Harper names defeated Tories to the Senate

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by BobAthome
So how is this un-democracratic?

In Canada it isn't "undemocratic". But hypocrisy it is. Hypocrisy:

noun
▸
behavior in which someone claims to have certain moral principles or beliefs but behaves in a way that shows they are not sincere

www.onelook.com...

And does knowone here not remember P.E.T ? (

reply to post by bronco73


I CAN blame him for that and I do. He consistently railed against the appointment of senators and promised change. He had the opportunity to do what the Liberals did not, to be "the better man." Instead he continued the legacy of cronyism and did not even have the courage to stand up and discuss it in front of the nation.

Originally posted by ItsEvolutionBaby
something real smelly about those last election results -
REAL SMELLY

yep but not like we can trust them to give us an honest election imo no way did that many people vote for the Cons.

what a hypocricy...not a democracy...I'd say good job voting this tard in all you cannucks but I can't say much because we voted Obama in (and bush haha )

reply to post by UcDat


I think the biggest problem was really low turnout. I do understand people who become disillusioned and ony many days I think it makes no difference, but it would be nice if more people would have gone out to rid us of this guy. Lib and Con may be the same, but Harper is worse than most.

come on ,, any real historian will tell you the biggest defeat was the Party Quebec Cry,, i was in front of the t.v when it was 49/48 yup that close too seperation the dastards, so being canada we let them become the "official opposition" now thats brain dead, but we survived, and for me the greatest victory as a CANADIAN was too see the fall and hopefully the demise of the party that supported the killing of pierre Laport.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by bronco73

 

I CAN blame him for that and I do. He consistently railed against the appointment of senators and promised change. He had the opportunity to do what the Liberals did not, to be "the better man." Instead he continued the legacy of cronyism and did not even have the courage to stand up and discuss it in front of the nation.

However, with the opposition voting down the proposed senate changes and the Liberal dominated senate vetoing the one that passed, Harper was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Either appoint, or leave the seats vacant. Leaving them vacant would keep a Liberal dominated senate with empty seats during a tumultuous minority government. Had he lost the next election we could have seen a Liberal government with a liberal dominated senate, and more Liberal appointed senators. Not a good looking future if you're a Conservative.

He still wants elected senators. He still wants term limits. Before this recent election he was stonewalled into keeping things in the senate as they were, with a possible election or coalition in the near future. Now that he is in the drivers seat we will see the changes that he wanted. Funny that nobody that supports the Libs wanted these changes made until the Liberal senators became outnumbered.

reply to post by BobAthome


yep another great canadian hero but not the last to fall

still the pq defeat was more about the rampent corruption. I dont see how the cons got so many votes in BC tho alberta is in the conservatives pockets as long as the oil keeps flowing. Even if its 90% into the pockets of the Elites pockets who own our secretive above the law government... Dont see how they did so well in BC and Ontario. Libs and cons should of been all but wiped out.

Originally posted by BobAthome

Ok, ever since the AVRO arrow deal i said never conservative, never, so i've always been swayed too the lib. side FEDERALLY, i was in ontario during the Davis years,,
So in the spirit of liberal greatness which somehow has slipped too complete rock bottom, i think it's time once again for the lib. party to find three wise men.

Heck, I won't vote for the "L's" because of the Arrow deal. Are you sure you understand what actually happened with that?

Diefenbaker explained what was happening at the time in the Montreal Star Feb. 24, 1959, “...The Prime Minister said the company had warning of the Government decision to cancel the CF-105 Arrow supersonic interceptor and knew that $50,000,000 in public funds had been set aside for in the estimates for 1959-1960 to cover winding-up expenses...”I say its attitude in letting out thousands of workers – technical workers and employes – on Friday was so cavalier, so unreasonable, that the only conclusion any fair-minded person can come to is that it was done with the purpose of embarrassing the Government.””

Records confirm the $50 million and that Cabinet was trying hard to prevent layoffs. This is no reason to vote for Harper but it is time the facts finally came out.