Bob Macadoo

You mean like the "high" quality debate on this thread currently? I find it ironic that the same people cannot believe that we would allow people to forgo 30 minutes to vote don't realize that they have done the same thing for debate (here) or physical town halls (e-halls), or stump speeches, etc. You've given over every other aspect of your political life to your tablet but somehow showing up to a church, exchanging pleasantries with a blue hair, where its been proven doesn't know how to do their job, to obtain an unrecycled piece of paper just to put an X and get back to my job/kids as your day has already been filled due to the pace we run at now. For christ sakes people buy their entire house furnishings sight unseen online. I find that more disturbing than voting online (if it satisfies security concerns).

Don't say I'm wrong and then provide no proof....thats ingenuine. To your other point....thats exactly my point as well, someone tried to claim that these items shouldn't be adjudicated by the SCC, and I agreed.....they should've been amended before then.

Sure there is...its called doing the job right. How many Acts had judgements against them in the previous 30 years prior to this gov't? Either the premise of the Act is in conflict or the people they employ to develop their writs should be shitcanned. In any case their view is not unknowable......just takes proper professionals working for you. Please provide example of "reasonable" interpretation that the court has tossed or a "fad". Is the Charter a fad, or was that exaggeration? You say this like it leaves the GG and lands on their docket. The gov't is given plenty of time before and after to alter, direct, or reinterpret their legislation so as to mould it into the existing framework......nope you get Pierre La Douche types with shit eating grins who have no intellect or business talking about ribbon cutting or kisding babies let alone fundamental legislation that alters the foundation of our democracy to which you value. Maybe we should abolish them with the senate....save some money....then we can just ask for judgements from the gov't......I'm sure that's fair and balanced.

Policy is not imposed by the SCC, its function in our existing framework is. If the "democratic" leaders were actually aware of the legislation they try to enact they might understand that is not a standalone writ twisting in the wind....it must weave into our existing framework so that it may function without the gaping holes produced by the current crop a feces.Just for the record....most legislation is developed by unelected technocrats......just dumb ones in this case.

Sorry... Middle East topics....avoided due to the banter of two trolls as it were therein. You've successfully goaded your nemesis....have fun.

Time to add this topic to the ME forum.....

They didn't pre-empt anything, they identified a hole in the legislation and said "Don't leave loopholes you can drive a truck through otherwise expect people to take advantage of them.....and expect judges to let them."

Subtle.I assume you laughed at my comment as you believe I am a past member, I am not. I also took time to contribute to this forum as I was unclear on the moderation and depth of duscussion here. Although the discussion can be thought provoking I can see how members can be dissuaded from contributing due to the tone in some topics. For example I don't bother looking at ME topics too often as it always ends in troll-ery due to the same players. I can tell by the comments that the feuds are months if not years in the making and no 3rd party can influence the discussion.

That was exaggeration correct? Its amazing armchair QBs always seem to know better than the people who trained in the profession. Do I believe the bureaucracy of the justice system has expanded? Certainly. Does that mean the procedures and structure on which the bureaucracy has been allowed to grow on are invalid? Certainly not. Its the system we've had for years, its become this way b/c of the same reason any human system grows........increase in # players, users, observers due to the increase in population. When you have disproportionate people serving an increasing public they institute bureaucracy to account for human error. Superiors often think you can institute more bureaucracy to substitute for more personal accountability (ie. More persons).

So your semantical distinction (person/argument) is more valid than the poster's (identifying / banning trolls)? Your frustration with the poster can be found littered on this board......to say this argument is the source and not the poster would be defined as an intellectually dishonest argument.

It is so bad b/c as along with other bills these simple things are making the legal community a mint.

It takes no such thing away from voters. In fact the SCC should be quicker to give the gov't more time to redraft the legislation paying attention to what the critical aspects of the decision were. In this case the court simply said you madecthe legislation vague and then claimed a specific meaning after the fact. If you didn't want "exceptions" to be determined by someone else be clear in your legislation next time. Not rocket science or habeas corpus....whichever analogy you want.

Sorry I'm new here but from reading the moderator's description is not what you wrote above an example of trolling? You opened with a overly dramatic sneer, didn't actually discredit/disprove the replier's statement, nor provide any additional information to further the debate and ended with another insult. Is that not textbook whether a suspension is requested or not?

If a troll sees his shadow I think it means six more weeks of winter.

This is the best and truest statement that could be said for the man. He deserves to be neither cannonized nor pillared. He was a man with principles that behaved like any other human; sometimes stubbornly, sometimes conciliatory, sometimes wrong sometimes right. He wasn't a wizard nor was he dunce, he was handed advantages and was thrust into the abyss. He did the best he believed he could with what he had to offer.....no more or less than we expect of any civil servant.

It shouldn't be, there are more important policy debates to be had. Just an excuse for camera happy goofs to flash their mug. Now Fast is in on it demanding an apology for asking for an apology........nice.

Can't speak for "some" on here but I argue logic and policy......colour is not really much of a debate topic.

My sarcasm button must've been on the fritz......I'm OK with a soup kitchen, just showing your logic deadend. Funny also now Europe is a model for some when a scroll down the topic page would suggest they think Europe can't legislate out of a paper bag. Hmmmm. Interesting.

Interesting. So you're saying an individual who works at the soup kitchen can vouch for the voter even though they don't have to show they are a resident, or a citizen for that matter........sounds like fraud to me.......better shut down soup kitchens during elections just to be safe you know.

I would wager $100 right now if Hudak quit to spend time with his daughter Mcleod would push that number to 50+. Unfortunately this is deja vu.

What I also like about this is the claim of "irregularities" being sooooo bad. Irregularities meaning f-ups by DROs that are not being noticed by scrutineers. How about a useful selection and training process for the individuals. I'm sorry but having nothing to do but knit at the home should not be the selection criteria for our democracy. It should be like jury duty. Broad selection, with complete instruction.

I was with you until you said Rogers/Bell were trustworthy.....

I concur.....he should be replaced. I find Martin to be a sychophant to the politicians who used to feed him gossip when he was a correspondent.

I watch CBC to avoid this. Looks like with the budget cuts this is easier to do than real journalism. When in doubt join the crowd.

He tried to get a fight started and almost pouted when it didn't happened.......luckily Ashton is naive and desperate for attention to fall for it.