[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

It bugs you that I like Ignatieff?

Let's use this as an example then. Your own leader voted for this bill yet your own appointed senators changed it.

Who's wrong?

No it doesn't. You like the guy yet call him Iffy. You claim he is the right guy with the right ideas yet attack him relentless based entirely on the party he belongs to.

If you can't see the hypocrisy in that or the fact it proves you hate the Liberals more then any other considerations then you are blind.

As for what "my leader" supported and what the senators do well that's a red herring. They are entirely doing their job and that really bugs you doesn't it?

[ridenrain]

ASLplease ASLplease:

ridenrain ridenrain:

It bugs you that I like Ignatieff?

Let's use this as an example then. Your own leader voted for this bill yet your own appointed senators changed it.

Who's wrong?

Iggy has lost control over Liberal patronage? or maybe this is all part of a master plan?

I think it's checkers vc chess again. This hands an unaccountable senate changing the will of the people contrary to the wishes of their leader, to Harper right when Ignatieff is pushing for an election. We didn't need to hand him an anchor, he went out and bought one himself.

[leewgrant]

DerbyX DerbyX:

leewgrant leewgrant:

When they are elected they can behave any way they want. They will be subject to the will of the people every so often. Not like now.

Our elected officials are behaving badly with very little reprecussions so I wouldn't bet on them acting any better. Regardless, the senate is currently acting entirely withing its right.

Because the Senate is not elected the only way the public can get to them is through their MPs. Right now they are playing into the hands of the PM. They are thwarting the passage of bills passed by the Commons. They can crow all they like about their "acting entirely withing its right" but politics will trump Constitutional niceties any day. They are giving the Tories ammunition once again about the need to reform the Senate.

[ridenrain]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ridenrain ridenrain:

It bugs you that I like Ignatieff?

Let's use this as an example then. Your own leader voted for this bill yet your own appointed senators changed it.

Who's wrong?

No it doesn't. You like the guy yet call him Iffy. You claim he is the right guy with the right ideas yet attack him relentless based entirely on the party he belongs to.

If you can't see the hypocrisy in that or the fact it proves you hate the Liberals more then any other considerations then you are blind.

As for what "my leader" supported and what the senators do well that's a red herring. They are entirely doing their job and that really bugs you doesn't it?

Dodge.

The right guy voted for this bill yet his party and it's apparatchiks changed it.
They can't both be right, Derby. This is another "Gun Registry" moment and, as party spokesman, you need to be clear which faction of the party is right.

[DerbyX]

leewgrant leewgrant:

DerbyX DerbyX:

leewgrant leewgrant:

When they are elected they can behave any way they want. They will be subject to the will of the people every so often. Not like now.

Our elected officials are behaving badly with very little reprecussions so I wouldn't bet on them acting any better. Regardless, the senate is currently acting entirely withing its right.

Because the Senate is not elected the only way the public can get to them is through their MPs. Right now they are playing into the hands of the PM. They are thwarting the passage of bills passed by the Commons. They can crow all they like about their "acting entirely withing its right" but politics will trump Constitutional niceties any day. They are giving the Tories ammunition once again about the need to reform the Senate.

Funny but when they were allegedly rubber stamping the bills the complaint was they weren't doing their job either.

Both amendments are entirely reasonable and in fact well thought out. I'd say they aren't playing politics else they'd have just rejected the bill.

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Dodge.

The right guy voted for this bill yet his party and it's apparatchiks changed it.
They can't both be right, Derby. This is another "Gun Registry" moment and, as party spokesman, you need to be clear which faction of the party is right.

Nope. First off you claim he's the right guy. I think its the right party based on their polices. Second, just because the Liberals appointed the senators in question doesn't make them beholden to toe the party line. In fact what you claim is whats wrong with the system. Partisan senators who vote only on party lines rather then thinking bills through. That's what you support.

Of course the fact that they were all appointed well before Iggy took over means they are likely more inline with Chretien and Martin.

You're just pissed its a CPC bill getting amended and you aren't concerned in the least about "voter elected bills" getting hacked by elected appointees.

I'm really sure that if the situation were reversed you'd be claiming "This is wrong guys. The Liberals were duly elected and our Conservative appointed senators should dispute this".

Suuure.

[ridenrain]

Dodge again.

Your going to have to put down the red kool-aid and answer the question.

"I think its the right party based on their polices."

Does that mean that Ignatieff didn't reflect the will of the party when he voted for that bill?

[leewgrant]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Dodge.

The right guy voted for this bill yet his party and it's apparatchiks changed it.
They can't both be right, Derby. This is another "Gun Registry" moment and, as party spokesman, you need to be clear which faction of the party is right.

The embarrassment for Ignatieff comes if the bill is changed and goes back to the Commons. If he supports the changes he looks weak and he has to explain why he voted the way he did the first time. If he rejects them and the bill is changed by the Senate a second time people will wonder who is running the party.

This has nothing to do with standing on constitutional rights, just politics.

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Dodge again.

Your going to have to put down the red kool-aid and answer the question.

"I think its the right party based on their polices."

Does that mean that Ignatieff didn't reflect the will of the party when he voted for that bill?

You don't get it do you? The blue kool aid must be killing brain cells at a fantastic rate. You are claiming that the senators are obligated to vote along party lines, NOT ME.

They aren't required to support Liberal bills or Liberal supported bills and they only amended them. Iggy had no opportunity to amend them did he? He might very well agree with the senate and used them to change the bill because he knew they would be able to.

Just subjective musing.

Now since you claim I must support everything Iggy does I guess you must support everything Harper does (and Iggy because "he's the right guy"). Massive deficit, floor crossing, political porking, etc. All must be acceptable in your eyes then.

[ridenrain]

leewgrant is dead on with this.

Come on Derby: Either the bill was right the first time or it was not.. It can't be both.

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

leewgrant is dead on with this.

Come on Derby: Either the bill was right the first time or it was not.. It can't be both.

No. In fact if there is the level of collusion you claim between the parties and their appointed senators then what happened is what Iggy wanted to happen. He supports some aspects of the bill but not all yet he has no ability to alter the bill. If he rejects it entirely then he is saying everything is fine when he might not believe so. Its entirely possible the senators are doing exactly what he wants. He gets the bill changed to one he likes and Harper is forced to either accept the "Liberal bill" or reject it entirely.

If that's the case then I'd say they were playing pretty crafty politics.

Once again (and you keep dodging), you know full well you would be supporting this entirely if it was a Con senate amending a Liberal bill.

[leewgrant]

DerbyX DerbyX:

He gets the bill changed to one he likes and Harper is forced to either accept the "Liberal bill" or reject it entirely.

Of course he will reject it entirely and say, rightly, that Iggy agreed to it without the amendments. No way Ignatieff can win here with the Senate Liberals doing what they are doing.

[DerbyX]

leewgrant leewgrant:

DerbyX DerbyX:

He gets the bill changed to one he likes and Harper is forced to either accept the "Liberal bill" or reject it entirely.

Of course he will reject it entirely and say, rightly, that Iggy agreed to it without the amendments. No way Ignatieff can win here with the Senate Liberals doing what they are doing.

I don't think so. Iggy supported the bill so he tried right. He isn't responsible for how the senate votes.

[bootlegga]

ridenrain ridenrain:

So it's OK when the Liberals do it?

Through their elected representitives, the voters of Canada approved of this bill. By what right do these appointed hacks have to change it?

Nope, but Harper as much of a hypocrite as the Liberals, so he (and you) have no moral leg to stand on after abandoning the party's own policy on the Senate.

[ridenrain]

Don't make me recycle Derby's "That's the system and we can't change it" speach.
At least our senators agreed to step down if we can change things. I suspect the Liberal ones will need a crowbar and explosives to remove.