TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- The Federal Debate on NOW
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »

The Federal Debate on NOW

Hope you're watching Jayx1

your leader made a very stupid opening comment

"this election is not about choosing a country, we're all canadians..."

wtf?!



GO MARTIN!

Re: The Federal Debate on NOW

quote:

Originally posted by The Highroller Hope you're watching Jayx1 your leader made a very stupid opening comment "this election is not about choosing a country, we're all canadians..." wtf?! GO MARTIN!

WTF?!?

He was directly addressing Paul Martin's latest claims / ads suggesting that you're either voting for Martin and a Canada as you currently know it, or for Harper and a country that wouldn't reflect the current Canada.

Harper is simply stating that Conservatives are Canadians as well, and subscribe to Canadian values like a continued public health care system, etc.

oops. i guess i'm not up to date with the parties' ads.

my mistake

martin is getting killed by deuceppe right now

and martin with the right hook on harper!!

hahahah

duceppe killed everyone yesterday. excellent show to watch and laugh

If I watch this, I won't finish my homework.

guh.

i have to agree with you malek, duceppe is embarassing all of them.

Let me say that first id rather be at the Argo game like i was supposed to be...

Second that Jack Layton sounds like Alex Trebek and with hair might even look like him too!

LOL LOL

Ill have more to say when this over.

Jack Layton needs to learn how to shut his mouth and let other people have their say

just finished watching. what does that bloc guy want anyways? I mean they are separists arent they?

there was a meter thing on Global TV with the 'strongly agree' or 'strongly disagree' meter where people clocked in. i think that was really stupid because it doesnt create objectivity like broadcasts should be. people dont need to see a stupid meter at the bottom of the screen to see whether some jackasses disagree or agree with whatever is said. Global TV sucks, CBC all the way.

I found the debate to be quite interesting but I must say that live opinion meter at the bottom of the screen on Global should not have been used. What if it was rigged? Plus it looked like it had like a 5 second response delay and was quite distracting. I switched to good ol CBC after half an hour off enduring it.

quote:

Originally posted by The Highroller Jack Layton needs to learn how to shut his mouth and let other people have their say

I couln't agree more. After a while I got really annoyed with him even though he might have had something useful to say.

I was just asked by Ipsos-Reid / CTV to give a post-debate opinion poll.... apparently the results are going to be at 11pm.

Duceppe killed everyone.

Layton was laying out the accusations, but I think he needed to pace himself, and be more selective.

highlight of the night: Martin basically telling Layton to shut up (without actually using those words)

Personally, I thought Martin handled himself pretty well considering that all 3 were out to get him.
Harper's veiled admission of his opposition to same-sex marriage and refusal, once again, to rule out using the notwithstanding clause against it, along with his continued avoidance of answering the question as to how the numbers add up on his spending and tax cut policies, were also all poignant moments.

i was listening to it on the radio and damn that lady was so annoying cutting off everyone in the middle of their sentences... most of the times the speaker had one or two more words to say before completing his sentence and that bitch was THATS ALL THE TIME YOU HAVE! STFU!

Well first let me say personally that its interesting how this thread was started and how it was addressed to me. I think this certainly shows that there is room for this kind of discussion on this board and I am happy to have brought it here. I hope this ends all future whining and hijacking about thread content.

Who do I think won the debate? Id say there were no clear winners.

If i really had to choose though Id say Duceppe. If he wasnt a seperatist traitor he'd be a good politician. I love how he kept grilling Martin with the same question over and over. Martin would change the subject when he was asked a tough question by Duceppe and Duceppe wouldnt let Martin get away with it. Duceppe was also very clear and articulate especially since english is his second language. Here is a guy who was also willing to admit that he agreed with another party when it came to certain issues.

Paul Martin: First off his opening speech was arrogant. I loved Layton's comments calling him arrogant for already deciding who Canadians were going to vote for when Martin said in his opening that Canadians will be deciding which of the TWO parties will govern Canada. I think this shows exactly how arrogant this current government is. He also said later on that "people who apolgize don't win any respect." EXCUSE ME MR MARTIN??? Paul Martin kept changing the subject whenever he was grilled about his record. There isnt really anything positive i can say about martin after this debate. I think his arrogance and dishonesty shone through by his refusal to directly answer the questions.

Jack Layton: His best moment of the night was when he made the "arrogance" comment. He also had another good moment when he grilled Martin on his health care record. Most Canadians dont realize that health care has been cut under a Liberal government. Layton fails misrably when he starts talking social policy. I found his token insertion of references to women and "muslim men" were completely out of context to the issues being spoken at the time and quite frankly this Political Correctness attempt was quite insulting. I also found him to be an overbearing cartoon character. Sadly i think his performance tonight will scare many left wing NDPers into Liberal arms. Not good.

Harper: Probably the most relaxed and easy going guy on the whole panel. He didnt feel the need to raise his voice and drown out the other candidates. I think Harper should have been more direct against Martin and emphasized things like his broken GST promises, the sea king fiasco, the gun registry and the billion dollar boondoggle. He did attack martin successfully though on the ad scandal. Of all the politicians out there i think he provided the most honest and clear answers whether people agree with what he says or not. The biggest praise though is the fact that he didnt try to dodge very touchy issues by attack the opposition like Martin did.

All in all this hasnt really changed my vote. its solidified my mistrust of Martin and gave me a new respect for Duceppe. It also allowed me to see the inexperience of Jack Layton.

quote:

Originally posted by JRinger highlight of the night: Martin basically telling Layton to shut up (without actually using those words) Personally, I thought Martin handled himself pretty well considering that all 3 were out to get him. Harper's veiled admission of his opposition to same-sex marriage and refusal, once again, to rule out using the notwithstanding clause against it, along with his continued avoidance of answering the question as to how the numbers add up on his spending and tax cut policies, were also all poignant moments.

He answered the question. He said he'd stop the planned increases for departmental spending (bureaucrats) and cut the wast of scandel and use that money to fund important things like the military, health care and tax cuts.

His response to same sex was not veiled. He said he supports traditional marriage but would leave it to parliament to decide. He also reminded canada that Martin also supported the same idea. He grilled martin about it and martin refused to answer instead he said that 3 courts had decided it for him. Basically what this said to me was that martin supports the idea of traditional marriage but would not necissarily impose his view on Canadians. Funny but this is exactly what harper has also been saying.

As for the notwithstanding clause. He did rule it out except in the case of forcing churches to marry gays against their religion. This is moot anyways because the freedom of religion is already enshrined in the constitution anyways. Paul Martin btw is also on record as to agreeing with this use of the notwithstanding clause

"Does your handbook tell you to talk all the time?" --Paul Martin

quote:

Originally posted by The Highroller "Does your handbook tell you to talk all the time?" --Paul Martin

hahahah

i didn't get to hear the whole of the debate, but the one in French was so funny, full of low blows and inuendos (sp?). I was laughing out loud.

was this one funny? I'll try to catch a rerun.

also, in the french version, duceppe agreed often with the NDP on some issues and not once with the Conservatives.

I think it was handlers actually Highroller. Nice response from Layton. I'm voting Green so it really doesn't matter jack sh*t. Yeah Duceppe brought out some proper goods in the debate.

I hate Martin. I wouldn't trust him with my unborn child.

Layton looked liked a used car salesman.
I voted NDP before and am sorry I did. Layton just doesn't have it.

quote:

Originally posted by jpgrdnr Layton looked liked a used car salesman.

i think he looks more like lenin, maybe its the moustache.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 He answered the question. He said he'd stop the planned increases for departmental spending (bureaucrats) and cut the wast of scandel and use that money to fund important things like the military, health care and tax cuts.

That was a politicians response. When pressed as to how the numbers add up, he dodged the question as he has since the start of the campaign.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 As for the notwithstanding clause. He did rule it out except in the case of forcing churches to marry gays against their religion. This is moot anyways because the freedom of religion is already enshrined in the constitution anyways. Paul Martin btw is also on record as to agreeing with this use of the notwithstanding clause

This is blatantly false. Go back and watch his response again. Harper did NOT rule out the use of the notwithstanding clause against same-sex marriage in general. His response to Martin's question was that there were occasions when the use of the notwithstanding clause was justified, but he did not rule out it's use against same-sex marriage in general. He dodged the question, and in doing so made a disgusting tie between child pornography and same-sex marriage.

I do agree with you regarding its application to marriages in churches and that Martin has also previously stated the same thing. And, as you mention, that that particular application is moot anyway.

BTW> if it's of any relevance, when the election was called, Harper and the Conservatives has my vote. They've lost it over the last few weeks...and I would stress that they have lost it, more than the Liberals have won it.

Short of pulling out the math and calculator he did say that several financial analysts have seen it and deemed it feasable. He even went so far as to name several of them who said this.

As for notwithstanding, he said flat out that he would not support a bill that took the right of marriage away from gay and lesbian people. I think that would also answer the notwithstanding issue dont you think?

I resent the fact that the liberals think that they can use confusion and half truths in order to win an election. Very manipulative if you ask me. Do you really want that from a leader? I dont.

Martin stated that in the past the notwithstanding clause (of section 52.1 of the constitution act 1982) was never needed to be used. I dont beleive he will be using it.

Im not particulary happy with military spending from harper. I agree with the liberals on military that its emphasis should be on peacekeeping.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.