BubberMiley
-
Content Count
10,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by BubberMiley
-
-
Cybercoma, you're not reading the whole thread. I was referring to a specific quote by Leafless, which he appears to have since recanted. We all agree to love Canada. Let's move on.
-
But when Harper keeps his actual positions so close to his vest, or obviously waters them down to appear more electable, this gives voters a chance to see what he really stands for. If CPCers are going to discount it as an "8-year-old speech--that means nothing," I'd like to seem them identify the positions he discusses that they don't agree with.
-
Leafless, I think I made the same basic point as you (though more concisely) when I said:
I would give Harper the same benefit of the doubt. It's sometimes difficult to react to obviously foolish questions, and I'm sure that during his pause after being asked whether he loved Canada, he was just thinking "WTF?" -
Not really flip-flopping or never really said it? Check the Washington Times thread if you need sources.
-
Yeah, Christmas is on its way out, man. You hardly hear about it anymore. I think most right-wingers are embarrassed to even be associated with the crusaders fighting the "war on christmas".
-
Yesterday, Harper says he supports the war but won't send troops. That's flip-flopping in the same sentence!
-
I realize Leafless's writing style leaves a lot to be desired in terms of being able to understand just what he's getting at so it probably slipped past you, but I'm just referring to the following quote from earlier in this thread that was defending Harper's apparent inability to feel the love.
Love- "An intense feeling of deep affection or fondness for a person or thing."I would say, I to would be unable to express those kind of seniments especially after being left in the destructive hands of the Liberals for to many years of merry making.
-
Yeah, Norm, but unlike Leafless, I love Canada no matter who's in charge.
-
There's the scandal. I bet that $240 wasn't coming out of his pocket.
-
And not saying how he really stands before an election makes him about as much of a chicken as not sending the troops.
-
I think Martin was simply unwilling to give a serious answer to a ridiculous question, so he had to plan a reaction--think of something funny to say. On that, he was maybe not so successful.
Martin would look more foolish if he appeared to take seriously a question so obviously derived from the FoxNews "War on Christmas."
I would give Harper the same benefit of the doubt. It's sometimes difficult to react to obviously foolish questions, and I'm sure that during his pause after being asked whether he loved Canada, he was just thinking "WTF?"
-
-
The only reason Manitoba is a have-not province is its high population of Aboriginals and the appalling poverty they generally live in. And that's considered more a federal than a provincial issue.
-
He also said that he would increase funding to the military. In any case, most of the coalition of the willing involves countries making a symbolic effort of a few troops (or knitting a few booties for the American soldiers). Canada could certainly afford a few troops, but obviously Harper feels that would be politically damaging. Such a brave leader.
-
What kind of ball-less leader says he supports a war but won't send troops? Under Harper, Canada wouldn't be out of the Coalition of the Willing on principle, just on cowardice.
-
It’s kind of ironic how the anti-decriminalization forces are the ones coming up with half-baked data to support their arguments. And when their arguments are shut down, they never respond because they’re happy to leave well enough alone. They have the status quo on their side.
Argus has said things like:
Which I can say is exactly why pot is banned. Because society doesn't want people smoking pot, because it doesn't approve of pot, and because it feels those who use one mind-altering substance are more likely to try other mind-altering substances which are more dangerous.Isn’t it potentially more damaging to group a relatively innocuous drug (in that you can’t OD from it) with more dangerous drugs like crystal meth and cocaine under the Criminal Code? By doing so, you strengthen the black market network to the point where it is prominent in every high school (the current black market is practically founded on the criminalization of weed) and create a situation where kids might think “Hey, I’ve had no negative side effects from smoking weed and it’s a lot of fun. This law makes no sense. Maybe meth, which is covered under the same law, is equally innocuous and fun.”
If weed is a gateway drug (though after more than 20 years of daily smoking, I haven’t moved on to anything stronger), it is only one because its criminalization strengthens the black market and promotes disrespect for the law. That’s why I think this is an issue that doesn’t just affect pot-smokers. In fact, if people are truly serious about wanting to protect kids from drug dependence and would like to reduce or eliminate a primary source of revenue for organized crime, they should recognize the “salience” of this issue and call for decriminalization.
-
I don't think Argus was making any accusations. He was defending it more than anything (but I'm not making any accusations either).
-
Besides, all this talk about child porn (especially about how it isn't necessarily harmful) is ruining my buzz.
-
Waitaminute! I've had a few puffs and I can think more clearly. Maybe making something illegal and banning it are essentially the same thing. Nonetheless, that's irrelevant because the product still doesn't disappear after it's been banned; negative legal consequences are only imposed. And the point was, those negative legal consequences are unfair when there are no victims from the crime.
Now, back to my session.
-
Uhmm, explain it to me. If you ban something, you are making it illegal. If it's not illegal, it's not banned.
I'm glad they banned murder. I can rest easy it will never happen again.
So you DON'T know of a difference. Interesting.
If something has been banned, that means it's gone, eradicated, no longer among us. If something is illegal, that means it's frowned upon and there are negative consequences for it.
And you call other people morons.
-
Child porn is by definition harmful, even if it involves fictitious characters because it promotes the sexualization of children. Wait a minute. This is a ridicuous argument that doesn't even warrant refuting.
BTW Argus, chill out and take a xanax. Just because we disagree, we're not. like, your enemies.
-
They might want to look at how consumption of alcohol increased dramatically under prohibition and has steadily declined since. No, wait, they wouldn't want to look at that, because they don't care for actual facts. Just bizarre arguments, like some drug addicts have done bad things therefore the status quo must be maintained (because it's working so well).
-
This argument is going in circles. It seems that the CPCers will never listen to reason on this issue. What it comes down to is they want the right to criminalize anything that conflicts with what they perceive as a "traditional value", even if it involves something completely victimless. (And even if it could potentially improve the existing situation.) This is why, as a former PCer, I could never support the existing party.
-
No, I enjoy it too much to stop. That would make me instantly nostalgic, and I see no reason to stop other than potential lung damage and stupid laws.
But again, we're talking small amounts here, so I don't think Canada would become Hell's Angels central because they're allowed to possess half an ounce of pot. I also don't see any reason for increased usage. The existing laws don't limit access in any way (in fact, they facilitate it to minors). I wouldn't be surprised if usage were reduced under decriminalization because the black market would collapse, leaving it in the hands of the few who would bother to grow their own.
Harper Speech
in Federal Politics
Posted
So Sharkman, is there anything in Harper's speech you don't agree with?