Should Canada adopt a US-style senate

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher
KrazyHorse serves as the typical attitude of both the federal government and most Canadians.

The majority of the population is having THEIR interests served. Canada's government exists to serve the the interests of the majority, and only the majority. This is alright by them.

Canadians are so stupid, you know that?

Good arguments.

Me: One man, one vote

Asher: But that means I don't get my way! You're such an idiot. We should be more like those big, strong Americans. Do you think they like us? Let's send them a note.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Boris:

1/10

ad hominems, like you've spouted are the true signs of defeat. Eat it .

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Good arguments.

Me: One man, one vote

Asher: But that means I don't get my way! You're such an idiot. We should be more like those big, strong Americans. Do you think they like us? Let's send them a note.

For the love of God, KrazyHorse, if you don't understand by now you'll never understand.

By a strict "one man, one vote" system it doesn't respect the rights of the minorities or the will of those minorities.

Again, if 50.0001% of the nation voted to have the socialist bastards killed, we can go ahead can do that. There's no system that lets those other 49.9999% of the people from protecting their rights, because you've ONLY got a "one person, one vote" system.

We're not talking about replacing the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT with the Senate. We're talking about replacing our USELESS Senate with a Senate that acts as a balance of power to keep the Liberals from having too much power.

If you still don't understand, then it's so very clear to me why you like socialism. You don't seem to understand much of all outside of math and physics.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have to agree with Asher... one man, one vote, tramples on minority rights.

[KrazyHorse]

Asher, why do you insist on tying in the protections of a Constitution with the unlevel playing field of a US-style Senate?

[KrazyHorse]

Imran, I thought you were able to draw more subtle distinctions than that. Read my above comment.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Boris:

You seem to suffer from acute narcolepsy

1/10

Are you the DL for MrFun? I knew it!

ad hominems, like you've spouted are the true signs of defeat.

Ad hominem? Where? What? Huh?

Eat it .

*Gets aroused*

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher
If you still don't understand, then it's so very clear to me why you like socialism. You don't seem to understand much of all outside of math and physics.

Har har. You don't agree with me, so you're ignorant/stupid.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have... but I agree with Asher on this one.

You are a commie, you like direct democracy. I abhor it .

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ad hominem? Where? What? Huh?

Um... may I remind you, the Republican jibe.

And if you are going to say what I think you (that is just the truth), I'd like to point out that is another ad hominem. Loser .

[KrazyHorse]

I didn't say I liked direct democracy. I'm in favour of Constitutional protection of certain basic rights and freedoms, and I'm in favour of representative democracy. I'm simply not in favour of assigning more representation per population to those who live in certain areas than in others.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Asher, why do you insist on tying in the protections of a Constitution with the unlevel playing field of a US-style Senate?

Are you aware of just how useless the Canadian Constitution is, KrazyHorse?

The constitution hasn't stopped the NEP. The constitution hasn't kicked the liberal's asses in gear to redraw the ridings. The constitution hasn't stopped the government from doing REALLY stupid stuff like canceling the Military Helicopter contracts at a massive penalty, only to reorder ****TIER helicopters a few years later at a greater cost, etc.

We need a useful Senate that takes away Liberal-majority power. Whether that's a system like the US' (which I think works great for the US), or whether it's a system based on proportional representation doesn't really matter to me.

The Liberal dictatorship must be stopped.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Ad hominem? Where? What? Huh?

Um... may I remind you, the Republican jibe.

And if you are going to say what I think you (that is just the truth), I'd like to point out that is another ad hominem. Loser .

Hey, I was just pointing out the fallacy of asserting that something is good just because a majority of people like it. Isn't that, in fact, what you're trying to prevent by favoring a U.S.-style Senate?

WHAM he brings it to relevancy.

BTW, I think your assertion is flat-out wrong. Most Americans dislike both branches of congress. You're just talking out of your posterior.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm simply not in favour of assigning more representation per population to those who live in certain areas than in others.

In different states? Why shouldn't each state (which has a lot of its own seperate laws) have equal representation in ONE branch of the federal government?

You think the UN should have reprensation for each country based on population (I bet). I don't... or at least have that be the lower house.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Most Americans dislike both branches of congress.

I totally disagree. 100% in fact. They'd rather have that than Proportional Representation.