quote:

Originally posted by milos i enjoy watching harper's half-assed smiles, at all the wrong moments too

hahahaha... that's what I kept thinking. Looks like he has something to hide - he's sneaky looking.

And about layton... what do they say about facial hair - doesn't it give off the impression you have something to hide - like masking your face?

quote:

Originally posted by ** TigerLily ** hahahaha... that's what I kept thinking. Looks like he has something to hide - he's sneaky looking.

I used to think that but maybe that's just the way he is. He seemed to be too scripted though. I want to see some passion from this guy... he's too calm all the time. Paul Martin on the other hand looks very passionate about what he's saying.

___________________
SHUT UP AND DANCE !!

quote:

Originally posted by Tordan I used to think that but maybe that's just the way he is. He seemed to be too scripted though. I want to see some passion from this guy... he's too calm all the time. Paul Martin on the other hand looks very passionate about what he's saying.

Such a good point - leaders need to be passionate about what they believe in. I think it's one of the most effective ways to get people on your side. It takes charm and charisma too - although I agree that that can't be the ONLY reason you vote for someone. But it certainly helps.

As much as it shouldn't matter, personal appearance and how it's perceived makes a big difference. It's hard to trust someone who doesn't 'look' trustworthy...

stephen harper is so creepy. ugh, i can't stand him.

meh, i don't know who to vote for. i would not vote, but then i get yelled at, and i suppose i should, so i have to decide.

___________________
no my first name ain't baby. it's janet. miss jackson if you're nasty.

quote:

Originally posted by nadezhda stephen harper is so creepy. ugh, i can't stand him. meh, i don't know who to vote for. i would not vote, but then i get yelled at, and i suppose i should, so i have to decide.

a) creepyness should not be a deciding factor.

b) I hate all this crap about everybody should vote. It's poppycock! You should only vote if you are informed as to the candidates, party platforms, ideologies, and issues of the day. IF you have not taken the time to seriously consider all of these things then you are making an illinformed decision based on second hand or even miss information. This is why democracy does not function correctly, too many people making decisions that they really have not thought through. If you feel illequiped to vote then please DON'T VOTE. There is an old addage "you get the government that you deserve." We've had irresponsible government for the past 20 years because most of the voters really could care less and are not responsible with their vote.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by nadezhda stephen harper is so creepy. ugh, i can't stand him.

Jack Layton is so creepy. ugh, i can't stand him.
Really, I get an impression of a snake from this guy. [quote]

Unfortunately I could only read the transcript and analysis of the debate and I wanted Martin to give me a good reason why I should vote for him but he failed. Oh well.

___________________
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 Moral Hazard I truely wanted to vote Conservative this time arround due to my thinking laid out above. After last night I'm not so sure that I can do so with a clear mind. My problem is my belief in the rule of law. Mr. Harper could have solidified my support last night by stateing simply and clearly that he would not invoke the Notwithstanding Clause. In stead he stated that there must be a balance between the courts and parliament. While I agree I disagree on how this balance is struck. Mr. Harper has indicated that he would consider use of s.33 to strike this balance, whereas I believe the way this balance is to be attained is via legislation..... if the court strikes down a law parliament should draft a new bill that will be in keeping with what the constitution allows as opposed to invoking s.33 thereby stating that they do not recognize the legitamacy of the constitution. This is dangerous ground. Our society is built on the rule of law, disregarding the constitution is tantamount to rejecting the rule of law, therefore rejecting the very value upon which our society is based. While I recognize that The Notwithstanding Clause can be a valuable tool for provincial leaders to buy time for their residents to become accustom to a new law or to maintain order while they draft legislation in fitting with the constitution I DO NOT feel it is appropriate for the federal government to do the same. The primary responsibility of the federal government is to uphold the constitution, not circumvent it. Despite my desire for a Conservative minority I cannot support someone who is not opposed to the invokation of s.33.

The problem is that the British North America Act did NOT make the Supreme Court the final arbiter of the constitution. In the Westminster system, Parliament is supreme. The Supreme Court gained power through parliamentary statutes; the source of the Supreme Court's power is NOT the constitution, but Parliament. What Parliament grants, it can take away or limit.

What Trudeau did in 1982 was to bring in a French- and U.S.-influenced system (which by the way was never approved by the Province of Quebec OR the people of Canada directly), but without the checks and balances needed to prevent cronyism. We've seen with JudgeScam that the Lieberals consistantly appointed judges who donated to the Party or overtly supported Lieberal ideological aims. Under Trudeau, constitutional law and politics have merged. Supreme Court rulings are usually based on political or ideological considerations, rather than an application of precedent or a plain reading of the law. That's not rule of law, that's rule of politics.

The proper balance, rightly stated by Harper, is to have a notwithstanding clause but to rarely use it. It's needed as a check on an unelected body, and as an escape valve in extreme situations (which have not yet come up in 23 years). Even then, there's a check on the check: if politicians use the notwithstanding clause in a foolish way, the people can vote them out.

The constitutional amendment proposed by Martin is a foolish move by a desperate man. Clearly, it was not well thought out.

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

quote:

Originally posted by simms327 no kidding, whats up with that? he looks like a messed up version of chretien... one side of his mouth is always up. edit: I'm new to canada, and have a passport, citizenship and all, and have never vote before. I have not recieved my voting card? what do i do? A lady from elections canada came by my house and asked for a piece of ID, should i just keep waiting?

go to the local polling station on election day with id. They will sign u up on the spot.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

The notwithstanding clause is an important tool to have in a rare time of crisis. History has shown that it has not been abused (federal parliament has never used it) and i dont think that is about to change with a harper government. If he were to use it, he would have to have a very very very sound reason for doing so or else he'd be out on his ear in the next election and he knows it. I commend him for leaving that option open though. I dont want my country being run soley by unelected, appointed judges. Thats called a dictatorship.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf The problem is that the British North America Act did NOT make the Supreme Court the final arbiter of the constitution. In the Westminster system, Parliament is supreme. The Supreme Court gained power through parliamentary statutes; the source of the Supreme Court's power is NOT the constitution, but Parliament. What Parliament grants, it can take away or limit. The proper balance, rightly stated by Harper, is to have a notwithstanding clause but to rarely use it. It's needed as a check on an unelected body, and as an escape valve in extreme situations (which have not yet come up in 23 years). Even then, there's a check on the check: if politicians use the notwithstanding clause in a foolish way, the people can vote them out. The constitutional amendment proposed by Martin is a foolish move by a desperate man. Clearly, it was not well thought out.

The BNA made the judicial counsel in Britain the final arbiter of the constitution. This was changed with the Westminister Act of 1932 which is also part of our constitution, not a statute of Canadian Parliament. This act gave power over the constitutions and judicial systems of ALL the former British colonies back to the dominions themselves.

I stated I do not object to the existance of s.33 or even it's use by the provinces where appropriate, however, I cannot accept a prime minister using it. As I said their #1 responsibility is to uphold the constitution, that constitution gives power to the SCofC to rule as to whether or not legislation is in fact constitutional, invokation of the Notwithstanding Clause is in effect circumventing the constitution, therefore it is abandoning the #1 responsibility of the government. I cannot support someone who would even consider this (federally) let alone do it. There is a mechanism for changing the constitution, if one feels strongly enough that there is a flaw in the constitution and Canadians agree then it is via that ammending formula that change should be brought...... invoking s.33 flys in the face of the rule of law.

With regard to the proposed ammendment to the constitution eliminating section 33 I agree with you. It is an illconceived idea and born of desperation to distinguish themselves from the conservatives on this issue. Moreover, it has zero chance of success because the provinces would never ratify it..... despite Quebec's mockery of it in the 80s they have used it and would likely never give it up. With the growing disconnect between the other provinces and Ottawa I doubt they would give it up either..... unless it were a barganing chip for more jurisdictional powers.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 The notwithstanding clause is an important tool to have in a rare time of crisis. History has shown that it has not been abused (federal parliament has never used it) and i dont think that is about to change with a harper government. If he were to use it, he would have to have a very very very sound reason for doing so or else he'd be out on his ear in the next election and he knows it. I commend him for leaving that option open though. I dont want my country being run soley by unelected, appointed judges. Thats called a dictatorship.

Interesting, however, the appropriate way to respond to judges ruling legislation unconstitutional would be to either ammend the legislation or ammend the constitution, disregarding the constitution itself is not acceptable in a society ruled by law.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down