Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Support Canadian snark!
Syndicate
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(2146)
-
▼
September
(183)
- Just when you think they can't sink any lower into...
- Calgary Ward 4: Vote early, vote often.
- Sometimes, the situation just screams for a United...
- Right-wing logic, as it were.
- Please give generously to the intellectually handi...
- Oh, THIS looks like a good investment.
- Dear wankers: Wrong about everything again, I see.
- Paying down the national debt: "As required by law?"
- Patton Oswalt: Snack time, any time.
- When life imitates Dilbert.
- Compassionate conservatism, Blogging Tory style.
- Yeah, about those 125,000 child care spaces? Well...
- Yeah, about that "founder of Greenpeace" thing ...
- Because it's all about the kids, remember?
- And suddenly, the MoveOn outrage becomes very sele...
- I believe that's what you call "timely."
- When you need absolutely half the story, all the t...
- Hypocrisy for thee, but not for me.
- Science, as it is done.
- Dear wankers: What's it like to be wrong about ev...
- The colour of the sky on Brian's planet.
- And when you want your news untainted by facts, th...
- There are no words for this.
- And if you don't like those facts, Raphael has oth...
- Oh, man, you talkin' crazy!
- Dear CTV: Regarding journalistic standards ...
- Context: that's the important thing.
- Facts can be such inconvenient things.
- Let me explain this to you slooooooowly ...
- Sometimes, the analogy should be self-evident, don...
- Your Canadian mainstream media in action.
- Blackwater cluefulness: Better late than never.
- WTF ... ?
- You keep using that word "civility" ...
- If we're lucky, they'll beat each other senseless.
- Sure, it's paperwork, but it's worth it.
- Deep thoughts from the Canadian Right, and turnabo...
- Friday, end-of-week retro.
- Right-wing armchair warriors: Whiny-ass titty bab...
- About that "walking and chewing gum" thing ...
- Tasers: The last word.
- And now, not your Small Dead Brainstem News.
- The classics never go out of style.
- Blog rankings by incoming links.
- "Earth to Denyse ... come in, Denyse ..."
- "WTF???" open thread.
- Kerry and dickheads and Tasers, oh my!
- Yeah, and there was that other thing, too.
- ... and sometimes, you DESERVE a good Tasering.
- Even wingnuts have their limits.
- Apparently, (Catholic) girls just wanna have fun.
- Welcome to the party, PZ.
- Why, yes, I DID call that nicely, didn't I?
- "... and if she buys kippers, it will not rain."
- Some people eventually get a clue. Other people ...
- Sometimes, this job is way too easy.
- "La la la la la la la ... I can't HEARRRR you!": ...
- And women getting the vote? That's some bad ju-ju...
- Your preznit speaks!
- ... and that second explanation isn't holding up t...
- Even assassination can be made more time-efficient.
- War profiteering by any other name ...
- And the BT reaction? I'm guessing crickets.
- "Well, if that's the way you feel about it, I'll j...
- Um ... poor people! Booga booga!
- Sometimes, I am thoroughly embarrassed by my species.
- If we wanted your opinion ...
- That IE thing.
- Those who don't remember (recent) history ...
- Those who do not remember history ...
- What's up with IE?
- Soljers ar stoopid.
- Yeah, it's genetic.
- I am Voldemort -- fear me.
- Quickly, Sherman ... into the wayback machine.
- Your "liberal" media.
- The blogosphere just got stupider: Gerry Nicholls...
- Unrepentant in the Great White North.
- Werds meen wut I say they meen.
- The National Post and Benador Associates: Get a r...
- Alexis Debat and Amer Taheri: Connecting the dots.
- Who said schizophrenia doesn't have its lighter side?
- The douchebaggery of Brian Lemon.
- Some serious eJankulatory goodness.
- Capitalism? Never heard of it.
- When I referred to unreasonable religious whackjob...
- The editorial you know you're never going to see.
- Ah, the consistency that is the Blogging Tories.
- Apparently, it's all a matter of context.
- Just get a bucket of paint for those idiots.
- Apparently, free market accountability has its lim...
- I'd like to recognize all the little people ...
- How stupid is Sheila Copps?
- I feel ... a batshit craziness in the force ...
- Kathy Griffin: "Suck it, Jesus."
- How to blog with one hand: Wingnut edition.
- Your Conservative Party of Canada: Getting things...
- And one Blogging Tory steps up big time.
- Heh.
- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
-
▼
September
(183)
12 comments:
Copps and Werner,... opposite sides sides of the same wooden nickel. I could hand either one a three dollar bill and get change for a fiver back
I just don't see what's so hard to understand about all this. The law says what it says, and only Parliament can change it. What the hell is so complicated about that? And seriously, does anyone really think that there is going to be massive election fraud committed by women in veils? Seriously?
I'm thinking about wearing a mask and bring ID when I vote next time.
Chet, yes. Totally.
At least I think that would be the answer.
I can't believe Copps. Is she pretending not to understand?
Very good, Sparky. You'll need 2 pieces, one of which includes your address. Knock yourself out.
No, I mean seriously, knock yourself out.
If they make it mandatory that people have to show their faces to vote, I want, I seriously want them to be consistent and just TRY to apply it to mail-in votes and people who vote from overseas. Just try.
two by four anyone?
Handgun, perhaps.
Parliament speaks by bills plus assent, not by the bitchings & moanings of individual members.
Seems to me, the bureaucratic victim is taking the position that his hands were tied when the bill was passed and assent was granted, and if a majority in parliament wants to change the law, it can.
Without looking at the language of the act, we cannot tell whether he's right or wrong. Anyone know what the law actually says?
Seer?
Google Bill C-31 from 2007. The relevant point is article 21.
Oh, wait. I linked to it elswwhere. Here's what it says (in part - link to full text below)
21. Sections 143 to 145 of the Act are replaced by the following:
'If the poll clerk determines that the elector’s name and address appear on the list of electors or that the elector is allowed to vote under section 146, 147, 148 or 149, then, subject to subsection (3), the elector shall provide to the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk the following proof of his or her identity and residence:
(a) one piece of identification issued by a Canadian government, whether federal, provincial or local, or an agency of that government, that contains a photograph of the elector and his or her name and address; or
(b) two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer each of which establish the elector’s name and at least one of which establishes the elector’s address. '
'(3) An elector may instead prove his or her identity and residence by taking the prescribed oath if he or she is accompanied by an elector whose name appears on the list of electors for the same polling division and who
(a) provides to the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk the piece or pieces of identification referred to in paragraph (2)(a) or (b), respectively; and
(b) vouches for him or her on oath in the prescribed form.
Bill C-31 (2007)
But, honestly? It is not difficult to find and why you expect others to point you to it?.... well, I'm not sure why. As I said, info like this is very easy to find. If I can do it...
Pass the tequila....I described her at my place as a "noisy smoothbrain" (CC's place is starting to have very bad effects on me).
She lost me in paragraph 2:
Politicians live in the real world.
Post a Comment