guyser
-
Posts
14,284 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by guyser
-
-
Very true.Anyone thinking that there is going to be this vast revelation that directly implicates the Prime Minister best get a reality check.
And on the same plain, anyone thinking Harper didnt know about the whole shebang is also in need of a reality check.
Any political leader would know, and anyone worth their salt would ensure it appears as if they didnt know.
Liberal COnservatibe Green Rhino.....all the same in that respect.
-
Just because the media reports it -
Wait a minute here,
You mean there is more than the CBC reporting it ?
What happened since last night when you were sure that" It's pretty well invisible to everyone except the CBC" ?
-
The Charter doesnt protect those cultural or religious practices, it merely enshrines the fact that govt cannot restrict them.Sometime i wonder if the charter did not protect some of these cultural or religious practices to the degree that it seems to would the same people who defend those practices continue to defend them in opposition to the charter?
Many believe this will happen as it has happened before with other cultures. Many also believe as this will happen there is no need for the govt to enshrine cultural laws so to speak.There are reasonable limits on our rights, peronally i don't think this practice is something we should want in this country, hopefully as others have said it will take care of itself over time as these women and thier offspring become more westernized.
Govts have a horrible record for thinking things through, the law of unintended consequences.
The Charter does say so.But i don't think the charter should protect that right, I beleive that because i also beleive it's a symbol of a repressive culture, something which is a negative for the country, representative of things we have been trying to leave behind, something we don't need more of. Meanwhile i see lots of arguments from those that support it that amount to, well the charter says so. As if the charter could possibly account for everything, what a simplistic view.
But more importantly the govt cannot infinge on one sectors rights while leaving the others at bay.
Head coverings are the issue, not niqabs . We ban head converings and all the lil kids and M/C riders and snowmobilers and halloween goers and cold weather aficionados can be arrested.
Your honour it was -35C . I was trying to keep warm.
Too bad son, the Harper Government (trademarked copyright) has decreed it illegal!
That was for the NIqab.
Son, politicians are lousy thinkers and they made the law.
3 months for you !
-
that they have legal qualifications that far exceed any popliticians.The only way judges are different from politicians is ....
They know more about laws, they know more about how the legal systems came about, legal precedent and responsibilities .
Politicians ? Not so much . No wonder they butcher making laws at times.
And politicians? Sometime they dont take the legal advice given and then claim the Justice of the SCC is wrong.
How about that huh?
-
Yesm I did misread that part.You missed my point entirely. I meant the money to pay coaches or GMs doesn't matter to the Oilers, they can afford whatever. But hiringt a cocach of any stature will not just involve lots of salary, bonus money and long term. It will also mean that coach will have a free hand and a public voice, and the OBC will not like that part at all.
You probably mean the Pronger saga.
Souray was already divorced when he was here. His family lived in SoCal. He left in part because the Oilers - specifically Tambellini- treated him like a turd when he was injured. .
And I did confuse Pronger w Souray.
Hey, two for two !
-
Post up the link to the decision then.Take the recent ruling on the "right to strike" for government employees
-
LOL. Nice try.Semantic drivel.
You can argue all you want about semantics, its a totally losing position that is not backed up by any form of evidence, would certainly be laughed at in a room full of lawyers and legal scholars.You can argue that there are not technically laws
but they have the same effect which means I simple don't care about your silly semantic gyrations.And it is laughed at here.
Knock yourself out looking all pissy becuase the court doesnt agree with your inane arguments about what it does.
Geez....now that should solve the probelm. I doubt it.
-
Well maybe their momma's told them it isnt polite to talk about religion nor politics in public or at dinner ?NOBODY is talking about Duffy. I'm a member at a tennis club - middle-class to upper-class clientele. I socialize with several groups that comprise perhaps 50 or 60 people. We don't sit around talking politics but every now and then something might pop up - and I've never heard one peep about Duffy.
Probably tru.....hey wait a sec.Nobody at the office either. It's pretty well invisible to everyone except the CBC.
A simple Google shows.....
National Post
Toronto Star
Huffington Post
Ottawa Sun
Toronto Sun
Globe And Mail
Maclean's
Ottawa Citizen
Winnipeg Press
Chronicle Herald
CPOnline
Global
Sackville Tribune
Hill Times
Hamilton Spectator.....
Should I go on or does that blow the stupid partisan idea (and of course the tony Tennis Court ladies) that "It's pretty well invisible to everyone except the CBC."
Rhetorical question by the way, its how it seems to work here on MLW
-
Well that didnt take long.
-
Tim's argument makes perfect sense to me.
Ok, chalk it up to two people not knowing the SCC does NOT make laws .
Funny thing is, this very site contains info that agrees with this....namely....
The courts are the interpreters and arbitrators of Canadian law. The courts do not actually make law; that is, they do not have the power to pass legislation. The legislative branch of government (that is, the federal Parliament and provincial/territorial legislatures) performs this function. Nor do the courts have the power to enforce laws. The executive branch of government, with its bureaucracies and police forces, performs the role of enforcement. Rather, the courts’ role is to interpret the laws passed by the legislature, arbitrate disputes between parties over the application of law, and direct the executive on the proper enforcement of the law.
http://mapleleafweb.com/features/supreme-court-canada-role-history-and-operation#supreme
I do hope this clears things up.
-
Thats cuz there wasnt any.I don't get the sarcasm.
-
The money matters, no one will sign in Edmonton for sub par money.Its Edmonton and they all have wives. Cue the Souray saga now.Oh, and giys like Babcock and McLellan are going to want four or five year deals and they will insist on a lot of control
The money doesn't matter or the term, but I don't see Lowe and MacT wanting anybody else speaking their minds.
That said though, either Katz wakes up and agrees with any prospect of Mclell /Babs stature "you can have what you want' he will not get either.
-
Psst...third busiest, Behind Bell and ACC. Impressive nonetheless.
-
Again, there is your problem.Irrelevant semantics. Creating new constitutional rules is the same as creating laws. The difference is the constitutional rules are decided by nine unaccountable individuals and cannot be changed by future governments.
When you understand this come on back and say so.
As it stands now, your argument is useless.
-
99.9% of the time.The best team at the time of the playoffs wins the Cup.
Every once in a while along comes.......
-
The SCC woke up one day and said......" Eveybody gets Thursday off"
Woot !Oh they dont create laws.....?....... :angry:
-
They dont createIOW - even if the SCC created laws that I supported
Rinse and repeat.Just because it can create new laws does not mean it should.
I think thats your problem. The SCC does not create laws, but has laws brought to them for review.
-
No, its right there on their lapel .
-
Im not so sure about that.That's not true guyser. I'm not a fool.
Please tell us how they do that when it is abundantly clear one has to sign in.
-
One can log out and lurk without one knowing that person is doing so . Ive done it many times. So what?So basically bc can be signed in all day and contribute but we have no idea he is lurking.
Um....I dont think you have any valid point here.I just think that adding more transparency for when members can become invisible and why that is a necessity and what are the benefits to the member and to the forum at large?
It seems like a multi layer membership to me and I'd like to know the advantages to this if I were to continue posting to this forum?
No one has benefits beyond anyone else perhaps MH does but he is a semi-Mod.
-
Sure they do .We have members that can contribute to threads but we don't know they are signed in or viewing. They are invisible. They don't have to show up at the bottom of members signed in.
They sign in, they post, they go elsewhere......just like I did after posting to you.
-
Ummm..... ^...what are you talking about?
Private members? Huh?
-
Ok thanks TimIf one judge has an obvious bias then all judges likely have a bias. There is also no reason to assume the biases will cancel each other out.
Didnt think you could come up with examples so thanks for confirming what I knew.
In the future please refer to it as SCCRTALB *
*Supreme Court Canada That Are Liberal Bias
-
Um....I dont know about that.That's the same expression I've seen on the kid's face in every single photo I've seen where he's not on the ice.
No one of relevance is saying the Leafs should have got him, although it would be great.Lots of delusional Leafs fans out there hoping McDavid pulls a Lindros and ends up in Toronto. I guess he'd look good with Stamkos and Tavares and every other player Leafs fans think is theirs by divine right or place of birth.
Plenty are saying Edm shouldnt even be in the picture. 4 in 5 years? Thats not good for the NHL .
But they did win it and they get him. We all live with it .
Nicholson being head is very good news for Oiler fans. Hopefull that OBC is out soon.Oilers also announced former Hockey Canada honcho Bob Nicholson is taking over hockey operations which has many speculating that the Old Boys Club is being served notice. That'd be great. Looking forward to the Oilers landing Babcock (close ties with Nicholson and western Canada) and Mclellan (close ties to Babcock) for their next GM/coach combo. TROLOLOLOLOL
And if they can swing Babcock or Mclellan that would be great too. I just dont see Babcock going but I do see Mclellan doing so. Some good coaches are available now for everyone.
A bit of the same old same old but they are good coaches.
Canada vs Duffy vs PMO
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
So the others dont keep Duffy at the forefront? I imagine they do like every other news source does, that is play what readers want, including the CBC , but partisan you just cannot understand that.The 'others' just put in fluff pieces like the Duffy trial for filler? Very interesting that theory.
Can you let us know when the goalposts get moved for the umpteenth time?