for years and liberal premiers continue to reject the idea . so they can hardly complain now that harper is going to fill these vacancies with senators who one day might run for re-election

[poquas]

The Liberals have never even entertained the idea of a reformed senate, so I naturally don't expect any better. Harper and the gang come from the Reform/Alliance party that since their founding had pushed for, and promised an elected senate. I expected that to continue.

Harpers actions show he's no better than the Libs are except of course he's being a hypocrite for doing it now for strictly partisan reasons and as it seems to be in his nature lately, in complete contradiction of his promises.

More proof he’s a jerk.

[RUEZ]

ryan29 ryan29:

he's not lying , he had talked about doing this rate after the election , was several articles on it then ( not just since the coalition issues )

and its within his rights as PM to appoint these senators like others before him have , paul martin during his short minority appointed a bunch of senators so this is not that usually for a minority parliament .

myself i hope the senate is one day elected but for the time being this will have to do and the liberals allready have a majority in the senate so a few more conservatives there will not hurt .

Damn rights. I find it appalling that the opposition is calling him a hypocrite for doing what he is entitled to do.

[RUEZ]

poquas poquas:

Harpers actions show he's no better than the Libs are except of course he's being a hypocrite for doing it now for strictly partisan reasons and as it seems to be in his nature lately, in complete contradiction of his promises.

More proof he’s a jerk.

BS, how do you propose he get's his senate reform through a senate stacked with Liberal appointees?