[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

A civilised debate with you is futile.

Your previous history on posts or discussions with me has been less than productive. You have misquoted me or just made things up. When I tried to make peace with you via pm you threw it back at me.

There's my answer. Until you conduct yourself with more decorum you will get little but return fire from me.

Now run away before I taunt you a second time.

Just answer the question. Is there anything proposed in those points that you disagree with?

You are the master of dodge and weave.

Demand answers when you can deliver when the questions are posed to you.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

You are the master of dodge and weave.

Demand answers when you can deliver when the questions are posed to you.

How about you? Does the proposal look good?

• Require at least 10 days written notice from the Prime Minister of his intention to seek to prorogue, together with his specific reasons for doing so;

• Require the Prime Minister to bring the issue of prorogation before the House of Commons for a full debate;

• Prevent a request for prorogation within the first year after a Speech from the Throne, unless the House consents;

• Prevent a prorogation longer than one calendar month without the consent of the House;

• Prevent a request for prorogation if a matter of confidence has been scheduled in the House unless the House consents; and,

• Allow Parliamentary Committees to continue to function during the period when Parliament is prorogued until the start of the new session.

[Akhenaten]

Curtman Curtman:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

You are the master of dodge and weave.

Demand answers when you can deliver when the questions are posed to you.

How about you? Does the proposal look good?

It look good. It really does. So does the call for an inquiry back to 2002. No kidding.




....but then again what's the source? The Liberal party, thrown into a state of delusional virtigo after finding itself in the Opposition role for 4 years now? "We'll scrap the GST - promise" sounded like a good proposal once too. Also if you consider the proposal is completely being pulled from a politicians ass before he's even looked at the logistics or the legality of such a change, and seemingly doing it only to eclipse the NDP's proposal and gain the optics of out doing them....well it's less than compelling.



The proposal sounds good. The source will say anything.

[Curtman]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

It look good. It really does. So does the call for an inquiry back to 2002. No kidding.




....but then again what's the source? The Liberal party, thrown into a state of delusional virtigo after finding itself in the Opposition role for 4 years now? "We'll scrap the GST - promise" sounded like a good proposal once too. Also if you consider the proposal is completely being pulled from a politicians ass before he's even looked at the logistics or the legality of such a change, and seemingly doing it only to eclipse the NDP's proposal and gain the optics of out doing them....well it's less than compelling.



The proposal sounds good. The source will say anything.

Whats this about not looking at the logistics or legality of such a change?

Press Release Link Here

$1:

The Standing Orders have been amended in the past to improve accountability. For example, changes to the Standing Orders now prevent Parliamentary orders for the production of documents from being extinguished by prorogation, as well as prevent Private Member’s Bills from being killed when the House of Commons is prorogued.

[Akhenaten]

Well then that's their pledge which isn't the same thing at all as actually changing the rules isn't it?

Besides, as I said, the source will say anything.

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

You are the master of dodge and weave.

Demand answers when you can deliver when the questions are posed to you.

How about you? Does the proposal look good?

• Require at least 10 days written notice from the Prime Minister of his intention to seek to prorogue, together with his specific reasons for doing so;

• Require the Prime Minister to bring the issue of prorogation before the House of Commons for a full debate;

• Prevent a request for prorogation within the first year after a Speech from the Throne, unless the House consents;

• Prevent a prorogation longer than one calendar month without the consent of the House;

• Prevent a request for prorogation if a matter of confidence has been scheduled in the House unless the House consents; and,

• Allow Parliamentary Committees to continue to function during the period when Parliament is prorogued until the start of the new session.

No. Keep status quo.

Anyone who dislikes a policy or act of the government can vote it out next election without trying to rewrite the rules to satisfy everyone's latest bitch.

That's' democracy. One must wonder if all those screaming for change got off their colective holes and voted during the last election?

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

No. Keep status quo.

Anyone who dislikes a policy or act of the government can vote it out next election without trying to rewrite the rules to satisfy everyone's latest bitch.

That's' democracy. One must wonder if all those screaming for change got off their colective holes and voted during the last election?

Okay, Gunnair is pro-prorogue.. Personally, I don't think it goes far enough. If you read it really quick, it looks like they are asking for a vote every time on prorogue. It seems that they're really asking for a vote if they want to prorogue within a year of a throne speech. I think that's a fancy way to say we aren't going to do anything at all.

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

Gunnair Gunnair:

No. Keep status quo.

Anyone who dislikes a policy or act of the government can vote it out next election without trying to rewrite the rules to satisfy everyone's latest bitch.

That's' democracy. One must wonder if all those screaming for change got off their colective holes and voted during the last election?

Okay, Gunnair is pro-prorogue.. Personally, I don't think it goes far enough. If you read it really quick, it looks like they are asking for a vote every time on prorogue. It seems that they're really asking for a vote if they want to prorogue within a year of a throne speech. I think that's a fancy way to say we aren't going to do anything at all.

I said status quo, or perhaps you've purposely misread to support your agenda?

[Akhenaten]

Personally I think this one:

"• Require the Prime Minister to bring the issue of prorogation before the House of Commons for a full debate;"

...just sounds like you're begging for a Canadian version of a filibuster. Just put it to a vote.

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

I said status quo, or perhaps you've purposely misread to support your agenda?

That's what I said.. You're pro-prorogue. The PM and the appointed Governor General decide when and for how long.

[Curtman]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Personally I think this one:

"• Require the Prime Minister to bring the issue of prorogation before the House of Commons for a full debate;"

...just sounds like you're begging for a Canadian version of a filibuster. Just put it to a vote.

I think that means when the house resumes, that all the parties should debate the issue of prorogue in general. I can't be sure about that, but that's how I read it the second or third time through. I don't think it means a full debate every time, just one when the house resumes.

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

Gunnair Gunnair:

I said status quo, or perhaps you've purposely misread to support your agenda?

That's what I said.. You're pro-prorogue. The PM and the appointed Governor General decide when and for how long.

Nope. Your agenda is showing.

Stating I do not wish to see needless change does not mean I am pro-prorogue.

I think this might be why you are generally considered to be an shitiot.

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Curtman Curtman:

Gunnair Gunnair:

I said status quo, or perhaps you've purposely misread to support your agenda?

That's what I said.. You're pro-prorogue. The PM and the appointed Governor General decide when and for how long.

Nope. Your agenda is showing.

Stating I do not wish to see needless change does not mean I am pro-prorogue.

I think this might be why you are generally considered to be an shitiot.

What are you talking about? The status quo is exactly what happened, the Prime Minister telephones the Governor General, and presto prorogue. You are okay with that. Past, present, and future. Correct me where I'm wrong, please.

[Gunnair]

Curtman Curtman:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Curtman Curtman:

That's what I said.. You're pro-prorogue. The PM and the appointed Governor General decide when and for how long.

Nope. Your agenda is showing.

Stating I do not wish to see needless change does not mean I am pro-prorogue.

I think this might be why you are generally considered to be an shitiot.

What are you talking about? The status quo is exactly what happened, the Prime Minister telephones the Governor General, and presto prorogue. You are okay with that. Past, present, and future. Correct me where I'm wrong, please.

I have... twice. I do not advocate change for the sake of change. There is a procedure on place to deal with legal actions by the government that one does not like - it's called an election.

Saying that I prefer status quo does not equate to pro-prorogue anymore more than supporting the maintenance of the GST makes me pro-taxation.

[Curtman]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Saying that I prefer status quo does not equate to pro-prorogue anymore more than supporting the maintenance of the GST makes me pro-taxation.

I think it does, to say we need some form of taxation to bring in revenue means you aren't anti-taxation.

Anyway, maybe the wording was chosen poorly. You are not opposed to past, present, and future prorogues as a means to shut down committees, and silence the opposition.