|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
| [RDC] Election Committee Decision 5 |
Contributed by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 05:46 PM CST
|
The Election Committee has released its decision regarding an
allegation against candidate Lawrence Lam.
Eds: this story, initially titled "[RDC] Election Committee Decision 4", was retitled as the decision concerning John Anderson was in fact the fourth such decision.
The text of the decision is as
follows:
Election Committee Decision
February 15, 2005
On February 11, 2005, an allegation was made that candidate Lawrence
Lam violated section G.1.a of the election procedure, regarding statements made
at public meetings. The allegation is as follows:
Today at the Eng. Soc. Forum VP In Candidate Lawrence Lam stated that "many
event forms are not approved until after the event".
I believe that Lawrence is trying to imply that the system is onerous, and/or that [Alleger's name removed by Election Committee] have not been diligently working to approve the events. This is not the case.
Section G.1.a reads as follows:
G. CAMPAIGNING PERIOD
1. Rules for candidates
a. No lying.
The Election Committee investigated the allegation. Candidate Lam outlined the context of his comments:
"The statement that I made at the Engineering Forum was based on comments
made at a meeting between the Students First candidates (EJ, Carmen, Bobby and Myself) and members of the Engineering Society executive (Karim, Dave, and Ken).
We were discussing the process of event forms and they told us the
problem with slowness and the consequences of the delay with the overwhelming
paperwork. Karim was able to recall one example of such an incident
which was the TalEng show."
Mr. Lam submitted an email from Karim Lallani that read in part as follows:
"Yes, I can confirm saying this. I wasn't here in the fall term, but during my transition meeting with the A-society executive, I was told that there are a few problems with the event forms. I understand that it's a new process, so it's expected that there would be problems. The one
event that I was referring to when I spoke to you was the Engineering Talent Show @
philthy's (TalEng). I was told that an event form was submitted to the Feds VP-int..but it wasn't approved in time, so they went ahead and did the event anyways. But, they found out the next day that it was approved.
There may be other events.but I can only confirm this one! J"
The Election Committee also consulted the signed society event forms from Fall 2004 and Winter 2005. The Committee discovered three instances of unsigned forms that did not specifically indicate that an event had
not been approved, one instance of a signed form that had no date, and two instances
of event forms being signed after the event had taken place.
The Election Committee also took into account Mr. Lam's assertion
that he was conveying information he had heard elsewhere.
The Election Committee therefore finds that Mr. Lam did not violate section
G.1.a of the election procedure.
Sincerely,
Brandon Sweet
Chief Electoral Officer
|
| |
|
|
|
| Authored by: The Small Cucumber on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 07:09 PM CST |
| This is such low-brow politics. I cannot believe someone would stoop this low to try and win an election. I feel the public deserves to know who made these ludicrous allegations against Mr. Lam. [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Giant Space Hamster on Tuesday, February 15 2005 @ 10:24 PM CST |
Seriously, why are these accusations anonymous?
I mean, if you're going to make a formal accusation that can actually hurt another candidate, the least you should do is make it openly.
I say that if the accusation is deemed false, the accuser's name should be published.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Matthew Campbell on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 12:59 AM CST |
| ...make sure that you get out and vote against them! It'll also help to get your friends to vote against them too! [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Unbiased observer on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 12:05 PM CST |
Why is the complaint and conviction against Andersen not posted?? Please, uws, try to be objective for once and at least try and hide your bias in favour of Blue.
No one with morals could support Anderson. He misrepresents statements and violates Feds election rules. What kind of idiot can't even obey the rules? He's obviously not fit to be president - if anyone votes for him, they're supporting the disobedience of the rules and disrespect for another candidate.
Team Blue seems to be getting desperate, launching attacks on everyone. I guess they smell the scent of defeat, lol. No one vote for Blue!
For students first. Period. www.studentsfirst.org[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: FEDS insider on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 04:42 PM CST |
I have it on good authority that, unless there are quite a lot of votes cast in the next 3 hours, that John Anderson will become the next FEDS president.
I can't reveal my sources, but they are very reliable.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TomC on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 11:49 PM CST |
First off, NOTE: I am not Tom, i'm TomC... Tom 's a different poster... we disagree on a lot. (since i'm involved in the IAC I thought id clear that up)
OK... Team BLUE and diversity: Come on... one of them is a latin immigrant who had to learn english as a second language. The other one's Jewish and considers that to be her ethnicity, not white. Not to mention their webmaster who is quite the minority if i do say so myself.
The election policies need to be revised to make some more sense. I also really feel like some people were getting very petty with their allegations against BLUE as well as some of the other allegations against other tickets.
Some of the candidates managed to cover up poor platform content with showmanship... that's a shame.
As always UWS was a disappointment rather than a discussion, but ah well.
To the people fighting over the ESA - i appreciate the fact that it's an important issue to you guys, but when it began to dominate EVERY discussion it took the spotlight away from where it should have been, the candidates. At some point you guys need to move on.
the refferendums got NO publicity... shame.
here's hoping the students made the best choices.... i guess only time will tell.
Peace and Love,
TomC[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Banky Edwards on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 01:08 AM CST |
| You got a problem with that? [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: John Andersen on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 01:16 AM CST |
| WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Come join in!!!! [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Clubs on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 12:22 PM CST |
Congratulations to Lawrence Lam of Students First/Team Yellow for taking victory in the election!
We hope you perform your role dutifully and look forward to working with you.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Matthew Campbell on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 05:55 PM CST |
Well everyone, its been fun. On behalf of Students First I want to thank everyone who supported our team this year.
As for me, I'll return to my life sans-uws; but before I go, just a few suggestions:
Shaun T: its obvious this fellow knows nothing about what he rants about on here. I would recommend ignoring this troll; maybe he'll go away then and this site can stick to constructive debates and not the careless rantings of a guy who takes his self-importance to an unhealthy level.
Tolerance is a two way street: Yes, I'm talking to you "progressives" or liberals out there who think that conservatives/Christians/religious/etc. are to be ridiculed and harassed for their opinions. You merely demonstrate your hypocracy by making such hate-filled comments that I've seen on here over the past two weeks.
Keep it respectable: Perhaps the worst comments I saw on here were those attacking Nick Cake for his personal experiences. I fell really bad for Nick having his good name smeared on this public forum by some people who have neither the integrity or the guts to let even their identity be exposed. If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to start writing seriously!
Other than that, I wish you all the best; may God bless you and your own over the coming weeks.
-Matthew J C Campbell[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Timmy on Sunday, February 20 2005 @ 11:27 AM CST |
I think Bobby Naini would have been too good for the FEDS anyways. I don't even know why he bothered running for it. He could have just graduated this term and gone into the industry easily making close to $80 000 US at Qualcomm in San Diego (come back to us Bob). It still kind of boggles the mind that AIR wanted to cut the salaries of the FEDS exec, but clearly, the students who voted were not buying into that.
Anyways, Bobby should be on the radio or something because he has an awesome voice. At the end of the day, the VP Ed portfolio will be the same as in every other year: no influence, no affect, and no regard. Students have given up on the portfolio because of a lack of deliverables in the past.
As a graduate from UW, I was following the FEDS election online, and the results are somewhat stunning (but keep in mind that I was not able to attend the debates or speak to the candidates personally). Based on the websites of the candidates, the Imprint articles, and UWS, I would have expected the following outcome:
Pres - Nada Basir
VP Ed - Bobby Naini
VP AF - Nick Cake
VP Int - Sabrina Bowman
But as others have pointed out on UWS, the biggest shocker is Howie "Check out my Fender Bender" getting elected. Bobby Naini was born for the VP Ed portfolio. It goes to show that we don't always elect the person best suited for the job.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Chow on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 02:09 AM CST |
This year's elected FEDS is not looking very promising.
John Andersen, the master of not keeping his promises, is now going to be at the helm of the organization. Did anyone happen to notice that no matter what ideas and issues the other candidates in this election raised, he was always stating that the issue has been resolved. Classic bull shitter. I'm surprised no one called him on his biggest lie about the display case in the SLC being fully approved, minus some financial issues. Liar!!!! I think Nada would have been perfect for the job. She has a great track record, and is far more sincere than Andersen. She just ran a shitty campaign unfortunately.
Howie Bender is simply the biggest incompetent I have met. His term as president of the ASU is evidence of this. Most people find him revolting and difficult to work with. During the election, I failed to see any new ideas that he wanted to bring to his portfolio. As a TA in Spanish, he has been, at best, incompetent and unhelpfull, and I'm being generous here (I was one of his students so I would know). Bobby would have been ideal for this position because of his legal and debate experience. It's too bad he was off by only 20 votes.
Lawrence Lam, while not incompetent, has absolutely NO charisma, social skills, or public speaking abilities. And most troublesome are his beliefs! He is super right wing! Anti gay, anti abortion, anti woman, anti everything those extreme religious nuts love to be. If he could, he would shut down any club that he find disagreeing with his views. And finally, did anyone notice that the guy is a NUT CASE! His website blog claims that he sees the devil and talks to God on a regular basis. I think all of the candidates were pretty half ass in this portfolio, but if I had to choose, I would have gone with Lee Bowman. He would have been a refreshing choice, especially since he might actually have brought some life to this campus.
And last AND least, Carmen Lam. I think she tought us some very important thing about running for FEDS. Don't talk, don't debate, don't bring in any news ideas, don't bring in any experience, and you should be able to win. As a staff member in the Bomber, I can tell you that there is A LOT of rumbling about her win. Everyone is shocked because her platform was nonesense. It's too bad no one called her on it. But at the same time, why should anyone. It seemed like she had no chance of winning. Nick Cake would have been ideal, because he has experience and new ideas to bring to the table.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Matthew Nowak on Friday, March 04 2005 @ 05:02 AM CST |
From Webster's NWE, 1992:
genocide := The deliberate and systematic destruction of a national, racial, religious, political, cultural, ethnic, or other group defined by the exterminators as undesirable.
recall your definition: genocide := The deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group.
For your definition or mine:
DELIBERATE: neither the mother having the abortion, nor the butcher performing it, nor the abortion advocates supporting it, nor the government instating a law to allow it are doing any of these things by accident
SYSTEMATIC: The most horrendous and famous genocide in history (Holocaust) systematically exterminated 11 million people in 6 years. In 6 years, an estimated 320 million people are killed by abortion.
On a different tangent, see the section entitled IS ABORTION SYSTEMATIC at http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/abortion.html (too long to post)
Also see random fact at the end of this post.
How’s that for systematic?
EXTERMINATION/DESTRUCTION: methinks most babies that have been aborted are dead
NATIONAL GROUP: unwanted children (in America, or in the world, whatever you want to argue)
So there you have it Silly Girl. We have that abortion is a DELIBERATE and SYSTEMATIC EXTERMINATION of an ethnic or NATIONAL group. By your definition and by mine, we see that abortion is genocide.
Also, by “any way you look at it,” I meant any way you look at abortion. i.e. with any form of tolerance for abortion by law and society.... there is genocide
Correction on my previous random fact: it is not true. I claimed that half of all patients who enter abortion clinics do not make it out alive. I did not take into account the mothers who die as a result of the abortion. FYI this statistic is not available since mothers deaths due to abortion are not categorized as abortion deaths, but rather “internal hemorrhaging” or the like. So less than half of the people who enter an abortion clinic leave alive.
Matthew Nowak
Random fact: since 1990, abortion has killed as many people as EVERY OTHER CAUSE OF DEATH COMBINED. Yes, 1 out of 2 deaths was an abortion.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Renjie Butalid on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 12:57 PM CST |
| This Monday (today) March 7th, at 7:30, Father William Slattery, L.C., will be giving a talk entitled: The Da Vinci Code: Truth or Hoax? It will be held in the Great Hall of the Student Life Center at the University of Waterloo. The talk will examine the validity of the claims made in the best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code, regarding the life of Jesus Christ and the history of the Church. The book has been very controversial, and the talk promises to be quite good. Come on out to the talk if you can! [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Vek on Tuesday, March 08 2005 @ 01:46 AM CST |
UWSFL is hosting a debate on abortion!
Should Abortion be Legal?
The Great Debate
Stephanie Gray
Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform
vs.
Michael Currie
UW Debating Society
This event is being moderated by the UW Debating society*
The debate will be on Friday March 11th, 2005 at 1pm in room MC 2066
A copy of the debate poster can be found at...
The UWSFL Webpage
*Michael Currie and the UW Debating Society enjoy having debates about all issues, but do not necessarily believe in one side over another.[ Parent ]
|
| |
|
|
|
