|
Ontario Election 2007: (Vote October 10th) (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| VolumE_TO |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abercrombie
keeping it short...
I'm leaning for Conservatives for the first time. They have a decent guy running in Aurora.
|
Ditto, Klees seems fairly together, and has done some pretty good things in the past.
[edit] he came to my house like an hour after i posted this lol [/edit] |
|
|
| exstasie |
Voted PC...
Like always!
Should be an interesting race in Missisauga South. Mississauga South is always very close between Liberal and PC, however last election Peterson won as a liberal, but he crossed over in March of this year as he was fed up w/ Dalton's lies.
I think the new Mixed Electoral system would be beneficial in this case, as many people like Peterson as a Person, and would probably vote for him to be re-elected, except for that he's a PC. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by exstasie
I think the new Mixed Electoral system would be beneficial in this case, as many people like Peterson as a Person, and would probably vote for him to be re-elected, except for that he's a PC. |
Uh no. The Conservatives are already popular enough. They will not be the major beneficiary from the mixed electoral jugf*ck system |
|
|
| exstasie |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Uh no. The Conservatives are already popular enough. They will not be the major beneficiary from the mixed electoral jugf*ck system |
I didn't mean that it would help one party or the other. I was just stating that it might help out voters. I know there are people who want to vote for Peterson to represent our riding, but won't because they dont' want to vote PC. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by exstasie
I didn't mean that it would help one party or the other. I was just stating that it might help out voters. I know there are people who want to vote for Peterson to represent our riding, but won't because they dont' want to vote PC. |
That's just retarded.
You should vote for a candidate that you'd think best represents your riding, his political party affiliation not withstanding.
I guess there are a lot of dumb Canadians that won't touch anything that they somehow deludes into thinking reeks of 'right wing':rolleyes:
PS: Vote Marxist-Leninist Party.
Or the Red Tomato vs Green Tomato Party |
|
|
| exstasie |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
That's just retarded.
You should vote for a candidate that you'd think best represents your riding, his political party affiliation not withstanding.
I guess there are a lot of dumb Canadians that won't touch anything that they somehow deludes into thinking reeks of 'right wing':rolleyes:
PS: Vote Marxist-Leninist Party.
Or the Red Tomato vs Green Tomato Party |
..I agree, there are a lot of dumb canadians out there, but what can you do?
PS.
...I prefer to vote for the Marijuana party! :P |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by exstasie
PS.
...I prefer to vote for the Marijuana party! :P |
I actually want some of the fringe parties to get representation so I can hear what kind of loonie insane rants they go on.
(curiously, there are lots of 'left wing' fringe parties but very few 'right wing' ones) |
|
|
| cenik |
Although I am aware of some of McGuinty's shortcomings, I strongly oppose a return to a more conservative position on crime: 'tough stances on crime' do not decrease crime, period.
| quote: | Originally posted by exstasie
I prefer to vote for the Marijuana party! :P |
Do not forget that this is a provincial election whereas changes to the cannabis control laws must take place at a federal level; having said that, since the enforcement of the criminal law rests with provincial governments a province could, theoretically, decide not to implement the cannabis control laws on possession (de facto decriminalization). [Hopefully this is correct, I'm attempting to recall information that I learned years ago]. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
If the Tories are winning on TranceAddict, it's almost a sure thing that they'll win everywhere else. :p
And Cenik, you're incorrect. A mind-bogglingly high proportion of crime (in Toronto especially) is from repeat offenders. The police keep arresting them, sometimes even deporting them, but they never seem to stay in prison (or out of the country). |
|
|
| cenik |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
If the Tories are winning on TranceAddict, it's almost a sure thing that they'll win everywhere else. :p
And Cenik, you're incorrect. A mind-boggling high proportion of crime (in Toronto especially) is from repeat offenders. The police keep arresting them, sometimes even deporting them, but they never seem to stay in prison (or out of the country). |
Diginut you've successfully proven my point: implementing a tougher stance on crime is based upon the theory of deterrence (i.e., when the severity, celerity, and certainty of punishment increase there will be a decrease in the amount of crime being committed) but as you (somewhat) correctly comment upon a significant portion of crime is committed by repeat offenders and, so, the progressively harsher punishments (e.g. mandatory sentences for certain crimes) are not producing their intended effect. All one needs to do is pick up a credible intro to criminology textbook to see the failure of deterrence theory and inefficiency of attempting to reduce crime via more punitive sanctions. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Uh, how is keeping indicted criminals in jail so they can't commit more crime even remotely related to deterrence?
That was some of the most twisted non-logic I've ever heard. The "any textbook" reference clinched it for me, though. |
|
|
| cenik |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Uh, how is keeping indicted criminals |
1.You mean convicted criminals; it is legally and morally unacceptable to imprison someone who has merely been indicted.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
in jail so they can't commit more crime even remotely related to deterrence? |
2.It's very simple: long-term imprisonment, i.e., incapacitation, is Canada's most harsh form of criminal sanction and, so, when legislative changes are made in order to toughen up the laws--whereby such alterations almost always involve increasing the time an individual may serve for having transgressed the statute in question--the intent is to deter would-be criminals from engaging in similar behaviour via the state's display of the fact that punitive incapacitation will result for anybody who chooses to offend. In fact, research shows that the severity of punishment is the least effective factor in affecting deterrence (e.g. studies on capital punishment in the U.S. have documented an increase in crime following the use of the death penalty--the most harsh form of punishment available).
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
The "any textbook" reference clinched it for me, though. |
Oh yes, your hostile attitudes toward university education materialize once again.
Always a pleasure my friend!
:D |
|
|
|
|
