HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Canadian Politics Part VIII: The Nifty Extended Thread Title Edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-02-2014, 01:32 PM
  #101
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 14,145
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Just when you think Justin Trudeau could not get anymore illogical, he proves you wrong. It even left George Stroumboulopoulos somewhat bemused.

And it took him less than 2 minutes to do it.

What, exactly, is wrong with what he said?

If you didn't have it framed as Trudeau 'screwing up,' if you weren't looking for anything, if you weren't knowledgeable about the nomination process, you wouldn't notice anything. I barely noticed anything. It is so minor, so petty,... I guess given the Conservatives can't find anything for their attack ads, it isn't surprisingly that there's not much out there.

All Trudeau is advocating here is a common sense approach to nominations. A party wants to keep nominations as open as possible, staying away from the local politics as much as possible, but they still feel some safeguards are needed. You can't have, as Trudeau explained, Rob Ford as a candidate. The baggage, the big mouth, the all-around stupidity is not what you want in your caucus. Whether a common sense approach is doable, whether it will become corrupted without firm rules, that's another question entirely. A suggestion I've heard is to make them accountable to at the provincial level (as opposed to the national). But I don't see anything inherently wrong with what he said.

htpwn is offline  
Old
04-02-2014, 01:34 PM
  #102
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
What, exactly, is wrong with what he said?

If you didn't have it framed as Trudeau 'screwing up,' if you weren't looking for anything, if you weren't knowledgeable about the nomination process, you wouldn't notice anything. I barely noticed anything. It is so minor, so petty,... I guess given the Conservatives can't find anything for their attack ads, it isn't surprisingly that there's not much out there.

All Trudeau is advocating here is a common sense approach to nominations. A party wants to keep nominations as open as possible, staying away from the local politics as much as possible, but they still feel some safeguards are needed. You can't have, as Trudeau explained, Rob Ford as a candidate. The baggage, the big mouth, the all-around stupidity is not what you want in your caucus. Whether a common sense approach is doable, whether it will become corrupted without firm rules, that's another question entirely. A suggestion I've heard is to make them accountable to at the provincial level (as opposed to the national). But I don't see anything inherently wrong with what he said.
The "common sense" runs contrary to his basic premise.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
04-02-2014, 01:37 PM
  #103
htpwn
Registered User
 
htpwn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Poland
Posts: 14,145
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
The "common sense" runs contrary to his basic premise.
Meh, in theory, if you take every word literally.

Again, I don't see it as any big deal and other then trying to score political points, I don't see why anybody would.

htpwn is offline  
Old
04-02-2014, 01:41 PM
  #104
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn View Post
Meh, in theory, if you take every word literally.

Again, I don't see it as any big deal and other then trying to score political points, I don't see why anybody would.
Words are kind of the stock in trade for a politician (and a lawyer),eh.

It is just one more in a series of such incidents for Justin Trudeau - it is a pattern.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
04-02-2014, 03:19 PM
  #105
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Steve and Eve???
The prime minister has asked the Conservative party to investigate a series of allegations made by grassroots members against Ontario MP Eve Adams.
...
Now the Conservative riding association board in Oakville North-Burlington has written to the prime minister asking him to help resolve issues around Adams's conduct.

A Conservative party source says Harper takes the matter seriously and has asked the party's governing body to look into the issue.

Among the allegations made by the riding association is that Adams has unfairly used the party's internal membership database, as well as her House of Commons mailing privileges, to contact potential supporters.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Pri...#ixzz2xlK0ZH00

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
04-02-2014, 04:51 PM
  #106
Howard Beale
Registered User
 
Howard Beale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny LaRue View Post
I never thought I would see you use a line from The Big Bang Theory.

I would also say that bringing up Rob Ford was dumb. If Rob Ford ran a legit nomination campaign, then there is no reason he shouldn't be allowed to run if the leadership claims that it is allowing open nomination campaigns.
Hmm I don't know if you've been following the Rob Ford saga very closely, but there are literally dozens of reasons why he shouldn't be a suitable candidate for the Liberal Party. Calling Justin Trudeau a *** while smoking crack cocaine in a drunken stupor was just the tip of the iceberg. He also shows up to work 3 hours late fairly regularly, appears to be homophobic, made libellous statements about a reporter (which he later retracted when threatened with a lawsuit), almost got removed from office for a conflict of interest, ranted about wanting to murder somebody while in another drunken stupor, has a social circle filled with criminals, has been under criminal investigation for months, allegedly punched a staffer at a St. Patrick's Day party last year... Plus he openly campaigned for the Conservatives in the last election and said that he wants Harper to win the next one, so all things considered, I think the LPC would have a very strong case for vetoing his candidacy. Wetcoaster keeps a pretty thorough account of Rob Ford's continuous misdeeds in the designated thread, if you're interested.

Quote:
If the party leadership can simply veto any candidate Trudeau doesn't like, then essentially they can choose the candidate they want whenever they want.
It's true, and the party leader can do a lot of things. However many of them, like this, are highly unlikely. Thus far they've vetoed 1 candidate out of the 338 new ridings. If they start vetoing candidates in dozens or hundreds of ridings across the country, you'll have a strong case that they're trying to "choose the candidates they want whenever they want."

Howard Beale is offline  
Old
04-02-2014, 08:24 PM
  #107
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Steve and Eve???
The prime minister has asked the Conservative party to investigate a series of allegations made by grassroots members against Ontario MP Eve Adams.
...
Now the Conservative riding association board in Oakville North-Burlington has written to the prime minister asking him to help resolve issues around Adams's conduct.

A Conservative party source says Harper takes the matter seriously and has asked the party's governing body to look into the issue.

Among the allegations made by the riding association is that Adams has unfairly used the party's internal membership database, as well as her House of Commons mailing privileges, to contact potential supporters.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Pri...#ixzz2xlK0ZH00
This is getting out of hand. She fought over a car wash as well

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/eve-...ment-1.2596174
For at least the second time in recent months, Stephen Harper is being called on to deal with the conduct of Eve Adams, an Ontario MP who was once considered a showcase member of the Conservative government.
Harper has asked the party's governing body to investigate allegations against Adams lodged by rank-and-file members in a southern Ontario riding, the Prime Minister's Office confirmed Tuesday.
Adams is in the midst of a heated nomination battle in Oakville North-Burlington, where she is being accused of using her position as a member of Parliament to unfair advantage.
And it turns out it's not the first time Harper's office has been confronted with a complaint from the party's grassroots about Adams's behaviour.
In January, a Conservative supporter in Ottawa contacted the PMO to complain about the way she conducted herself at his place of business during an incident on a cold morning late last year.
Gas station owner John Newcombe said Adams, who was upset over a $6 car wash she deemed unsatisfactory, used her car to partially block access to the refuelling area at his west-end Esso station for 15 minutes last December.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Old
04-02-2014, 08:36 PM
  #108
Johnny LaRue
Registered User
 
Johnny LaRue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Kudamatsu-shi, Japan
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Beale View Post
Hmm I don't know if you've been following the Rob Ford saga very closely, but there are literally dozens of reasons why he shouldn't be a suitable candidate for the Liberal Party. Calling Justin Trudeau a *** while smoking crack cocaine in a drunken stupor was just the tip of the iceberg. He also shows up to work 3 hours late fairly regularly, appears to be homophobic, made libellous statements about a reporter (which he later retracted when threatened with a lawsuit), almost got removed from office for a conflict of interest, ranted about wanting to murder somebody while in another drunken stupor, has a social circle filled with criminals, has been under criminal investigation for months, allegedly punched a staffer at a St. Patrick's Day party last year... Plus he openly campaigned for the Conservatives in the last election and said that he wants Harper to win the next one, so all things considered, I think the LPC would have a very strong case for vetoing his candidacy. Wetcoaster keeps a pretty thorough account of Rob Ford's continuous misdeeds in the designated thread, if you're interested.



It's true, and the party leader can do a lot of things. However many of them, like this, are highly unlikely. Thus far they've vetoed 1 candidate out of the 338 new ridings. If they start vetoing candidates in dozens or hundreds of ridings across the country, you'll have a strong case that they're trying to "choose the candidates they want whenever they want."
If the Liberal Party has problems with a specific aspect of Rob Ford's conduct, they should create a rule that applies equally to all candidates. Instead, Trudeau has chosen to use is own discretion alone(which should concern people given how poor his judgement is). Of course, this only applies if you want to claim you haven an open nomination process. The Liberals claim they have an open process, but it seems tightly controlled by Justin's handlers.

Johnny LaRue is offline  
Old
04-03-2014, 12:47 PM
  #109
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
MOAR Law and Order from the CPC... Conservatives introduce victims’ bill of rights in House of Commons.

Cormac Mac Sweeney ‏@cmaconthehill 2h
The Victims Bill of Rights has been tabled in the House of Commons. It's 68 pages long .

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms?



Sounds like this bill was not drafted by legislative draftspeople but rather the CPC turned loose the law and order zealots.

Cormac Mac Sweeney ‏@cmaconthehill
Among many measures in Victims Bill of Rights it will allow victims to get a current photo of the offender at time of their release

The problem is the Conservatives do not grasp is that there is good reason why the rights of an accused are entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - it has to do with such things as the presumption of innocence, conviction only when there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to remain silent, only legally obtained evidence be admissible, voluntary confessions, etc. The accused faces the full weight and power of all the state can bring to bear so this must be balanced.

And as we have seen when the Conservatives try to skew those rights, the courts will step in and stop them.

And there is a fundamental misunderstanding that in criminal law it is the Crown in Right of Canada who prosecutes not the victim. The civil courts are available for victims to bring suit.

The Conservative government’s long-awaited victims’ rights bill would force people to testify in court against a spouse.

The legislation — tabled in the Commons on Thursday — would change the Canada Evidence Act, which allows spouses to refuse to testify except in certain specific cases such as sexual assaults or crimes against youngsters.

The changes are part of a sweeping government bill that codifies the rights of victims, makes it easier for vulnerable witnesses to testify and requires that victims be given more information about cases.

For instance, victims can request a copy of a bail order, a probation order or the details of a conditional release.

The federal Conservatives have long complained that too much emphasis is placed on the rights of the accused, giving short shrift to the people affected by the crimes.

“Victims of crime and their families deserve to be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect,” says the preamble to Bill C-32, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.


Last edited by Wetcoaster: 04-03-2014 at 01:03 PM.
Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
04-03-2014, 01:29 PM
  #110
Jamie Thomas
Registered User
 
Jamie Thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,523
vCash: 50
So apparently, our great PM and his Justice Minister didn't know the rules to appoint Supreme Court judges are different for Quebec than the ROC.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/step...udge-1.2595286

Quote:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he's surprised to learn that Quebec has different rules when it comes to appointing judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Speaking in question period, Harper said it was "a big surprise" to discover the rules for appointing Quebec judges to the Supreme Court were different from the rules for appointing judges from other provinces.

Justice Minister Peter MacKay, in explaining his boss' reaction, described the regulations as "new." The rules have been in effect since 1875, although MacKay denies that and says it was an interpretation by the Supreme Court.
I wonder what some posters here would have to say if it was Trudeau who had showed his ignorance on the matter instead.

I think I can guess 1 or 2 replies.

Jamie Thomas is offline  
Old
04-03-2014, 01:39 PM
  #111
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie Thomas View Post
So apparently, our great PM and his Justice Minister didn't know the rules to appoint Supreme Court judges are different for Quebec than the ROC.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/step...udge-1.2595286



I wonder what some posters here would have to say if it was Trudeau who had showed his ignorance on the matter instead.

I think I can guess 1 or 2 replies.
Wonder no longer. It has already been dealt with.

You guess wrong. But then you also missed the prior discussion on the issue. So just another uninformed doofus.

You are way more than a day short and dollar late with that one - old news- and discussed in depth previously.

As I noted at the time when criticizing the appointment process and other CPC lapses:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...postcount=1018

Also see:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...7&postcount=41

All you had to do was read this thread - see post #56:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Ultimately it may be the courts yet again who rein in the excesses of the Harper government as with its overreaching law and order agenda and attempts to circumvent the appointment procedures for the SCOC for Quebec judges.

Here is an article that looks at past cases under the Right to Vote provisions of the Charter - Why the Conservatives’ “Fair Elections Act” Could Be Unconstitutional

Such a challenge could be founded upon the SCOC decsion Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj where the Supreme Court tied its interpretation of the Canada’s elections law to the Charter right to vote.
The Supreme Court determined that, under its “substantive approach,” the Election Day “procedures” of the Canada Elections Act are subordinate to the Charter right to vote. Last Tuesday, and partly in response to the Etobicoke Centre controversy, Opitz’s party introduced Bill C-23, which would change those polling procedures. In particular, the so-called “Fair Elections Act” would eliminate “vouching,” which would prevent voters without proper paper identification from casting ballots in future elections.

Vouching—which is permitted by Section 143(3) of the current version of the Canada Elections Act—is the process by which a qualified elector may prove her identity by taking an oath and being vouched for by another qualified elector whose name appears on the voters’ list for the same polling division. If the Conservatives’ proposed “Fair Elections Act” becomes law, then such vouching will no longer be permitted.

Yet, if courts follow the logic that underlies the Supreme Court’s decision in Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj, then these stricter voter-identification requirements may not survive Charter scrutiny. Without vouching, the provisions of the Canada Elections Act that require voters to show identification in order to vote may be unconstitutional.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has already found that voter-identification restrictions, on their own, infringe the Charter right to vote. Last month, in Henry v. Canada (Attorney General), Madam Justice Ryan determined that “the rights given under [Section Three] of the Charter are restricted only by citizenship and connection to an electoral district,” and that “any legislation which has the effect of encumbering the explicit words of [Section Three] breaches the right and must be justified under [Section One] of the Charter.” (Section One allows legislatures to place “reasonable limits” on rights provided that those limits “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”)

The applicants in Henry were qualified voters—two of them occasionally homeless, one of them elderly and visually impaired—who challenged the constitutionality of the voter-identification restrictions in the current version of the Canada Elections Act. Both the B.C. Supreme Court and the B.C. Court of Appeal found that, though the identification requirements infringed the Charter right to vote, they were nonetheless “demonstrably justified”—and thus constitutional.

I would suggest trading in your current crystal ball for a new non-defective model.

I am an equal opportunity critic.


Last edited by Wetcoaster: 04-03-2014 at 01:44 PM.
Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
04-03-2014, 02:04 PM
  #112
Jamie Thomas
Registered User
 
Jamie Thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,523
vCash: 50
You really should start working on finding new lines. Your so mean insults have been the same for how long now? My guess would be years.

BTW, in all those posts you made, I don't see a quote from the PM saying he didn't know that the rules of appointment were different for Quebec than other provinces, which I find ridiculous for a PM and his Justice Minister. If Trudeau had made those comments, you would be the first to tell us how he is in "way over his head".

Equal opportunity critic, maybe in your mind. You have such a fetish for Trudeau, it is pretty amusing.

Jamie Thomas is offline  
Old
04-03-2014, 02:13 PM
  #113
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie Thomas View Post
You really should start working on finding new lines. Your so mean insults have been the same for how long now? My guess would be years.

BTW, in all those posts you made, I don't see a quote from the PM saying he didn't know that the rules of appointment were different for Quebec than other provinces, which I find ridiculous for a PM and his Justice Minister.

Equal opportunity critic, maybe in your mind. You have such a fetish for Trudeau, it is pretty amusing.
Classics are termed "classics" for a reason - they never get old.

Are you truly that dense that you are unable to understand what went on? Of course Harper knew the rules were different.

As I pointed out Harper went to former SCOC Justice Ian for an opinion on the Nadon appointment to determine if he complied with those particular requirements to fill one of the three Quebec positions on the Supreme Court of Canada.

You are not only uninformed and ignorant - you are mind blowingly stupid.

Just continue on making a complete fool out of yourself. I suppose everyone needs a hobby.

BTW if you do not want to be kicked about do not call me out.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
04-03-2014, 02:21 PM
  #114
Jamie Thomas
Registered User
 
Jamie Thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,523
vCash: 50
You have a really wide definition of classics it seems if weak and repetitive insults are your thing. You are right, you do seem to need a hobby.

Btw, it is pretty clear that Harper knew the rules, he is only trying to justify his stupid and unconstitutional appointment. Just thought it was funny that he was claiming ignorance. This defense would not fly with another liberal politician, it would be just another way to prove his "stupidity". Equal opportunity critic my ass.

BTW, kicked by you? I don't see any way it would be possible, you would probably break your leg. Take it easy.

Jamie Thomas is offline  
Old
04-03-2014, 02:28 PM
  #115
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie Thomas View Post
You have a really wide definition of classics it seems if weak and repetitive insults are your thing. You are right, you do seem to need a hobby.

Btw, it is pretty clear that Harper knew the rules, he is only trying to justify his stupid and unconstitutional appointment. Just thought it was funny that he was claiming ignorance. This defense would not fly with another liberal politician, it would be just another way to prove his "stupidity". Equal opportunity critic my ass.

BTW, kicked by you? I don't see any way it would be possible, you would probably break your leg. Take it easy.
And you would be in error... a continuing state for you it seems.

The only possible claim of ignorance that would be founded would be yours.

And yes you are an ass.

I have a hobby as my HF Boards profile notes:

Interests:
Skewering idiots

Occupation:
Idiot Skewerer

Consider yourself skewered.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
04-03-2014, 02:54 PM
  #116
Jamie Thomas
Registered User
 
Jamie Thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,523
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
And you would be in error... a continuing state for you it seems.

The only possible claim of ignorance that would be founded would be yours.

And yes you are an ass.

I have a hobby as my HF Boards profile notes:

Interests:
Skewering idiots

Occupation:
Idiot Skewerer

Consider yourself skewered.
You are such a waste of time, and not even an original or almost funny one. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were 15 years old. Have fun arguing with yourself.

Apologies to all other readers of this thread, those last posts were ****in pointless. Hopefully back to Canadian Politics.

Jamie Thomas is offline  
Old
04-03-2014, 03:01 PM
  #117
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie Thomas View Post
You are such a waste of time, and not even an original or almost funny one. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were 15 years old. Have fun arguing with yourself.

Apologies to all other readers of this thread, those last posts were ****in pointless. Hopefully back to Canadian Politics.
Run and hide - pretty much your only option at this point.

You made claims that were totally unsupportable based on the available evidence and facts and got caught out.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
04-03-2014, 04:08 PM
  #118
Goldthorpe
Meditating Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Run and hide - pretty much your only option at this point.

You made claims that were totally unsupportable based on the available evidence and facts and got caught out.
Oh the irony! It hurts!!

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=912

Goldthorpe is offline  
Old
04-03-2014, 04:32 PM
  #119
Jamie Thomas
Registered User
 
Jamie Thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,523
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Run and hide - pretty much your only option at this point.

You made claims that were totally unsupportable based on the available evidence and facts and got caught out.
Run and hide?? Caught out? Wtf are you even talking about?

edit. You know what, don't even answer, I won't care, and I don't give a **** about your way too inflated ego problem.


Last edited by Jamie Thomas: 04-03-2014 at 04:51 PM.
Jamie Thomas is offline  
Old
04-03-2014, 08:11 PM
  #120
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldthorpe View Post
Your post says you did not see it.

My recollection of reading French language newspapers during the Victoria Conference in 1971 (which produced the Victoria Charter rejected by Quebec which would have given Quebec a constitutional veto - something they would later regret passing up) was the term used at that time was Premier. My prof at that time was Montreal native Ron Cheffins (Professor Emeritus, Law/Political Science and former BC Court of Appeal Justice) who was advising the BC government and he was making sure we were up with the feelings in Quebec at the time.

If you can produce a French language newspaper of that era (pre-PQ) saying otherwise then I will be happy to acknowledge that I am in error.

Oh yeah and Wikipedia is not proof with original source material to back it up.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
04-03-2014, 08:14 PM
  #121
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie Thomas View Post
Run and hide?? Caught out? Wtf are you even talking about?

edit. You know what, don't even answer, I won't care, and I don't give a **** about your way too inflated ego problem.
You called me out and you were wrong.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
04-03-2014, 08:20 PM
  #122
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,099
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
If you can produce a French language newspaper of that era (pre-PQ) saying otherwise then I will be happy to acknowledge that I am in error.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=2154,5606765

Now pay up.

Leafsdude7 is offline  
Old
04-03-2014, 09:06 PM
  #123
Goldthorpe
Meditating Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Your post says you did not see it.
The word doesn't exist.
Quote:
My recollection of reading French language newspapers during the Victoria Conference in 1971 (which produced the Victoria Charter rejected by Quebec which would have given Quebec a constitutional veto - something they would later regret passing up) was the term used at that time was Premier. My prof at that time was Montreal native Ron Cheffins (Professor Emeritus, Law/Political Science and former BC Court of Appeal Justice) who was advising the BC government and he was making sure we were up with the feelings in Quebec at the time.
Why are you telling me this? I don't care about the source of your ignorance. What happened to you 43 years ago has no bearing to the current discussion.
Quote:
If you can produce a French language newspaper of that era (pre-PQ) saying otherwise then I will be happy to acknowledge that I am in error.
What about: you do your own research, to fix your own ignorance? Hey, it's easy: you just have to find one single instance of the word "Premier" being used in french to designate a provincial prime minister, in any country. Just one!
Should be super easy for something who writes crap this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster
I have a hobby as my HF Boards profile notes:

Interests:
Skewering idiots

Occupation:
Idiot Skewerer

Consider yourself skewered.
You can use the Quebec National Library Archives, and its electronic collection of newspapers.
Here's a the link for a search with the expression "Premier Ministre du Québec". It returned 5569 results.
http://www.banq.qc.ca/collections/co...ation_f&page=1

But don't bring me that crappy "do all the work and I'll finally admit what everybody else understood a week ago, I just need to save face" routine. I want the wanabe tough guy who was boasting scoring cheap points in the Quebec thread against an extremist who obviously wasn't even good in english, because he "didn't respect his elder". Where's that guy? Cause that guy sounded like The Man. That's not what I'm seeing here.

Quote:
Oh yeah and Wikipedia is not proof with original source material to back it up.
Oh yeah? Well you got me there pal! Suddenly, "Premier" is real word in french. You just won the Internets.

Goldthorpe is offline  
Old
04-04-2014, 07:47 AM
  #124
Puck
Ninja
 
Puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Tahiti
Posts: 9,141
vCash: 500
FWIW, the different appellations for Premier is a linguistic convention, not institutional. Even francophones in New Brunswick or Manitoba will call their own Premier that in English, and Premier Ministre in French (and have since Confederation). And anglophones in Quebec have always called the provincial leader Premier, not Prime Minister. Wet might remember reading Quebec newspapers in 1972, but they were probably the Gazette or Montreal Star.

FWIW, I also think like Jamie Thomas about Harper's mischievous 'activist' bent on SC matters, even though he found one Justice to agree. To paraphrase an old adage, put 3 lawyers in a room and you'll get 4 different opinions. Nothing Wet said changed my mind (even though I gave him the last word), he's allowed his political opinion. I suppose he is allowed to dump on Trudeau all he wants, g*d knows I dump on Harper enough.

(p.s. I first came across Wetcoaster on a 2005 CBA thread while he was arguing with Lionel Hutz (also a lawyer) on Malkin (I think it was about draft eligibility, not sure). The thread lasted for ages of replies between the two and neither would give up. Anyway, I think I agreed with Wet on his CBA views but disagreed with his Malkin interpretation (but I wasn't in the argument). That one was a classic. My only lesson in that was not to try getting the last word with anyone that won't let go (like either Hutz or Wet))

Puck is offline  
Old
04-04-2014, 10:15 AM
  #125
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,106
vCash: 500
Ok Ok enought of the laanguage stuff.


So, Eve Adams anyone?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04...nservative-mp/

The summer of 2011 was a high point in the political career of Eve Adams, a former Parliamentary page whose parents were Hungarian refugees and ran garages where she worked pumping gas.

A popular Mississauga city councillor, Ms. Adams made the jump to federal politics that year by beating Liberal favourite Navdeep Bains in Mississauga Brampton South. Labelled the hottest female candidate of the 2011 election by the Toronto Sun, she enjoyed press coverage that lauded her cabinet potential; she was chosen to escort William and Kate on their royal tour; and she spoke glowingly of then finance minister Jim Flaherty at the Rob Ford family summer barbeque, back when His Worship was more asset than liability to federal Tories.

Melrose Munch is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:43 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.