The more I think about this, the more I realize what an ugly can of worms PMS has opened up with his foolish comments.
For instance, if Harper and his right whinging choir truly do believe that a person must show his or her face to an electoral officer in order to vote, then by logical extension they must be opposed to special ballot voting that allows a voter to mail in their ballot without showing their face to an electoral officer. It must also mean that Harper and his right whinging choir are opposed to our military voting under the Special Voting Rules that also allows them to mail in their ballot without showing their face to an electoral officer.
And from commenter Hawise on the American blog, Lawyers, Guns and Money, is a chilling example of how any one of us could lose our right to vote if Harper is allowed to have his way.
An election is announced, you meet all the requirements and have everything set to go. The day after absentee ballots are closed you get in a car accident that results in your face being covered with bandages but you are otherwise able to go about during the healing process. Are you denied the right to vote because you cannot uncover your face without risking disfigurement or infection?
What may have started as something insignificant that was then used by PMS and his right whinging choir as a wedge issue looks like it could very well turn into a fight for every Canadian’s right to vote; a fight that I wouldn’t want to be on the wrong side of if I were a politician. Luckily for us though, Elections Canada has already taken a firm stand in favour of protecting our right to vote.
Given that Harper’s merry band of Tories went out of their way to rig the Wheat Board vote, it wouldn’t suprise me that they’re looking at ways to rig the next federal election by pruning the voters list of non-Tories.
Robert, do you think they need to show their face when going through security at the airport? What about applying for a passport? Society has created a set of rules. If we carve out a special exemption here, there and everywhere, the rules are useless. This is a non-issue that the media is jumping all over in an attempt to fabricate a story.
And this is not a fight for every Canadians right to vote. I show up, show my id, make my vote and then go home. I feel threatened in no way what so ever.
Surprise, surprise…Macaw is an ignoramus on even this issue, about which there is no debate. Read the editorial in The Globe and Mail today, dumbass.
I think Right-tards must get orgasms from being wrong.
I read the opinion piece. Like I stated, this is a non-issue. My opinion is that you need to show your face to vote. Parliament needs to “clarify” the law. I don’t buy into Roberts claim that all Canadians are at risk of losing their ability to vote.
There is always debate Ti. Welcome to democracy.
Parliament needs to “clarify” the law.
No, Parliament needs to amend the law if they want it to specify something it doesn’t now.
That’s how democracy works, Macaw. And you know that. You’re just a liar.
He doesn’t know it, Ti-Guy. But he’s still a liar.
OK, we’ll split the difference….half the time he know he’s lying and the other half, he’s lying because he’s asserting things he has no way of knowing, whether he knows that or not.
That’s the ying and yang of wingnut unreality. Conscious and unconscious dishonesty, in perfect balance. It’s beautiful, in its own special way.
Jeez, you two really are a pair. Yes, by clarifying the law they will have to ammend the current one. How else do you clarify something like this? My point has not changed. There is no dishonesty here, except maybe Roberts claim that this is an attack on every Canadian’s right to vote, but of course, you two choose to ignore this. The irony of what you preach here would be sad if it weren’t so funny.
Yes, by clarifying the law they will have to ammend the current one.
Nice try, liar.
Whatever floats your boat buddy. If you need to hold onto this to support your rage, by all means, don’t let me stand in your way.
jmckay
You are wasting your time trying to debate with Tri-fool.
He hasn’t taken his meds for months now and his writing continues to get more incoherent every time he posts a message.
His alter ego and other handle is authurdecco so when you are speaking to them you are really only talking to Tri-fool and his duel personality. I have it on good authority that Tri-fool will soon be forced back onto his meds and his alter ego Arthurdecco will soon disappear as tri-fool soon gets back to his senses and realises that he is really hates the left in Canada and see them for the states whores that they are.
He will be so embarrassed by his past post over the last few months since he went off his meds that all sharp objects will have to be kept away from him for his own protection.
Do not debate with this man/men? Feel pity for him/them? and his/their? uneducated and irrational views and his/their? own self hatred of his/their? poor metal health.
To Tri-fools alter ego Arthurdecco.
“Can you see the difference, I can see the difference.”
Deno
That’s not rage, bozo…it’s just cold contempt, which is hard to convey through this medium.
Face it…your little shift from “clarifying” indicates that you are a liar. That you still won’t admit it means you’re an egregious liar. And you’ve been trolling this blog with your fucking nonsense for months now.
In conclusion…you’re a liar. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
And Deno calls himself a “Christian”…
…it is to laugh.
“Face it…your little shift from “clarifying” indicates that you are a liar.” Not even a little bit. Let’s see if I can explain in a way someone so angry as yourself might understand. You see, I used “clarify” as a general term meaning to remove ambiguity. To do that in this case, one must reword the law. It was implied through reasoning (connective thought by an intelligent person) that any clarification would need a legal change, hence the reference to Parliament and NOT to Elections Canada or to the PM. Are you following still? I have not “shifted” anything. I still think Parliament needs to clarify the law.
Your assertions of lying are simply unfounded and no matter how hard you beat your “right wing, evil conspiriacy, there all out to get me, twist the words until my rhetoric sounds plausible….” drum, just cause you think it, does not make it true.
That I “still won’t admit it” does not compound my guilt either. It simplies implies that I am still not a liar. I know it’s hard to see the difference with the rage goggles on but let me try an example:
I say “Ti, you’re an asshole.”
You respond with “no I am not”.
I triumphantly state “See!!! That further proves you truly are an asshole!”.
Can you see the logic breaking down?
In conclusion…I’m not a liar. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. You simply chose to interpret something the only way you know how, your way. Hate does that to people. It filters out reasonable thought and leads only to bias and ignorance. You cannot see the world in any other way because your filter won’t let you. My poor Misery, so sad for you.
Gee, Deno, who, exactly, is off their meds? My goodness, what a strange post!
Is there anybody close to you that you trust enough to confide in, Deno? Because sometimes all that’s needed to get you back in the saddle is a concerned ear, ready to listen.
And you should be aware by now that Ti-Guy and I have very different opinions on a variety of subjects. We agree on a few things certainly - like the fact that you, Deno, and you, jmckay, along with sundry other losers masturbating over your keys in dark basements directly under your Major Mummy’s upstairs watching Fox News, are irreparably fubar.
I’m certain we share that opinion. In fact, I’d bet huge on it.
Deno is actually responsible for children Can you imagine that? Someone call the Edmonton Child Protection Services, stat!