The G-G for idiots

Dec 04, 2008 18:12

The Governor-General is an appointed position, mostly ceremonial, representative of the Queen ( Read more... )

governor general

Leave a comment

Comments 205

(The comment has been removed)

allhatnocattle December 5 2008, 04:27:35 UTC
Thanx. But I'm not interested. So you can stop flirting with me.

Reply

sourdick December 5 2008, 04:39:17 UTC
Do I have to stop?

Reply

allhatnocattle December 5 2008, 06:08:51 UTC
Yes. I ride Vespa, so I'm almost queer. But jawnbc rides an x9, which is a 500cc maxiscooter. That guy is verging on breeder status.

Reply


suitablyemoname December 5 2008, 03:56:56 UTC
If your entire arugment hinges upon "there were no riots in the streets when Harper was appointed, therefore HE SHOULD BE PRIME MINSTER OF EVERYONE FOREVER AND EVER", it's a pretty bad argument.

Reply

sourdick December 5 2008, 04:00:04 UTC
regardless, the Queen rules by devine right, and so to then does the GG.

Reply

suitablyemoname December 5 2008, 04:05:54 UTC
You're really suggesting that the Harper premiership has God's personal endorsement?

Reply

(The comment has been removed)


harry_beast December 5 2008, 04:34:46 UTC
The PM's duty is to the GG, not the other way around. Actually, to the Queen, represented by the GG. On the question of proroguing parliament, she took the advice of the prime minister. Evidently, he was persuasive in making his case.

If, following a vote of non-confidence, the GG feels that the best interests of Canada are served by asking the coalition to form a government, I don't think that she will be influenced by embarrassment at having originally put in place a Conservative government. Everyone understands that circumstances can change.

Reply

trinib December 5 2008, 05:15:42 UTC
he DID manage to get 37% of the nation to vote for him.....


... )

Reply

sourdick December 5 2008, 05:17:10 UTC
As opposed to Chretiens 38%....

Reply

caitdepaor December 5 2008, 07:35:43 UTC
HYPNO-TOAD!!
(okay, that's all I have to add here...)

Reply


in_vino_vanitas December 5 2008, 04:39:57 UTC
if this is just business as usual then why are all those constitutional lawyers crapping their pants about precedents being set?

Reply

sourdick December 5 2008, 04:41:01 UTC
Because they're lawyers?

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

in_vino_vanitas December 5 2008, 04:56:12 UTC
so then it's ambiguous?

Reply


onthetide December 5 2008, 14:04:51 UTC
Oh my god why isn't all of this on stupid_free, yet?

Reply


Leave a comment

Up