Boges

I thought it was funny.

Interesting that it's OK for Alberta to bitch about the price of oil but when Ontario bitches about having a petrol dollar, they're just whiners. I do think Alberta has a spending problem that should be addressed.

Saw it on TV. But I guess you're right. It's currently only 3 which is bad enough but then there's this. www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/canadian-politics/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/24/bitumen-bubble-redford-warns-of-austere-times-to-come-amid-soaring-alberta-deficits So without serious cuts that number could balloon fast.

How the bleep does that happen? Isn't Alberta an oil rich province run by Conservatives? I guess since they spend so much more than everyone other province per capita, it should be easy to cut eh?

It's funny that everyone was mocking Ford for not reading the councillor code of conduct when no one thought to see if Council even had jurisdiction to have a vote forcing Ford to repay the money. Apparently that's why Ford got off. He can't be in conflict of interest of a vote that wasn't lawful in the first place.

Well if Clayton Ruby takes this to the Supreme Court it would be pretty silly. For the sake of the city, he should just drop it.

That's what CBC News world was saying. All I can find is that the original judge erred in the ruling. Now apparently his opponents are going after some campaign finance violations Ford committed.

The Court said the 3 grand was insignificant. Which is pretty much what everyone has been saying.

Looks like he won the appeal.

Notice she's not on her way home anytime soon. Wonder why?

Apparently a ruling is in. We'll have to wait until Friday at 10:30 am. If Ford's appeal is rejected he's out pretty much immediately and council has 2 months to fill the vacant seat.

QUITTER!!!! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/chief-spence-in-talks-to-end-hunger-strike---for-a-commitment/article7651910/ So as long as other people continue to fight for what she wants, she'll go back to noshing on Poutine? Nice!

What's to stop seasonal workers getting service sector jobs during the offseason instead of sucking off the government teet?

So you want Part-time workers to be able to opt out of paying EI. Why is it the Conservatives fault that they can't? Did the Liberals do anything to address this? The OP of this thread was referring to a system that forced repeat users to find work or risk getting cut off. People would like to opt out of EI until they need it.

Nor is he coming clean to Oprah coming clean hoping to have a chance to run for office again.

I was just wondering why they didn't have to take it back to the house. Fine I didn't realize the Bill could be repealed without a vote in the house, doesn't mean I don't still support it. It was a bill passed democratically in the house. Where it stands up in court is yet to be seen.

Sure but the fact that these people were right all the long ads credence to the fact that he's a scumbag. In theory OJ Simpson could sue anyone that says he murdered two people.

According to this Washington Times Article he stands to lose up to $100 million now that he's come clean.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jan/22/uk-libel-laws-sunday-times-lance-armstrong He won 1 million pounds suing a newspaper. They'll want that back. But it's not just monetary figures. It's reputations of the people he ruined who's only crime was speaking the truth.

He's got to do more than an interview with Oprah. He should give back every cent (plus lots of interest) that he won in court rulings. WADA has said he can't compete in any international competition until he confesses under oath. I suspect he'll find himself in court himself now that he's admitted he's a complete fraud.

Then why do you continue posting in it? He's the one who came clean to Oprah last week. It was kind of a big story.

You're completely missing the point. His cheating isn't the issue (as I said in the OP) It's the fact he aggressively denied he cheated to the point of taking people to court. Now that he can't deny it anymore, he wants to be forgiven.

Well if that's true then the NDP should expect the new leader to go back on the imposed contract or force an election.

I fully understand that the bill allows the user government to impose a contract. What am I missing? I don't like defending this government but the concessions that were imposed were needed. Many unions were able to negotiate a deal.

So Bill 115 gets repealed on January 23rd. How can they do that without a vote in the commons? Of course since a contract was already imposed so it doesn't change anything at all.