scribblet

I've got facts lined up, nothing more, the courts ruled in their favour so EC lost their case, sounds like they are simply thumbing their noses at the courts. It also looks too convenient coming after polls giving the CPC a majority. Something rotten here.

The court ruled in their favour so I don't see how they can be charged with anything. Of course, the maggots are feeding off this big time...

Toto - I'm not in Kansas anymore (neither is Rae)

I'm sure they will, as EC obviously has an agenda, they can't wait for a decision on their appeal of a ruling in favour of the CPC. Clearly there are a lot of Liberals working at Elections Canada as they are pursuing this even after the courts have ruled against them - some heads need to roll. ... The thread title is accurate in that it reflects the title of the opening article. thread allready started here http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18087&view=&hl=&fromsearch=1

Strange isn't it, considering that it is administrative problem and that they won the legal victory which EC appealed with no decision yet. IMO this proves that EC is not being neutral in this.

Some people will stop at nothing to politicize and spin a situation into a negative Most of the Canadians are out now, the gov't is doing all that it can under a bad situation.

So, it still begs the question: in cases where the patient is in a non recoverable vegetative state why put them on life support systems in the first place, because taking them off the system is when it gets ethically tough.

What does DERP mean please.... a little more info from here I think, but it also begs the question: If the baby (or anyone else) reaches this tragic state, why are they put on life support in the first place? Sounds heartless I know, but considering what is being done here, it's no worse. I seem to remember around the time of the Terry Schiavo fiasco, watching an interview with someone about the use of life support systems. He said, it was never meant to sustain life indefinitely, it was only meant to be temporary life support machines enabling the patient to survive for a period of time until they are recovered from a problem. It is real ethical and moral dilemma, especially when it also comes down to costs and rationing. http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2987022

I realize that the baby is not going to survive, the parents know this, all they want is the tracheotomy so the baby can be more comfortable, and die at home. I don't think this is too much to ask and object to OHIP paying for this to be done in Detroit, which makes no sense as it would cost more. I also find it hard to accept that the hospital would go for a court order in order to end the baby's life, if this is a form of rationing, it's wrong, although cost savings would be more appropriate. I say, give the baby the operation and let him go home to die with his family.

I'm sure you've all read about this tragic story, well it's on the U.S. news today. One (U.S.) doctor and other sites are calling it physician assisted suicide, death panels or euthanasia saying it is partly due to gov't rationed health care. - Is it ? I'm not sure either is true, but from reading it appears that the baby would be more comfortable with the tracheotomy which also enable him to die at home with his parents. IMO it seems doesn't seem a lot to ask, the parents are familiar with this as their other child had a similar condition and was given a tracheotomy. They are now trying to have the baby transferred to a Detroit hospital where it seems he will not be taken off the tube, paid for I assume by OHIP, not sure. I believe the difference being that the tube cannot be removed without the parent's consent whereas in Canada, the hospital seek consent from the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee. What an awful situation for the child and parents, who should have the final say ? http://www.globaltoronto.com/Parents+dying+baby+withhold+consent+life+support/4320633/story.html

:lol: I don't read a lot of Oleg actually so don't know if he tends to use personal attacks or not, thinly veiled or otherwise tries to get underhanded digs in or not who knows maybe he would be okay.

Talking about an individual poster like this is completely uncalled for, unnecessary, against forum rules and not what this thread is about, if you don't like someone, put them on ignore. I have two on ignore, it works. You can always click and read if you really want to. I agree that the level of discourse on here is sinking, it certainly isn't what it started out to be and I've been here since 2003. Neither do I consider objecting to personal attacks as being 'thin skinned', calling someone a moron, dimbulb, halfwit or STFU etc. etc. should be cause for a warning, or a banning if it's repeated.

No offense taken - I'm not sure if there is anyone minding the store right now though.

Totally agree !!

It does - try again.

I'm just wondering, from the responses to accepting or not accepting a particular facilitator, would people here quit posting if they didn't like Greg's appointments.

Most of don't appear to know as much as we think we do about ministerial procedures etc. The minister does not personally sign all documents requiring her signatures, aides sign them as happened with this document. As Oda said:"As for that orphaned word "not," Oda informed the House: "My instructions were to indicate on the document my decision not to provide funding." Clumsily handled maybe, but not the major issue the opposition is making it.

Yes, I read that thank you, but a facilitator will also have LIMITED moderation controls (closing threads, issuing abuse reports, etc) and all of their actions will need to be approved by either Charles (Moderator) or myself (Form Admin). ) I was wondering if that applied to personal attacks in the status update area. thanks

The more I read the more it seems to be nothing but spin, no substance, the accusations and hyperbole by the opposition is now nothing but malice. There is absolutely no evidence that it was changed on the PM's orders that is sheer speculation. We now know that Oda was out of town when the decision was made so the denial of funding (Not) was added by staffers, therefore Oda was truthful in saying she didn't know who had done it - she wasn't there to see it.

Still politically motivated though, but anyone here is are they not, but I think not so much as JD BTW, would a facilitator's job include dealing with personal attacks and name calling on the status updates ?

Gotta love those low flush toilets that require 2 - 3 flushes before getting the job done.

It sure looks like the opposition is howling at the wind as more comes out... Tory MP Tom Lukiwski said Oda was precise in her answers when she appeared before the foreign affairs committee in December 2010 when and was questioned about the note. Maybe they just kept repeating the wrong questions because they didn't want to hear the right answers.

Thanks for the mention, not sure I could do it or have the time for it now. Certainly none of us are neutral, and anyone who is in the habit of tossing off insults and swearing shouldn't be one IMO, I have a low tolerance for that, and for inappropriate thread titles. Not that anyone's asking but IMO there should be a facilitator assigned to each area, that way they wouldn't have to read everything, every day and there would be others to take over there area when away.... I would emphatically disagree with J. Dobbin being a facilitator, although I don't think Greg has called for nominations or a vote.

from a Liberal http://stuffoccurs.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/minister-oda-and-not-why-i-agree-with-the-minister/

I have read that Chris Hall on CBC said ,'it has now been revealed,that Oda was out of the country when the document was signed , it was done with an electric pen - did someone else do this'? The opposition must know she was out of the country......