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

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 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.

He has no solid numbers to back up his figures, nor has he ever produced any. We have basically been asked to take him at his word that it is doable. I am not convinced, nor are many other people.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 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?

a) I don't think that does, in fact, rule out the use of the notwithstanding clause.
b) This would also seem to fly in the face of his statement that he would allow free votes on the issue. If he doesnt support a bill on the issue, then what is there to vote on?

we all know what kind of stunt the conservatives will pull... come on.

they'll lower the taxes and then some shit will happen with the economy. So instead of bringing back up the taxes, they'll cut eeeeuh sorry "control" the services offered to Canadians...


as for gay mariages, some dofus will put forward a motion agains it, and the conservatives will allow a free vote. It will be aproved and then gay mariages will be history.

same thing could happen with abortions... but that issue is a bit more difficult to submit to free vote.

Where are martins numbers? All i heard from him is why Harper is the supposed boogie man..

as for his support of free votes. I completely agree with it. Im sick of having the prime minister dictate to his party how they should vote. This flies in the face of how the parliamentary system was designed in the first place.

If someone were to table a bill on same sex marriage, that someone could be from the NDP, COnservative, Liberal, whomever. Harper said hed allow a free vote whereas the other guys said theyd force their party members to do as they say.

Harper supports democracy as do i.

As for the military, harper raised a good point. He said that it was a shame that we had to hitch a ride with the americans to get to afghanistan. This is not a sign of a nations sovereignty. I think our military is a sad joke and needs to have money put back into it. Does anyone remember the Sea King helicopters?

how about he submits international accords to free votes too ?? like the missile shield or the star wars accords?


he's willing to let things go into "free votes" only if it suits him... thats not a real democracy. It's worse.

My impression is that he is willing to submit EVERYTHING to a free vote.

Even if it were only half though its still a better record than what dictator chretien allowed.

quote:

Originally posted by malek as for gay mariages, some dofus will put forward a motion agains it, and the conservatives will allow a free vote. It will be aproved and then gay mariages will be history. same thing could happen with abortions... but that issue is a bit more difficult to submit to free vote.

...that makes two assumptions.

First, that the Conservatives will have a majority. I think most people will agree that it's far more likely they'll end up with a minority, in which case such a bill could be easily voted down.

Secondly, even IF the Conservatives ended up with a majority, it assumes that every single Conservative would support such a bill. As awful as the Liberals / NDP are trying to make the Conservative party look, there are certainly more than a handful of people in the party that support gay marriage and would vote against such a bill. I know my Conservative candidate in Toronto-Centre is one of those.

wasn't Duceppe pressing forward that same question and Harper seemed evasive??

Both liberals and conservatives aren't honest. It shows, just look at their leaders and their vague answers. How hard is it to say "i'm against this" or "I'm for this".


The thing is, the conservatives are much more frightening to have in power than the Liberals. Harper's agenda is clearly pro-american, talking about INTEGRATING (merging) our security agencies with the US... this means sharing our identities to Big Brother south of the border. Harper never even said that he's against the armement of space. He's all for more armements, more soldiers and the contreversial missile shield. His foreign policy is shady at best, if not all out pro-american. I mean for once, Canada was able to stand apart and say no we're not going to war, are we willing to loose this?

And I'm not even talking about the social issues and the future defecits ahead!

quote:

Originally posted by baystreetboi Secondly, even IF the Conservatives ended up with a majority, it assumes that every single Conservative would support such a bill. As awful as the Liberals / NDP are trying to make the Conservative party look, there are certainly more than a handful of people in the party that support gay marriage and would vote against such a bill. I know my Conservative candidate in Toronto-Centre is one of those.

yes, but some liberals are against those mariages too... maybe even half of them ( no one knows for sure !). So, what I meant, is that if he's willing to do a free vote on it, he has a good idea about the proportion of the PRO/CON and he has some good chances to win.

quote:

Originally posted by malek Both liberals and conservatives aren't honest. It shows, just look at their leaders and their vague answers. How hard is it to say "i'm against this" or "I'm for this".

i think jack layton had the most concrete answers out of the debaters. even though u could say he did avoid some questions, he answered much more than martin or harper.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Where are martins numbers? All i heard from him is why Harper is the supposed boogie man..

Martin is not the one making preposterous claims about spending and tax cuts. He isn't the one who should be providing the numbers, nor is he the one who was asked the question.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 as for his support of free votes. I completely agree with it. Im sick of having the prime minister dictate to his party how they should vote. This flies in the face of how the parliamentary system was designed in the first place. If someone were to table a bill on same sex marriage, that someone could be from the NDP, COnservative, Liberal, whomever. Harper said hed allow a free vote whereas the other guys said theyd force their party members to do as they say.

You are not addressing my point. The issue was the use of the notwithstanding clause, not free votes.
My point was that he did NOT rule out the use of the notwithstanding clause, as you believe he did. You say his statement that he would not support a bill against same-sex marriage equates to the ruling out of the use of the notwithstandign clause; I don't believe that is a true statement. I raised the free vote issue because I believe that if that statement were true, then there is a contradiction - he won't support a bill against same-sex marriage, but yet he'll allow a free vote on the issue if it's tabled by another party member?? Seems to me that offers him an easy out.

quote:

Originally posted by smuncky i think jack layton had the most concrete answers out of the debaters. even though u could say he did avoid some questions, he answered much more than martin or harper.

I second that motion.


I felt the student poor had a voice with him also... it good to that he mentioned that student debts is increasing significantly and give a shite about our youth.

rehearsed

well, let's face it, 75% of the debate has been rehearsed due to prepared questions. as for jayx1's comments, ndpers will be losing their right wing constituents to the liberals, not the left. i am supporting the liberals because i like their platform over the conservatives. money in the military is not where i want it. peacekeeping is canada's role. duceppe was great again tonight. he is a fine politician. layton looked every bit the used-car salesman; talking over everyone. he only looked comfortable discussing healthcare. harper held his own. too bad we'll be america's bitch if he gets a majority. his numbers are risky. tax cuts + spending in the military and health care. he is gambling on excessive positive results in the canadian economy. not a good idea. when the surpluses don't appear, i just wonder where the spending will be cut first, health care or the military? canadians will never supplant the us in arms strength, nor should we try to equate them. there is nothing wrong with asking for help to transport troops. i'd rather save the billions for something else and send a letter of thanks for the lift. canadians will always work under the directive of the united nations. we are not renegades invading nations at a whim. i want to see a minority liberal government with the bloc watching over them.

Id rather have an "easy out" throught democracy in the parliament than be like Martin and hide behind court decisions and not reveal my true opinion. Talk about an easy way out!

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Id rather have an "easy out" throught democracy in the parliament than be like Martin and hide behind court decisions and not reveal my true opinion. Talk about an easy way out!

Paul Martin has deferred to the courts to make such decisions. It's a valid position, just like any other.

Regardless, you're still not addressing my points regarding Harper's refusal to clarify his fiscal claims OR his use of the notwithstanding clause.

What it all boils down to is this. The Liberals have an 11 year record of broken promises, wasteful spending and recycled platforms. If they didnt follow through before what says they will now? I dont buy it. I also dont buy into scare mongering as a way of wagging the dog when it comes to the real issues.

The conservatives have the best platform but most importantly they dont have the same record as this merry band of liberals are concerned. Im willing to give them a chance and if need be in 4 years we can replace them especially if the Liberals have cleaned house and renewed themselves. But today, here and now, the conservatives are shining in a much brighter light than the thieves we call the Liberals.

who cares about a politician personal opinion.

Chretien was against gay mariages but he left it to the tribunals to decide and see if its constitutional or not! And he let it happen even tho he's not in accord.

why is it so important that the personal opinion of some politician be pushed forward. look south of the border and see how Bush's personal opinions were destructive at best.

There should be a seperation between the roles and opinions of a prime minister and the ones of the man underneath that personnage.

im also agreeing with ppl that r saying that a lot of money shouldnt be put into the military. canada will never need that kind of an army and canada will never need that much money to go to defence.

although some money should be put into buying new equipment and replacing the old, it should not be alot.

i would rather see that money go somewhere else like education

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 What it all boils down to is this. The Liberals have an 11 year record of broken promises, wasteful spending and recycled platforms. If they didnt follow through before what says they will now? I dont buy it. I also dont buy into scare mongering as a way of wagging the dog when it comes to the real issues. The conservatives have the best platform but most importantly they dont have the same record as this merry band of liberals are concerned. Im willing to give them a chance and if need be in 4 years we can replace them especially if the Liberals have cleaned house and renewed themselves. But today, here and now, the conservatives are shining in a much brighter light than the thieves we call the Liberals.

now that's the Jayx1 I've come to know.....
no answers? trot out a bunch of rhetoric

quote:

Originally posted by malek who cares about a politician personal opinion. Chretien was against gay mariages but he left it to the tribunals to decide and see if its constitutional or not! And he let it happen even tho he's not in accord. why is it so important that the personal opinion of some politician be pushed forward. look south of the border and see how Bush's personal opinions were destructive at best. There should be a seperation between the roles and opinions of a prime minister and the ones of the man underneath that personnage.

Exactly. Chretien was a devout Catholic who by definition of his religion should have been against abortion (and was)yet he didnt push legislation through. This issue is a dead horse ressurected by the Liberals to take the focus away from the real issues.

and how about the environment and massive influx of monies into infrastructures and public mass transit... these issues are important too, even more so than the army or "security".

quote:

Originally posted by malek and how about the environment and massive influx of monies into infrastructures and public mass transit... these issues are important too, even more so than the army or "security".

true, i dont think i heard anyone talk about them except layton

quote:

Originally posted by malek and how about the environment and massive influx of monies into infrastructures and public mass transit...

At least this is one area where we know precisely where the Conservatives stand. A big fat goose-egg for both.

quote:

Originally posted by JRinger Paul Martin has deferred to the courts to make such decisions. It's a valid position, just like any other. Regardless, you're still not addressing my points regarding Harper's refusal to clarify his fiscal claims OR his use of the notwithstanding clause.

He clarified the notwithstanding clause by saying he would only use it in the marriage case or the case of child porn.

As for the fiscal claims. He has addressed this too.

I will refer to the conservative spending plan on the website.

http://www.conservative.ca/platform...n/sp_plan_1.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 He clarified the notwithstanding clause by saying he would only use it in the marriage case or the case of child porn.

He did NOT say that tonight. He said there were cases where it's use could be justified, and gave child pornography as an example.
Are you now claiming that he WOULD allow the use of the notwithstanding clause against same-sex marriage? Earlier in this thread you said he wouldn't, except with regard to the church, which as we both agree, is irrelevant.

With regard to the fiscal numbers on the Conservative website, all opposition parties agree that its hogwash. When pressed for numbers in public, Harper wont give any. In order to finance any of it, there will be deep cuts required in many areas - Malek points out 2: environmental issues and municipal issues

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