Ya, like nullifying all ballots, from a poling station that was a complete clusterf!ck from the get go.
Schweinehund!
- Thread starter Unforgiven
- Start date
1st - the law was not followed
2nd - Fact Elections Canada has indeed been litigating with the Cons for a number of years.
3rd - Civil Servants are not impartial - Where the hell do you think leaks such as the Aud Gen come from. Those reports were sent to the heads of the Govt departments. Now i am sure they would not leak it. Or are you of an opposing view on this.
4th - The Law was broken. Adhere to the law, investigate and if the evidence shows interference, improperly run Polling Station, Scrutinier denied for no reason. Then and only then file charges.
5th - The ballots can be quarantined.
6th - Your partisanship is driving your opinion on flouting the law. Why - because most young voters go Lib or NDP.
7th - Correct spelling - Schweinhund -No e eh.
So it was not authorized by Elections Canada, yet they now authorize it. And you support that.
Elections Canada validates contested student ballot in Guelph - The Globe and Mail
But the statement also notes that the special-ballot polling station, set up Wednesday by local Elections Canada returning officer Anne Budra to encourage students to vote, “was not pre-authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer,” and that all returning officers have been instructed “not to engage in any further activities of a similar nature.”
Please don't bother bringing your Holocaust denier horse**** into a reasonably serious discussion.
Dr. Bruno Tesch was executed as a war criminal in May of 1946.
You should keep better company.
Seeing as you are neither breathing Zyklon B, nor storming the beaches............I thank you for conceding my point.
My post was a reply to your post and it had to do with a chemical and how it was used. Try taking your own advice, you were the one making a joke about it, mine pointed to another use that would be anything but a war crime. Did you slip in your own vomit and fall down on your head, one that should be immune from scalping if a trophy is the 'reason'. I forget what did we use the breasts for after they were taken as a trophy in the Indian genocide in North America.. Afghanistan is proving that trend hasn't died out, real proud of that are you???
All that in your definition of 'reasonably serious' you post was the most vile of all, seriously.
Speaking of the company one keeps, what was the name of that chem company that produced the chems for the Dr. in question, you mention. Why not hang the bankers that funded the whole program?
The Bush klan ever get through doing repentance for that crime against the Jews? IG Farben was probably on his payroll stubs, guess what well known American was shoving money hand over fist to them during the war. His punishment, an elected office in the Gov, on that still has relatives holding positions. Only in America.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
Last edited:
Shirley bear you will recoginize the sound of your box being closed. Hope you and vanity enjoy iggy-land, if not, who cares.
Here watch your buddy get served his own ass...
YouTube - Darth Vader vs Hitler. Epic Rap Battles of History 2
That's what passes as an insult in Mhz world.
Did you check out the vid? It's hilarious.
What is your problem with the Conservative candidate's behaviour?
He video tapped voters and attempted to steal a ballot box.
Why is this a problem?
Because it suppresses democracy.
Do you claim another reason for having a problem with the candidate's behaviour? If not then you lie when you say you are not interested in defending the democratic process.
Personally, I think you do have another reason. Your real problem is that the candidate is a Conservative. You don't give a damn about the democratic process. You selected this criticism over the others available because you don't like conservatives.
Ah ha, "straw man" I see you've reached level 2 of amateur debate. Level 1 "ad hominem"; level 2 "straw man". Now that you know the word, try learning what it actually means, and when you've done that you have a few more levels to go before you stop relying on fallacy catchphrases.
For your continued education, please note the following:
A straw man is a misrepresentation of an argument. I am not misrepresenting your argument. I addressed your point as much as I needed to when I agreed that the Conservative candidate had broken the law. My point about your partisan hackery was a new subject.
Level 2 amateur debaters I don't think have learned "appeal to authority". If the only organization with the authority to declare it illegal said it was legal, that still doesn't mean it wasn't illegal. They merely said it was legal. It could have still violated the law. And it just so happens that Elections Canada does not have the authority to render legal decisions. The courts do. So illogical on the use of authority and you got the wrong authority.
That's two strikes plus your straw man strike. That makes three strikes. You're out.
You can put away the sense of intellectual superiority now, boyo. It's a cheap tactic and you're way out of your element. How about getting back to the real issue?
Elections Canada said they would validate the votes. They also said that the special polling station was not authorized, which is required, and have shut down all similar such initiatives as a result of this one official's poor judgement. The accusation that partisan material was on display remains unresolved and probably won't be resolved. The rules are relaxed for these kinds of polls but not the rules against special ballot coordinators allowing displays of political materials when conducting any of their official duties. So there are still questions in the air as to whether this was actually legit regardless of the matter now being closed.
Those with concern for the integrity of the democratic process should be concerned about this incident, the special ballot, the accusations of partisan propaganda, its lack of pre-authorization and the behaviour of Conservative party representatives. Those who are hacks, however, would only be concerned with the problems that might make their opponents look bad.
What makes you say it was a complete clusterfack from the get go? Some candidate saying it was plastered with posters? Was this a fact or just some bunk the guy invented because it didn't like the idea of possible Liberal or NDP votes going against him? If Elections Canada say their ok then that should be enough. Seems Conservatives like playing fast and loose with the rules (hello in and out scandal) when it suits them, yet take umbrage at the thought of something not going their way.
Or should it be acceptable for some Liberal or NDP hack to claim a Conservative strong polling area is illegal and render it nullified on that say so?
Says you. If that was the fact, then Elections Canada would not allow the ballots. Yet they are allowed so what does that say about your claim that the law was not followed?
The Conservatives over spent by 1.3 million in the 2006 election. Your fact shows a history of disobedience to the law and rules set out for elections by Elections Canada who is the authority when it comes to elections by the this Conservative party. So if you're point is that the Conservatives have a history of breaking the law, well I agree but I am not sure it's the point you wanted to make.
Who the f!ck cares? It has nothing to do with the story here unless you want to come out and accuse the Returning Officer of fraud publicly. If so I suggest you use your real name so that it can be litigated in court as you are then attempting to besmirch that person. Don't worry the truth will set you free. Just make sure it's on your side or be ready to concede the point.
Sorry, you're not the judge of that, Elections Canada is and they ruled the votes are valid. So when it comes to what you think verses what Elections Canada does, I am confident that it's going to go their way 100% of the time.
Moot point, they are ruled valid already.
It's possible. But the only one who said there was a law broken was the Candidate who himself broke two laws. Hardly a reason to base anything on. Is it difficult for you to accept that there has to be evidence of the law being broken before someone is toss in the slammer and the key thrown away?
I stand corrected.
You misunderstand. It was not pre-authorized by Elections Canada but it was condoned and at the end of the day accepted as valid. I accept that.
Did you even read this link? I mean it totally supports my position in this and slams your own so I have to wonder what it was you were trying to accomplish as it seems you are in opposition to my own points here. Yet you post a link that supports them.
If you read the article it states that special ballot polling stations don't need to be preauthorized.
After this fiasco, subjecting students who are young voters and some what more sensitive to what they see as authority figures, it is prudent not to allow further problems like Candidate's campaign officials flipping out.
I suspect that in reaction to this some of the integrity challenged followers of the Conservative Party Of Canada will do something seriously stupid, as seems to be the MO when Harper isn't keeping them muzzled and on a very short leash.
It's early days brother. We have a choice to make and depending on where we go in the future, anything can happen.
Nah that's Telly Savalas. This is Kojak!
Who loves ya baby! lol
Since Elections Canada, the authority on voting in this nation, has concluded that the votes cast were valid, then further debate on that issue is rather moot. The Conservative Party, who intially contested the polling station/validity of the votes, has issued a statement stating they accept the decision of Elections Canada.
Personally, I'm delighted to see signs that young people in this country may actually be taking an active role for a change and casting their votes. I don't care who they are voting for, the important thing is that they are actually getting out and voting. We had what, a little more than half the eligible voters turn up for the last election? Maybe all the press the students are getting will be enough to inspire or put some fear into the hearts of all the couch potatoes out there and they'll actually get up off their asses to cast their votes. So I say, keep the "vote mobs" coming.
Personally, I'm delighted to see signs that young people in this country may actually be taking an active role for a change and casting their votes. I don't care who they are voting for, the important thing is that they are actually getting out and voting. We had what, a little more than half the eligible voters turn up for the last election? Maybe all the press the students are getting will be enough to inspire or put some fear into the hearts of all the couch potatoes out there and they'll actually get up off their asses to cast their votes. So I say, keep the "vote mobs" coming.
Once in a while someone comes along and gets upset over something, which in turn distracts them from gathering all the information they need to make a sound argument. This is the case here I suspect. I get that you feel as though I am condescending in my reply to you and admit to an extent I am. It's a fault I have and I attempt to rein it in when it's pointed out to me in a polite manner. Keep in mind I take exception to those who fail to read and investigate things of a serious nature, and choose to make the attempt to cut me off at the knees for no other reason than a feeling of self superiority. There are many conservative supporting posters here that I quite like and have for years that we've spent on this and other message boards. So your opinion that I simply hate conservatives is in fact erroneous. I do support the democratic process though not the point I am making here.
Breaking of small law doesn't entitle others to discount all laws. When a law is violated there needs to be malice afore thought. This is to be taken into consideration when judging the merits of a presented case at trial. While failure to understand the law is not an excuse, it bears consideration when sentencing is passed. Keep that in mind for later.
Ah I see. Well then fu ck you bitch I don't give a sh!t what you think about my political compass. You're nothing more than another douche bag on the Internet so go buy a donut, start it rolling down a hill and take a flying fu cking leap.
Elections Canada rules if there is a violation or not. If you disagree with it, you are entitled to appeal to the court for a judgement on that ruling. If you win the ruling is appealed, if not the ruling stands. You should know that the Torys have agreed with Elections Canada ruling and withdrawn their complaint.
Baseball sucks ass.
Hey I'm not the one who thinks the polling station was plastered with posters, you are. If you have the mind you could have read in the Globe and Mail that the University Centre was sanctioned as a polling station and so campaign posters were not allowed within two hundred meters. After and Elections Canada official returned with a new ruling that declared the whole campus was to be free of partisan materials during voting both the Liberal and Green parties returned all the materials to their offices. So rather than the polling station plastered with posters, there was none within the 200 meters of the University Centre. After the new rules were declared, all were from the campus.
This is the big violation of the law you feel is the focal point of the issue rather than the intimidation and attempt to snatch away a ballot box. Maybe if you just read the news available to you, you would understand the issues rather than thinking I have some unjustified sense or intellectual superiority.
Again your ignorance of the matter is exposed. You have questions unresolved due to a lack of acquiring the knowledge that is freely available to you. I find it disturbing that after pointing out to you where it was that Elections Canada said the special polling station, like all special polling stations do not need to be pre-authorized, shows a pattern of not understanding the facts that have been presented to you. hmf boyo indeed.
I don't make the claim that my methods should be your own. We each arrive at a destination our own way. I prefaced the article with my own opinion that was clearly defined from the article by use of italics. That my opinion is the part that raises your ire, rather than the contents of the article, is telling. That you feel the need to "School" me over my opinion is the punk in you stepping up. Understand that with this showing of your rather lack luster prowess, I sympathize with your feelings of being condescended to, but have thus far restrained myself to pointing out the facts and making it clear that I will brook none of your nonsense. Take that as you will but accept my sincerity as authentic.
A well intentioned returning officer, Elections Canada's words, organized a sanctioned, but not authorized advanced poll, again, Elections Canada's words.
You seem to be sure that some Conservative idiot tried to grab a ballot box, on somebody's mere word.
Elections Canada can not say what rules can apply where. The rules are set so as to keep incidents like this from happening. The fact that it happened, only strengthens the necessity for those rules.
If the returning officer is bending rules, the station littered with Conservative campaign material, they absolutely should do something about it. Like video tape it. To record the violations, for further investigation. I won't condone attempting to grab a ballot box.
And I stand by my opinion, that those ballots should be void.
You...
