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 Bacon & Clam Chowder at Casa Mia Cafe for $4.95 [Remind Me]

Lunch The Great Canadian Hand Carved Sandwich at Chartwells UPEI for $5.99 [Remind Me]

Lunch Chicken wings & Chips at Casa Mia Cafe for $9.95 [Remind Me]

Supper WING NIGHT!!! at The Old Triangle Irish Alehouse for $0.35 [Remind Me]

Supper Endless Baby Back Ribs at Hunter's Ale House for $22.99 [Remind Me]

All Day Special Beef Pot Pie or Veggie Pot Pie at Beanz Espresso Bar for $9.10 [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]

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
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 12th, 2015, 8:07 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: November 12th, 2004, 8:55 am
Posts: 2160
Location: Islander
Yesitsme wrote:
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.


I think you missed Blake McKinley's comment.

48.6% of Islanders didn't get what they voted for in the last provincial election
60.4% of Canadians didn't get what they voted for in the last federal election

Some didn't even get any representation of their choice.

Your statement that they were elected by the people is partially correct.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 12th, 2015, 10:20 am 
Offline
Almost an Islander

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


No. You don't. I didn't vote for harper or any other federal conservative so how did I get what I asked for?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 12th, 2015, 7:39 pm 
Offline
True Islander

Joined: August 23rd, 2005, 11:52 am
Posts: 11991
Location: Summerside
Yesitsme wrote:
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.

What is "naive and dangerously simplistic" about appointing candidates? I think it's more dangerous to have an election campaign to choose a Senator. They need to take the power away from one political party for appointing Senators. Make it as non-partisan a process as possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 16th, 2015, 11:17 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: July 4th, 2009, 1:07 pm
Posts: 1315
craiger wrote:
Yesitsme wrote:
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.

What is "naive and dangerously simplistic" about appointing candidates? I think it's more dangerous to have an election campaign to choose a Senator. They need to take the power away from one political party for appointing Senators. Make it as non-partisan a process as possible.


So again I ask, who do you find that makes the appointment? Who decides who selects the people who select the appointee?

how is having an elected senator partisan?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 16th, 2015, 7:11 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: September 28th, 2007, 12:45 pm
Posts: 1049
One approach I seem to recall being suggested was to have elected senators but to prohibit the participation of political parties in selecting or funding candidates.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 16th, 2015, 8:31 pm 
Offline
True Islander

Joined: August 23rd, 2005, 11:52 am
Posts: 11991
Location: Summerside
Yesitsme wrote:
So again I ask, who do you find that makes the appointment? Who decides who selects the people who select the appointee?

how is having an elected senator partisan?

That's the tricky part, working out all the details. The federal government would have to make the appointment but let the provinces decide how they want Senators to be selected. A committee representing various interests representative of the province seems like a starting point.

In order for a Senator to be elected they would likely be running with a political party. Hence they would likely be partisan. The idea by sentance could be an option. Or have it similar to municipal politics where political parties aren't involved.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 19th, 2015, 8:44 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: July 4th, 2009, 1:07 pm
Posts: 1315
craiger wrote:
Yesitsme wrote:
So again I ask, who do you find that makes the appointment? Who decides who selects the people who select the appointee?

how is having an elected senator partisan?

That's the tricky part, working out all the details. The federal government would have to make the appointment but let the provinces decide how they want Senators to be selected. A committee representing various interests representative of the province seems like a starting point.

In order for a Senator to be elected they would likely be running with a political party. Hence they would likely be partisan. The idea by sentance could be an option. Or have it similar to municipal politics where political parties aren't involved.


A committee representing various interests representative of the province? So all three counties, women, disabled, acadian, native, lgbt, small business, big business, educators, immigrants, etc.

That's called the electorate. And they don't have to run representing a political party they could all run independent.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 20th, 2015, 3:12 pm 
Offline
Site Admin (volunteer)
User avatar

Joined: November 1st, 2003, 7:55 am
Posts: 16903
Location: Brackley Beach PE / Lake Wales FL
Yesitsme wrote:
And they don't have to run representing a political party they could all run independent.


And campaign funding would be provided by?

Just curious because in the U.S., it costs candidates 4 to 5 times as much to campaign for the Senate as it does to campaign for Congress (never mind how much it costs the taxpayer to run the election).

Quote:
The average price of winning or holding on to a six-year term in the U.S. Senate averaged $10,476,451 in the 2012 election cycle, MapLight said.

Slightly less pricey, obtaining or being re-elected to the U.S. House of Representatives cost an average of $1,689,580.

In effect, that means that the winning Senate candidates needed to raise an average of $14,351 every day between Jan. 1 2010 and election day, 2012 in order to pull of a win, while the victorious House members raised $2.315 per day, MapLight found.

They’re spending more of their time fundraising than making actual laws,” MapLight President Daniel Newman told the Daily News. “They’ve become high priced telemarketers.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.1285491

Do we really want to emulate the Americans and their elected Senate?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 20th, 2015, 4:31 pm 
Offline
Almost an Islander

Joined: November 16th, 2014, 12:56 am
Posts: 286
All of that could easily be alleviated with some reasonable campaign finance laws. The reason they spend so much time raising money is because they don't limit the length of the campaign or the amount of money that can be donated.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 21st, 2015, 6:56 pm 
Offline
True Islander

Joined: August 23rd, 2005, 11:52 am
Posts: 11991
Location: Summerside
Blake McKinley wrote:
All of that could easily be alleviated with some reasonable campaign finance laws. The reason they spend so much time raising money is because they don't limit the length of the campaign or the amount of money that can be donated.

Who really wants to have an election campaign for Senators? Would people really pay attention to such a campaign? And what would Senators even campaign about other than sticking up for the interests of the region?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 21st, 2015, 7:14 pm 
Offline
Almost an Islander

Joined: November 16th, 2014, 12:56 am
Posts: 286
That is different from any other election campaign how?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 21st, 2015, 8:30 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: July 4th, 2009, 1:07 pm
Posts: 1315
kreskin wrote:
Yesitsme wrote:
And they don't have to run representing a political party they could all run independent.


And campaign funding would be provided by?

Just curious because in the U.S., it costs candidates 4 to 5 times as much to campaign for the Senate as it does to campaign for Congress (never mind how much it costs the taxpayer to run the election).

Quote:
The average price of winning or holding on to a six-year term in the U.S. Senate averaged $10,476,451 in the 2012 election cycle, MapLight said.

Slightly less pricey, obtaining or being re-elected to the U.S. House of Representatives cost an average of $1,689,580.

In effect, that means that the winning Senate candidates needed to raise an average of $14,351 every day between Jan. 1 2010 and election day, 2012 in order to pull of a win, while the victorious House members raised $2.315 per day, MapLight found.

They’re spending more of their time fundraising than making actual laws,” MapLight President Daniel Newman told the Daily News. “They’ve become high priced telemarketers.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.1285491

Do we really want to emulate the Americans and their elected Senate?


Do we want to continue to emulate a tin pot country where the requirements for appointment include failing at politics, being defeated at politics, being a recognized journalist or sports figure? Its a joke.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 21st, 2015, 8:37 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: July 4th, 2009, 1:07 pm
Posts: 1315
craiger wrote:
Blake McKinley wrote:
All of that could easily be alleviated with some reasonable campaign finance laws. The reason they spend so much time raising money is because they don't limit the length of the campaign or the amount of money that can be donated.

Who really wants to have an election campaign for Senators? Would people really pay attention to such a campaign? And what would Senators even campaign about other than sticking up for the interests of the region?


People are more interested in an election campaign for senators than the current system of trough swilling appointments. Only because they are not sure what would happen if the entire thing were abolished.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 21st, 2015, 10:57 pm 
Offline
Site Admin (volunteer)
User avatar

Joined: November 1st, 2003, 7:55 am
Posts: 16903
Location: Brackley Beach PE / Lake Wales FL
Yesitsme wrote:
People are more interested in an election campaign for senators than the current system of trough swilling appointments.

I'm sure that corporations would be more interested also because they could exercise more influence over the Senate (just like in the U.S.)

Yesitsme wrote:
Only because they are not sure what would happen if the entire thing were abolished.


It would be fantastic if it were abolished or completely reformed ... trouble is, the way our constitution works, it might be well nigh impossible to achieve that without breaking up the country.

You wonder why a prime minister with a solid majority and a solid passion to either have an elected senate, or abolish the senate outright, backed down from that position? All the constitutional and legal doors were slammed in his face. And the way to open those doors were unpalatable, even to Mr. Harper.

Seems to me that tighter Senate regulations and guidelines are the most practical path at this point in our history. This mess seems to have largely come about because the rules were so vague and ambiguous.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 22nd, 2015, 9:54 am 
Offline
From Away

Joined: December 30th, 2014, 10:34 am
Posts: 52
Quote:
Seems to me that tighter Senate regulations and guidelines are the most practical path at this point in our history. This mess seems to have largely come about because the rules were so vague and ambiguous.

The regulations and guidelines were likely quite adequate before the decline in citizen morality that we're now experiencing.

Basically, government is a reflection of the society that supplies the candidates, and chooses the winners, so the current 'shenanigans' in the Senate, and incompetence in the Commons, should be no surprise.

And, because the 'problem' is likely to get worse instead of better as the 'cultural decline' proceeds, I don't see any solution.

When my provincial Conservative candidate arrived at the door the other evening we discussed the difference between 'progressive' conservatism and real conservatism. :)

He was at a loss for words when I explained that I'd be voting for the candidate that promised to 'do less' for me and 'give' me the least. I tried to explain my theory that increasing dependence on government is eroding the pride and self-confidence that Islanders will need in order to start businesses and hire others.

I don't think he understood. :(

Ed


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 22nd, 2015, 7:44 pm 
Offline
True Islander

Joined: August 23rd, 2005, 11:52 am
Posts: 11991
Location: Summerside
Yesitsme wrote:
craiger wrote:
Blake McKinley wrote:
All of that could easily be alleviated with some reasonable campaign finance laws. The reason they spend so much time raising money is because they don't limit the length of the campaign or the amount of money that can be donated.

Who really wants to have an election campaign for Senators? Would people really pay attention to such a campaign? And what would Senators even campaign about other than sticking up for the interests of the region?


People are more interested in an election campaign for senators than the current system of trough swilling appointments. Only because they are not sure what would happen if the entire thing were abolished.

I agree people are tired of the partisan appointments. But if qualified people were appointed instead of partisan hacks, our perceptions of the Senate would likely improve. And some of the partisan appointments do a good job currently. Percy Downe seems to be a good Senator.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 22nd, 2015, 7:46 pm 
Offline
True Islander

Joined: August 23rd, 2005, 11:52 am
Posts: 11991
Location: Summerside
Eddie wrote:
Quote:
Seems to me that tighter Senate regulations and guidelines are the most practical path at this point in our history. This mess seems to have largely come about because the rules were so vague and ambiguous.

The regulations and guidelines were likely quite adequate before the decline in citizen morality that we're now experiencing.

Basically, government is a reflection of the society that supplies the candidates, and chooses the winners, so the current 'shenanigans' in the Senate, and incompetence in the Commons, should be no surprise.

And, because the 'problem' is likely to get worse instead of better as the 'cultural decline' proceeds, I don't see any solution.

When my provincial Conservative candidate arrived at the door the other evening we discussed the difference between 'progressive' conservatism and real conservatism. :)

He was at a loss for words when I explained that I'd be voting for the candidate that promised to 'do less' for me and 'give' me the least. I tried to explain my theory that increasing dependence on government is eroding the pride and self-confidence that Islanders will need in order to start businesses and hire others.

I don't think he understood. :(

Ed

What is this "cultural decline" you speak of? Are you suggesting shenanigans didn't happen in the past?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: April 26th, 2015, 11:02 am 
Offline
From Away

Joined: December 30th, 2014, 10:34 am
Posts: 52
craiger wrote:
Eddie wrote:
Quote:
Seems to me that tighter Senate regulations and guidelines are the most practical path at this point in our history. This mess seems to have largely come about because the rules were so vague and ambiguous.

The regulations and guidelines were likely quite adequate before the decline in citizen morality that we're now experiencing.

Basically, government is a reflection of the society that supplies the candidates, and chooses the winners, so the current 'shenanigans' in the Senate, and incompetence in the Commons, should be no surprise.

And, because the 'problem' is likely to get worse instead of better as the 'cultural decline' proceeds, I don't see any solution.

When my provincial Conservative candidate arrived at the door the other evening we discussed the difference between 'progressive' conservatism and real conservatism. :)

He was at a loss for words when I explained that I'd be voting for the candidate that promised to 'do less' for me and 'give' me the least. I tried to explain my theory that increasing dependence on government is eroding the pride and self-confidence that Islanders will need in order to start businesses and hire others.

I don't think he understood. :(

Ed

What is this "cultural decline" you speak of? Are you suggesting shenanigans didn't happen in the past?

Oh, I suspect there has always been some degree of political 'shenanigans'. I was referring to the societal decay that I've observed over the last sixty-some years.

I realize that one must be careful in remembering 'better' days. Memory has a way of smoothing rough edges, giving a warm glow to things that were less rosy when they happened. Yet… some things were better, in my opinion, and sometimes a society does go from better to bad to worse.

Where I grew up in rural PEI in the 1950s everyone worked, farming, fishing, construction, road maintenance, etc. We hadn't yet given over the work that people depended on for their feelings of pride and self-worth to machines.
There was no organized welfare and little need for it. If there was need the community met it. I recall one winter our milk cow had some problem and we didn't have milk. A neighbor had extra milk and it was my job after school to walk the half-mile there and back for the milk.

We didn't lock anything - the house, (it didn't lock), cars wherever we parked them. Today we lock everything. In 1954, when I moved to Ch'town to go to trade school my transportation was a bicycle, and I could leave it anywhere, outside stores uptown, or outside the old Capitol Theatre, unlocked.
We would have thought it ridiculous to keep a bike locked up!

There were no 'drugs', except cigarettes, in school. Today, middle schools are awash in chemicals of all description.

Pornography meant Playboy models in bikinis, and lingerie in Eaton's catalogue. Now it means pore-level gynecology in macrophotography. It means worse. Any ten-year-old with a computer, which means any ten-year-old, can find - well, you name it.

In the 50s, violence on TV meant the Lone Ranger shooting the gun out of Slade's hand. There was no 'sex' on TV. Have any of you checked what kids are watching these days on MTV or Much Music?

On and on it goes, but that's enough for now.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: June 6th, 2015, 12:58 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: February 25th, 2013, 8:36 pm
Posts: 1526
I wonder what these guys are doing these days?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ghiz,Sheridan,LeClair et. al.
PostPosted: June 13th, 2015, 4:10 pm 
Offline
True Islander
User avatar

Joined: May 4th, 2008, 2:13 am
Posts: 6461
Eddie wrote:
craiger wrote:
Eddie wrote:
Quote:
Any ten-year-old with a computer, which means any ten-year-old, can find - well, you name it.

In the 50s, violence on TV meant the Lone Ranger shooting the gun out of Slade's hand. There was no 'sex' on TV. Have any of you checked what kids are watching these days on MTV or Much Music?

On and on it goes, but that's enough for now.

No ten year olds in our house will be checking out internet porn, or tv content with sexuality. Nor any adults for that matter. At least not on our network. It's pretty easy to block. Not impossible to circumvent but at least not so easy, at least not with out specialized tools and knowledge.
Anyway I hear ya and for the most part agree. Recently a co worker was promoting his caa or what ever it was road side assistance that was better than what most people use because it saved his bacon by coming out to where he had a flat, he only had to wait an hour, and swapping out his flat tired wheel for his doenut spare and let him go on his way. There were many requests for the number of this service. I of course stated that imo doing this operation your self should be required on your driving test to get your license and that no one should be allowed to drive or leave their driveway not knowing how to, and that anyone who would wait an hour for a towing service to show up and do it for you was either a lazy ass or dummy of unprecedented levels.

_________________
Linux User 412309
openSUSE-KDE give it a try today
Image


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

All times are UTC - 4 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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