|
Political Debate jan 9 (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abercrombie
Duceppe's ... "Canadian unity is a Federal corruption" in other words, 'fcuk Canada'. |
he never said that. *thank god for PVR* |
|
|
| Wyndham |
| meh.. was a decent debate... nothing really changed though, i dont think this is going to affect the way things are going so far. Martin got owned a couple of times which is good, harper didn't do anything special, which was smart since hes showing a lead now, and layton just keeps drilling home a 3rd choice. |
|
|
| ShAwZy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Matt
with the exception of Duceppe's closing statement... which was just weird. |
Exactly, is this guy really running for Prime Minister?? Can you imagine this dolt running the country?
I can't wait to see Martin out on his ass, every answer is a cover-up, bull- answer.
I read someone mentioning Harper's smiles at the wrong times which comes off as just plain arrogant. It's like he knows his party is leading right now and is rubbing it in.
So far NDP is getting my vote. The views they have seem to fit my values the most. |
|
|
| malek |
| And Layton sounds like a desperate looser, seriously. Reconsider your vote dude. |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
Full debate transcripts found here, in case you missed anything;
Transcript |
|
|
| Surreal JRS |
| quote: | Originally posted by Matt
Oh, and best quote of the night so far comes from Duceppe:
"Martin campaigns like an NDP, but in power, he acts like a Tory" |
|
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abercrombie
Full debate transcripts found here, in case you missed anything;
Transcript |
Thanks for the link |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abercrombie
Did I just hear that correctly???? Did Harper just say in response to Duceppe.... "What Canadians need is an alternative party so Canadian can choose between corruption and separation".
WTF???????? |
No, he said Quebecers need an alternative to corruption (Lieberals) and separation (Bloc). |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I find that Harper just reveals his morality based attitude a bit more and more, each time I listen to him.
very subtle...but when they talked about the swingers club decision re: potentially invoking the notwithstanding clause, you could (IMHO) hear the disapproval in his voice...and he mentioned that "many Canadians were disappointed... (with the decision)", etc.
this is what we can expect with a CPC gov't...positions based upon right wing, conservative, religious values...and what the majority thinks is "right" or "good".
no thank you. |
Yet you have no problem undemocratically imposing your morality on everyone else. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I find that Harper just reveals his morality based attitude a bit more and more, each time I listen to him.
very subtle...but when they talked about the swingers club decision re: potentially invoking the notwithstanding clause, you could (IMHO) hear the disapproval in his voice...and he mentioned that "many Canadians were disappointed... (with the decision)", etc.
this is what we can expect with a CPC gov't...positions based upon right wing, conservative, religious values...and what the majority thinks is "right" or "good". |
Even if this were true, which I just haven't seen any evidence of, you have to be willing to accept that a party leader's personal values aren't necessarily going to influence party policy. Anything he proposes still needs to be voted on and it still his to pass through our (Liberal) senate. And half of his platform centers around the need for accountability in the government's decision-making, and reforms to make sure it exists. If he implements all his proposed reforms (and we have no reason to distrust that at this point) then he wouldn't be *able* to plow through "religious right" legislation without regard for the democratic process.
If you believe that one's personal values influences all their decisions even if their work requires them to be impartial, then the fact that 70% or more of journalists vote Democrat/Liberal should be sufficient evidence alone of media bias. I don't mean to get into a whole argument about that, I'm just saying that if you follow your logic through all the way to the end, it's indicative of a really significant double standard.
You talk of trust, but it seems to me like you just don't "trust" anyone right of center no matter what they say or how they act. Harper hasn't given us any reason to distrust him; Paul Martin, on the other hand, has given us hundreds of reasons.
I also agree with the comments about the judges. People really need to start taking this issue more seriously. I understand the concept of the "tyranny of the majority" and that's why I say that the proper system of government is a constitutional republic, which we had until the Trudeau government. Anyway, it's a fundamental underlying principle of democracy that 9 unelected judges are not inherently more moral than 51% of the population - period. When judges are allowed to rewrite the law instead of simply interpreting it, it becomes an oligarchy.
Canada is in dire, dire need of court reforms. Elected judges would be perfect but judicial review would be sufficient in the meantime. Beverley McLachlin scares me and IMO, she really needs to be shown the door. Look at some actual quotes from her:
| quote: | | The rule of law requires judges to uphold unwritten constitutional norms, even in the face of clearly enacted laws or hostile public opinion. |
and...
| quote: | | There is certainly no guarantee or presumption that a given list of constitutional principles is complete, even assuming the good faith intention of the drafters to provide such a catalogue. |
How arrogant and utterly ridiculous. To this woman, judges should be entitled to base their judgments on parts of the constitution that don't actually exist - in other words, they should pull judgments out of their asses without any regard for what the law really is.
And Martin wants to give these people even more power. He wants to remove the notwithstanding clause! That clause has been one of the most important principles of the Canadian constitution ever since the first bill of rights was introduced - it is unconscionable that he would want to override it and can only possibly point to one thing: a lust for power. |
|
|
| Matt |
| I am giving my support to the NDP this election. Quite simply, I do not support Harper's views, and I do not trust Harper's promises. |
|
|
|
|
