[Proculation]

You're trying to put me where I don't belong hurley.

Why do you think I removed the blue "C" beside my avatar ?

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm against a lot of the Conservative policies. And I have much more ideas of my own than you think !

Like I said in another thread, I write basic english so maybe my points are not well described.

$1:

This Senator isn't going to stand for election to the Senate, he's going to stand for election to the House. How does this do ANYTHING with respect to electing SENATORS?

The MPs and the senators are the legislators. Senators are appointed. That's like it works. Constitutionally, every legislator can be appointed to the executive (government). It happened with Michael Fortier. Larry Smith will stay for some months at the senate and then he will try to get elected to the House.

I was just saying that it was not a 'partisan' appointment. Like someone who would stay in the senate, sleeping, for 20 years. Smith will try to be elected and if he doesn't win, that's over. Like Fortier.

I never said it was an elected senate. But at least it's better than nothing.

[hurley_108]

Proculation Proculation:

You're trying to put me where I don't belong hurley.

Why do you think I removed the blue "C" beside my avatar ?

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm against a lot of the Conservative policies. And I have much more ideas of my own than you think !

Like I said in another thread, I write basic english so maybe my points are not well described.

Yes, I suppose I was a bit disrespectful. My apologies.

$1:

$1:

This Senator isn't going to stand for election to the Senate, he's going to stand for election to the House. How does this do ANYTHING with respect to electing SENATORS?

The MPs and the senators are the legislators. Senators are appointed. That's like it works. Constitutionally, every legislator can be appointed to the executive (government). It happened with Michael Fortier. Larry Smith will stay for some months at the senate and then he will try to get elected to the House.

I was just saying that it was not a 'partisan' appointment. Like someone who would stay in the senate, sleeping, for 20 years. Smith will try to be elected and if he doesn't win, that's over. Like Fortier.

I never said it was an elected senate. But at least it's better than nothing.

Thing is, nobody ever appointed a Senator to cabinet before, at least not that I'm aware of. And I'm not sure we should be celebrating Fortier, as he presided over that shady West Block reno contract during his stint as Minister of Public Works.

Also, nobody has ever used the Senate as a stepping-stone to the House before. It should be the other way around if you want to talk about an elected Senate - appointing current or former House members to the Senate - at least then you'd have somebody who won federal office at some point sitting in the upper chamber.

This does nothing for an elected Senate other than putting those words together in the same thought.

[PimpBrewski123]

Only out of curiousity though.

And this is by no means a ''partisan'' comment. But there seems to be controversy only when Harper appoints people to the Senate. For the longest time, the Liberals had a distinctive majority, yet not the media or anyone else reported on it. There were barely any mentions of it. Most people probably had not heard that there was even a Senate.

[Scape]

I agree. There isn't much said when the liberals were stacking the senate but then again they had a majority at the time as well so the media never went nuts over it. It was as broken then as it is now, except then it was in favor of team red over team blue.

[Proculation]

I guess the difference is that Harper said he wanted an elected senate but appointed senators anyway while the Liberals were doing as usual. I also guess there's a media thing to this. The journalists are angry at Harper since he does not tell them things like the Liberals used to do. Add to that that the majority of reporters are left-wing biaised, according to a lot of polls.

Talking of that, imagine if Harper decides to use the same clause of the constitution that Mulroney used to pass the TPS by appointing extra senators. That would be a media crisis.

[Proculation]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Proculation Proculation:

You're trying to put me where I don't belong hurley.

Why do you think I removed the blue "C" beside my avatar ?

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm against a lot of the Conservative policies. And I have much more ideas of my own than you think !

Like I said in another thread, I write basic english so maybe my points are not well described.

Yes, I suppose I was a bit disrespectful. My apologies.

$1:

$1:

This Senator isn't going to stand for election to the Senate, he's going to stand for election to the House. How does this do ANYTHING with respect to electing SENATORS?

The MPs and the senators are the legislators. Senators are appointed. That's like it works. Constitutionally, every legislator can be appointed to the executive (government). It happened with Michael Fortier. Larry Smith will stay for some months at the senate and then he will try to get elected to the House.

I was just saying that it was not a 'partisan' appointment. Like someone who would stay in the senate, sleeping, for 20 years. Smith will try to be elected and if he doesn't win, that's over. Like Fortier.

I never said it was an elected senate. But at least it's better than nothing.

Thing is, nobody ever appointed a Senator to cabinet before, at least not that I'm aware of. And I'm not sure we should be celebrating Fortier, as he presided over that shady West Block reno contract during his stint as Minister of Public Works.

Also, nobody has ever used the Senate as a stepping-stone to the House before. It should be the other way around if you want to talk about an elected Senate - appointing current or former House members to the Senate - at least then you'd have somebody who won federal office at some point sitting in the upper chamber.

This does nothing for an elected Senate other than putting those words together in the same thought.

Personaly, i'm against appointing a minister to a senator. Remember how we fought hard to have a responsible government when the lords were appointed to government without legitimity.

Maybe Larry Smith can be an advisor but until he wins an election, he should not have a minister.

[Zipperfish]

PimpBrewski123 PimpBrewski123:

Only out of curiousity though.

And this is by no means a ''partisan'' comment. But there seems to be controversy only when Harper appoints people to the Senate. For the longest time, the Liberals had a distinctive majority, yet not the media or anyone else reported on it. There were barely any mentions of it. Most people probably had not heard that there was even a Senate.

I don't think anyone is crazy about the way it operates right now--where people are just appointed. But it's human nature--and yes, also hypocritical--to take greater offence when it's a party you don't like doing it. Human nature really.

[hurley_108]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PimpBrewski123 PimpBrewski123:

Only out of curiousity though.

And this is by no means a ''partisan'' comment. But there seems to be controversy only when Harper appoints people to the Senate. For the longest time, the Liberals had a distinctive majority, yet not the media or anyone else reported on it. There were barely any mentions of it. Most people probably had not heard that there was even a Senate.

I don't think anyone is crazy about the way it operates right now--where people are just appointed. But it's human nature--and yes, also hypocritical--to take greater offence when it's a party you don't like doing it. Human nature really.

I don't think it's being merely partisan, though, to point out that the Liberals were simply engaging in the time-honored tradition of stacking of the Senate by the party in power. They never promised to elect Senators, and they never promised to appoint Senators who were elected.

Harper did promise not to appoint non-elected Senators. Then he ran into a situation where it looked like he may very well lose power and had to fill 27 (or however many it was) vacancies or risk letting Dion do it, and he chose to break that promise.

The Liberals are certainly on no ground to contest Harper's actions given that he's just doing what they've done before (save Fortier and now Smith whom I still contend were and are simply there to bolster their election campaigns), but that doesn't mean that Harper's not wrong.

[Scape]

Gross.

$1:

Best quotes from his CBC interview:

IN SIMPLE TERMS. THE MONEY I WAS EARNING IN MY LAST PROFESSION TO WHAT IT WOULD BE IN THIS PROFESSION IS WHAT I WOULD CALL A DRAMATIC, CATASTROPHIC PAY CUT.

I THINK THEY'LL GET THEIR MONEY'S WORTH OUT OF ME, EVEN IF I'M THERE FOR A SHORT TERM.

AS A PLAYER, YOU LOOK AT PLAYERS AND SAY WHO IS A PLAYER? AND YOU DO NOT ACCEPT PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT PLAYERS INTO THE ROOM.

I'VE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE BEACONSFIELD GOLF COURSE FOR 15 YEARS.

[Proculation]

Larry Smith is great

[PimpBrewski123]

Harper is merely playing the same game as any other political parties that preceded him.

The point was, no big deal.

[Scape]

[PimpBrewski123]

Ok Scape, then be a gentleman and donate.