PEIinfo Logo
  Top Banner

Listings Coming Soon
 
Home
* FAQ
* Register

* Login 

Reset Password
Resend Activation Email

RSS Feed (New Posts)
RSS Feed (Replies)

Search
Lunch Specials

Lunch Taco Bar at Chartwells UPEI for $4.99 [Remind Me]

Supper Martini Mondays at The Old Triangle Irish Alehouse for $5.00 [Remind Me]

All Day Special Monday Lunch Special at Beanz Espresso Bar for $9.80 [Remind Me]

All Day Special Jaeuck(Pork & Rice) at Seoul Food Restaurant(Cafe) for $9.87 [Remind Me]

All Day Special Hot Hamburger at Brits Fish and Chips for $9.95 [Remind Me]

All Day Special Chicken bokkeum at Seoul Food Restaurant(Cafe) for $10.98 [Remind Me]

All Day Special Dolsot Bibimbap at Seoul Food Restaurant(Cafe) for $11.98 [Remind Me]

All Day Special GamJa-tang(Pork bone on the soup) at Seoul Food Restaurant(Cafe) for $12.89 [Remind Me]

Add your restaurant's special!
Follow @WhatsOnSpecial!
Island Weather [Customize]
Sponsor
Island Webcam [Customize]
Island Radio
  Listen to CBC 96.1 FM
Windows M. Player
Listen to Island Radio
Winamp
Listen to K-Rock
Windows M. Player
Listen to Ocean 100
Windows M. Player

All times are UTC - 4 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 5th, 2015, 4:17 pm 
Offline
Site Admin (volunteer)
User avatar

Joined: November 1st, 2003, 7:55 am
Posts: 16903
Location: Brackley Beach PE / Lake Wales FL
Gardiner wrote:

Well we have to start somewhere and like the Senate, all it takes is one party, in power , to initiate a change.


But change to what? What replacement system would allow a leader to surround himself with people he/she trusts and knows is loyal to him/her?

And how? Ignore the constitution as is (do we want a leadership that would ignore the mechanism that is the framework of our country?) Or re-open the constitution and go through another divisive battle with Quebec that causes the business/investment community to lose more confidence in Canada at a time when our economy is already on shaky ground?




Maybe it is the analyst in me remembering all the times a higher-up would ask us for new software functionality by saying "this is what I want so just push a button and make it happen", blissfully unaware that it wasn't quite that simple, that has me saying "yup, great idea ... but what research needs needs to be done? what obstacles are there to overcome? what considerations are there to be thought about? what's the best way to go about doing it? will the solution cause more issues than the problem?".

Old habits die hard, I guess :D

So yeah - since I am retired and no longer have to think in a practical manner - let's just "push a button" and get rid of those pesky "at pleasure" appointments, shall we? :lol:


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 5th, 2015, 4:32 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: September 28th, 2007, 12:45 pm
Posts: 1049
I think Harper's attempts at changing the Senate are a good example of just how difficult change is. He seems more than prepared to ignore the rules, has had a solid majority, and has basically gotten nowhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 6th, 2015, 10:39 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: February 25th, 2013, 8:36 pm
Posts: 1526
kreskin wrote:
Gardiner wrote:

Well we have to start somewhere and like the Senate, all it takes is one party, in power , to initiate a change.


But change to what? What replacement system would allow a leader to surround himself with people he/she trusts and knows is loyal to him/her?

And how? Ignore the constitution as is (do we want a leadership that would ignore the mechanism that is the framework of our country?) Or re-open the constitution and go through another divisive battle with Quebec that causes the business/investment community to lose more confidence in Canada at a time when our economy is already on shaky ground?




Maybe it is the analyst in me remembering all the times a higher-up would ask us for new software functionality by saying "this is what I want so just push a button and make it happen", blissfully unaware that it wasn't quite that simple, that has me saying "yup, great idea ... but what research needs needs to be done? what obstacles are there to overcome? what considerations are there to be thought about? what's the best way to go about doing it? will the solution cause more issues than the problem?".

Old habits die hard, I guess :D

So yeah - since I am retired and no longer have to think in a practical manner - let's just "push a button" and get rid of those pesky "at pleasure" appointments, shall we? :lol:

Change never happens overnight and one of the prerequisites of change is that of "mindset" and the need and desire to want to change. This is why we need some new blood in politics, at all levels, to take us away from those 19th century relics that we feel we have to hang onto.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 7th, 2015, 6:58 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: February 25th, 2013, 8:36 pm
Posts: 1526
kreskin wrote:
Gardiner wrote:
Change never happens overnight and one of the prerequisites of change is that of "mindset" and the need and desire to want to change. This is why we need some new blood in politics, at all levels, to take us away from those 19th century relics that we feel we have to hang onto.

But here is something to consider ... if the process is something that has endured for hundreds of years in older democracies and been adopted in the formation of newer democracies based upon an acceptable track record of it in the older democracies, maybe, just maybe, it isn't that bad a process ... after all, if it is a process that is deemed necessary in virtually every democracy on earth, there must be something to be said for it.

I still haven't heard any proposals on a practical alternative nor any proposals on how to change the laws in order to institute the alternative. Any "push the button and make it happen" proposal at least needs that to get started :)


We only need to look at the Senate scandal to refute your claim that it isn"t that bad after all.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 7th, 2015, 7:09 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: November 12th, 2004, 8:55 am
Posts: 2160
Location: Islander
Gardiner wrote:
kreskin wrote:
Gardiner wrote:
Change never happens overnight and one of the prerequisites of change is that of "mindset" and the need and desire to want to change. This is why we need some new blood in politics, at all levels, to take us away from those 19th century relics that we feel we have to hang onto.

But here is something to consider ... if the process is something that has endured for hundreds of years in older democracies and been adopted in the formation of newer democracies based upon an acceptable track record of it in the older democracies, maybe, just maybe, it isn't that bad a process ... after all, if it is a process that is deemed necessary in virtually every democracy on earth, there must be something to be said for it.

I still haven't heard any proposals on a practical alternative nor any proposals on how to change the laws in order to institute the alternative. Any "push the button and make it happen" proposal at least needs that to get started :)


We only need to look at the Senate scandal to refute your claim that it isn"t that bad after all.


You are mixing the people up with the institution.

The senate in theory has a valid place in a democratic society. What we need are decent senators.

It may seem like a minor distinction today but it is a very important distinction.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 7th, 2015, 7:25 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: February 25th, 2013, 8:36 pm
Posts: 1526
alandla wrote:
Gardiner wrote:
kreskin wrote:
Gardiner wrote:
Change never happens overnight and one of the prerequisites of change is that of "mindset" and the need and desire to want to change. This is why we need some new blood in politics, at all levels, to take us away from those 19th century relics that we feel we have to hang onto.

But here is something to consider ... if the process is something that has endured for hundreds of years in older democracies and been adopted in the formation of newer democracies based upon an acceptable track record of it in the older democracies, maybe, just maybe, it isn't that bad a process ... after all, if it is a process that is deemed necessary in virtually every democracy on earth, there must be something to be said for it.

I still haven't heard any proposals on a practical alternative nor any proposals on how to change the laws in order to institute the alternative. Any "push the button and make it happen" proposal at least needs that to get started :)


We only need to look at the Senate scandal to refute your claim that it isn"t that bad after all.


You are mixing the people up with the institution.

The senate in theory has a valid place in a democratic society. What we need are decent senators.

It may seem like a minor distinction today but it is a very important distinction.


No, I believe you are.....and what valid place in our democratic society do have?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 7th, 2015, 8:00 pm 
Offline
Site Admin (volunteer)
User avatar

Joined: November 1st, 2003, 7:55 am
Posts: 16903
Location: Brackley Beach PE / Lake Wales FL
Gardiner wrote:
We only need to look at the Senate scandal to refute your claim that it isn"t that bad after all.


Your statement threw me for a loop for a minute.

Then I realized that you are confusing senate appointments with at pleasure appointments.

Your analysis phase (which includes research) is not quite complete yet :)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 7th, 2015, 8:25 pm 
Offline
True Islander

Joined: August 23rd, 2005, 11:52 am
Posts: 11991
Location: Summerside
Gardiner wrote:
alandla wrote:
Gardiner wrote:
kreskin wrote:
Gardiner wrote:
Change never happens overnight and one of the prerequisites of change is that of "mindset" and the need and desire to want to change. This is why we need some new blood in politics, at all levels, to take us away from those 19th century relics that we feel we have to hang onto.

But here is something to consider ... if the process is something that has endured for hundreds of years in older democracies and been adopted in the formation of newer democracies based upon an acceptable track record of it in the older democracies, maybe, just maybe, it isn't that bad a process ... after all, if it is a process that is deemed necessary in virtually every democracy on earth, there must be something to be said for it.

I still haven't heard any proposals on a practical alternative nor any proposals on how to change the laws in order to institute the alternative. Any "push the button and make it happen" proposal at least needs that to get started :)


We only need to look at the Senate scandal to refute your claim that it isn"t that bad after all.


You are mixing the people up with the institution.

The senate in theory has a valid place in a democratic society. What we need are decent senators.

It may seem like a minor distinction today but it is a very important distinction.


No, I believe you are.....and what valid place in our democratic society do have?

They should be a chamber of sober second thought and they should be representing regional interests. I think if we appointed the best candidates, instead of rewarding partisan loyalists, the Senate could be a very effective institution. I think an elected Senate is a terrible idea though. I don't think that would improve anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 8th, 2015, 11:14 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: February 25th, 2013, 8:36 pm
Posts: 1526
kreskin wrote:
Gardiner wrote:
We only need to look at the Senate scandal to refute your claim that it isn"t that bad after all.


Your statement threw me for a loop for a minute.

Then I realized that you are confusing senate appointments with at pleasure appointments.

Your analysis phase (which includes research) is not quite complete yet :)

I guess age will do that to you....lol

I was referring to political appointmens in general so it is you who is confused.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 8th, 2015, 1:30 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: November 12th, 2004, 8:55 am
Posts: 2160
Location: Islander
Gardiner wrote:
kreskin wrote:
Gardiner wrote:
We only need to look at the Senate scandal to refute your claim that it isn"t that bad after all.


Your statement threw me for a loop for a minute.

Then I realized that you are confusing senate appointments with at pleasure appointments.

Your analysis phase (which includes research) is not quite complete yet :)

I guess age will do that to you....lol

I was referring to political appointmens in general so it is you who is confused.


But you used the senate scandal as you rebuttal....

Perhaps when 3 people have expressed confusion by your remarks, it's time to have another look at your statements :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 8th, 2015, 2:28 pm 
Offline
Site Admin (volunteer)
User avatar

Joined: November 1st, 2003, 7:55 am
Posts: 16903
Location: Brackley Beach PE / Lake Wales FL
alandla wrote:
Gardiner wrote:
kreskin wrote:
Gardiner wrote:
We only need to look at the Senate scandal to refute your claim that it isn"t that bad after all.


Your statement threw me for a loop for a minute.

Then I realized that you are confusing senate appointments with at pleasure appointments.

Your analysis phase (which includes research) is not quite complete yet :)

I guess age will do that to you....lol

I was referring to political appointmens in general so it is you who is confused.


But you used the senate scandal as you rebuttal....

Perhaps when 3 people have expressed confusion by your remarks, it's time to have another look at your statements :wink:


Agreed.

The type of political appointments being discussed in this thread are at pleasure appointments. Senate appointments are not at pleasure appointments.

If Gardiner was talking about something different (political appointments in general), it might have be helpful (and much less confusing) if he had tried to make that a little clearer :-)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 8th, 2015, 7:14 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: February 25th, 2013, 8:36 pm
Posts: 1526
alandla wrote:
Gardiner wrote:
kreskin wrote:
Gardiner wrote:
We only need to look at the Senate scandal to refute your claim that it isn"t that bad after all.


Your statement threw me for a loop for a minute.

Then I realized that you are confusing senate appointments with at pleasure appointments.

Your analysis phase (which includes research) is not quite complete yet :)

I guess age will do that to you....lol

I was referring to political appointmens in general so it is you who is confused.


But you used the senate scandal as you rebuttal....

Perhaps when 3 people have expressed confusion by your remarks, it's time to have another look at your statements :wink:

Or perhaps 3 people just don't agree and chose to use ignorance as a way out?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 8th, 2015, 7:19 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: February 25th, 2013, 8:36 pm
Posts: 1526
kreskin wrote:
alandla wrote:
Gardiner wrote:
kreskin wrote:
Gardiner wrote:
We only need to look at the Senate scandal to refute your claim that it isn"t that bad after all.


Your statement threw me for a loop for a minute.

Then I realized that you are confusing senate appointments with at pleasure appointments.

Your analysis phase (which includes research) is not quite complete yet :)

I guess age will do that to you....lol

I was referring to political appointmens in general so it is you who is confused.


But you used the senate scandal as you rebuttal....

Perhaps when 3 people have expressed confusion by your remarks, it's time to have another look at your statements :wink:


Agreed.

The type of political appointments being discussed in this thread are at pleasure appointments. Senate appointments are not at pleasure appointments.

If Gardiner was talking about something different (political appointments in general), it might have be helpful (and much less confusing) if he had tried to make that a little clearer :-)

Gardiner did when he quoted Stephen Harper reference to a 19 century relic....you just didn't remember it......age...lol


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 8th, 2015, 7:25 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: November 12th, 2004, 8:55 am
Posts: 2160
Location: Islander
Gardiner wrote:
Perhaps when 3 people have expressed confusion by your remarks, it's time to have another look at your statements :wink:

Quote:
Or perhaps 3 people just don't agree and chose to use ignorance as a way out?


Quit acting like a baby.

3 people were confused by your comments and instead of trying to better explain yourself, your default is to insult.

If you aren't interested in a discussion then so be it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 9th, 2015, 4:08 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: February 25th, 2013, 8:36 pm
Posts: 1526
craiger wrote:
Gardiner wrote:
alandla wrote:
Gardiner wrote:
kreskin wrote:
Gardiner wrote:
Change never happens overnight and one of the prerequisites of change is that of "mindset" and the need and desire to want to change. This is why we need some new blood in politics, at all levels, to take us away from those 19th century relics that we feel we have to hang onto.

But here is something to consider ... if the process is something that has endured for hundreds of years in older democracies and been adopted in the formation of newer democracies based upon an acceptable track record of it in the older democracies, maybe, just maybe, it isn't that bad a process ... after all, if it is a process that is deemed necessary in virtually every democracy on earth, there must be something to be said for it.

I still haven't heard any proposals on a practical alternative nor any proposals on how to change the laws in order to institute the alternative. Any "push the button and make it happen" proposal at least needs that to get started :)

Then the appointments should have stricter regulations attached to them and not be used for political gain.

We only need to look at the Senate scandal to refute your claim that it isn"t that bad after all.


You are mixing the people up with the institution.

The senate in theory has a valid place in a democratic society. What we need are decent senators.

It may seem like a minor distinction today but it is a very important distinction.


No, I believe you are.....and what valid place in our democratic society do have?

They should be a chamber of sober second thought and they should be representing regional interests. I think if we appointed the best candidates, instead of rewarding partisan loyalists, the Senate could be a very effective institution. I think an elected Senate is a terrible idea though. I don't think that would improve anything.

Stricter regulations around selection would help.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 10th, 2015, 11:57 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: July 4th, 2009, 1:07 pm
Posts: 1315
craiger wrote:
Gardiner wrote:
alandla wrote:
Gardiner wrote:
kreskin wrote:
Gardiner wrote:
Change never happens overnight and one of the prerequisites of change is that of "mindset" and the need and desire to want to change. This is why we need some new blood in politics, at all levels, to take us away from those 19th century relics that we feel we have to hang onto.

But here is something to consider ... if the process is something that has endured for hundreds of years in older democracies and been adopted in the formation of newer democracies based upon an acceptable track record of it in the older democracies, maybe, just maybe, it isn't that bad a process ... after all, if it is a process that is deemed necessary in virtually every democracy on earth, there must be something to be said for it.

I still haven't heard any proposals on a practical alternative nor any proposals on how to change the laws in order to institute the alternative. Any "push the button and make it happen" proposal at least needs that to get started :)


We only need to look at the Senate scandal to refute your claim that it isn"t that bad after all.


You are mixing the people up with the institution.

The senate in theory has a valid place in a democratic society. What we need are decent senators.

It may seem like a minor distinction today but it is a very important distinction.


No, I believe you are.....and what valid place in our democratic society do have?

They should be a chamber of sober second thought and they should be representing regional interests. I think if we appointed the best candidates, instead of rewarding partisan loyalists, the Senate could be a very effective institution. I think an elected Senate is a terrible idea though. I don't think that would improve anything.


So "appointing the best candidates" sounds lovely except for the fact it is incredibly naive and dangerously simplistic view of real life.

Who decides on the criteria for "best candidate", and then who choses the" best candidate."

A "highly qualified selection committee"?? Barf.

How about those who are best qualified..the voters.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 11th, 2015, 7:54 am 
Offline
From Away

Joined: December 30th, 2014, 10:34 am
Posts: 52
Yesitsme wrote:
craiger wrote:
They should be a chamber of sober second thought and they should be representing regional interests. I think if we appointed the best candidates, instead of rewarding partisan loyalists, the Senate could be a very effective institution. I think an elected Senate is a terrible idea though. I don't think that would improve anything.


So "appointing the best candidates" sounds lovely except for the fact it is incredibly naive and dangerously simplistic view of real life.

Who decides on the criteria for "best candidate", and then who choses the" best candidate."

A "highly qualified selection committee"?? Barf.

How about those who are best qualified..the voters.


Except for the fact that it was we voters who selected the group that is the subject of this thread. (Ghiz, Sheridan, LeClair et. al.) :)

It's a two part problem that is very difficult to fix at this stage- unwise voters and big government.

More and more voters will vote for whoever promises to 'give' them more, without a thought to who pays for it, or how it will affect their lives. There's an erroneous perception that the 'majority' is always 'right'.

This wouldn't be too big a problem if government was still limited to the few services that are impractical for individuals to provide for themselves, such as transportation infrastructure, foreign policy, and very few others.

Ed


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 11th, 2015, 4:11 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: July 4th, 2009, 1:07 pm
Posts: 1315
Eddie wrote:

It's a two part problem that is very difficult to fix at this stage- unwise voters and big government.

More and more voters will vote for whoever promises to 'give' them more, without a thought to who pays for it, or how it will affect their lives. There's an erroneous perception that the 'majority' is always 'right'.

This wouldn't be too big a problem if government was still limited to the few services that are impractical for individuals to provide for themselves, such as transportation infrastructure, foreign policy, and very few others.

Ed


The people always get the government they deserve.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 11th, 2015, 5:10 pm 
Offline
Almost an Islander

Joined: November 16th, 2014, 12:56 am
Posts: 286
Yesitsme wrote:

The people always get the government they deserve.



Really?
The 61% of people that didn't vote for harper somehow deserve a harper government?

Sounds incredibly naive and simplistic.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 11th, 2015, 7:48 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: July 4th, 2009, 1:07 pm
Posts: 1315
Islanders allowed the Ghiz government to run rampant. Federally Harper was allowed to run rampant. Under the current form of government they were elected by the people.

You get what you asked for.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group