g_bambino
-
Posts
8,249 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by g_bambino
-
-
No, like when we were asked to take the reporters' word for it that they saw the video, now we're asked to take the chief's word for it. Until we see the video, the situation hasn't really changed.
In regard to the video, specifically, what's changed is the Chief of Police has said the video exists. Of course, he too may be in on the anti-Ford conspiracy...
As for the rest, there's more than just the public urination. You should read it, if that's all you're aware of.
-
The original Toronto Star story without having the original tape asked readers to take the word of journalists that evidence they wrote their stories on existed even though they could not produce that evidence.
Hey the media is bias. Its par for the course.
Good grief. Is this tired sqwaking still going on? How and, more importantly why, would three journalists working for two different media outlets in two different countries conspire and put their careers at great risk just to exercise a bias against Ford, who basically consistently makes himself a target for negative press, anyway? And, besides, why do you target these journalists when printing claims without revealing the source (any more than "people close to the prime minister" or "a source within the ministry") has been going on for... well, a century or more? Do they lack ethics simply because they went after that poor, suffering underdog Ford?
-
I don't see how anything "now" is any different from a few days ago...
Having much of the content of the police file is different; we have confirmation of the existence of the video plus a whole raft of other damning evidence.
-
Not technically no. It's no. Full stop. Wallin, Brazeau, and Duffy now realize that he can't do anything to them. The party whip can try to get the Conservative senators to all vote together a particular way, but they are by no means required to... Harper has no authority over Senators. There's literally nothing he can do to them that would be of any consequence.
It's true he has no direct way of removing a senator or docking their pay or inflicting some other punishment upon them. But, jacee is right in that that won't stop him from trying to get as many senators as is needed to agree that removing the disgraced three is the best course of action. He can attempt to do that either by trying to make a convincing argument that suspending the senators is the right thing to do, or he can make threats. However, for the latter to work, the senators he'd be threatening would have to be so dumb as to believe that Harper actually has some sort of control over their futures. Evidently some Conservative senators understand that isn't true and, even after agreeing in camera with Harper that Brazeau, Wallin, and Duffy should be suspended, are now saying the way that end is being achieved is wrong--ie. a denial of due process--and are talking about voting against the motion as worded. Others, though, seem to just be the kind who ask 'how high?' when Harper says 'jump!'.
-
Yes that's right.
To punish them for not doing as Harper wants.
This just keeps going around in circles; we're back to the question: So what if they're removed from caucus? What, other than a card, do they lose from that?
-
What I find unbelievable is that in this day and age sovereign countries such as Canada or Australia really give a toss about some "Crown" which resides thousands of miles away from those countries.
Perhaps you find it unbelievable because it isn't true. The Crown in Canada is Canadian. As you say, the country is sovereign; ergo, its Crown can't be that of another country.
-
Yes and I am a large horse's buttox. oooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOps.
Missed it. Mea culpa plus idiot.
-
I think the media already did.
I kinda have to give Ford that one; I too would be pissed off by paparazzi on my lawn and who didn't get off my property when first--and not threateningly--told to do so. The media can be pretty crass and ignorant.
-
You think that's no big deal?
He was joking.
-
The case for getting rid of the Senate just keeps getting stronger.
Not nearly as strong as the case for keeping it.
-
Oh ... I don't know.
Okay, thanks.
-
Yes, and Harper's now trying to boot them out of the Senate.
You've evidently not been reading what I write.
Harper can't boot them out of the Senate. Only senators can boot a senator out of the Senate. Harper wants Wallin, Duffy, and Brazeau out of the Senate, but that won't happen unless enough senators either happen to feel the same way he does or will do his bidding. The question we've been considering is: why would a senator feel the need to do the prime minister's bidding? He can't do anything to a senator besides kick him or her out of caucus (should they actually be of the prime minister's party).
-
That remains to be seen.
No, not really; senators have been booted from their caucuses before.
-
If they had money, they would be able to game the system in other ways, namely influence peddling and bribery.
Like what?
-
Pretty much destroys their reputation. They become untouchable pariahs.
Only to some and not necessarily in the Senate. They still get to sit in the Senate, carry out their senatorial duties, and get paid.
-
When has she ever intervened?
That isn't relevant.
-
Yep. I defended Martin's moves in 2006 too.
Um, what?
Let me rephrase my question: How can a complaint about prorogations for personal political protection be partisan rhetoric when it all at once targets leaders of different parties?
-
Harper may kick them out of the Conservative caucus, out of the party, as he did Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau.
Well, sure, he could. But, so what? What's the impact of that on a senator?
-
The monarch is irrelevant. She'll do nothing in an internal matter.
That's incorrect. Her involvement depends on what the internal matter is.
-
The fact is that a US President without Congressional support is like a PM without caucus support.
So.... You agree with me?
[W]hy bother to have a monarch?
There are a few reasons why we have a monarch in our system of governance. Our system is obviously not the same as that of the US. Hence, the question, in this context, a red herring.
-
Apparently they do.
Ask Duffy.
As I explained to cybercoma, Duffy's fate as a senator lies not with Harper but with his fellow senators. For Harper to get what he wants, he needs the luck of finding just enough sycophantic senators who'll do his bidding for... well, it's uncertain what for, since they'll lose nothing if they don't.
[ed.: punct.]
-
In Canada, as we speak, the British sovereign is the head of state.
Bzzzt. Wrong.
You act as if those are two different people.
Same person, two different offices.
-
It's pretty interesting to see Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau realize that.
Any punishment they suffer will be brought upon them either by their fellow senators or by a judge in a court of law. We'll have to see how Conservative senators vote on any motion against Wallin, Duffy, and Brazeau. They have no reason to vote as Harper wants them to (and we've seen before senators he recommended for appointment voting contrary to his wishes); he holds no way to force their vote; about all he has is bribery, which, of course, is illegal.
[ed.: c/e]
-
Do you really not remember?
Either that or I never knew in the first place. Why would I ask, otherwise?
This is why I see complaints about prorogation as nothing put partisan rhetoric.
Even those that include McGuinty's recommended prorogation just before his resignation?
Should we give the Crown more leeway to reject prorogation?
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
The governor general is a viceroy. As are the lieutenant governors.