Bumper Sticker Protest
Just want to be prepared in case the unthinkable happens . . .
Hi-res version available here.
Thank God.
1 week ago
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Current Weather
Current Vancouver Weather
Burrard Street Bridge
Downtown Vancouver
Lions Gate Bridge
Iron Workers Memorial Bridge
About Moi
- Robert W.
- Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- "Pelalusa" is a glorious Spanish-sounding word that means ... well ... absolutely nothing! The word doesn't actually exist. But it sure sounds like it means something!! While living in Mexico City in 1996/97 I would often ask my friends the meaning of this word and that. One day I asked what "pelalusa" meant, for it just 'sounded' like a word that would mean something en Español. But alas, it does not.
Other Voices
-
-
Barking Bad2 years ago
-
-
Des mots. La vie.7 years ago
-
Falling8 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
I've collected together a number of my best flower photos. Each of them has more than sufficient resolution for printing, even as an enlargement. You can download a 46MB Zip file containing many photos by clicking on this image:
Twitter Feeds
Olympics Blogs
-
-
-
-
On a hiatus14 years ago
-
-
-
Beauty from Around the World
Favourite Panoramas
9 comments:
The formation of a coalition government is perfectly constitutional, in your words (different context) "It's how our system works".
You can't cherry pick the parts you like and throw around scare words like "coup d'etat" when "how our system works" doesn't suit you.
I fully realize that "coup d'etat" is an exaggeration. But it's a bumper sticker!
As to those defending this [prospective] horrific action all I can say is SHAME ON YOU!!!
There is absolutely no precedent for this in our history. Please don't cite me the King-Byng Affair because their is vastly no relation. Just 47 days after an election, with not one bill passed, and Liberals & NDP supporters think this is fine. What a dreadful & pathetic joke!
Le Cabal de Trois may very well legally get away with this but that doesn't make it correct or moral.
There are great similarities in the mindset of those who refuse to speak out against our embarrassing "Human Rights" Kangaroo Courts as those who are now encouraging Le Cabal to seize power in this manner.
"There is absolutely no precedent for this in our history."
I don't see why there has to be a precedent for something that's perfectly constitutional. Sorry, Robert, that just doesn't wash imho.
David, you're a good hearted, moderate fellow. Please explain to me how when a government is elected [by the will of the people], that within a few months of this, the opposition parties ignore this mandate and instead choose to govern instead?
I'm not arguing the legal possibility of this under our system. Just tell me how, in your mind, you defend Le Cabal de Trois taking over under these circumstances.
Also, if Stephen Harper requests a new election to the GG, then isn't it her duty to do so? Please note that when the power switch happened in Ontario in the 1980's the premier at the time did not request an election.
Seriously, I'm listening with an open mind. I would love for you to answer the 2 questions above for me.
1. The election produced a minority government, in that circumstance one possibility is a coalition by the other parties. Perfectly constitutional, ergo I offer the defense of legality, plain and simple. Something is legal, therefore it can be done. QED
2. Best check the constitution again, Robert, its not the pm's call, its the gg's. If the other parties can form a coalition the law says they're in, whatever Harper (and his supporters) might wish.
It seems to me that the outrage here is that some people don't want to go by the rules when the rules don't suit 'em.
David, I'm not disputing ANYTHING you've said. But you didn't answer either of my questions.
So let me rephrase:
1. Do you think it's morally correct for the opposition parties in a minority gov't to completely ignore the mandate of the people (as per what has happened for 141 years) ?
2. I FULLY REALIZE it's the GG's right to make whatever decision she does. The problem here is two-fold though:
a. There is absolutely no precedent for the GG to ignore the PM's request for a new election. Note: If I'm incorrect on this point, please tell me where & when.
b. Our current GG has an apparent conflict of interest in her past wrt her and her husband's flirting with separatists. Ideally she should recuse herself but she can't really do that, can she? So the only course of action where no one could accuse her of a clearly wrong decision would be to have another election called.
Thank you for the continued dialogue.
David: not one single Canadian voted in the last election for a Liberal/NDP coalition government propped up by an agreement with the separatists.
The opposition has every right to bring down the government in any minority parliament. Here's my question to you -- meaning, leaving the constitutional arguments aside for a second, I'm asking for your personal (moral) opinion: if the current government is brought down, do you think Canadian voters should get to decide in an election whether or not they wish to have this coalition as the new government, or should the voters be bypassed altogether, and that the decision as to who governs our country should be made instead by the three losing parties from the last election?
"1. Do you think it's morally correct for the opposition parties in a minority gov't to completely ignore the mandate of the people (as per what has happened for 141 years) ?"
Perfectly legal, therefore "moral" (though that's a strange term to employ).
"I'm asking for your personal (moral) opinion: if the current government is brought down, do you think Canadian voters should get to decide in an election whether or not they wish to have this coalition as the new government, or should the voters be bypassed altogether, and that the decision as to who governs our country should be made instead by the three losing parties from the last election?"
The Constitution is quite clear, the Queen's subjects in right of Canada are bound by law in such case to accept the decision made by "the three losing parties from the last election."
As for my personal view, if such a development seems to rub the subjects' noses in the sad sad truth about the Canadian travesty of democracy, they need it, and I'm all for it.
Sorry having your illusions shattered is so upsetting to you, but it had to happen some time.
David, thank you for continuing the discussion. I think where we'll never agree is with the different between "what's legal" and "what's moral". Sometimes there's a big difference.
The best example I can think of are the ongoing fiascoes with the "Human Rights" Commissions across the country. The HRCs have the legal right to decide any which way they wish. And up until they encountered Ezra Levant and Maclean's / Mark Steyn, they always did. Their decisions were not based on precedent, not based on fact, and not even based on truth. Legal yes, but morally valid? Absolutely not.
Say so I is the precisely the same with the antics of the Liberals/NDP/Bloc. Legally they are in their right to form a coalition and vote down every Confidence Vote. But to have a pre-planned strategy to ignore the will of the voters so close after the election (as has been the precedent for the past 141 years) and take over power without going back to the people for this completely new mandate? Not moral, not ethical, and not right.
Post a Comment