Voted PC...

Like always!


Should be an interesting race in Missisauga South. Mississauga South is always very close between Liberal and PC, however last election Peterson won as a liberal, but he crossed over in March of this year as he was fed up w/ Dalton's lies.

I think the new Mixed Electoral system would be beneficial in this case, as many people like Peterson as a Person, and would probably vote for him to be re-elected, except for that he's a PC.

___________________
"I'm not stoned...I'm just Asian!"

quote:

Originally posted by exstasie I think the new Mixed Electoral system would be beneficial in this case, as many people like Peterson as a Person, and would probably vote for him to be re-elected, except for that he's a PC.

Uh no. The Conservatives are already popular enough. They will not be the major beneficiary from the mixed electoral jugf*ck system

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree Uh no. The Conservatives are already popular enough. They will not be the major beneficiary from the mixed electoral jugf*ck system

I didn't mean that it would help one party or the other. I was just stating that it might help out voters. I know there are people who want to vote for Peterson to represent our riding, but won't because they dont' want to vote PC.

___________________
"I'm not stoned...I'm just Asian!"

quote:

Originally posted by exstasie I didn't mean that it would help one party or the other. I was just stating that it might help out voters. I know there are people who want to vote for Peterson to represent our riding, but won't because they dont' want to vote PC.

That's just retarded.

You should vote for a candidate that you'd think best represents your riding, his political party affiliation not withstanding.

I guess there are a lot of dumb Canadians that won't touch anything that they somehow deludes into thinking reeks of 'right wing'

PS: Vote Marxist-Leninist Party.

Or the Red Tomato vs Green Tomato Party

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree That's just retarded. You should vote for a candidate that you'd think best represents your riding, his political party affiliation not withstanding. I guess there are a lot of dumb Canadians that won't touch anything that they somehow deludes into thinking reeks of 'right wing' PS: Vote Marxist-Leninist Party. Or the Red Tomato vs Green Tomato Party

..I agree, there are a lot of dumb canadians out there, but what can you do?


PS.
...I prefer to vote for the Marijuana party! :P

___________________
"I'm not stoned...I'm just Asian!"

quote:

Originally posted by exstasie PS. ...I prefer to vote for the Marijuana party! :P

I actually want some of the fringe parties to get representation so I can hear what kind of loonie insane rants they go on.

(curiously, there are lots of 'left wing' fringe parties but very few 'right wing' ones)

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

Although I am aware of some of McGuinty's shortcomings, I strongly oppose a return to a more conservative position on crime: 'tough stances on crime' do not decrease crime, period.

quote:

Originally posted by exstasie I prefer to vote for the Marijuana party! :P

Do not forget that this is a provincial election whereas changes to the cannabis control laws must take place at a federal level; having said that, since the enforcement of the criminal law rests with provincial governments a province could, theoretically, decide not to implement the cannabis control laws on possession (de facto decriminalization). [Hopefully this is correct, I'm attempting to recall information that I learned years ago].

Last edited by Nicolas Oliver on Sep-25-2007 at 01:14

If the Tories are winning on TranceAddict, it's almost a sure thing that they'll win everywhere else.

And Cenik, you're incorrect. A mind-bogglingly high proportion of crime (in Toronto especially) is from repeat offenders. The police keep arresting them, sometimes even deporting them, but they never seem to stay in prison (or out of the country).

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut If the Tories are winning on TranceAddict, it's almost a sure thing that they'll win everywhere else. And Cenik, you're incorrect. A mind-boggling high proportion of crime (in Toronto especially) is from repeat offenders. The police keep arresting them, sometimes even deporting them, but they never seem to stay in prison (or out of the country).

Diginut you've successfully proven my point: implementing a tougher stance on crime is based upon the theory of deterrence (i.e., when the severity, celerity, and certainty of punishment increase there will be a decrease in the amount of crime being committed) but as you (somewhat) correctly comment upon a significant portion of crime is committed by repeat offenders and, so, the progressively harsher punishments (e.g. mandatory sentences for certain crimes) are not producing their intended effect. All one needs to do is pick up a credible intro to criminology textbook to see the failure of deterrence theory and inefficiency of attempting to reduce crime via more punitive sanctions.

Uh, how is keeping indicted criminals in jail so they can't commit more crime even remotely related to deterrence?

That was some of the most twisted non-logic I've ever heard. The "any textbook" reference clinched it for me, though.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Uh, how is keeping indicted criminals

1.You mean convicted criminals; it is legally and morally unacceptable to imprison someone who has merely been indicted.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut in jail so they can't commit more crime even remotely related to deterrence?

2.It's very simple: long-term imprisonment, i.e., incapacitation, is Canada's most harsh form of criminal sanction and, so, when legislative changes are made in order to toughen up the laws--whereby such alterations almost always involve increasing the time an individual may serve for having transgressed the statute in question--the intent is to deter would-be criminals from engaging in similar behaviour via the state's display of the fact that punitive incapacitation will result for anybody who chooses to offend. In fact, research shows that the severity of punishment is the least effective factor in affecting deterrence (e.g. studies on capital punishment in the U.S. have documented an increase in crime following the use of the death penalty--the most harsh form of punishment available).

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut The "any textbook" reference clinched it for me, though.

Oh yes, your hostile attitudes toward university education materialize once again.

Always a pleasure my friend!