EPTCanada's Government To Be Ousted? - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
rushz0rz
Canada5300 Posts
| ||
|
Durak
Canada3684 Posts
On December 06 2008 04:59 rushz0rz wrote: Well, Parliament has been prorogued until January 26. This is just shameful. I just can't believe for a minute that our leaders are doing this right now, during a financial crisis. Public polls are against the coalition and want an election, and if an election is called Conservatives will get a majority. I don't think the coalition will take over, the Governor General just can't let it happen, especially since so many people, just looking at the newspapers and tv, do not like the coalition, nor do they want them leading our country. I can see the Governor General letting it happen. It's happened before. Personally, I don't want another election because that's a waste of money. I don't want this six week, taxpayer paid-for, vacation for the idiots in government. I just want the Conservatives to stop being so arrogant and back down on something stupid for a change. Too bad it doesn't matter what I want. I'll keep voting. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On December 06 2008 04:59 rushz0rz wrote: Well, Parliament has been prorogued until January 26. This is just shameful. I just can't believe for a minute that our leaders are doing this right now, during a financial crisis. Public polls are against the coalition and want an election, and if an election is called Conservatives will get a majority. I don't think the coalition will take over, the Governor General just can't let it happen, especially since so many people, just looking at the newspapers and tv, do not like the coalition, nor do they want them leading our country. On the other hand, this gives the conservative government some time to govern without being thrown out by an angry mob. Harper was recently elected (again); give the man's term a chance. Power to the people. Respect the election results. They're basically trying to throw him out over political differences, and that's inappropriate. It's like here in the US, the crazy fucks that think Bush warrants impeachment. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On December 06 2008 07:34 HeadBangaa wrote: On the other hand, this gives the conservative government some time to govern without being thrown out by an angry mob. Harper was recently elected (again); give the man's term a chance. Power to the people. Respect the election results. They're basically trying to throw him out over political differences, and that's inappropriate. It's like here in the US, the crazy fucks that think Bush warrants impeachment. because lying to a jury about an affair is so much worse than torture | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On December 06 2008 07:40 fusionsdf wrote: Not tortue, but "enhanced interrogation techniques"because lying to a jury about an affair is so much worse than torture GOD!  | ||
|
a-game
Canada5085 Posts
when there is no single majority party, the election is followed by a period where the governor general canvasses all of the parties and finds out which one/combination of one or more parties has the confidence of the house. so people that say this is 'overturning' the results of the election are perhaps a bit incorrect. the election results allow for any party with the confidence of the house to be the government, not just the conservatives, so it's not so much 'overturning' or 'overthrowing' as it is a legitimate reconfiguring. as i said before, harper won 37% of the vote, the coalition won 63% of the vote. so to call this an 'overthrow' or 'undemocratic' is quite silly. it's perfectly legal, democratic, and legitimate. >whereas US impeachments, as i understand, actually do literally overturn the results of an election. | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On December 06 2008 09:34 a-game wrote: Canada runs on convention, the Convention in Canada is to simply elect the party who holds the biggest minority. That is the way Canada has been run, that is the way Canadians see our Democracy as being run. It doesn't matter if its constitutional or not, the fact of the matter is, 37% of the country voted for the Conservatives. 26% for the liberals, 18% for the ndp, and 10% for the bloc.canadian elections don't really work the same way as american elections. unless you win a majority, you don't technically 'win' the election. when there is no single majority party, the election is followed by a period where the governor general canvasses all of the parties and finds out which one/combination of one or more parties has the confidence of the house. so people that say this is 'overturning' the results of the election are perhaps a bit incorrect. the election results allow for any party with the confidence of the house to be the government, not just the conservatives, so it's not so much 'overturning' or 'overthrowing' as it is a legitimate reconfiguring. as i said before, harper won 37% of the vote, the coalition won 63% of the vote. so to call this an 'overthrow' or 'undemocratic' is quite silly. it's perfectly legal, democratic, and legitimate. >whereas US impeachments, as i understand, actually do literally overturn the results of an election. No one voted for the Coalition. | ||
|
daz
Canada643 Posts
| ||
|
karbon
Canada137 Posts
On December 06 2008 09:40 daz wrote: Imho the whole situation is embarassing to me as a Canadian. Especially the fact that the governor general gets to decide who runs our country, which is insanely stupid considering the governor general is basically just a celebrity figurehead. I mean seriously who the hell is mikhail jean or whatever her name is. What qualifies her to decide the future of our country? I'm pretty sure she only got to be governor general becuase shes a black chick from haiti. Not that I even care which of the clowns she chooses. The only leader with any integrity we have is Gilles Duceppe and he doesnt even want to be in Canada, he wants to seperate LOL. As it is theres barely any real political difference betwen any of the parties. It only goes to show, all this time and the thing that really sets the opposition over the edge is losing their funding. Not necessarily. The Governor-General is the representation of the Queen, and yet has the same level of power as her: no power at all, merely serve as an image. To ask for an extension occurs all the time. It is without a doubt she will grant it. But keep in mind, she isn't the person who decides. She has to have asked for the opinions of experts in the field, and all she is doing is relaying the majority opinion of these so called experts. Think of her as a television basically. Now in terms of the decision, there's a few reasons why granting an extension, or prorogation, is preferable. Keep in mind, although I am a hardcore Liberal, I must agree with the logic behind this decision. Scenario 1: she says no to Harper. Two things can happen in this scenario. The first is that she allows the coalition force to get into power. If this were to happen, it would defy the fundamental definition of a democracy, not at all listening to the will of the people. It must be the people who decide whether the coalition would take place or not. So in this case, it is inadvisable to let the coalition take power. The second case is to have an election. Short answer: the people don't want to re-vote. So that's a no too. On top of this, despite the fact that the coalition is well ready to topple the government, it cannot sustain it. It doesn't have the means to carry out the role of governing. It is not in a state that would allow it to govern effectively, as the change would be too abrupt. Not to mention, if an election were to take place, only the Conservatives would have the funds to carry out their campaigns. Liberals, NDP, and the Bloc are at borderline in terms of their campaign funds. They just don't have enough money to mount a electoral campaign. Scenario 2: she says yes to Harper. By granting Harper an extension, she effectively avoids the need to call an election, as the people of Canada are not willing to pursue one. Not only that, she would avoid putting a coalition that is not 100% ready, to take on the role of governing the country. Because, for all we know, that may just make things worst for the country. Yes, the NDP and Liberals have agreed on their contract for a coalition, on the basis of the economy, but they still have contrasting agendas, which would mean constant disagreements while in power. These fights can stir up the population even more, and are not beneficial to the repair of the country's state. In fact, instead of fixing the economy as they have planned, they may just attack one another, which would lead to the Conservatives back into power the following election. As much as the Conservatives are ragging me up the ass, I must agree with the prorogation, until the coalition is fully ready to undertake the measures of toppling the government. And, in order to do just that, the Liberals have to get their shit in order, find a great leader who would drive the Liberals in the correct direction. I still believe Conservatives need to have a durian shoved up each of their MP's asses, and two up Harper's. | ||
|
Durak
Canada3684 Posts
On December 06 2008 07:34 HeadBangaa wrote: On the other hand, this gives the conservative government some time to govern without being thrown out by an angry mob. Harper was recently elected (again); give the man's term a chance. Power to the people. Respect the election results. They're basically trying to throw him out over political differences, and that's inappropriate. It's like here in the US, the crazy fucks that think Bush warrants impeachment. It doesn't give the conservatives time to govern. It removes six weeks from everyone who could govern. | ||
|
Verdo
Canada3 Posts
Btw...cypher, if you happen to see this...yes this is verdo from you know where and i want you to add me on msn because i need to talk to you lordverdo@hotmail.com | ||
|
rushz0rz
Canada5300 Posts
| ||
|
frankbg
Canada335 Posts
On December 04 2008 16:53 karbon wrote: Just because he can't speak english properly, how is that remotely relevant to his party's policies about leading the government? Oh he can't speak properly, so i hate him and don't want him to be PM. genial mon ami. pas mal genial. YEAH, LETS GO FOR A PM WHO CAN'T SPEAK ENGLISH. Even Sarkozy can speak it. Time to open your liberal-biased eyes and realize that Dion is in no way qualified to run this country. It ISNT relevant to his party's policies. But he WILL represent Canada on the global stage and will be the face of Canada (at least politically) if he was to become PM. A bilingual country where the leader can only speak french properly? Wow. I'm sorry but the fact that he's worked on the federal level for SO long and STILL can't speak english make me doubt his intellectual capacity. I used to regard him as an intellectual before I started listening to his english speeches. Then I realized he has some issues. How the fuck can I flawlessly speak english (I have NO accent whatsoever) after only speaking it for about 6-7 years when he's spent most of his career in an english environment and still can't speak it? The dude is mentally challenged or some shit. Pas mal génial, ton ptit candidat favori. Et quoi encore, Pierre Falardeau comme PM du Canada? | ||
|
a-game
Canada5085 Posts
everyone knows the liberals are penniless, harper got to call the address on his preferred time and prepare for it leisurely because only he knew he was going to call it ahead of time. so now the opposition leader is supposed to have as good of communications as all of the powers of the prime ministers office, on short notice? this entire week dion is getting ridiculed, not because of his policies or his qualifications, but because of something as stupid as the quality of a video? despite the fact that he hasn't got crap to work with compared to the prime ministers office and had to make it on extremely short notice. yay for bandwagoning against politicians for reasons that have nothing to do with their policies! > here's an article that went into a bit of the behind the scenes of why the video was "so bad" btw http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081205/national/parliament_crisis_video | ||
|
rushz0rz
Canada5300 Posts
| ||
|
karbon
Canada137 Posts
On December 06 2008 15:23 frankbg wrote: YEAH, LETS GO FOR A PM WHO CAN'T SPEAK ENGLISH. Even Sarkozy can speak it. Time to open your liberal-biased eyes and realize that Dion is in no way qualified to run this country. It ISNT relevant to his party's policies. But he WILL represent Canada on the global stage and will be the face of Canada (at least politically) if he was to become PM. A bilingual country where the leader can only speak french properly? Wow. I'm sorry but the fact that he's worked on the federal level for SO long and STILL can't speak english make me doubt his intellectual capacity. I used to regard him as an intellectual before I started listening to his english speeches. Then I realized he has some issues. How the fuck can I flawlessly speak english (I have NO accent whatsoever) after only speaking it for about 6-7 years when he's spent most of his career in an english environment and still can't speak it? The dude is mentally challenged or some shit. Pas mal génial, ton ptit candidat favori. Et quoi encore, Pierre Falardeau comme PM du Canada? How is it so much different than Jean Chretien speaking? Granted Jean Chretien speaks a wee bit better english, but the situation is the same. In regard to the fact that not known how to speak a language in correlation with intellectuality is that there is no correlation. Just because one doesn't know how to speak a language does not infer his capacity of intellectuality. In psychology, you learn that people pick up language much quicker in their youth because of several pigments (not sure if it's the correct vocabulary) in their brains. By no means am I an expert on psychology, but I did take the course, and I recall that older people, having loss such pigments, cannot pick up new languages. When a child is born, the brain consists of 100 or so of such pigments, and as the child become exposed to a language, only two or three of those pigments are developed and remain. The others disappear. It is why, for example, people who do not speak arabic have problems saying "r" in arabic, which requires the tongue to be rolled at the tip, not at the back like in french. anyways, point is, Dion probably started speaking english only in his later years, a time in which the language pigments have already developed for french speaking only. Thus making it hard for him to pick up a new language, despite however long he is exposed to it. So intellectuality has nothing to do with it, as it is all a biological problem of human beings. The same can be said with Harper and his french if I wanted to talk about that dude. I can't stand his french. Then again, you're right. Dion cannot represent Canada in the world, as english is the mainstream language of the world. BUT, at the moment, the problem is within Canada, a problem that needs to be fixed. Harper is doing a terrible job at it. Dion, hopefully with his knowledge as professor in poli sci from UMontreal, would do something about it for the time being. By the time he is called internationally, he will have already resigned, leaving someone else more fluent in english to represent Canada. So what I'm thinking is, fix this country first, and by May or so, leave so another can take over in the international scene. It is a more productive path than waiting for Harper to do jack shit, just to benefit Alberta. Now on to Harper. The reason I want Dion to take over the role of PM over Harper is due to Harper's politics. If the scene was a scene in elementary school, Harper would be like a kid poking you with a pencil until you get pissed and yell, and then he would stop. In the political scene, Harper will try to have his way, making decisions that will not benefit the whole of Canada, just his oil crazed province of Alberta, until opposing parties cry out in anger. Only then will he make the decisions that will make the other parties happy, and benefit the whole of Canada. Just look at the stimulus package problem. He doesn't introduce a stimulus package, as he has 800M dollars in surplus that could be used to smooth out the economy, and he takes 30M from other parties. Harper: "Oh, hey guys, I know I've got 800M in surplus from last budget, but I'm just going to go ahead and take 30M from you guys to fix the economy" Other parties: "YO WHAT THE FUCK, YOU WILL MAKE US BANKRUPT, AND NO ONE WILL SERVE AS OPPOSITION TO YOU. FUCK THIS YOU'RE GOING DOWN" Harper: "Oh I'm sorry.. ok ok I'll have a stimulus package ready by January, when I should already have had it by last week." So honestly, That's the reason why I'm Liberal-biased. I would much prefer Dion, in the short term of 5 months, to have a real go at fixing the economy. Then have him replaced when the Liberal convention happens. OR EVEN BETTER, have Dion resign like last week, have a new Liberal leader in who can get shit done. But as long as Consies* are not in power anymore. * a term I made up, denoting the Conservatives, and their con-artist ways. On December 06 2008 16:14 rushz0rz wrote: Also, look who's there at the base during the ceremony when the news that 3 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan. Stephen Harper. Where is Dion and Layton? That's the PM's job, not party leaders job The Conservatives were the single party who got the majority of votes compared to the others. only because half of Canada didn't vote Bullying your way to power because you're upset about your all-time low voting turnout is not the way, and Dion should take the hint and give leadership over to someone is more qualified. Yes Dion should leave as soon as possible, but the bullying here isn't from the coalition. The bullying is from the Conservatives. Just read what I wrote on top. | ||
|
rushz0rz
Canada5300 Posts
On December 07 2008 01:06 karbon wrote: That's the PM's job, not party leaders job Yes, I understand that, but it's a time of political struggle. Dion should be doing everything he can if he wants support. | ||
|
frankbg
Canada335 Posts
| ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On December 06 2008 15:57 a-game wrote: i don't understand why cbc kept heavily trashing dion's national address video everyone knows the liberals are penniless, harper got to call the address on his preferred time and prepare for it leisurely because only he knew he was going to call it ahead of time. so now the opposition leader is supposed to have as good of communications as all of the powers of the prime ministers office, on short notice? this entire week dion is getting ridiculed, not because of his policies or his qualifications, but because of something as stupid as the quality of a video? despite the fact that he hasn't got crap to work with compared to the prime ministers office and had to make it on extremely short notice. yay for bandwagoning against politicians for reasons that have nothing to do with their policies! > here's an article that went into a bit of the behind the scenes of why the video was "so bad" btw http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081205/national/parliament_crisis_video honestly I think its fucking disgusting its like cnn instead of telling us specific policy issues that the ndp and liberals agree or disagree on and analyzing in depth they keep going for stupid sound bites like one liberal spoke out about dion and cbc is "the coalition is dead lol" I dont really care if cbc comes down pro harper or pro coalition, but they should actually do news and not entertainment | ||
| ||
