g_bambino

Before I answer that question, you'll have to prove to me the NSA is reading my emails.

I don't know. I'm not sure he did, either. How could he alone have gone through all those thousands and thousands of documents?

Did "we all" have a say when the Canada Elections Act was amended before? Or, is it just when the Conservatives have a majority that parliament must be subordinated to direct democracy, as though voters hadn't already "spoken" during the last election and can't speak to their parliamentary representatives now.

What personal information?

Because it's constitutional so long as French only isn't required. Or, so said the Supreme Court.

You mean the correlation between illicit drug abuse and unethical, immoral, or illegal behaviour. Apart from the behaviour that stems from the fact the drugs are illegal, the unethical, immoral, or illegal behaviour relates to personal control, which is no different for the use of drugs that are already legal. Ford can't control himself with either illegal or legal drugs. [ed.: c/e]

Parliamentary privilege exists because parliament is considered supreme in our system of governance and therefore no outside rules or restrictions should apply within parliament(This is why parliament even has its own police/security/protective forces.) For the House of Commons, specifically, this also has to do with the maintenance of that body's independence from the Crown (similarly illustrated by the barring of the sovereign or any of his or her agents from that chamber (hence, the Throne Speech is always read in the Senate)). Parliament is self-regulating. The only more powerful regulator is the voting populace. Swearing to tell the truth in a court doesn't force anyone to tell the truth in court. The whole point of a court proceeding is to tell who's lying and who's not. In parliament, debate is the way through which any lies told therein are uncovered. If it's an MP we're talking about, again, voters in his or her constituency can decide the MP's punishment for lying. Or, if the legislators feel the lie was or lies were severe enough, I believe the members can vote on what to do to reprimand the culprit.

So every statement any MP ever makes in the Commons has to be researched and fact checked by a parliamentary investigator? How much time and resource is that going to take up? [ed.: +]

Who knows since, well, we don't know about anyone who hasn't been caught or admitted to substance abuse? But, for those we don't have the info on, the generally appropriate stance to take is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. With Rob, we've gone way beyond the point where anyone could rationally make that presumption.

I think you've missed what eyeball and I were actually conversing about. That depends on whether the journalist actually engaged in terrorism or not.

I don't see any pattern so definitely. I can understand how some who want to see such a pattern could presume the meaning of and motive behind Ford's various hints so as to form a pattern of "homophobia". But, looking at it objectively, not going to Pride and not wanting a rainbow flag to fly on City Hall during the Olympics aren't sure or even strong signs of any harboured maliciousness towards people who identify as gay or bi or anything not "straight". I know people who define themselves as gay and don't go to Pride, don't like Pride. And a political issue publicly detracting from support and celebration for Canadian athletes at the Olympics could well be a legitimate concern. Unlike his cerebral dullness, there just isn't enough firm proof on which to base the accusation Ford's a "homophobe". [ed.: +]

Seems the opposite when one considers the nature of that data, the method of collection, and what's done with it.

He did nothing of the sort. He did not uncover something illegal and gathered the pertinent proof and leaked that. No, he was so much more lazy and simply passed tens of thousands of documents on to be dumped into the public domain with no regard for what was in that collection.

Well, I thought (was hoping?) they were the ones who knew everything about Ford but still support him; the ones who say his amazing fiscal record outweighs all the crack and public intoxication and associations with drug dealers and orchestrating extortion and juvenile thinking and tantrums and lies and, well, you know.

I hope the road he takes isn't too high. The people who realise what Ford is and want him gone have already made up their minds. It's those people--a depressingly large number of them--who still think Ford's just some good guy, average Joe who slipped up once or twice but is genuinely regretful, it's they that need reminded again and again of just how unsuitable Ford is to be mayor and why, including what he does in his personal life that affects the mayoral office. I don't believe it'd be too low-brow to use all that against Ford in a campaign; it'd just depend on how it's delivered, I guess.

Actually, they have to accommodate each other. (And, as a related aside, there are bigoted gays.) [ed.: +]

But, that renders the law redundant, and that's no fun.

Never mind online; how will any proprietor know someone self-identifies as gay? Many people who do don't fit the lilting and flamboyant (for men) and butch (for women) stereotype and some men who are flamboyant and women who are butch don't consider themselves to be gay. These legislators are trying to make a law based on concepts of human sexuality and identity that've been dumbed down to an unreal but bone-headedly simplistic level, which I assume is all they can understand.

I don't know that calling someone "homophobic" goes so far as to be bullying, but, the term is, besides often being a misnomer, presently a pretty damning slur thrown out far too easily and, thus, frequently. I don't know about the Governor's opinions, but Ford, as feeble as his thought process obviously is, hasn't expressed any belief or shown any action that unquestionably categorises him as a homophobe. Not that I know of, anyway. It therefore seems at least unfairly insulting to call him such a thing. Bullies do use, besides fists, insults in place of argument.

The majority of voters are represented in parliament. That's why Canada is a representative democracy, not a direct one.

I don't know. Are we that far ahead? Regardless, I didn't say anyone had revealed the nuts and bolts of any plan, but plans have been spoken about, though in broad terms, as you say. Still, both party leaders seem to be saying enough on the subject to differentiate themselves from one another and entice reaction, from those who care. Still again, as I said, I don't know how many voters care.

Mm. I shouldn't have assumed the Liberals wouldn't come up with an economic strategy better than the Conservatives' before the next election--or, at least, one that's more appealing to most voters, assuming most voters use such things to determine how to vote. Going by Trudeau Jr.'s most recent speech, I'm not sure how attractive the Liberal's plan is, but I doubt it'll sway those who want deficits paid down. [ed.: c/e]

The Liberals held more sway over budgets at that time than people give them credit for. It was a minority parliament; a budget could not pass (or the government survive) if the Liberals didn't approve of it.

I can see that. Though, as you alluded to, economics may be a big factor in the outcome of the next election, which means most people may want to stick with the Conservatives. Then again, I seriously wonder whether most voters are motivated by rational matters like economic policy or more by emotion. Justin does say a lot of nice things and his hair's nice, too.

See my edited post! (Done, I guess, while you were writing the above.)