Bryan

Why would they build it in the reserve and not in the population centre?

Any intelligent person would come to the same conclusion that the second actions (constant serious accusations and personal attacks) are far more egregious than the first (continuing to post on the same subject regardless of what the thread is actually about). I have no argument against people who might find the former more annoying, but the latter is a far more serious breach of the forum rules.

He gave a good explanation of what he said and why he said it. He's speaking from personal experience. It might not be nice, and it certainly wasn't a smart idea to express the thoughts to a bunch of reporters, but he definitely is right about what he said. It IS an issue that really does happen, and it's stupid to pretend that it doesn't.

That much is definitely true. It makes me laugh when people try to claim that the Conservative party is bound to corporate interests. Removing corporate funding and limiting individual contributions really took the knees out from under the LPC. It barely had any effect on the CPC, because their support was already primarily comprised of smaller donations from individuals.

That poster is not even close to the worst offender though. THAT is the worst one by far.

Why, so you can just say you don't find any reason to believe that person is trolling, and hand out a warning point for making the observation?

It COULD happen. It just isn't.

Which is why how those Senators get appointed also needs to change.

I don't doubt that the opposition would do their best to make hay of it, but he's really got no choice. I'd be absolutely shocked if he left all those spots open, and I doubt any Conservative supporter or strategist would want him to. The people who have voted for him in the past would want him to make the appointments in the absence of a better available option at this time.

For sure. Even under it's present composition, the Senate should never have been a lifetime job anyway. Something like an 8 year term would be much more appropriate.

Do we need to take up a collection so you can buy a dictionary? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cry

True. Unless and until the system is changed, any sitting PM doesn't have much choice. If he doesn't, it's not as if the next guy will leave them open too. In the absence of what you'd like to do, you still have to pick the lesser of the things you'd rather not.

Your logic is lazy and doesn't even come close to correlating to my post in any way. Let me help you. In your example the guy in question would have to have criticized his boss for firing people who criticize him, then he gets fired for making the criticism.

Keep repeating that until you believe it. You're not fooling anyone.

You post was nonsense, and unrelated to my post, so there was nothing to rebut.

Good question. A lot of ways you could go about that. One idea could be to have appointees from the major parties screen them the same way that lawyers do before a trial. Each party gets a certain number of peremptory challenges. You could even combine the system with Cyber's idea of having the provinces appoint the senator: the party reps from the provincial parties that the open senate seat represents could do the "voir dire". I suppose you could even just have the Governor General do it. Or the GG could appoint a team of official screeners.

No it isn't.

... a fantasy that exists only in your own head.

I've maintained for some time that the senate should be like jury duty. People from the general public just get randomly selected when there is a spot open.

Sure they can. Three sides to every story.

As usual, you guess wrong.

"when you criticize them, they cry.” ​The irony is that outrage over his statements have essentially proved that he was right.

He was a citizen of the country. He doesn't have to make any promises. There is plenty of room for you to care or not care that he betrayed the country, for sure, but the fact that he did betray the country is not a matter of opinion, it's objective fact.

That's a good point. In discussing that matter, they should have been especially careful to avoid any conflict of interest. The host and the panel should have been people who didn't work with him on a regular basis. Without question the proper course of the discussion should have been how someone who has been so tenacious about chasing scandals (real and imagined) was now in the centre of one of his own.

Advocating for the break up of the country that you are a citizen of. What part of that is not fitting in your head?