Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
Hello pot...kettle here.
Unbelievable.
And I will do as I wish thanks.
|
Interesting... I haven't irked the irrational ire of Tranny in ages. Lets review how I "diffused to another topic completely" in this thread. The topic is about a Canadian Senate trip to Afghanistan that cost a lot and produced no results, my posts were;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
American Secretary's aren't elected either, and they have a whole lot more power than Canadian Senators. I'm a lot less comfortable with people appointed to run vast sections of the US government who aren't elected than with the teeny bit of power the Canadian Senate has.
Though, I do agree that if its not a functional part of the government its a waste of money.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
Sure... its just that some people in the thread have pointed out that the Canadian government is not entirely elected. Neither is the US government, and I'd say the Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense have a lot more clout than the head of the CBC or Via Rail, or the Canadian Senate.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
Fair point... though the Ministers themselves are elected directly as MP's.
|
So, while it appears that I'm having a civil and reasonable debate and contributing to the evolution of the topic, I am, indeed, off topic from the original story. Though, if we take a look at your post in the thread;
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
They elect the Parliament...they dont elect the Senate. The Senate IS government, like it or not....so no, government in its entirety is NOT already elected.
I would prefer it much much more if someone who has power over laws of the country is elected to do so, and not appointed because they are the flavor of the day for the sitting PM.
That being said, the whole thing is a multi-million dollar albatross of a joke.
Abolish it alltogether and you would have just as effective federal government (without a group of overpayed party loyalists to pay) for rubber-stamping new law.
|
You're not really any more 'on topic' than I am, commenting on the nature of the unelected Canadian Senate, when the story is actually about one specific Senate trip. So, really, when you use the brutally overused cliche 'pot meet kettle', you're right, you and I have pretty much both posted 'off-topic'. Though, I didn't call you out for yours, and many people here posted along the same 'off-topic' subject; that of the unelected status of the Canadian Senate.
You singled me out to grind an axe for a reason that you're as guilty of as I am. If you want to just seek and destroy I've plenty of worse posts out there than the ones you've chosen here. You're a smart guy, find a real transgression of mine and point it out... here you're just railing for my doing pretty much the same thing you've done.
Unbelievable indeed. Nice rhetoric.
