|
Why Stephen Harper won't win the election... (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
exactly...
but it doesnt mean the media wont use it as a red herring to try and scare people. |
Actually Martin's said that few times already... |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by 7-4-7
...oh and because he looks like an automoton, robot who freaks me out. |
Didn't seem to bother U.S. Democrats with Al Gore. They still bitched and moaned for 4 years that he didn't win because the election was "rigged". You want to talk about robots, look no further than that guy. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Send troops to Iraq? WHAT troops? I think the American troops would rather just do their job than have to bail out the Canadian troops (AKA hostages) once again.
|
*thumbs down*
Obviously you don't pay much attention to CAF.
The 'hostage' situation was UNPROFOR back in 94-95. Whole different ball game. Bad mandate and silly rules of engagement is bad mojo for any soldier.
Fast forward to 02 when 3 PPCLI went to Afghanistan, kicked ass and took names. A lot of them. You might remember that Americans decided to give Bronze stars to Canadian snipers.
Also, a Canadian general was deputy commander of a US Corps in Iraq. I dunno about you, but I don't put a foreigner in that kind of position unless you know he's good and the training he has is good.
Just a few examples. |
|
|
| Chiclet |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
The gay marriage issue was not "progress". An issue that is forced by the courts, who are supposed to be upholding the law instead of making the law, and then forced undemocratically by the government without consent of the people, is not "progress". I would never have had any problem with it, nor would Harper or his government have had any problem with it, if it were put to a vote as it should have been. Our constitutional documents mention nothing about gay marriage - however "right" or "wrong" you think it was to "legalize" it, it's downright sad that "rights" in Canada have become merely a tool for special interest groups to impose their will on the population when they can't push their agenda past a democratic majority. |
At one point, anti-racism groups were seen as 'special interest' groups.
| quote: | Originally posted by Chiclet
Oftentimes, what is popular isn't what is best for us. (i.e. racial segregation in the States probably wouldn't have been eliminated as quickly if it were left mere to a 'democratic' vote)...
...if even by fluke, whether we want it now or not. I can almost guarantee that in 15-20 years, this will be as much of an issue as interracial marriage. |
I never said that the means necessarily justified the ends. It doesn't matter if Harper would have hypothetically cared about the issue or not. What matters to many voters, is that he did made his political stance clear: that if there is any chance for oveturning the legal marriage decision, it would be by voting Conservative. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
^It would also be interesting to see what method would Conservatives use to overturn same sex marriage.
Can't do it in House of Commons because Libs, NDP and Bloc support it.
Can't do it in Supreme Court because it's full of Liberal appointees.
Only way is 'not withstanding clause' and that takes a lot of political coin to use, which Conservatives have very little of.
So it would be a political suicide for Conservatives to change what has already gained too much momentum to stop. (barring radical change in Canadian political climate) |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Make whatever argument you want EvilTree - I think everybody here knows that our military is a joke.
I think you're reading me wrong; I'm not a pacifist, I think Canada SHOULD be committing some serious coin to defense spending, but the budget's simply been slashed over and over again over the past few decades because Canadians apparently see themselves as "peacemakers" (which is not true; Americans are peacemakers, most Canadians are just pacifists and cowards).
| quote: | Originally posted by Chiclet
At one point, anti-racism groups were seen as 'special interest' groups. |
And what's your point? Are you actually equating the emancipation of the slaves to the forced inclusion of homosexuals into a 300-year-old established legal definition of marriage, or is that just a red herring?
I have no problem with the definition of marriage being amended IF a democratic majority wants to vote for that. I do have a problem with the issue being forced. Harper has no desire to simply "overturn" the decision, he just believes (and rightly so) that it should have been put to a referendum. He doesn't want to "de-legalize" gay marriage, he just wants the people to be allowed to make that decision.
Need I remind you that the abolitionists were mostly White Christian Americans in very large numbers who fought specifically because their government was NOT hearing everyone's voice. That hardly resembles the gay marriage lobby group or a couple of aging hippie Supreme Court justices. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Make whatever argument you want EvilTree - I think everybody here knows that our military is a joke.
I think you're reading me wrong; I'm not a pacifist, I think Canada SHOULD be committing some serious coin to defense spending, but the budget's simply been slashed over and over again over the past few decades because Canadians apparently see themselves as "peacemakers" (which is not true; Americans are peacemakers, most Canadians are just pacifists and cowards).
|
Oh, I don't think you're a pacifist. You just aren't as well informed about state of CAF. |
|
|
| Chiclet |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
And what's your point? Are you actually equating the emancipation of the slaves to the forced inclusion of homosexuals into a 300-year-old established legal definition of marriage, or is that just a red herring?
I have no problem with the definition of marriage being amended IF a democratic majority wants to vote for that. I do have a problem with the issue being forced. Harper has no desire to simply "overturn" the decision, he just believes (and rightly so) that it should have been put to a referendum. He doesn't want to "de-legalize" gay marriage, he just wants the people to be allowed to make that decision.
Need I remind you that the abolitionists were mostly White Christian Americans in very large numbers who fought specifically because their government was NOT hearing everyone's voice. That hardly resembles the gay marriage lobby group or a couple of aging hippie Supreme Court justices. |
I'm not talking about abolitionists and slavery, but more about segregation and interracial marriage in the mid 20th century.
At the time of desegregation, if it were up to only a 'democratic' and popular vote and not by some force (boycott, civil disobedience), it probably wouldn't have happened so soon.
In the 60s, there were MANY similar arguments about interracial marriage. "You're going to change a (insert large number here)-year old established legal definition of marriage and allow people of different creeds to marry?"
Oh, and the only red herring I like are the ones I eat. :D |
|
|
| Chiclet |
Here. If you want to see what I mean by similarities I found this about the case of the Lovings:
"During the course of the proceeding the trial judge asserted that: "Almighty God created the races of White, Black, Yellow, Malay, and Red, and He placed them on separate continents." "And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages." "The fact that He separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."5
After Virginia's Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision on the grounds that the Constitution of the United States prohibits states from barring interracial marriages. In so doing, the Supreme Court invalidated similar laws in fifteen States. Thus, as of June 12, 1967, interracial marriages were no longer illegal in any State. " (from: http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/s98alouis.htm )
The Supreme Court of the US was responsible for making interracial marriage legal accross the country. It was decided on 'undemocratically' by 'activist judges'.
I still can't believe it didn't happen until 1967. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
[COLOR=#99CCEE]Send troops to Iraq? WHAT troops? I think the American troops would rather just do their job than have to bail out the Canadian troops (AKA hostages) once again.
COLOR] |
actually our soldiers are some of the best in the world, right up there with the Yanks, Brits and Australians. Yes, the army is underfunded big time, but the quality of our troops is still very high. My friend went on a soldier exchange to the US back in October and his RCR battalion defeated American Ranger troops in wargames on 3 of the 4 exercises. This isn't anything new either...our ground forces and pilots have been kicking their asses in wargames for decades.
We could easily send a couple thousand troops to Iraq, even as many as 8 or 10 thousand if we really wanted to. It would put enormous stress on the Armed Forces but it's possible. And I'm sure the Americans would welcome our troops with open arms...they need all the help they can get over there.
Anyway, I dont think Harper would do this because it would be political suicide but it's pretty well known that he would have if he had been PM back in 2003. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
We could easily send a couple thousand troops to Iraq, even as many as 8 or 10 thousand if we really wanted to. It would put enormous stress on the Armed Forces but it's possible. And I'm sure the Americans would welcome our troops with open arms...they need all the help they can get over there.
Anyway, I dont think Harper would do this because it would be political suicide but it's pretty well known that he would have if he had been PM back in 2003. |
Regular force (including navy and air force) is about 60,000. Reserves at about 14,000.
So just which soldiers you going to send again? |
|
|
| tempoman |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Make whatever argument you want EvilTree - I think everybody here knows that our military is a joke. |
I was in the Canadian Army Resvers. The soldiers and training(limited due to funding) are some of the best in the world. We lack funding for good equipment and deployment. |
|
|
|
|
