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 Shame on people who support that outdated mode of thinking...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 Shame on people who support that outdated mode of thinking...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an MP to vote their own conscience / represent the wishes of their constituents at a local level that much of an outdated mode of thinking / backward step?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

Last edited by MarkT on Jun-08-2004 at 02:18

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?

___________________
Peace, Unity, Luv and Havin Fun!!

"People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of their character."- Ralph Waldo Emerson, US essayist & poet (1803 - 1882)

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

___________________
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) || ID PLZ! PVD ID!!!
Disco and classical had sex while watching a sci-fi movie. Their child: trance.