ChuckerCanuck 2.0

Ha! You have my vote, Chucker. BYOB.
 

It would be a hoot if Harper were to select a blogger from the BT's. The Lib blogosphere would implode. In fact everything would implode. Yup implode real good.
 

Oops - sorry, u have my vote too! Not just anyone from the BT's...
 

I vote for Chucker, Janke, Darcy, Taylor, Olaf, Daimian and Right Girl. Put them in NOW!


Oh, and Kate! and Kathy!

And what the hell, throw Kinsella in there too, just for fun..
 

And let's not forget, Sheena.

She would only serve, at her whim.

And so would they.
 

It's morally wrong for Harper to appoint Senators when he campaigned on Senate reform and has given only token attention to the issue.

Legally, of course, it's perfectly within his office's rights. It's just too bad that he's not more serious about the issue.

But you've got my vote, mister!
 

Ugh... if Kate was in the Senate I would move to California. And that's not an idle threat. Just what Canada needs, another Jason Cherniak-type distorting partisan in an unelected seat. Wow, brilliant idea.

Olaf for sure, and Darcy. I'd like to see CG, too.
 

Let's help Harper out here. Nominations for internet senate election here.
 

BTW...

I'm from BC.

...nomination-wise.

*ahem*
 

Ahem. Sorry Dude, you're three hours behind (or ahead, whatever), the Center of the Universe.

I understand your passion, and anger, BC.

But hey, I didn't make this planetary shit up.

Suggest you accept it gracefully, or tell us to fuck off, like we like to hear.

Cheers.
 

I can see I may have to resort to more aggressive methods here.

Okay, how much?
 

There has been a bill before the Senate re refrom for over a year. They refuse to deal with it. The difference with PMSH's appointments is they will have to resign and run for election if that ever passes.
Too bad AB has no openings for a couple of years. Just hope PMSH names most of them who are around 40 yrs old so they can be there for at least 30 more. We can have a majority in the Senate within a couple of years. Live with that liberals.
 

As much as you can stand.

Or your humour, will allow.
 

Since KS lost his appeal re deportation today, I think it would be great payback to appoint Brian to the Senate.
 

Springer, have you moved to Chicago and think you are govenor. LOL.
 

Ummm...

Did I mention that I have, you know, these photos...
 

Never underestimate, us neo-cons, MaryT.

The world is ours, for the taking.
 

Yeah, what a deal for Midnight Cowboy. A Muscovite masquerading as a Kozak, but really a "self admitted" "neocon artist".

None of the right wing crazies that hang out here are qualified for appointment to the Senate.

Its supposed to be a place of "sober second thought". Since Ralph Klein and his side kick Mike Harris hang out looking for Harper to bless their past mistakes, its a virtual certainty that the great champion of elected Senates from Western Canada, is not going to capitulate to the Conservative Gravy Train.

What a disgusting whore of a Prime Minister!
 

maryT surely you jest! Lyin Brian Mulroney put Canada into the deepest hole in Canadian history, save for what Harper is now doing.

Today Harper in a single afternoon has spent more money than totalled the entire Mulroney deficit.

Both were and are unrepentant "neocons".

You know what they say about people who do not learn from their own mistakes.
 

Speaking of photos...

I' bet JG carries a photo of a horse's ass in his wallet.

You know, for ID.
 

Joe Green ,

Midnight Cowboy ?


I am honoured .

It is one of my apparitions .
 

With Brian in the Senate many libs/dippers and JG would have serious stokes. But think about it, he could have great conversations with all the liberals there and they could discuss where all the bodies are buried re scandals, taxpayer theft and scams. Think what we could find out if they were secretly taped. Might even find the adscam money. And fyi I never ever voted for any party Brian was leader of.
And remember, he appointed the first elected senator from AB to the Senate.
The media outrage would be great to watch.
 

Chucker for Senate!
 

No one garnishes, initial attention, like shit disturbers.
 

Oh, alright...

I admit, if I didn't drink,

The profundity, of my comments

Would be diminished.


Oh Yeah? And fuck you too!
 

Bo Green,

everyone round here thinks highly of you.

but now, you've got to come out of the closet:

You, sir, are a Liberal. I know, I know, you are ashamed of the Liberals as manifested currently and recently. But you are a Liberal.

No fair-minded person would call Harper's senate appointments "immoral". That word would only be used by folks who want to perpetuate a sick imbalance in the senate that favors Liberals and, by consequence, the People's Democratic Coalition.
 

Chucker, that obviously bothers you too about Don Drummond.

I think when he's interviewed on MDL they should have a Conservative pundit as well to balance things.
 

Of course there is nothing immoral about Harper campaigning on an elected Senate and then going into an appointing frenzy..

Just like for Conservative partisans, the answer to the appointment of David Emerson "I will be Stephen Harper´s worst nightmare" was honest and democratic and he´d simply face his angry constituents next election(haha)whenever it might be, but a coalition government that was mused about during the election is a deceitful coup that demands an immediate election....
But that´s Harperocrisy, it is it´s own moral universe.

And as if the NDP "suddenly" came out in favour of abolishing the Senate, that´s always been the party position. But the Cons would rather dump more of our tax dollars at their patronage appointments because the Liberals forced them to do it...
 

Haha - I am soooo not a Liberal. ;) Or a Conservative. I don't really get the difference between them anyway, it's a question of who is leading. I'd take Harper over Iggy, probably Manley over Harper, maybe Prentice over Manley. Maybe Chernushenko over Harper. Harper over Dion.

Same as voting for MP, it's more about the candidate.

It's immoral to campaign against the GST and then ignore it, like Chretien did. It's immoral to campaign on Senate reform as one of your Five Planks and then let it sit like this, and then appoint lifelong Senators. I'm sorry, but Harper's outreach and PR sucks. He's a fine brain and thinker, but he has no excuse for not addressing this weakness.

Like I said in the other thread - *you* could write him a barnstormer speech or a week of speeches for free, that would get Canadians outpouring letters to their MPs and the Senate demanding change, and holding vigils or protests the same as they did two weekends ago. He's got money to hire pro speechwriters - so what's the problem?

What's stopping him from going on YouTube, what's stopping him from touring the country and holding rallies?

For that matter, what's stopping him from making Prentice or Kenney, or Deb Grey or Preston Manning or Fortier or etc into a Senate reform czar, and doing all that for him? What's stopping him from asking Rick Mercer to publicize a public drive for greater democratic expression?

Nothing!!!

He's being lazy on the whole issue, and that 8 yr term limits bill? He allowed the Liberals to allow it to die.

He knows the value of public pressure when his head's on the coalition's chopping block, but not on an issue that he claims is vital and important?

Give me a break. The power of leadership is the power to persuade, and on Senate reform, he's ignoring it.

It's immoral to run for office on an issue and then be a hypocrite on it. So while I'll take him over the last 3, and maybe 6 Liberal leaders, he's still wrong to appoint Senators to an institution he claims is undemocratic (and I agree with him).
 

That word would only be used by folks who want to perpetuate a sick imbalance in the senate that favors Liberals and, by consequence, the People's Democratic Coalition.

Okay, if it's just the wording that bugs you, I'll happily take it back and say "hypocritical". Or even.... "Liberal-like".

I agree there's a sick imbalance. But I say it was immoral for the Liberals to appoint Liberal partisans, as well. That's why I'm pro-Senate reform.

We need an elected Senate that reflects the healthy balance of the people's current choices. Our Senate is immorally chosen, in my opinion.
 

And natch, I think highly of you, and you all, too.
 

Hey buddy,

it wasn't immoral for Liberals to appoint senators. That's the system. We may not like it, but we have to be respectful of the fact that people don't agree with us on that matter.

I don't think the imbalance is the Liberal's Fault. It just is what it is.

Changing the senate, as you know, requires a huge mobilization of the entire political class - not just in Ottawa - but in every province in the country.
 

True enough, the Dippers have voiced support for senate reform. I saw a guy (the one from Copps old riding) say very interesting things about senate reform.

But, like everybody else, when the Dippers want action, who do they get into bed with? Exactly.
 

t wasn't immoral for Liberals to appoint senators.

Agree with you all the way, but appointing Liberal partisans, I feel, is an abuse.

My only "immoral" quibble here is reversing a stated position for political gain (just like Chretien and the GST)


You are right, the NDP and the CPC could easily co-operate on this. Shame they don't.
 

Bo Green, I think you are ignoring history, and by that I mean recent history. Harper has in fact tried harder than I would have expected to make this change. To make the change permanent and binding on future governments requires a constitutional change, meaning most of the provincial premiers would have to agree. I know for a fact the McGuinty and Chares are on record as saying no way in hell. To get around this Harper explicitely stated that if any given province wanted to hold an election, he would respect the results regardless of the winner. Of all the provinces that have held elections since then, only Alberta took advantage, and the winner was appointed, possibly the only senate appointment made by Harper. So basically Harper has had no cooperation from the opposition, any change for the next 4-5 years is impossible due to Ontario and Quebec, he gave the provinces the opportunity to elect senators, and somehow this is going back on his word? Ridiculous and absurd. He has only 2 options, appoint senators now, or allow the next government to do it for him. Your other options are fantasy at best. His name is Harper, not Quixote, he doesn't have time to tilt at windmills, we have a country to run.
 

we have a country to run

Greg, I think you're ignoring history -- specifically recent history. Specifically the part where I said making Deb Grey a Senate reform "czar".

I realize provinces are against the idea, that's why any fed with serious interest in the idea needs to fight a PR battle.

Greg, you're a clown. Harper has all the time in the world to wage a cynical media war against Dion, but no time to wage one for Senate reform?

Um... okay. Keep pretending, buddy.
 

I take that back, Greg - you're right.... we should all give up on the "fantasy" of real Senate reform.

Let's all just throw up our hands and run the country the way that it is, that'll be good enough. Senate reform isn't really important enough to fight for, or anything like that.

It's just a fantasy, after all. The US Senate, for example, is a mere figment of our collective imaginations.
 

1774
WASHINGTON: I say we get guns, organize an underground, and set up a free and legitimate government.

JEFFERSON, FRANKLIN, REVERE: Sounds crazy, and not without risk... but - fuck it, let's give it a shot!!!

2008
JASON: I say we take our case to the people via modern telecommunications and get them to pressure the Senate to change.
GREG: Your ideas are, to be blunt, mere fantasy. At least Harper sent a piece of legislation to the Liberal-dominated Senate and let it sit there. What more can we plebes expect, really?
 

Please, Harper has a country to run, don't you understand?

He doesn't have time to, say, play juvenile partisan games of chicken with the Opposition because he has a country to run. What don't you understand?
 

"What more can we plebes expect, really?"

Well... we can expect Harper to try to stick around in office long enough to fix that imbalance and appoint senators who are willing to vote for his reform legislation.

And we can expect him not to slit his own throat on the issue -- if the coalition took office, the Senate would end up being 76-18 for the Liberals and reform would be off the table for a generation for the same reason it's been blocked for the last three years.

This was the best of a bad set of options, and it was a course of action that I suggested he take, the day before he did...
 

if the coalition took office, the Senate would end up being 76-18 for the Liberals and reform would be off the table for a generation for the same reason it's been blocked for the last three years.

Ben, you're absolutely right, but I quibble:

If the CPC can get mass protests against the coalition mounted from coast to coast, what exactly is stopping them from doing the same re: the Senate and getting the public informed on the issue?

McGuinty, Charest, the Liberal Senate, etc etc etc, they can't ignore public opinion and have any hopes for the Liberal Party.

It's silly to think that Harper is "powerless" on this issue -- he's definitely not.

Greg thinks it's a "fantasy", but it wasn't when the coalition gov't was looming.

Greg is an idiot, though. I keep forgetting.
 

True enough, the Dippers have voiced support for senate reform. I saw a guy (the one from Copps old riding) say very interesting things about senate reform.

But, like everybody else, when the Dippers want action, who do they get into bed with? Exactly.

Probably, because the Cons haven´t been willing to play ball. Layton mentioned democratic reform, trading progress on PR for action on the Senate, as a potential line of cooperation for the two parties just months ago. I´m an NDP voter who was hoping that Harper was going to be a little more (democratic)Reform and a little less Mulroneyite and that the Cons and the NDP would be able to pass important legistlation fixing our country´s democratic deficit. I think there was a fair amount of goodwill to proceed along these lines in 2006 but thats all distant history now.
 

These are expensive lifetime patronage appointements for a useless and anti-democratic institution at a time when the government should be looking at cutting unneeded expenses.
 

I'm not an idiot, I'm a realist. You ignored at least half of my reasoning and then focused in a juvenile fashion on the recent economic statement and coalition crap. At least we now know 100% of your real reasoning. You want Harper out, therefore he can do no right. Where is your argument for reopening the constitution? How is it not fantasy to expect all of the premiers to change the constitution for this one thing without bringing their own partisan crap to the table? Deb Grey? Good choice, but will Danny Williams listen to her? How about Jean Charest? McGuinty? Another fantasy is thinking that senate reform is such a big issue that any of these premiers would worry about an election based on this. If anything, any discussion of constitutional talks would have the reverse effect in most provinces, Quebec in particular. If you could avoid juvenile name calling, maybe you could come up with a real argument for that.
 

Why would I want Harper out for???

I think he's far superior to Layton, May, Dion and Ignatieff.

I'd rather Prentice or Manley, or Rae or Broadbent. But they're not on the ticket. It's true Harper's behaved poorly this month, but the fiasco has blown over so there's no longer any reason for him to step down at the moment.

So give it another shot, Greg. Pretending I'm a Liberal doesn't cut it, big guy - that's just another form of juvenile namecalling (but my juvenile namecalling is more creative and less reliant on dumbed down partisanship, like yours is). But we know the reason you make excuses for Harper's weakness and inaction, don't we?

You're not a "realist", you're totally without vision.

the recent economic statement and coalition crap

Actually Greg, *recent* examples prove my point even better and stronger than past ones: Harper and the CPC excels at mobilizing their base for publicity for their own careers, but not for an issue they claim to care about.

If you'd like a more distant example for the less recent past, I'll find one -- but it wouldn't make you any less wrong, would it? It'd just make me even more right: Harper's twiddling his thumbs on this file.
 

If anything, any discussion of constitutional talks would have the reverse effect in most provinces, Quebec in particular. If you could avoid juvenile name calling, maybe you could come up with a real argument for that.

First off Greg, you're a pansy cocksucker who cares more about fellating Harper because he's a Tory and you love his big conservative ding-dong. You're also a weak intellect who cares more about a PM's tie colour than his effective tactics for fostering more democracy - this shows how moronic you are. Also, you're dumb-dumb AND a poo-poo.

But beyond your failings as a man and as a thinker, I'm all for talking about the constitution. I, unlike yourself, am totally interested in Senate reform - real Senate reform. I oppose keeping it in unelected, appointed, life-long terms form just because "the provinces would be P.O.'d". If you think we should keep it as is because you're scared of the Premiers, that's totally legitimate -- there are definitely issues I don't care about enough to bother stirring up a passionate national debate over, and I understand.

But if that's your only reason, to avoid Danny Williams and Dalton McGuinty's anger, it doesn't seem like a justification to let Senate reform die to me. Perhaps others will care more about the issue to force the provinces to talk like grown-ups.

Honestly, it doesn't bother me if you don't care that much about Senate reform -- for we all have our own pet issues, and I respect that. But excuse-making for your leader just because he's "your guy" is a lame excuse that only a dicksucker like yourself would hide behind.
 

Bo you stupid moronic illiterate fuck weasal. If you could read and comprehend what you were reading, your posts would be non existant.
A) I never called you a liberal, I said you wanted Harper out.
B) I never said you wanted any of the other shit holes in, please see A above.
C) I never said I wasn't for senate reform, I was disagreeing with your assessment of how it could be accomplished.
D) I never said that I, or the present primeminister were afraid of any premier, I stated that the electorate of certain provinces could not be moved to be interested in the senate, regardless of how much time you might spend promoting it. Dalton McGuinty wants to abolish it, he has a fucking 4 year fucking mandate right now, considerably more than fucking Harper you fucking moron.
D) You have still utterly failed to address the question of opeining the constitution, and the toxicity associated with that. If you think that Jean Charest, who also has a fresh mandate, is going to touch that with a 10 mile pole you're an even bigger moron than your bastard cousin Joe. I accused you of acting like a juvenile, and I think maybe you are, since you are too youn gto have lived through Meech Lake, Charlottetown. Even the original patriation of the constitution, lauded as Trudeau biggest success, is seen by many as a complete disaster that give birth to the PQ.
e) I personally have never sucked anyones cock, or even considered the possibility, but you seem to fantasize about a lot of things, so you go girl.
And finally, if you weren't an illinformed douchebag, you would realise that Harper has already stated that any of the appointees he makes must committ to him to vote positively for future senate reforms, once he is in a realistic position to push them through. This offers some potential in the long or even medium term for accomplishing something, your idea offers failure, and a freshly stacked liberal senate with no hope for reform. We are in the middle of a financial crisis, only a complete and utter failure as a human being would say that now is the time to electrify the population for senate reform and constitutional talks.
 

Can't you two make your points without all the personal insults?

Harper's not pushing an elected Senate because he knows Canadians are not the least bit interested in an elected Senate.

Not even Albertans are in favour of an elected Senate. When Bert Brown was "elected," only 60% of Albertans voted. Of the 60% of Albertans who voted, only 20% cast a ballot for the Senate seat. The rest of those who voted refused to cast a ballot for the Senate seat.

An elected Senate would only give us a whole new set of political headaches. Most Canadians know that.
 

The reason for the low %age when Bert was elected is because a lot us thought he would never be appointed by a liberal PM. Go back and see how many voted in our first Senate election that Stan Waters won. If Brian had appointed him at the first opportunity, and cancelled the nep, Reform might never have started.
 

maryT you participated in an illegal election. A number of parties did not run candidates BECAUSE IT WAS AN ILLEGAL ELECTION. Ralph Klein is an idiot who passed a law that was "ultra vires". That means that he did not have the constitutional authority to past such a law. Basically Klein tried to run an election under Provincial Authority to fill a seat in a Federal Jurisdiction.

My own theory is that he was drunk when he did that. Ralph's "neocon" instincts led to this particular bit of Constitutional insanity.

For my part, I am happy with an unelected, appointed Senate. That is what the Constitution calls for, and that is what we have. It works in a Parliamentary Context. So does the Monarchy.

What does not work in Canada, are brain dead right wing crazies determined to FORCE an Amerikan Republikan Agenda onto the people of Canada.

Bye Bye Ms. Amerikan Pie!