[kswier]

Israeli PM demands Obama commit to military action if Iran sanctions fail

Define fail. How long must the sanctions be there until they fail? A month, a year, two years? Is failure after Iran gets a nuclear weapon (a bit too late for military action there)? What must Iran do for the sanctions to succeed? Must they get rid of all nuclear technology, or is allowing inspectors in to make sure they are not creating weapons sufficient? What is in this for Iran? We always offered North Korea economic compensation (food and other aid). Are we giving Iran the same offer, or just telling them they cannot develop nuclear technology? Lots of questions in that one statement.

Also, the Israeli Prime Minister should not be able to demand anything from the US. We have given them plenty (in my mind, more than we should have). If Israel must have a war, they should take care of it themselves.

[Jasvox]

And the USA has been reaping the benefits of being Israel's sock puppet for decades as well.
Funny thing is, the Queen has never told us that we have to make war on a country that has done nothing wrong.
This is what Nitwityahoo in Israel and the Semite Apologists don't seem to understand.
Iran has not ever used unprovoked military belligerence. Israel has. Over and over again.
But you are trying to deflect from the subject because you have nothing else to argue with.
Nice try.

I wasn't arguing with you.

But seriously, why is the Queen on your money?

Jason

[ihasa]

I found one reason online for 'why the Queen of England is on Canada's Money':

Because back in the day, she was really hot.
Meow, hit that.

The real reason of course is that she is the Queen of Canada, which Canada defines as a totally separate role from her position as head of the commonwealth.

[ihasa]

Israeli Super-PAC propaganda.

You Tube

You Tube

Israel Creates a Super PAC to Attack Ron Paul | _

Israel’s lobby in America, AIPAC, is the only foreign agent in the US that does not have to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act. This is especially egregious considering that AIPAC employees have been caught red-handed stealing American military secrets on two separate occasions, but have not even been prosecuted for their espionage.

Almost every major American politician in the last decade has either met with AIPAC or flown to Israel to receive approval before running a campaign. Many of America’s congressman have admitted that they consistently ask how Israel feels about a bill before voting on it.

[redrockcoulee]

I wasn't arguing with you.

But seriously, why is the Queen on your money?

Jason

Because she is our queen. And she is not all of our money as some dead prime ministers are on some of them. But then it becomes political if the government in power decides to put their former PMs on and take off those of the opposition.

[Wheatfield]

I wasn't arguing with you.

But seriously, why is the Queen on your money?

Jason

Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy. Technically the Queen has to approve any laws that the government has to pass. The final person who actually signs a law into being is the Governor General (the Queen's representative in Canada). The GG is a political appointment, and is pretty much a rubber stamp official.
OTOH, the GG also has the authority to bring down the government and force an election, though this is something that doesn't seem to be done, since in the past decade or so, two of our governments (the last Jean Chretien government and the present Stephen Harper government) should have been/be dissolved.
This is where our system actually can work better than the American model. If your government starts to run amok, there isn't much the populace can do, other than wait for an election. In a Constitutional Monarchy, if the government gets too far out of hand, the Queen (GG) can step in and force an election.
You might be interested to note that our last GG was a very graceful lady of Haitian descent, I believe she is a dual citizen of Haiti and Canada. Interestingly, the whole system didn't fall apart because of divided loyalties. It's something the USA might want to consider. Often the most loyal citizens are the ones who have escaped from somewhere else, seeing your country as a shining beacon of hope.

[Parallax]

The final person who actually signs a law into being is the Governor General (the Queen's representative in Canada).

So what is the function of the Prime Minister? Is there a parallel between that position and one in our system?

[Wheatfield]

So what is the function of the Prime Minister? Is there a parallel between that position and one in our system?

I don't know enough about the nuts and bolts of your system to answer that. In many respects, I suspect that your President holds more in common with our Governor General than our Prime Minister regarding actual function, though obviously not in the way the person gets to that office.
The Prime Minister is the leader of the party that forms the government. The government is formed by whichever party holds the most seats in Parliament.
Laws go from Parliament to Senate to GG (rubber stamp). One of our major differences is that our Senate is lifetime appointments from the Prime Minister, who generally tries to stack it with cronies and political hacks who won't put any roadblocks in the way of legislation.
The way the system is designed, Parliament is formed of elected officials who are supposed to represent their constituents. The Senate actually was designed to represent the wealthy, since it was presumed that a government of the unwashed wouldn't be good for the upper class.
Of course it hasn't exactly worked out that way, the Members of parliament pretty much just represent their party and do what the Prime Minister tells them to do. We rarely, if ever, get free votes, and a member who votes his conscience rather then the party line is, in reality, giving up his membership in the party, and will sit on whichever side of the House he voted for, becoming a defacto opposition member, for example.
Often, it has been the Senate which has represented the commoner rather than Parliament itself.

[Parallax]

The Prime Minister is the leader of the party that forms the government.

Sound a little like our Speaker of the House, or Senate Majority Leader.

Of course it hasn't exactly worked out that way, the Members of parliament pretty much just represent their party and do what the Prime Minister tells them to do.

That sounds a LOT like our House and Senate.

[redrockcoulee]

The Prime Minister and the entire cabinet, except for any appointed from the Senate, are elected representatives. Each Member of Parliament represents a riding (congressional district) and the party with the most seats forms the government and the the party with the second most (we have more than two) forms the Official Opposition.

The Prime Minister and his cabinet set the agenda and make the budget. There are a set number of private members bill allowed but for the most of it the Prime Minister decides what bills will be presented to Parliament.So the Prime Minister is sort of a combination of President and the two leaders.

One big difference is Question Period in which the opposition members get to ask the PM and his cabinet questions and in response get to be insulted and yelled at while heckling is done throughout the entire question period. Any budget vote that gets defeated is a non confidence vote and if the government fails a non confidence vote it normally folds and an election is called. We go through a grilling long maximum 46 day campaign though most Canadians think this is about 40 days longer than need be. In that length of time you could have the Stanley Cup playoffs.

Members of Parliament are free to vote any way they think. Members of the Conservative Party are free to think whatever Mr Harper tells them to.