CanPol: Meet the New Boss

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Spending limits on elections? WTF are those for?

The hope is this way the government is answerable to the people not to the corporation that pays them off the best.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
ALT+133

à?

[Fake Boris]

Damn, is it 130 ?

[Ninot]

133 and/or 0233

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Wezil
Yes, Harper gives Dion hope

And he gives me hope too...

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
1 Million out of how many dollars spent on the election?

What an excellent use of taxpayer dollars.

Strange. I would have thought you were a big fan of following laws. Apparently not.

Oh that's right, the Conservatives are the accused.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Richelieu


And he gives me hope too...

Trust me, I too want Harper to lose and I'll gladly wear whatever silly avatar you can come up with for that to happen. Sadly, I still don't think Dion is the guy to do it.

The Libs would be in much better position today with either Rae or Iggy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Strange. I would have thought you were a big fan of following laws. Apparently not.

Oh that's right, the Conservatives are the accused.

I don't believe parties should be regulated by the government in how much they can spend on the election.

This 'violation' ranks somewhere above the laws that ban you from using clotheslines, and below the laws that tell you not to litter.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I don't believe parties should be regulated by the government in how much they can spend on the election.

But they are.

So I guess you only believe in following the laws you agree with?

This 'violation' ranks somewhere above the laws that ban you from using clotheslines, and below the laws that tell you not to litter.

No Clothesline Law < Election Financing Laws < Litter Laws

Ben's Legal Hierarchy.

Put me back on ignore Ben. This could be painful.

[Ben Kenobi]

So I guess you only believe in following the laws you agree with?

Did I say that?

You shouldn't break a law unless there is a fundamental reason why the law is wrong, and even then you should be willing to accept the consequences of the law. In this case, it would be paying the fine.

I see this as a tempest in a teapot, one of many others being stirred up on a slow news day.

I also don't think this is a good use of taxpayer dollars or of elections canada. Why don't we work on developing a working system for senate elections? Instead we get this 'investigation'.

Put me back on ignore Ben. This could be painful.

I've never had you on ignore. Why would I want that?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Did I say that?

It sure seemed like the implication.

You shouldn't break a law unless there is a fundamental reason why the law is wrong, and even then you should be willing to accept the consequences of the law. In this case, it would be paying the fine.

Conservatives claim they didn't break the law. They aren't claiming the moral high ground in defying an unjust law. Please don't make this another debate where you completely make up facts as you did with the Cadman discussion. I'm not into that insanity again.

I see this as a tempest in a teapot, one of many others being stirred up on a slow news day.

Of course. Search warrants for the governing parties office's to gather evidence of law breaking is so trite. It must have been a slow news day.

I also don't think this is a good use of taxpayer dollars or of elections canada. Why don't we work on developing a working system for senate elections? Instead we get this 'investigation'.

Senate reform is not their mandate. Monitoring elections to see that all parties abide by the rules the parties themselves passed into law is their mandate. It is exactly what they are for and as such this "investigation" is a perfect use of taxpayer dollars.

You do realise the same taxpayer you seem so concerned about was the person ripped off in this scam? The local ridings submitted the advertising expense for reimbursement. Again, this isn't going the way of the Cadman discussion is it? I do hope you understand the issue and allegations here...

I've never had you on ignore. Why would I want that?

Okay then.

[Ben Kenobi]

Conservatives claim they didn't break the law. They aren't claiming the moral high ground in defying an unjust law.

Yes, that's because they support the law as it is written.

Me, the so-called Conservative shill doesn't agree with the law passed by the Conservatives, because I think it sets a terrible precedent.

Please don't make this another debate where you completely make up facts as you did with the Cadman discussion. I'm not into that insanity again.

Ok, then put ME on ignore.

Of course. Search warrants for the governing parties office's to gather evidence of law breaking is so trite. It must have been a slow news day.

Yes, and a bureaucracy that is being criticized by the Conservatives has no motivation to embarrass them?

Senate reform is not their mandate.

They explicitly commented saying that they felt that senate elections were illegal and improper. Seems to me that they are stonewalling, and this is retaliation.

Monitoring elections to see that all parties abide by the rules the parties themselves passed into law is their mandate. It is exactly what they are for and as such this "investigation" is a perfect use of taxpayer dollars.

True, which is why the only irregularities in 12 years are from the Conservatives.

I'm going back to sleep. It would only be news if the bureaucracy actually fined the Liberals for election irregularities, rather then retaliating for the earlier senate election flap.

You do realise the same taxpayer you seem so concerned about was the person ripped off in this scam?

Umm, I am a Canadian taxpayer.

I don't see it as either, 'a scam', or anything of the sort. As I said earlier, I think parties should be permitted to spend whatever amount they need to for the election. I also don't believe they should get government funding to run in the election, they should rely on whatever they manage to fundraise themselves.

This of course, makes me opposed to both the liberal way, and the conservative way.

The local ridings submitted the advertising expense for reimbursement. Again, this isn't going the way of the Cadman discussion is it? I do hope you understand the issue and allegations here...

I do. As I said right from the beginning, I don't believe they should have any limits on campaign spending, so I don't really care when elections canada said they overspent. I would say the same if it was the Liberals.

I don't believe I've ever said that I support so called campaign finance reform of any way shape or form.

[Wezil]

OT but for the record...

Today I gave serious thought to the idea of running for office myself. I'll wait until I seriously commit before starting my own "I'm Running For Office" thread (ala Che) but thought I'd mention it.

I'm still stuck on the "running" part. I may do it if I can stand (or better yet, sit) for office but running just isn't good. I may cause a stampede and a stampede of Rhinos would be a scary thing.

[embalmer42]

Originally posted by Wezil


So I guess you only believe in following the laws you agree with?

Hmmm - do you follow the laws you don't agree with?

OT but for the record...


Today I gave serious thought to the idea of running for office myself. I'll wait until I seriously commit before starting my own "I'm Running For Office" thread (ala Che) but thought I'd mention it.

I'm still stuck on the "running" part. I may do it if I can stand (or better yet, sit) for office but running just isn't good. I may cause a stampede and a stampede of Rhinos would be a scary thing.

Personally, considering how much you smoke and how little actual exercise you've had lately, I'd be surprised if you made it out of the starting gates without triggering a heart attack

[Ben Kenobi]

Would you run as an independent?