|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Shaun T on Thursday, March 24 2005 @ 11:16 PM CST |
That's pretty weak evidence... the fact that it didn't look like it had been removed from its previous location. How the hell can they really determine that.
If there's another referendum, I can guarantee you I'll be hunting down a few No posters, and carefully remove them in the middle of the night, and plaster them on top of some Yes posters. Then No will be disqualified.
This is craziness. It's way, way too easy for either side to be penalized due to no actions of thier own (and possibly due to malicious actions of the OTHER side).
Both in the election and in this referendum, the so called "committees" have made many completely absurd decisions.
Can you imagine... a year from now we have another Federal election...
.. A Paul Martin sign gets pasted over a Stephen Harper sign. There's no evidence the sign had been removed from its previous location.
... So Paul Martin is disqualified from making any further public appearances for the rest of the election period and must take down all his election signs.
How completely absurd is that?
It seems fishy that the FEDS are basically running this referendum and yet they are publicly supporting the No side. I guess they've never heard the term "conflict of interest".
If anyone should be given a swift kick in the ass, it's the FEDS. They're responsible for this whole refundable fee mess.[ Parent ]
|
| |
|
