Re: Election Night 2012

by Pennzoil GT-R Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:02 pm

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:
And NO just because it's legal does not mean a mass of people will now start using any or all of these drugs. A totally stupid logic to think such would happen. Tobacco is legal yet in Canada alone less than 17% of the population are said to smoke nowadays. I'd suggest the USA would be similar.

Until the heavy promotion started letting everyone know tobacco is a guaranteed killer almost everyone smoked. In countries outside North America/Northern Europe that are not as well developed, almost everyone still smokes. Using the current situation in developed countries is not an accurate marker.

Weed is just as dangerous as tobacco to your lungs and the neurological effects long term also look pretty fucked up. They need to legalise it, then heavily tax/restrict it.

by Turbojett Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:05 pm

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
Weed is just as dangerous as tobacco to your lungs and the neurological effects long term also look pretty fucked up. They need to legalise it, then heavily tax/restrict it.

this i agree with though. it must be regulated, even more so than tobacco and alcohol. And like you mentioned with the stop smoking legislation/public service campaigns/Surgeon General warnings, people need to know what this stuff will do to you if you overuse it.

by Turbojett Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:10 pm

weed also contains a multitude more tar than tobacco as well (forget how much more at the moment), and to make matters worse, nobody's going to put a filter on a J like they do for cigarettes.

by Honor Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:25 pm

You don't HAVE to smoke it though. They have that vaporizer thing too. Any kind of smoke is bad for you to breathe.

by Turbojett Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:26 pm

you mean a bong?

by Turbojett Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:28 pm

by Les_Vipers_rule Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:15 am

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
Les_Vipers_rule wrote:
And NO just because it's legal does not mean a mass of people will now start using any or all of these drugs. A totally stupid logic to think such would happen. Tobacco is legal yet in Canada alone less than 17% of the population are said to smoke nowadays. I'd suggest the USA would be similar.

Until the heavy promotion started letting everyone know tobacco is a guaranteed killer almost everyone smoked. In countries outside North America/Northern Europe that are not as well developed, almost everyone still smokes. Using the current situation in developed countries is not an accurate marker.

Weed is just as dangerous as tobacco to your lungs and the neurological effects long term also look pretty fucked up. They need to legalise it, then heavily tax/restrict it.

Hence why I said monies gained from taxation of these drugs can go to more and better education as well as to develop proper rehab centers for any and all idiots who get addicted to this shit.

Treat possession like an illness and an addiction and not like a crime. Criminalizing users is immoral especially in any society that arbitrarily legalizes other drugs such as booze and tobacco. Doing so will NOT see a mass increase in drug use.

by Les_Vipers_rule Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:18 am

Turbojett wrote:weed also contains a multitude more tar than tobacco as well (forget how much more at the moment), and to make matters worse, nobody's going to put a filter on a J like they do for cigarettes.

The difference is nobody likely smokes 20+ joints a day but many tobacco users smoke 20 or more smokes per day. APPLES TO ORANGES in terms of general health issues. Booze can be much more harmful depending on how much one drinks but you can pour back a case of beer and day and or a bottle of whiskey per day and be all nice and legal too.

by Pennzoil GT-R Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:20 am

Turbojett wrote:
Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
Weed is just as dangerous as tobacco to your lungs and the neurological effects long term also look pretty fucked up. They need to legalise it, then heavily tax/restrict it.
this i agree with though. it must be regulated, even more so than tobacco and alcohol. And like you mentioned with the stop smoking legislation/public service campaigns/Surgeon General warnings, people need to know what this stuff will do to you if you overuse it.

Everyone probably knows someone who died in their 50s/60s of lung cancer from years of smoking 50 a day, but most young people probably also know a pothead whose brain is fried in their 20s from just a few years of smoking weed twice a day.

I think weed is alot more dangerous than people currently realise.

by Les_Vipers_rule Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:29 am

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
Turbojett wrote:
Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
Weed is just as dangerous as tobacco to your lungs and the neurological effects long term also look pretty fucked up. They need to legalise it, then heavily tax/restrict it.
this i agree with though. it must be regulated, even more so than tobacco and alcohol. And like you mentioned with the stop smoking legislation/public service campaigns/Surgeon General warnings, people need to know what this stuff will do to you if you overuse it.

Everyone probably knows someone who died in their 50s/60s of lung cancer from years of smoking 50 a day, but most young people probably also know a pothead whose brain is fried in their 20s from just a few years of smoking weed twice a day.

I think weed is alot more dangerous than people currently realise.

Any drug is potentially dangerous but not every pot smoker even twice a day has a fried brain. That said criminalizing it does not stop one from frying their brain as you said, so like you said and which I agree make it legal (make all natural drugs legal) and tax, regulate the stuff and then educate society from the funds. It helps stop the illegal drug trade and allows any idiot who wants to use it to get stuff more safely for one. And once an idiot realizing they need to rehab they can get better rehab availability.

Putting a drug user in jail will almost always have them coming out worse off.

by JaysonAych Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:11 am

Talon wrote:Shortly after repeal of Prohibition in 1933, most states set their purchase ages at 21 since that was the age of majority at the time, but a few set their limits lower. Most of these limits remained constant until the early 1970s. From 1969 to 1976, 30 states lowered their purchase ages, generally to 18.[citation needed] This was primarily because the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 with the 26th amendment, and nearly all states lowered their ages of majority as well. In spite of this, twelve states kept their purchase ages at 21 since repeal of Prohibition and have never changed them.

I was in a gas station way out in Deliverance Country, Kentucky, and there was a sticker on the door reading, "You must be 16 18 21 years of age to purchase alcoholic beverages" with the ages being crossed out with a Sharpie and re-written in Sharpie.

Turbojett wrote:in related news, all the conservatives I know are bitching about how dumb the rest of America is and how the "USSA" is going to hell in a handbasket and we're all going to regret it when we're trapped under the watchful gaze of Brother Eye.

And I'm just sitting here masturbating.

So many sullen faces at work. No one said anything, but we all knew. I just called up news websites and read about angry conservatives who are talking about moving to Canada to get away from gay marriage, gun control laws, and socialized medicine.

ryguy79 wrote:My dad was elected to the House of Representatives. Awesome.

That's fantastic! Congratulations to him and your family!

by Turbojett Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:33 am

JaysonAych wrote: I just called up news websites and read about angry conservatives who are talking about moving to Canada to get away from gay marriage, gun control laws, and socialized medicine.

That is fucking priceless. :lol:

That was kinda like how I always wondered what ever happened to Falcon~LMAO: he can't stay here, the president's black, and this disgusts him; he can't go to Canada because they're a bunch of repressed, free-healthcare-having commies; and he can't go to Mexico because mother of God, it's full of...Mexicans! :stonk:

I guess he can go to South Africa where people are still sort of racist.
..but then they had a black president like 20 years before we did.

And congrats to your dad, Ry! Totally missed that the first time through.

by Pennzoil GT-R Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:37 am

JaysonAych wrote:

ryguy79 wrote:My dad was elected to the House of Representatives. Awesome.

That's fantastic! Congratulations to him and your family!

I dont really know what the House of Representatives are, but judging by the responses on here it's something to be congratulated upon :cheers:

by Pennzoil GT-R Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:38 am

In hindsight, it would have been worth Romney getting elected just to watch Les go into meltdown.

Then again, hes on the brink with Obama getting re-elected.

by JaysonAych Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:07 am

I also read an article about that fuckbag Mitch McConnell and what the Democrats may have in store for the 2014 Senate race. He almost lost in the last election, and the Democrats are exploring having Ashley Judd run against him. The Judds are fucking royalty in Kentucky, especially in the hardcore conservative areas. I don't know how serious they are, but that would be an amazing thing to see.

by Les_Vipers_rule Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:38 am

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:In hindsight, it would have been worth Romney getting elected just to watch Les go into meltdown.

Then again, hes on the brink with Obama getting re-elected.

LOL, no melt down from me. Given my choice Bronco Bama is my choice but neither man would or will make a hill o' beans difference into the shit storm we are going to see and endure globally created by the greed hands, their idiot and duped cronies and thugs over our global debt issues (govt, corporate and personal debt), monetary ponzi scheme and the general economic train wreak to witness. Over 80,000 Greeks in violent protests in Athens for one this Nov. 7 over the mess in Greece. A canary in a coal mine I say.

Bronco Bama is hardly a saint and he has done and does things that if the idiot GWB was still President many especially Bronco Bama supporting Libs would scream from the highest mountain top against. But since Obama or Romney were going to be President I'd roll more with the tainted saint Obama.

by Honor Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:21 am

Turbojett wrote:you mean a bong?

no, lol not a bong. machines that actually emit a much less harmful vapor, rather than smoke.

What are the benefits of vaporization?

* No smoke! Is the number one benefit of using a vaporizer. As the medical marijuana vaporizes you will note that a thin mist of vapour is created at this lower 338 °F (170 °C) temperature. Compare that to a typical marijuana joint which burns at temperatures of up to 2,012 °F (1,100 °C) and in the process creates many harmful carcinogens. Smoke is the prime cause of lung cancer and many respiratory disorders.

* Save money - Since vaporization takes place at temperatures below combustion up to twice as many active constituents are delivered to the user than one would get from smoking, according to studies. Cannabinoids are highly combustible, and many of the delicate glandular trichomes may be destroyed when simply smoked.

* No smell. As nothing is actually burning there is very little smell involved with vaporization.

by Talon Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:53 am

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
Turbojett wrote:
Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
Weed is just as dangerous as tobacco to your lungs and the neurological effects long term also look pretty fucked up. They need to legalise it, then heavily tax/restrict it.
this i agree with though. it must be regulated, even more so than tobacco and alcohol. And like you mentioned with the stop smoking legislation/public service campaigns/Surgeon General warnings, people need to know what this stuff will do to you if you overuse it.

Everyone probably knows someone who died in their 50s/60s of lung cancer from years of smoking 50 a day, but most young people probably also know a pothead whose brain is fried in their 20s from just a few years of smoking weed twice a day.

I think weed is alot more dangerous than people currently realise.

You abuse it, it'll abuse you... just like anything else.

by Talon Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:56 am

JaysonAych wrote: I just called up news websites and read about angry conservatives who are talking about moving to Canada to get away from gay marriage, gun control laws, and socialized medicine.

Ain't it great. Bunch of tough-talkers. They ain't going anywhere. :roflmao:

Besides, Canada is where you want to go to get away from gun control and socialized medicine. :speedowethimself:

by SBF Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:15 am

Talon wrote:
Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
Turbojett wrote:
Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
Weed is just as dangerous as tobacco to your lungs and the neurological effects long term also look pretty fucked up. They need to legalise it, then heavily tax/restrict it.
this i agree with though. it must be regulated, even more so than tobacco and alcohol. And like you mentioned with the stop smoking legislation/public service campaigns/Surgeon General warnings, people need to know what this stuff will do to you if you overuse it.

Everyone probably knows someone who died in their 50s/60s of lung cancer from years of smoking 50 a day, but most young people probably also know a pothead whose brain is fried in their 20s from just a few years of smoking weed twice a day.

I think weed is alot more dangerous than people currently realise.

You abuse it, it'll abuse you... just like anything else.

That's why it needs to be treated like alcohol. That's why there are DUIs and DWIs. Actually its no different than it is now. You have open alcohol containers in your vehicle? You gotta take a field sobriety test. Don't want to? Well we'll just haul you down to the jail. They should treat you the same with weed. It's fine if you want to do it in the comfort of your own home, but if you get into a car, and get caught driving under the influence, you get fucked. Same goes with employers, they're going to still have drug policies in place. You come to work high, you can lose your job.

Just because it becomes legal doesn't mean EVERYTHING changes.

by Olds Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:18 am

Turbojett wrote:you mean a bong?

No, he means a vaporizer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporizer_%28cannabis%29

by Talon Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:21 am

SBF wrote:
Talon wrote:
Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
Turbojett wrote:
Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
Weed is just as dangerous as tobacco to your lungs and the neurological effects long term also look pretty fucked up. They need to legalise it, then heavily tax/restrict it.
this i agree with though. it must be regulated, even more so than tobacco and alcohol. And like you mentioned with the stop smoking legislation/public service campaigns/Surgeon General warnings, people need to know what this stuff will do to you if you overuse it.

Everyone probably knows someone who died in their 50s/60s of lung cancer from years of smoking 50 a day, but most young people probably also know a pothead whose brain is fried in their 20s from just a few years of smoking weed twice a day.

I think weed is alot more dangerous than people currently realise.

You abuse it, it'll abuse you... just like anything else.

That's why it needs to be treated like alcohol. That's why there are DUIs and DWIs. Actually its no different than it is now. You have open alcohol containers in your vehicle? You gotta take a field sobriety test. Don't want to? Well we'll just haul you down to the jail. They should treat you the same with weed. It's fine if you want to do it in the comfort of your own home, but if you get into a car, and get caught driving under the influence, you get fucked. Same goes with employers, they're going to still have drug policies in place. You come to work high, you can lose your job.

Just because it becomes legal doesn't mean EVERYTHING changes.

I agree... just like I said on the last page.

Talon wrote:
I see no problem with it. I don't know why such the gap between weed and alcohol. Legalize it, put similar stipulations on it, sell it, and tax it.

by thewalrus Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:22 pm

Turbojett wrote:in related news, all the conservatives I know are bitching about how dumb the rest of America is and how the "USSA" is going to hell in a handbasket and we're all going to regret it when we're trapped under the watchful gaze of Brother Eye.

And I'm just sitting here masturbating.

In fairness, though, you'd be sitting there masturbating no matter what happened - Obama win, Romney win, deadlock, invasion by Russians, invasion by aliens, nuclear holocaust, second coming, dolphin revolution etc. etc.

Which is, of course, much the same for the rest of us.

by thewalrus Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:24 pm

Les_Vipers_rule wrote:
Pennzoil GT-R wrote:In hindsight, it would have been worth Romney getting elected just to watch Les go into meltdown.

Then again, hes on the brink with Obama getting re-elected.

LOL, no melt down from me. Given my choice Bronco Bama is my choice but neither man would or will make a hill o' beans difference into the shit storm we are going to see and endure globally created by the greed hands, their idiot and duped cronies and thugs over our global debt issues (govt, corporate and personal debt), monetary ponzi scheme and the general economic train wreak to witness. Over 80,000 Greeks in violent protests in Athens for one this Nov. 7 over the mess in Greece. A canary in a coal mine I say.

Bronco Bama is hardly a saint and he has done and does things that if the idiot GWB was still President many especially Bronco Bama supporting Libs would scream from the highest mountain top against. But since Obama or Romney were going to be President I'd roll more with the tainted saint Obama.

Seeing a bunch of over-privileged europeans protesting small changes to their government subsidized lifestyles is hardly a 'canary-in-the-coal-mine' event. Also, we're all going to be just fine.

by xtine Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:08 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/earl-k-wood-election-results_n_2089624.html

:roflmao:

If you lose to a dead candidate, maybe it's time to give up politics.

by SBF Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:00 pm

Talon wrote:
SBF wrote:
Talon wrote:
Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
Turbojett wrote:
Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
Weed is just as dangerous as tobacco to your lungs and the neurological effects long term also look pretty fucked up. They need to legalise it, then heavily tax/restrict it.
this i agree with though. it must be regulated, even more so than tobacco and alcohol. And like you mentioned with the stop smoking legislation/public service campaigns/Surgeon General warnings, people need to know what this stuff will do to you if you overuse it.

Everyone probably knows someone who died in their 50s/60s of lung cancer from years of smoking 50 a day, but most young people probably also know a pothead whose brain is fried in their 20s from just a few years of smoking weed twice a day.

I think weed is alot more dangerous than people currently realise.

You abuse it, it'll abuse you... just like anything else.

That's why it needs to be treated like alcohol. That's why there are DUIs and DWIs. Actually its no different than it is now. You have open alcohol containers in your vehicle? You gotta take a field sobriety test. Don't want to? Well we'll just haul you down to the jail. They should treat you the same with weed. It's fine if you want to do it in the comfort of your own home, but if you get into a car, and get caught driving under the influence, you get fucked. Same goes with employers, they're going to still have drug policies in place. You come to work high, you can lose your job.

Just because it becomes legal doesn't mean EVERYTHING changes.

I agree... just like I said on the last page.

Talon wrote:
I see no problem with it. I don't know why such the gap between weed and alcohol. Legalize it, put similar stipulations on it, sell it, and tax it.

I know you did, I just put my two cents on the weed situation.

by Talon Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:17 pm

by ryguy79 Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:57 pm

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
JaysonAych wrote:

ryguy79 wrote:My dad was elected to the House of Representatives. Awesome.

That's fantastic! Congratulations to him and your family!

I dont really know what the House of Representatives are, but judging by the responses on here it's something to be congratulated upon

Its one of the houses of Congress, the other is the Senate. I would guess the closest thing in the UK would be Parliament (Funkadelic).

by Pennzoil GT-R Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:31 am

ryguy79 wrote:
Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
JaysonAych wrote:

ryguy79 wrote:My dad was elected to the House of Representatives. Awesome.

That's fantastic! Congratulations to him and your family!

I dont really know what the House of Representatives are, but judging by the responses on here it's something to be congratulated upon

Its one of the houses of Congress, the other is the Senate. I would guess the closest thing in the UK would be Parliament (Funkadelic).

So your dad is now equivalent to a Senator? :talon2:

by Pennzoil GT-R Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:36 am

thewalrus wrote:
Les_Vipers_rule wrote:
Pennzoil GT-R wrote:In hindsight, it would have been worth Romney getting elected just to watch Les go into meltdown.

Then again, hes on the brink with Obama getting re-elected.

LOL, no melt down from me. Given my choice Bronco Bama is my choice but neither man would or will make a hill o' beans difference into the shit storm we are going to see and endure globally created by the greed hands, their idiot and duped cronies and thugs over our global debt issues (govt, corporate and personal debt), monetary ponzi scheme and the general economic train wreak to witness. Over 80,000 Greeks in violent protests in Athens for one this Nov. 7 over the mess in Greece. A canary in a coal mine I say.

Bronco Bama is hardly a saint and he has done and does things that if the idiot GWB was still President many especially Bronco Bama supporting Libs would scream from the highest mountain top against. But since Obama or Romney were going to be President I'd roll more with the tainted saint Obama.

Seeing a bunch of over-privileged europeans protesting small changes to their government subsidized lifestyles is hardly a 'canary-in-the-coal-mine' event. Also, we're all going to be just fine.

Yeah, that just shows Les's lack of understanding on European politics to be honest.

The Greeks were protesting because they had a VERY easy ride and tax avoidance was the norm for them. A high proportion were/are unemployed and had no reason to seek employment. Now that's all going to change, they're not happy. Greece is not representative of any other country.

by JaysonAych Fri Nov 09, 2012 4:58 am

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
ryguy79 wrote:
Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
JaysonAych wrote:

ryguy79 wrote:My dad was elected to the House of Representatives. Awesome.

That's fantastic! Congratulations to him and your family!

I dont really know what the House of Representatives are, but judging by the responses on here it's something to be congratulated upon

Its one of the houses of Congress, the other is the Senate. I would guess the closest thing in the UK would be Parliament (Funkadelic).

So your dad is now equivalent to a Senator?

The two houses are similar but have some different powers. In Congress, each state gets exactly two Senators so each state has the same representation in the Senate. The number of Representatives in a state is determined by the state's population (higher population = more Representatives), and each Representative speaks for a particular district within a state, giving more localized representation. A very rough analogy between the two would be that the House of Representatives compares to the Senate as the House of Commons does the House of Lords, though certainly not exactly.

by Pennzoil GT-R Fri Nov 09, 2012 5:32 am

JaysonAych wrote:
Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
ryguy79 wrote:
Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
JaysonAych wrote:

ryguy79 wrote:My dad was elected to the House of Representatives. Awesome.

That's fantastic! Congratulations to him and your family!

I dont really know what the House of Representatives are, but judging by the responses on here it's something to be congratulated upon

Its one of the houses of Congress, the other is the Senate. I would guess the closest thing in the UK would be Parliament (Funkadelic).

So your dad is now equivalent to a Senator?

The two houses are similar but have some different powers. In Congress, each state gets exactly two Senators so each state has the same representation in the Senate. The number of Representatives in a state is determined by the state's population (higher population = more Representatives), and each Representative speaks for a particular district within a state, giving more localized representation. A very rough analogy between the two would be that the House of Representatives compares to the Senate as the House of Commons does the House of Lords, though certainly not exactly.

By the sounds of it then, its equivalent to being the Member of Parliament (there can only be one) for your town. The House of Lords is largely irrelevant here, the House of Commons (Parliament) are the ones with all the power.

by JaysonAych Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:01 am

The House of Representatives is by no means irrelevant, but its legislation does have to be approved by the Senate before being sent to the President to become law. The houses aren't quite as distinct as those in Parliament. There are certain things the House has powers to do that the Senate cannot, and vice versa. House districts can be quite large if you're in a state with low population; some states only have one Representative covering the whole of their population. By contrast, California has 53.

by thewalrus Fri Nov 09, 2012 12:19 pm

JaysonAych wrote:The House of Representatives is by no means irrelevant, but its legislation does have to be approved by the Senate before being sent to the President to become law. The houses aren't quite as distinct as those in Parliament. There are certain things the House has powers to do that the Senate cannot, and vice versa. House districts can be quite large if you're in a state with low population; some states only have one Representative covering the whole of their population. By contrast, California has 53.

The only thing I'd add is that Congressmen are elected every 2 years, Senators every six years, and the President every 4 years. So every 2 years into a presidency the US has a mid-term election where the entire congress is reelected, and a third of the Senate is reelected.

by Swerve Sun Nov 11, 2012 5:27 am

I thought Britain and Australia both operated on the Westminster system except that Australia's senate was elected whereas Britain's senate was mainly hereditary (House of Lords). Bills generally move from the House of Representatives to be passed in the Senate.

Then again, I also thought America's system was House of Reps/Congress and Senate.

by Pennzoil GT-R Sun Nov 11, 2012 7:32 am

Swerve wrote:I thought Britain and Australia both operated on the Westminster system except that Australia's senate was elected whereas Britain's senate was mainly hereditary (House of Lords). Bills generally move from the House of Representatives to be passed in the Senate.

Then again, I also thought America's system was House of Reps/Congress and Senate.

Yes thats how it works here. Starts in elected House of Representatives (Parliament), goes to hereditary Senate (Lords) before being passed by the Queen.

The catch being that Parliament can force anything it wants through the Lords and the Queen. The latter two only have their power because Parliament allows them to, they have the power to strip any authority from either of them.

by Turbojett Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:01 am

Swerve wrote:I thought Britain and Australia both operated on the Westminster system except that Australia's senate was elected whereas Britain's senate was mainly hereditary (House of Lords). Bills generally move from the House of Representatives to be passed in the Senate.

Then again, I also thought America's system was House of Reps/Congress and Senate.

The House and Senate combined are Congress. The Senate is the upper house (sits on the floor) and the House or Representatives are the lower house (sits on the balcony).

by thewalrus Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:54 am

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
Swerve wrote:I thought Britain and Australia both operated on the Westminster system except that Australia's senate was elected whereas Britain's senate was mainly hereditary (House of Lords). Bills generally move from the House of Representatives to be passed in the Senate.

Then again, I also thought America's system was House of Reps/Congress and Senate.

Yes thats how it works here. Starts in elected House of Representatives (Parliament), goes to hereditary Senate (Lords) before being passed by the Queen.

The catch being that Parliament can force anything it wants through the Lords and the Queen. The latter two only have their power because Parliament allows them to, they have the power to strip any authority from either of them.

And of course in Canada it's different than either Australia or GB, where the Senate is neither hereditary nor elected. Instead it's all political patronage appointments. So basically people the government like get set up in the Senate for life - entertainers, hockey players, etc. etc. They don't have any real power, but they like to pretend they do - senate hearings and what not. One of the most God-awful ways of doing things. We have neither the legitimacy of an elected senate, nor the historical substance and dignity of an hereditary system. It's just a bunch of people that various governments thought were cool.

by Pennzoil GT-R Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:51 pm

thewalrus wrote:
Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
Swerve wrote:I thought Britain and Australia both operated on the Westminster system except that Australia's senate was elected whereas Britain's senate was mainly hereditary (House of Lords). Bills generally move from the House of Representatives to be passed in the Senate.

Then again, I also thought America's system was House of Reps/Congress and Senate.

Yes thats how it works here. Starts in elected House of Representatives (Parliament), goes to hereditary Senate (Lords) before being passed by the Queen.

The catch being that Parliament can force anything it wants through the Lords and the Queen. The latter two only have their power because Parliament allows them to, they have the power to strip any authority from either of them.

And of course in Canada it's different than either Australia or GB, where the Senate is neither hereditary nor elected. Instead it's all political patronage appointments. So basically people the government like get set up in the Senate for life - entertainers, hockey players, etc. etc. They don't have any real power, but they like to pretend they do - senate hearings and what not. One of the most God-awful ways of doing things. We have neither the legitimacy of an elected senate, nor the historical substance and dignity of an hereditary system. It's just a bunch of people that various governments thought were cool.

That happens here too. The House of Lords has been a whisker away from being disbanded by Parliament for a while now.

by thewalrus Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:44 am

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
thewalrus wrote:
Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
Swerve wrote:I thought Britain and Australia both operated on the Westminster system except that Australia's senate was elected whereas Britain's senate was mainly hereditary (House of Lords). Bills generally move from the House of Representatives to be passed in the Senate.

Then again, I also thought America's system was House of Reps/Congress and Senate.

Yes thats how it works here. Starts in elected House of Representatives (Parliament), goes to hereditary Senate (Lords) before being passed by the Queen.

The catch being that Parliament can force anything it wants through the Lords and the Queen. The latter two only have their power because Parliament allows them to, they have the power to strip any authority from either of them.

And of course in Canada it's different than either Australia or GB, where the Senate is neither hereditary nor elected. Instead it's all political patronage appointments. So basically people the government like get set up in the Senate for life - entertainers, hockey players, etc. etc. They don't have any real power, but they like to pretend they do - senate hearings and what not. One of the most God-awful ways of doing things. We have neither the legitimacy of an elected senate, nor the historical substance and dignity of an hereditary system. It's just a bunch of people that various governments thought were cool.

That happens here too. The House of Lords has been a whisker away from being disbanded by Parliament for a while now.

We've toyed with the idea of an elected Senate in Canada for a few decades. The idea, while good, and long past due, has never really received any policy traction. I think it's partly because the hard core left wingers think that it'll make Canada more like the US - and that somehow an elected senate will lead directly to privatized health care and mandatory six guns for everyone. That, I believe, a Conservative government first proposed this idea doesn't help.

by Sponsored content