TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Liberals and Conservatives virtually tied in national poll
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by baystreetboi The arguement people would make is under clause 12: "Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."

That's nonsense read in by activist judges.

^^^ this guy is hilarious ^^^


you are gonna see his name beside cynical in the dictionary

Nothing in the text of the Charter says the death penalty should be banned.

Judges were the ones that changed the law, but the people of Canada never had a say in the change of law.

The abolition of the death penalty was never approved by a popular referendum. The Charter never was either.

What a joke.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 I dont think Harper is about to alter the charter so he can bring in capital punishment. To alter the charter youd need to approval of every province. As for his personal views. Chretien was a devout catholic but he didnt change the social structure of Canada to support his views did he? Painting Harper as some sort of religious nut is the greatest Liberal spin ever. I just hope people arent dumb enough to buy it.

But Harper won't even take a stand on issues that should pretty much be moot by now...abortion and capital punishment. He brings on the image of being a religious nut all by himself...

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf Nothing in the text of the Charter says the death penalty should be banned. Judges were the ones that changed the law, but the people of Canada never had a say in the change of law. The abolition of the death penalty was never approved by a popular referendum. The Charter never was either. What a joke.

man you are the joke...

even if it goes thru a referendum, it would be rejected massivly.

Canadians are opposed to the death penalty... go cry me a river.

quote:

Originally posted by b4k-oz Vote NDP to ensure that they are the opposition!!!! Go NDP, Go

you know this happend before, nobody wanted to vote for librals or pc, so everyone voted for NDP, ndp was so suprised they didn't even have an acceptance speach (or what ever it'd be called) and they fucked up bad. lets hope if they do get in again ,they'll be better prepared.

I just hope people don't vote for conservatives JUST to get rid of the liberals cause that's just stupid...vote for what you believe and what matters not just so that someone will lose...the conservatives won't be much better or any different than the libs IMO...

on the contrary starsearcher... i just hope EVERYONE votes...

i'm pretty sure if you took everyone who didn't vote, and put them all for me, i'd end up being your next prime minister! lol


"Prime Minister Kris"... sure has a nice ring to it!

Oh no i didn't mean NOT TO VOTE AT ALL...i meant they should go vote...just not for conservatives just so that liberals will lose...

quote:

Originally posted by BTG you know this happend before, nobody wanted to vote for librals or pc, so everyone voted for NDP, ndp was so suprised they didn't even have an acceptance speach (or what ever it'd be called) and they fucked up bad. lets hope if they do get in again ,they'll be better prepared.

I'm sure they'll be better off this time around (that is if they make it). You know "practice makes perfect" and all that shite.

So what's with the finger mate?.....hasn't anyone told you...Look mate, I'm not pulling your finger

quote:

Originally posted by malek even if it goes thru a referendum, it would be rejected massivly. Canadians are opposed to the death penalty... go cry me a river.

I don't know about that... many people are getting tired of the government sponsoring for life the likes of Paul Bernardo, Karla Homolka...

Then you have the recent child killings in the past few years in Toronto.. the couple that killed and dismembered their daughter... the man who abducted/dismembered Holly Jones.. the Cecilia Zhang (sp?) case.

I'm thinking that in some cases, as terrible as it seems, when the evidence is overwhelming some people currently in club Fed should be put to death.

Spend some time talking to a child that has been sexually assaulted, then tell me how you hope for a long life with 3 meals a day and creature comforts for the person responsible.

I think there's the mistaken impression that it's super cheap to execute criminals vs. jailing them for life. It's not. The appeal process is quite lengthy for people on death row...and guess who foots the bill...the state. Granted, this is obviously not an unbiased site, but:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/art...d=7#From%20DPIC

The death penalty is not an effective deterent either...most people commiting 1st degree murder aren't going to be any more detered by the death penalty than they are life in prison.

yet another issue that Stephen Harper refuses to address...what a wishy washy mofo...another reason why his party will not be getting my vote. He can't come out and say that his party is against capital punishment, can't say they are pro-choice, and are clearly not pro-gay marriage. Talk about a backwards step for Canada if he gets elected. Shame on people who support that outdated mode of thinking...

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT yet another issue that Stephen Harper refuses to address...what a wishy washy mofo...another reason why his party will not be getting my vote. He can't come out and say that his party is against capital punishment, can't say they are pro-choice, and are clearly not pro-gay marriage. Talk about a backwards step for Canada if he gets elected. Shame on people who support that outdated mode of thinking...

Is allowing an MP to vote their own conscience / represent the wishes of their constituents at a local level that much of an outdated mode of thinking / backward step? True, the Conservative party doesn't have an "official" stance on abortion, capital punishment and same-sex marriage... but should a party even HAVE to? What's wrong with the concept of free votes on these issues as opposed to mindlessly towing the party line?

I know for a fact that the Conservative running in my riding is pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage and will be voting to that effect if any such private members bills arise in the house.

well, we hosted a candidates debate at our school today... and the Conservative candidate (Helena Guergis) was a complete joke. She's one of the weakest public speakers I've seen. She kept giving dirty looks to the Green Party candidate, blurted out of turn (most often mentioning the sponsorship scandal when the Liberal MP was talking) and muttered cursewords under ber breath (but we could hear them cuz of the mics)

I hope not all the Conservative candidates are this stuck up and bitchy.

no...I want a party to be elected that says "uh, maybe" when I ask for their position

I don't want some Tory/Alliance hick voting with "their conscience".
This isn't about what the majority of their constituency wants...it's about protecting the rights of people who don't make up the majority, like gays, women seeking abortions, and immigrants.

see my new thread on Cheryl Gallant for further illumination into the redneck, backwards thinking mentality that is more prevalent in this party that any PC supporter is willing to admit.

Cheryl Gallant is a FREAK

quote:

Originally posted by Matt well, we hosted a candidates debate at our school today... and the Conservative candidate (Helena Guergis) was a complete joke. She's one of the weakest public speakers I've seen. She kept giving dirty looks to the Green Party candidate, blurted out of turn (most often mentioning the sponsorship scandal when the Liberal MP was talking) and muttered cursewords under ber breath (but we could hear them cuz of the mics) I hope not all the Conservative candidates are this stuck up and bitchy.

He he... Helena actually used to live directly above me. Never met her though.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT no...I want a party to be elected that says "uh, maybe" when I ask for their position I don't want some Tory/Alliance hick voting with "their conscience". This isn't about what the majority of their constituency wants...it's about protecting the rights of people who don't make up the majority, like gays, women seeking abortions, and immigrants. see my new thread on Cheryl Gallant for further illumination into the redneck, backwards thinking mentality that is more prevalent in this party that any PC supporter is willing to admit. Cheryl Gallant is a FREAK

Keep in mind that other parties have their fair share of "redneck hick" mentality....

Granted this is a partisan site but it does shine an interesting light on several Liberal MPs and their thoughts on various issues like same sex marriage:

http://www.teammartinsaid.ca/Englis...orientation.htm

Goes to show that now more than ever it's important that you pay attention to the local candidate running in your riding and their beliefs as opposed to just taking a general party policy into consideration. You might agree with the party, but you might be surprised what you end up with!

the 2nd quote on that site is completely irrelevant...he's quoting a constituent, not stating his own view! nice site, lol...but I get your point.

MY point is that the Liberal gov't has made their position on gay marriage and abortion quite clear...regardless of the individual feelings of a few of their MPs. I think Harper should have the balls to do the same.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT the 2nd quote on that site is completely irrelevant...he's quoting a constituent, not stating his own view! nice site, lol...but I get your point. MY point is that the Liberal gov't has made their position on gay marriage and abortion quite clear...regardless of the individual feelings of a few of their MPs. I think Harper should have the balls to do the same.

But he HAS made the party position quite clear. The position is the Conservative party doesn't have a position, nor should it. It's his opinion that in matters like these, rather than having a "follow the leader mindlessly" policy / platform, that it should be up to each and every MP, regardless of party affiliation to do what is right as a representative of thier constituents and vote in an according fashion.

Keep in mind, he has NO intention of introducing government-sponsored legislation that would abolish abortion, restrict gay marriage, or institute capital punishment. Rather, he has said that any member (as it is their right), should be able to introduce a private member's bill, and that all members of the House should be able to freely vote on such a bill. It should be noted that such private members bills rarely end up passing in any case. Even IF the Conservatives were to win a majority, there would be more than enough progressive / moderate members of the caucus that, along with members of the opposition, would ensure that such radical private legislation would not pass.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT no...I want a party to be elected that says "uh, maybe" when I ask for their position I don't want some Tory/Alliance hick voting with "their conscience". This isn't about what the majority of their constituency wants...it's about protecting the rights of people who don't make up the majority, like gays, women seeking abortions, and immigrants. see my new thread on Cheryl Gallant for further illumination into the redneck, backwards thinking mentality that is more prevalent in this party that any PC supporter is willing to admit. Cheryl Gallant is a FREAK

hmmm....interesting

I have an alter ego conservative issue/question...how do we really feel if same sex marriages are adapted...will things get awkward? For example, if gays can get married then do we feel ok with open forms of married expressions like kissing in public? Or would most feel awkward or offended by this. I mean, it seems open forms of affection between male and female are ok in public...but what about gay couples? If we put stipulations about display of affections in public from gay married couples....won't they argue for it too?

And here's a liberal issue/question....how do we all feel about legalization of Pot? Are we ok with it becoming legal and smelling it all over the place in hallways and elevators and where-ever? How will we deal with the U.S. offensive actions if we legalize it? The U.S. has made it very clear that they will close all doors to us if we legalize it. Won't this affect our countries trade and commerce sector?

Funny thing is that our politicians are there to represent the people...yet they often don't care about us, once they are in. How can we believe the Tories after Mulroney?

I know these questions sound mixed up...but if we don't discuss these issues...we'll never get to the bottom of our political views, so we can vote for what's best for Canada. No?

The US will not close their borders to us. We are their biggest trading partners. We supply the most oil to them as well as other natural resources as well. They talk big but they wont do anything.

Gay marriage? Sure do whatever you want but do i want to see them making out in public? God no! But whatever, i can look the other way.

How can we trust politicians after Muroney? Same way we trusted Mcguinty and Chretien i guess... hope for the best. Its the best we can do. At least we already know that paul martin has lied. So we have 2 or 3 other choices left.

baystreetboi,

I don't expect a "follow the leader" mentality...I expect a political party to have a POSITION on an issue. That's a pretty basic request. When I'm voting for my MP, I'm also voting for a party. My MP can tell me how they feel, I'd like the party to do the same. Why is that so much to ask? I propose that Harper is being vague so that (god forbid) if he does win, that when he goes ahead and turns back the clock on Canada's progress, no one can call him a liar (since calling the Liberals liars is basically their campaign, they would look pretty bad). He brings on this "hidden agenda" label he has all by himself...

"Gallant was already in hot water for telling CTV News on Sunday that "caucus as a whole" wants to repeal Canada's new hate law protecting sexual orientation.

Harper also tried to defuse that Monday, saying that while he would like to see some amendments, he'll keep the law in place.

"I don't intend to repeal this legislation," he said. "I think it's perfectly reasonable to have these protections in law."

ie. he won't repeal the "protections" afforded by the law, he'll just change it to please his intollerent following.

b4k-oz,

there's already nothing any more legal or illegal about gay displays of affection in public. Legislating stipulations on gay displays of affection would be struck down in a heartbeat as unconstitutional. If you're asking whether or not having gay marriage will somehow make it more widely socially acceptable...HA, no. The law conveys benefits and obligations...it doesn't expand small, closed minds of sheltered, intollerant people. That will only comes with time...

As for pot...100% legalization has never really been the issue, probably because pot cannot easily be controlled by the gov't in the same was tobacco can. It's about decriminalizing it so that we don't waste valuable resources policing, prosecuting, etc. what amounts to a relatively harmless activity (compared to hard drugs). No one is really getting killed over pot. No one is od'ing and dying on pot. No one's is really commiting violent crime to feed their pot habit. The challenge is how to allow for simple pot possession but not have trafficking get out of control and continue to find and close dangrous grow operations, etc. It's a bit complicated...if dealing pot is illegal, but simple possession is not...well...why can 10 people have a dime, but that dealer who had all ten would be busted?

I agree that executing people may cost more.

That's why we need to reduce the bureaucracy...


....bring them out back after trial and shoot em.



BTW, I only advocate the death penalty in extreme cases... and only after video or DNA corroboration.



edit: perhaps the criminal's family should pay for the bullets, as in China

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT baystreetboi, I don't expect a "follow the leader" mentality...I expect a political party to have a POSITION on an issue. That's a pretty basic request. When I'm voting for my MP, I'm also voting for a party. My MP can tell me how they feel, I'd like the party to do the same. Why is that so much to ask? I propose that Harper is being vague so that (god forbid) if he does win, that when he goes ahead and turns back the clock on Canada's progress, no one can call him a liar (since calling the Liberals liars is basically their campaign, they would look pretty bad). He brings on this "hidden agenda" label he has all by himself...

Not to beat the issue to death, but yet again, he HAS stated what the party's position will be. A Conservative government will NOT introduce legislation banning same sex marriage, will NOT introduce legislataion implementing the death penalty, etc etc.

He is simply recognizing the fact that ANY private member (Conservative or otherwise), has the right to introduce a private member's bill on these (or any of 1000s of other) subjects, and that such a bill should entitled to due process and a fair, free vote on its merits. If anything, I'd call that a step forward for democracy.

By forcing a party to take a stand on every issue, you're essentially forcing every candidate to become a square peg fitting into a round hole. There would never be any party that entirely fits one's beliefs, yet because of the stated policy, candidates would be expected to tow the party line. I think it's much better that a party simply outline its stance on the issues it feels are of most IMPORTANCE at the current time, and allow free votes on any other issues that arise that were never explicitely campaigned on. That way, you end up with far more flexibility in the system and you get to know the personal stance of your local candidate on various issues.

I think part of the problem comes down to people being too lazy to take the time to find out what their local candidate stands for. It's much easier to pick up a copy of the paper and read "Conservatives = anti-gay" and mark your ballot accordingly. Remember, despite the fact that the way our system works, many (most?) people seem to decide who to vote for based on the party as opposed to the local candidate. I suggest this is because of the "tow the party line" attitude of the past. In actual fact, when you are voting are are selecting your LOCAL representative, and I think having a system of far more free-votes on non-campaign platform issues will force people to take a closer look at their candidates and make for a far more enriching, democratic and representative experience in Ottawa.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 The US will not close their borders to us. We are their biggest trading partners. We supply the most oil to them as well as other natural resources as well. They talk big but they wont do anything. Gay marriage? Sure do whatever you want but do i want to see them making out in public? God no! But whatever, i can look the other way. How can we trust politicians after Muroney? Same way we trusted Mcguinty and Chretien i guess... hope for the best. Its the best we can do. At least we already know that paul martin has lied. So we have 2 or 3 other choices left.

We are much more dependant on US than US is dependent on us...give me a break...With all the shit we talk about them I'm surprised they are still taking it from us...I really want to see Canada do well without US support

And what's the big deal with seing gay people kiss in public? For them seeing you kiss a girl is just as nasty, you don't want to look, just like you said look away...they have every human right to do whatever they want. The only reason you feel that way is cause you were brought up in a heterosexual society and it seems strange to you.


*EDIT*
This morning on the news I saw a new poll showing conservatives in the lead by a few %...

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