Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Slavik44

Members
  • Posts

    1,074
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Slavik44's Achievements

Mentor

Mentor (12/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. I was going to tack this on to the end of my post but I figured you might actually read it if it was at the top of my post. I don’t live in eastern Canada and have never lived in eastern Canada…although I did visit once twelve years ago. I currently reside in Alberta and I have never voted for the Liberal Party of Canada. That being said I think you might want to go on google and do a little fact checking. Of course they are trying to capture votes. That is the whole point of an election—to campaign for votes. I wouldn’t refer to that as “stealing votes.” My vote is not the exclusive property of any political party. As long as I am voting of my own free will my vote can hardly be called stolen. That is simply not true; there have been tax cuts introduced and implemented by the Liberals. There were a number of tax cuts made during Paul Martin’s years as finance minister. We could obviously debate the effectiveness of them…but to say there were no tax cuts is a gross exaggeration. So who implemented the GST in the first place? You previously stated that the Liberals were always the party to increase taxes. But clearly, they were not the only party there were other parties raising them as well. I think it is a little disingenuous to label the Liberals as the party of taxes. Although, I do agree with you that a failure to live up to such an election promise was a slap in the face to the electorate. I think you’re a little fuzzy on the details and a little strong on the bias. Plenty of spending cuts were made in the mid 1990’s. Likewise, the government went from running a massive deficit, to running a massive surplus (under the liberals)…much of which went to paying down the debt. So what you’re attributing to Stephen Harper is really just the maintenance of the status quo…Stephen Harper inherited a government that was making tax cuts and paying down the deficit…thankfully he hasn’t screwed that up. I’ll make this short because I don’t want to open up the same sex marriage can of worms. I will simply state that I do not care to be ruled by one tyrant, 308 tyrants, or 30 million tyrants. My litmus test for government involvement can be pared down to a simple question. Can I do that all by myself? If the answer is yes…then the government can and should go to hell. I don’t think free individuals need the government telling them whom they can and cannot marry. What next maybe they can set a curfew and tell me when to go to bed? Maybe they can tuck me in and read me a bedtime story. Perhaps they could buy me a night-light while they’re at it. I’m a little baffled by the poll data you are using… if I recall most polls from the time indicated that about 40% approved, 40% opposed, and 20% didn’t give a damn. I don't believe I saw a poll that showed that 68% of the population strongly opposed SSM.
  2. http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/voterstoolki...te_results.html I don't mean to let the facts get in the way of such a riveting post but you may want to give reality some consideration.
  3. There are alot of things you can hold people responsible for...Who their parents are is not one of them.
  4. What kind of question is this? As far as I know an individual can be none, one, or two of the above...they are not mutually exclusive terms or identities. Your attempts to paint Obama as a Muslim are equally outlandish, the Quran says a lot of things, its track record is worse than the magic eight ball I got when I was a kid. I think it's absurd that we are still enslaving people to the religion of their parents. Unless you can present evidence of Obama telling people that that Muhammad is the messenger of God or document Obama praying to Mecca five times a day..I will call this claim what it really is: a worthless attempt at character assassination. There are a number of avenues an individual can choose to go down in order to criticize Obama. Given this fact it would be best to stick to the ones that have some basis in reality rather than religious fantasy land. Personally I think Obama is a bit of a smoke and mirrors act he has a good act but I haven't seen much substance from him yet...but looking at the rest of this field of bumbling idiots he may not be so bad.
  5. Yes, as I recall just the other day Harper launched into a splendid speech on the need for Lebensraum which he followed up with a decree that all Muslims be stripped of their citizenship and be required to walk around with a badge of the star and crescent. The whole situation is completely off-base because no party, including the Green Party, is stupid enough to support the Bloc as the government. May I remind you that 308 minus 75 is 233 seats. 233 divided by 4 would still leave the NDP, Liberals, CPC, and GP with roughly 60 seats each (if evenly distributed, if not evenly distributed it would most likely leave one party with more seats than the bloc). Don't you think it would make more sense for the Liberals, NDP, and Greens to form some sort of coalition or understanding? Furthermore we must recognize that Bloc is a separatist party. The bloc is not interested in the desires of Canadians, the bloc is not interested in the desires of Quebec's Anglo-phone population, the bloc is not interested in the desires of Quebec's federalist population. To the point if you want to look for exclusion and discrimination based on superficial characteristics look no further than the bloc. If you want to look for disaster to the average Canadian look no further than the bloc. This whole concept is patently absurd.
  6. Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. I don't know about you but I find that kind of ironic. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anyways while I appreciate his efforts we must realize that such logic is best saved for those annoying chain e-mails that tell you to forward a message to ten people or <insert travesty here> will happen. When we think rationally most of us realize that we need to establish the evidence. We need to prove there is a threat, that the threat can be stopped, and the measures undertaken to stop the threat will not cause more harm then the threat itself. We need to establish such things before we take major action. We cannot just assume those things and draw a fancy little table and say we must take action...by that logic I would be forwarding e-mails on a daily basis in order to save my dogs life. We still must focus on the evidence, not the threat.
  7. Personally all that video did was make me feel sick about my sympathies towards native issues and native groups.
  8. Thats completely unnecessary No I don't need more examples, if you would go back and read my post I stated "I don't trust Stephen Harper" so giving me more examples of why not to trust Stephen Harper is a bit like preaching to the choir. What I am saying is that this is not a new brand of conservatism...its just an old brand of politics as usual, and it is a brand I am sick and tired of...unfortunately it is the only brand on the shelves. You may as well have made a thread explaining the dangers of using H2O and temperatures below 273 degrees kelvin to make ice cubes instead of pure water and temperatures below 0 degrees Celsius. Please tell me you are not so naive as to believe that the conservatives are the only ones who have a gap between words and actions, that the conservatives are the only ones to employ "attack adds," that the conservatives are the only ones who want majority government status. I believe this is true of all political parties and somehow for believing this I am the ignorant one who cannot take in 306 words? Whatever happened to common sense?
  9. Wasn't it the Liberal strategy to campaign from the left and govern from the right? To borrow your words "this distinct fingerprint can be seen all over the place, take the environment agenda" God bless the Liberals for signing Kyoto (words) and allowing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to rise to unparalleled heights (actions). Isn't it politics as usual to say one thing and do the other? Certainly I don't trust Stephen Harper, but I am not willing to give him so much credit as to assume he invented this new political strategy. After all it is not really a new political strategy it's about as old as politics itself. I think this applies to your other point as well that "sneaky cons harbour great aspirations to gain access to full power mode (aka majority government)." Basically what your telling us is that a political party, in Canada, wants to be in a majority government status. I feel like that needs to be followed up by a voice saying "A political party in Canada, with a majority government, in our Canada, I'm not making this up" Which I suppose segways nicely into political attack adds...they are not distinctly conservative, they are distinctly political. Basically in 307 words you told us two things, one thing that is correct. That the conservative party of Canada is a political party and one thing that is incorrect that the conservative party of Canada is the only political party in Canada that acts like a political party.
  10. Yes, obviously members of the Canadian Military do not deserve the right to vote.
  11. There is a very fine line between being accommodating and bending over backwards and taking it up the you know what. We are not dealing with a parade or a hookah lounge here, we are dealing with the TRAINING of doctors, individuals who should be both professional and well versed in the subject matter. It is one thing to specialize or only treat certain people and conditions. It is another thing to re-write the curriculum requirements to cater to your personal beliefs. If you want to do that, if you want to cater to your personal beliefs at the expense of other peoples lives, you can make your own institution and call it Mohammed's Medical School, I don't care...we make the Christians do it and you can bet your ass we should make the Muslims do it. Getting a degree from an institution carries with it the fact that you have fulfilled the curriculum requirements. What they are arguing for is the ability to get a degree with out fulfilling the requirements. You mentioned that immigrants should learn to live under the umbrella of Canadian law. Perfect, under the umbrella of Canadian law...if a dieing women went to a doctor and the doctor refused to help her, would he be living under the umbrella of Canadian law? If you apply to an institution, and want to get a degree from that institution, don't you believe that you should have to meet the requirements to get the degree? Refusing to do so, would be refusing to live under the standards set by the institution in order to obtain the degree. Which is fine you are free to do so. However, you are not free to refuse to meet the standards set out in order to get a degree, and demand that you still get the degree. The consequence of refusing to meet the standards, is the failure to achieve the accreditation that says you met the standards.
  12. Few points 1. You are going off on a tangent, I only asked why you could not post up the text of the documents involved, rather then relying solely on an inflammatory link that amounts to little more then propaganda. 2. What you have said is very vague, while I applaud how nice it sounds...it means absolutely nothing. I have no issue discussing this topic. But, I am going to need you to come back and clarify a few things. -What is the majority interest you talk about? - How have you determined that this is the interest of the majority? - What is unacceptable Sexual Interest? - Using specific quotes from the actual legal text, can you show me what constitutes unacceptable and why? - What do you mean by "potentially"? Like, if I bought a 649 lotto ticket, I could potentially win the lottery?
  13. SB 777 (transsexual, bisexual, homosexual indoctrination of schoolchildren by requiring changes to all instruction and activities) AB 394 (transsexual, bisexual, homosexual indoctrination of students, parents, and teachers via “anti-harassment†training). We are all moderately intelligent on this forum, in the future why not point the members of this forum to the primary documents and then we can have a discussion based on the actual text, rather then a sensationalized account from a news agency that makes Fox look fair and balanced.
  14. @ jennie It is my opinion that there should be a balance struck between what you are proposing and what is proposed by Stephen Harper's "Triple E" Senate. I believe the central role of the Senate should be to act as a restraint against the Federal Government, while at the same time I believe it should better represent the will of the voters, with out leading to a Senate that is, nothing more than, a carbon copy of the House of Commons. I believe the best way to resolve this issue. Is to limit Senate terms to somewhere between 7-10 years, and transfer the power of appointment to the provinces. As I said I believe the role of the Senate is to act as restraint on the powers of the Federal Government. I believe that allowing provinces to appoint Senators accomplishes this goal, better then either a carbon copy H.O.C, or the will of 40% of the population from 20 years ago. Likewise, it also better reflects the will of the people, then our current appointment system, In particular the will of the people who are to be served by those senators. Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister, who is generally the leader of the party with the most seats in the H.O.C. When it comes to the senate what it means, is that as it stands right now, if Manitoba has six seats, they are attributed to Manitoba in name and in name only. In Reality, 95% of the power of appointment lies outside the region those seats are supposed to serve. this is true of all regions, no region has full control over the senate seats that are supposed to serve them. This Creates a huge problem, because ultimately it does lend to the idea of senators as tools of the federal powers. It is a troubling situation when Senators at least in part owe their loyalty to Big Party Bureaucracies-- the people the senators are supposed to be acting as a restraint against.
  15. $100 million to try Picton. Of course that also includes the costs to investigate little Willie and the missing women's task force....I don't think we can blame the excavation of a massive pig farm on juries...or to the disappointment of many, on Lawyers either. Would you care to name the percentage of the Canadian population currently behind bars in Canada? Not that I am totally un-sympathetic to looking at who we are placing in Jail and alternatives to such things...but I feel the word significant is a gross misrepresentation. In your in depth study can you tell me how many lawyers is too many and why you have come to that conclusion? Could you also tell me how many Lawyers is the ideal amount and why you have come to that conclusion? uhmm...it does. Too many lawyers and too few jobs means lower salaries and higher un-employment and vica versa. Look, around at all the different legal markets in Canada and all the different areas of practice and you will see different salaries, hours, and numbers of people....supply and demand along with many other economic factors do apply to lawyers. If you cared to look a little closer you would be able to see this. A few problems with this...you are looking at exceptional cases to prove a point...I think you need to remember that the exception is not the rule. Likewise you need to recognize that there is a cultural difference between Canada and Japan, and to assume that a culture difference wouldn't manifest itself in something as important as legal practices is asinine. To expand on that, in Canada lawyers play many roles, you pointed to Toronto. Great, its a good example of this. In Canada Lawyers work in Business, Tax, mediation, etc.... no matter what, people have to fill these roles...in Canada many of these people happen to have gone to law school and have passed the bar...we call them lawyers....just because another country is less likely to call them lawyers...doesn't mean that the roles don't have to be filled...a lawyer by any other name.... I would have to suggest that you have a problem here...after reading your post...I can't help but notice there is a general lack of support for such a conclusion. As well for someone who is wanting to change the legal system for financial purposes I think you might have bitten off more then you can pay for. Given, that what you call for is nothing short of a cultural revolution. A constitutional and systematic make over of the entire country and legal code. Likewise, I feel I should point out that Japan is trying to make changes... they don't want their system in its entirety. Honestly, it makes no sense...you are telling Canadians we need to copy the Japanese system...a system the Japanese don't fully want and are moving away from in order to copy ours. ------------------------- In general I am somewhat worried by your posts....you want to cut out juries...because they cost to much money. The first thing we need to realize is that Juries are not as common as you are making them out to be...as in the majority of cases a jury is noticeably absent...they really are not that common. I am even further worried by the fact that your big issues are time and money...I don't think cutting corners in the pursuit of justice is a good idea...McDonalds and Whores can hang on to the cheap and easy title...I would prefer that we focus on Justice...Rather then ill-advised cost and time cutting measures....combined together with the elimination of due process...such things go beyond counter productive to a point of absurdity. Your lack of deliberation on this topic can be particularly noted by the fact that you disparage both the number of lawyers in the system and the fees they charge. You might want to look at the Law of supply and demand again...if you dramatically reduce the number of lawyers in the system...and the workload/demand remains the same...the last thing you are going to see is reduced fees...you would be giving lawyers even further permission to charge whatever they want. If you combine this with the full elimination for the option of trial by jury you would truly be making the legal system an elitist institution. In which the rich get freedom regardless of guilt and poor get Jail regardless of innocence. By limiting the number of lawyers...The ones remaining almost certainly would go after the money...pricing lawyers even further out of the reach of your average Joe and jane...making justice nothing less then a joke and a commodity that could not be afforded by the lower and middle class.
×
×
  • Create New...