Post #245,949
2/23/06 2:10:14 PM
|
OK, let me rephrase that, then...
"What a spineless, lazy, afraid-to-think-for-himself, parroting, never-had-an-original-thought-in-his-pathetic-life, glad-handing, fscking MORON!"
Better?
jb4
"Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'."
&mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
|
Post #245,952
2/23/06 2:45:07 PM
|
That's bollocks, too.
He's a good MP, just clueless on this issue.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #245,958
2/23/06 4:55:22 PM
|
Prolly doesn't get some of the finer points of parliamentary
democracy, like the role of the whip.
In a parliament, voting against your party (except in rare, well-defined circumstances usually called 'votes of conscience' by the government before the vote is actually held) is pretty much the same thing as quitting the party. In a parliament, this is a big deal, as theoretically any time the governing party loses a vote they my no longer form the government. In practice, the votes that cause the automatic fall of the government are restricted to what are called confidence motions; any money bill is a confidence motion, and other high profile things like declarations of war, plus anything the government says is a confidence motion.
The whip's job is to make sure the members are well aware of which motions absolutely require toeing the party line, and which ones allow more flexibility. While the ID card bill may not have been a vote of confidence (you'd know more about that, Peter), probably the government thought it was desirable to have all the members vote in favour, and instructed the whip to let their party's MPs know that voting against the government on this one was Not An Option (as is usually the case in parliamentary systems).
Voting against your party means not getting the support of your party when you need it, like during reelections, or when budget decisions that affect your riding are being made, etc etc. He may very well dislike this bill on principle, but think that it'll be better for his riding and his constituents in the long run if he goes with the party on this one.
This is basically similar to a Republican congressman voting for a bill he doesn't like since it's apparently a done deal anyway and he can use his vote to horse trade for considerations for his district at more important times.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #245,969
2/23/06 5:34:53 PM
|
Thanks for the primer on the finer points of ...
...Parliamentary Wrangling. (And you were right...this is news to me).
I guess I've been spoiled. In my district we have a long history of an independent centrest representative. It was Democratic when I moved here, it's now Republican, and I'll probably vote for him this time, since I've seen him cross party lines several times.
jb4
"Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'."
&mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
|
Post #245,968
2/23/06 5:30:28 PM
|
He's a good MP...
...but is unwilling or unable to vote against his whip? I dunno what criteria you use to determine the Kgoodness of your representatives back on the Continent, but around here, we have this rather provincial attitude that a representative needs to represent his constituents, not dictate to them what The Imperial He is going to do. If the vast majority of the people in your district (or whatever you call them out there) is in favor of ID cards, then he is a good representative, and you need to find new digs! If, on the other hand, the majority of the people he so poignantly claims to represent see that ID cards are tripe, then he is the lazy, slothful, spineless wimp of a MORON that I submitted to you much earlier in this thread, and he needs to find a new job (there are plenty of places in the Body Corproate where he'll fit in right nicely). I don't know you local politics...what is your district's bent in this area?
jb4
"Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'."
&mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
|
Post #245,975
2/23/06 6:04:01 PM
|
You're all excitable, aren't you?
He's not a moron; morons don't have two degrees and a doctorate (in proper, hard sciences: Chemical Engineering (BSc), Process Analysis and Control Theory (MSc), Fluid Mechanics (PhD) - these qualify him as a Clever Bastard™), and morons don't get re-elected in formerly hostile constituencies.
To be honest, when you start frothing like that, I stop listening; that may be the way American politics is conducted, but we do things slightly differently over here. I can guarantee you that if I write to him and call him names, he'll write back saying "thank you for your letter" and that'll be the end of the dialogue.
And you really need to understand how a party whip works in a parliamentary democracy before diving in feet first; it's neither as simple nor as clear-cut as you seem to think.
Sorry if this sounds boringly condescending.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #245,984
2/23/06 7:48:48 PM
|
Heheh.
Politic is more fun over there; first time I saw it on CNN I thought I was seening an episode of Monty Python I had somehow missed...
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #245,985
2/23/06 7:52:12 PM
|
Not a moron. Just another whore. Same as ours.
You're just as fucked as we are. Sorry about that...
OT: Do you have any good guess at how many idiots I have in my corproate infrastucture that have advanced degrees? This turkey might actually be a clever bastard but if he gave up the ability to know right from wrong he's just another fucking lawyer. But what do I know? How many idiots do we put in public office?
|
Post #245,987
2/23/06 7:58:10 PM
|
To answer your question ...
Q: How many idiots do we put in public office?
A: All of them.
And that doesn't even require a [sarcasm] tag. Is there a [truth] tag?
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #245,988
2/23/06 8:18:14 PM
|
Nah... Not enough room.
Got A LOTTA idiots
|
Post #245,989
2/23/06 8:49:18 PM
|
On second thought...
my response was like the single-issue gomers that I generally tend to despise. My bad...
Now, how,in a free society do we get our representitives to actually represent us? Is giving use 80% of what we want acceptable? It's a "B" most places... better than you would normally expect from government. On the other paw, if you're only 20% buggered, you're still buggered.
There has to be some accountability.
|
Post #246,060
2/24/06 1:15:43 PM
|
Now you're just being thick
I can guarantee you that if I write to him and call him names, he'll write back saying "thank you for your letter" and that'll be the end of the dialogue. I wouldn't write him and call him names, and if you read carefully (at least, more carefully that you apparently have), I've been advocating all along that he be written to solicit for an apology for quite clearly stating that people who don't agree with his scripted dronings in this area are criminals. If it ever got down to a face-to-face, and he were to refuse to apologize, then (and only then) might some thunder need to be invoked. [...] that may be the way American politics is conducted, but we do things slightly differently over here. Yes, you blokes seem to prefer shouting back and forth across the aisle at one another... And you really need to understand how a party whip works in a parliamentary democracy before diving in feet first;[...] See [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=245969|this post] for my response to jake123's attempts to enlighten me. Sorry if this sounds boringly condescending. Yes...well it is consistent with what one would expect in your posts. jb4
"Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'."
&mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
|
Post #246,125
2/25/06 12:04:03 AM
|
Re: Now you're just being thick
Sorry if this sounds boringly condescending. Yes...well it is consistent with what one would expect in your posts.
Oh, fuck off.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #246,267
2/27/06 1:29:30 PM
|
Oh, did you get your widdy biddy fewings hurt?
So, it's ok for you to be a smug smartass, but when somebody brings it back atcha, you get all huffy?
Baby, baby, baby!
jb4
"Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'."
&mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
|
Post #246,282
2/27/06 4:20:44 PM
|
Not really.
You were being a raving dipshit, and I got tired of it.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
