|
The Federal Debate on NOW (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
| 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 |
|
|
| JRinger |
| 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 |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
First what did you want harper to do? start quoting math stats in the middle of a debate where you are lucky to get a sentance in? He said what he had to say in reference to the question. And ask any leader about anything about the other leaders and they will always say its BS.
As for notwithstanding:
Read what i said again...
| quote: | | He clarified the notwithstanding clause by saying he would ONLY use it in the marriage case or the case of child porn. |
i forgot to add "in the church"... |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
“When you can’t offer hope, all you have to sell is fear, My message tonight to Paul Martin is that you do not have to be a Liberal to be Canadian.” - Stephen Harper in tonight's debate.
I agree 100% |
|
|
| JRinger |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
First what did you want harper to do? start quoting math stats in the middle of a debate where you are lucky to get a sentance in? He said what he had to say in reference to the question. And ask any leader about anything about the other leaders and they will always say its BS.
As for notwithstanding:
Read what i said again...
i forgot to add "in the church"... |
It's not just the debate where he's been pressed on his numbers. He's been grilled and questioned over and over again. There is genuine concern that we're getting big promises, but that if they take office we're going to get a McGuintyVersion2 when they realize the numbers dont add up.
With regard to the notwithstanding clause, I still disagree. Harper has not (and did not tonight) ruled out the use of the notwithstanding clause to eliminate same-sex marriage (church or no church).
Furthermore, taking the position that he won't support a bill against same-sex marriage, but keeping open the option for another party member to table such a bill and then allowing free votes on it, amounts to the same thing at the end of the day. |
|
|
| RobbyG. |
I don't trust ANY of them...I've seen promises of elections past and I STILL end up paying more taxes thanx to the likes of the Conservative Mulrony days and the GST...I pay 1000s of $$$ a year in GST alone:eyes: & so I will never vote for them...Harper is SOO Mike Harris the if you looked closely, there's a zipper that runs the length of his back and if you unzipped it then out would pop out Mike the Knife (maybe Joe Clark was right Harper???)...Martin is basically cleaning up after Chretiens mess with the scandals & such.Although I have very deep suspisions about Martin being Finance Minister and not being aware of the wasted $$$ in the Adscam & the billions in the gun registry...Layton did a pretty good job and was pretty specific about some points but I DO not agree when he slams Martin for paying down the debt.I strongly agree with Martin the we should pay down the debt...Strange thing is that I thought Duceppe was really good tonite...
The funniest thing I saw tonite was watching the National on CBC at 10pm...The was a reporter driving across Canada and was in Moose Jaw for tonites Debate...He asked some people on the street if they wee watching & stuff...He then set up a lil TV on a table with some chairs and then some poeple sat down to watch the debate.As the debate was airing & the reporter was watching it with another Moose Jaw resident, the only thing the resident said was:"....bull". :stongue: Man I laughed my ass off:haha:
So I think the election is still up in the air after tonite...
Robby |
|
|
| malek |
bloc is bound to get about 60 seats. so who do you think they'll break a deal with? or who would like them to break a deal with?
Conservatives or Liberals? |
|
|
| DJ Ski |
Here's my attempted non-biased take on tonight's debate:
Jack Layton: Clearly defined where he stood on all the issues, and I think successfully got across that his party was a valid alternative to the Liberals. Overall, a solid performance.
Gilles Duceppe: Great questions, although it was obvious he only cares about Quebec, but I guess it's to be expected from a separtist. He did have it easy though, none of the other leaders really cared to grill him about anything.
Stephen Harper: Like Layton, was also pretty honest about where he stood on most issues. I think he stressed the sponsorship scandal a bit too much, and should have spent more time cutting up the Liberal platform. Finally the right has a leader worth voting for.
Paul Martin: I think he performed the worst of the four in this debate. He largest issue is trust, and he didn't seem very convincing. Other than that, it seems like he is afraid to stand up and say what he stands for. When Layton was grilling him on the debt reduction, he cowers and avoids the question. I think he would have done better to come out and say that debt reduction deserves to be a high priority because it will really help this country's future. |
|
|
| Cuzo |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
bloc is bound to get about 60 seats. so who do you think they'll break a deal with? or who would like them to break a deal with?
Conservatives or Liberals? |
No. The Rock Machine M.C.
The Libs and the Hells are already doin business. jks don't kill me I like bikers I swear |
|
|
| MarkT |
| 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.
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?
I resent the fact that the liberals think that they can use confusion and half truths in order to win an election. Very manipulative if you ask me. Do you really want that from a leader? I dont. |
1. every party has financial analysts who will say their budgets are "feasible".
2. no it does not and he most certainly does NOT commit to what you claim. He was DIRECTLY asked by Martin if he'd use it on gay marriage and he ignored him...REPEATEDLY!!! You obviously missed the French debate where Harper was asked directly, 5 times in a row, to answer yes or no as to whether he'd use and and he didn't answer. because he WON'T COMMIT to a position.
3. I'd be embarassed and ashamed to have someone like Harper run this country and have his agenda represent Canada on the global stage. Even more so, I'd be disappointed in Canadians for voting him in. Harper is plenty manipulitive in not committing to party positions...he figures by not offending anyone (yet), he can play everyone and focus on bashing Martin. Pathetic. The main stand he seems to take is that funding the military is (for some reason) a huge priority. |
|
|
| MarkT |
I watched the entire French debate last night and the 2nd half of the English one. Harper impressed me least of all (interesting that whoever people support is who they think did quite well, lol...I don't).
Martin was competent and confident, especially in the French debate. He didn't blow me away, but he didn't need to...none of the other leaders inspired me at all as having as complete a vision as he does. He budgets are logical and more feasible...they don't contain a bunch of crap that people want to hear like "massive tax cuts" that are irresponsible.
Layton impressed me, but not as a candidate for Prime Minister. I think he's a great critic but is still stuck and the micro level with municipal and provincial matters. He's doesn't strike me as ready to run the country, let alone deal with international matters.
Duceppe is another good critic, but as long as his agenda remains Quebec over Canada, that's all he'll be (and the Liberals are his competition in Quebce, so naturally he's just trying to destroy Martin). He raises so many good points, but then collapses under his rants about exclusively Quebec issues.
Duceppe had the quote of the night in the French debate. With Harper going on about the (false) benefits of free votes at times, despite everyone else's comments that the majority cannot determine the rights of the minority (that's something SO incredibly basic, yet it is lost on that idiot Harper)...
Gilles Duceppe: "What is democracy for you Mr. Harper. Is it power???"
bingo...yeah, he does. It's scary. |
|
|
| Wurm |
| I could hardly watch the four idiots continually interrrupting each other. I don't run informal class debates as shabbily as that. |
|
|
|
|
