g_bambino
-
Posts
8,249 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by g_bambino
-
-
What did he uncover which was illegal?
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?
-
This affects us all, we should ALL have a say.
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.
-
Stop trying to minimize the importance of a government which is giving personal information collected of its people to a foreign country.
What personal information?
-
How can Quebec be allowed to be such tyrants?
Because it's constitutional so long as French only isn't required. Or, so said the Supreme Court.
-
You obviously have no problem with Ford's drug use, only the impact that results from it.
Of course, the general correlation between elicit drug use/abuse and unethical, immoral, or illegal behavior is pretty well identified and one of the main arguments against legalization of elicit drugs, so an argument could be made that your viewpoint is in itself contradictory.
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]
-
Personally I don't understand this BS about "Parliamentary Privilege". Wouldn't it be good for our democracy if Parliament were considered like a courtroom, where elected politicians were sworn under oath to tell the truth so that they were forced to the tell the truth, or at least do so more often?
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.
-
I think with all changes going on, I wish a private members bill would come forward that creates a rule that NO ONE can tell a lie in the House.
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.: +]
-
Many problems actually... How many celebs, politicians, judges have the same problem? What makes them alright is, we don't know about it.
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.
-
People are still defending the governments actions on all this and making Snowden out to be a criminal?
I think you've missed what eyeball and I were actually conversing about.
But treating a journalist like a terrorist means that we have crossed a line somewhere.
That depends on whether the journalist actually engaged in terrorism or not.
-
There's a consistent pattern there with how Ford handles gay issues that suggests he either harbors homophobic beliefs or he wishes to be seen as harbouring such beliefs...
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 apropos in light of the haphazard manner by which data was dredged up from the private domain and dumped into government data banks.
Seems the opposite when one considers the nature of that data, the method of collection, and what's done with it.
-
[T]he information he has released is to inform and alert its citizens of the illegal and secretive information gathering.
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.
-
Anyone dumb enough to think that is probably too dumb to see sense.
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.
-
He says he is gonna take the high road and I think that's smart and refreshing.
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.
-
Gays shouldn't have to accommodate bigots, bigots should have to accommodate gays.
Actually, they have to accommodate each other.
(And, as a related aside, there are bigoted gays.)
[ed.: +]
-
It's don't ask, don't tell Arizona style.
But, that renders the law redundant, and that's no fun.
-
Just wondering whether the folks who somehow need this right require a signed statement that a customer isn't gay whenever they sell something on eBay or Craigslist.
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 only mention this because of the language choice:
Limbaugh: AZ governor being "buillied" by gay lobby
Interestingly enough, Toronto's Doug Ford used similar language recently to defend another overweight drug user from homophobia charges:I dunno if there's a memo about this that went out (maybe Shady has it), but it's pretty gross to see these guys co-opting the bullying term at a time when awareness of bullying (with LGBT individuals a frequently targeted group) is at such a high water mark.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.
-
It doesn't really matter what the FORMER Com. thinks, its the majority of voters, right???
The majority of voters are represented in parliament. That's why Canada is a representative democracy, not a direct one.
-
Who puts put an economic plan this far ahead of an election? Harper wasn't putting forth specifics either, he was talking general ideas of accountability and transparency the same way JT is so far just talking about the vision.
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.
-
Harper's economy is not good...
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]
-
Yes Harper did run up a deficit when the financial crisis hit but at the time the Liberals were castigating him for not spending enough.
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.
-
Yes, exactly... I countered that it's not really about the person at this point, it's time for a change. Same thing happened in 2008 in the US, it was a Democrat year and pretty much everyone knew 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.
-
You mean a Paul Martin?
See my edited post! (Done, I guess, while you were writing the above.)
UK Equates Journalism With Terrorism
in The Rest of the World
Posted
Before I answer that question, you'll have to prove to me the NSA is reading my emails.