Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

SirRiff

Members
  • Content Count

    455
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About SirRiff

  • Rank
    Full Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    London, ON
  • Interests
    guitar, biotech, running
  1. first of all hello to any who may recall my name on the SCC does anybody even remember the entire reason we have elected officials? to implement the will of democracy? to make decisions for the masses? frankly i think the less the elected goverment makes the big decisions, the less legitimate our democracy is to an extent. who are we expecting to be informed on the issues? who are we holding accountable? who has an opportunity to justify thier decisions and convince canadians? only our elected gov. now i dont trust martin as far as i could throw him ( and with my bad back i shouldnt be throwing anyone- anybody catch the throwback reference? 10 points) but having a democratic system if almost more important then who is in it at any one moment. without a legitimate system we will have little faith in anything, even if good decisions are being made. <pine> wouldnt it be great to actually have the option to elect someone who justifies and explains huge important decisions with real life personal communication and opens up real discussion? </pine>
  2. If what has been reported is true, and i think that it is... - there was only a 1% difference between the larger more powerfull ones and teh small ones... - that we already have a supply training chain for those types of coptors - that one is just a concept and the other proven.. then is the a unacceptable example of government being completely out of touch with reason and rational concens for the nation. its true that we will be able to get by with this copters when they are ready, but thats not the point. every common sense approach says spending 1% more for bigger, more reliable, more proven copters that we already have some experience in is by far the best approach. if this is truly just politics, i think these guys need to be drug into the street and shot. seriously. sirriff
  3. religion is intrinsicly inflexable, exclusive, and discriminatory. thast fine. its an ideology and individuals have a right to believe nad live however they want. democratic government however generally requires flexible, inclusive, and shifting policies based on real observable, rational stimulus. the two are mutually exclusive. i have said it before, religion in the past was simply just a vehicle of morality that helped to stabolize societys power structure. its no longer needed for that purpose. it is helpfull however to transfer traditional values through generations. goverments however dont need a static written description hundreds of years old to investiage and respond to its citiziens concerns. in short, our society had advanced to the point where groups of goverment can assess and respons to citizens needs. no prepacked ideologies are needed. sirriff
  4. if the libs get stuck with a minority gov they deserve it even when the crisis broke i thought i would still vote lib, because, really, every alternative is just as corrupt. its the sad state of modern nations that corruption exists in every party. but i like liberal polices best, so why vote for others. but then, i really dont like how they handled themselves. i was really looking for a Martin mea culpa i guess, but he is too slick for that. so now i am thinking the only way i can cast another kind of vote is to vote NDP and stick liberals as a minority gov. i am a bit worried about having a lame duck goverment, but as i recal in my poli sci classes, alot of minority govs have accomplished just as much as majorities in the last 50 years. so maybe it wouldnt be so bad for canada. i do think the libs should be punished, but i jsut cant find too many alternaives and dont really want to contribute to a minority gov. sirriff
  5. wait a minute.....let me check this logic... i pay a tax on what little income i make. that is to pay for roads and crap. also, i pay sales tax on some items. this is a way to target extra taxes to people who have the expendable income to buy more luxory items. is this double taxing? well if so, we would never be able to represent the true social cost of production. for example, SUVs. if nobody should be taxed again after profits, a rich person could buy 20 of the worst pollution dangerous SUVS for pure retail price. yet YOU AND I, woudl be the ones to suffer from the pollution and danger on teh highways of increased risk of fatality. in essense, i am occuring a cost that is not being represented. the ethical way for a society to address this is to place an addition tax on teh SUV, which would pay for the environmental cost and highway cost of this product. only after taking into account the retail price AND the tax price would the true cost of teh SUV be accurate. thus is it very desirable for additional targeted taxes to be levied on some activities in addition to income tax. this is because income tax is too broad a sword to accurately gauge the true social cost of some activities. now that is the logic, which i think is sound and fair. now someone tell me why specifically dividends are taxed? could it be to prevent corps from taking in huge amounts of money, then funnelling it to a small number of elite shareholders? could it just be a money grab by gov? could it be to reflect true social cost? i gotta think about this one...anybody have a sound reason why this would be a good case for additional taxation? sirriff
  6. i was a small part of a martin focus group, got a random phone call and was curious. we were shown 8 diff rough tv ads on varios policy statements by martin in a casual conversational setting- US relations, fiscal responsibility (read: sponsorship scandel), global environmentalism, research and innovation, health care funding, and preserving canadian culture generally, most of them were wishy washy and weak, no strong stand. the US relations one was good, admitting the US was the 'larger' country but being determined to maintain our own identity. good thought anyways. another good one that confused me focused on developing clean energy technology and sharing it with china. i have no idea what that is all about, but it was presented well. anyways, that is the first focus group for me. the donuts were good sirriff
  7. speech saying all sorts of wacky odd things without any fear of consequence. its a beautiful thing
  8. link in the history of the world there are no times when a 673% increase in profit is from fair competition and superior product. more likely monopoly pricing, consumer ignorance, goverment stupidity and overall bad laws. everyone needs insurance, so teh companies know the marketis not suddenly going to dissappear. isnt it time to start seriously puting responsibility on bad drivers? drunk driving- a criminal offence, 1 yr no driving, 100 comunity hours, probation for life. speeding tickets- $500. youth- gradual rights on teh road, PARENTS responsible for their children and their car. what else can we do to stop getting ripped off?
  9. Link this guy is obviously a lost cause. no way he can EVER be a productive member of society without great risk to everyone. so we keep him well fed and healthy in jail for how long??? meanwhile we got children being born in poverty and single mothers struggling. Q: what does civilized society do with monsters when honest citiziens struggle in daily life?
  10. because the worlds population is growing way too fast. the US estimates the pop will be between 9 and 12 BILLION by 2005. add to this nonrenewable resources are being consumed faster and faster, farmland disappearing, water being contaminated, disease and weapons move faster and faster. in short, in most of the world things will get harder and harder every year. Canada is an oasis in all of this. but africa, the middle east, and maybe even asia-pacific regions are on average going to get more poor and more desperate.
  11. this was teh guy who wrote the article: if having a lifetime of experience makes you biased then nobody is an expert on anything. this guy pretty much writes with authority on what is obvious to anybody with a half functioning brain. Bush lied about WMDs. he lied about 9/11 links. and he lied about caring about iraq civilians. this is not news this is obvious. the anger from some military people is pretty understandable since all they probably want is to be able to trust the reasons they have to fight. if i was fighting in that kind of war, i would like to be able to trust in the reason for war too. its human nature. frankly its pretty dumb to ignore the fact that retireing career soldiers have little if anything to gain from voiceing thier anger while the current US gov has everything to gain from carrying the official line. money, power, influence, ideology, and political success makes people lie. a front line solider pointing out he had to fill out a survey in order to get in on a photo op with bush doesnt have any real reason to lie comparied to politicians http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules...article&sid=668
  12. people should consider the 9/11 ads alongside teh fact he hide the caskets of returning dead GIs from public view during the iraq war. with that in mind, its even more pathetic.
  13. just for the sake of information, this was a section of bill c-20 first reading 151. Every person who, for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of a person under the age of fourteen years (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or ( is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months. 152. Every person who, for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a person under the age of fourteen years to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the person under the age of fourteen years, (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or ( is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months. 153. (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person , and who (a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person; or ( for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person. (2) Section 153 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1): (1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or ( is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months. (1.2) In determining whether a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, the judge shall consider the nature and circumstances of the relationship between the person and the young person, including the following: (a) the age difference between the person and the young person; ( the evolution of the relationship; and © the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person.
  14. does anybody actually have any FIRST HAND information like a section of a bill, or a transcript of a speech, or some real account of some Svend Robinson promoting the abuse of small children? this whole notion of equating civil rights to gays with abuse of children is really desperate and not worthy of discussion. there is no reasonable argument to be made that canada is in danger of being dragged along into something that it doesnt want to do because some MP wants to protect free speech or something. if society changes then society does so because it chooses. MPs are not going to come to your house and make you sin. people have free choice. and AF have you considered that option that whatever legal defintion we put on the age of consent will not change society? maybe age of consent laws are not being enforced and will not be enforced? maybe the only people being prosecuted are 18 yr old boys for sleeping with 15 yr old girls by mutual consent and that is an option that is an option that canadians need to be able to change. maybe we need to discuss it and society will come to its own conclusion. and by the way the only thing on that site you link to is which is not only unqualified, but useless and vauge. this is meaningless and by no sane means shows a link from anybody to anybody. it weakens your stance to claim this stuff without backing it up, especially factual claims. and if you really want to discuss the age of consent thing, why not post the proposed bill, some stats by health canada on youth sex trends, and some figures from the fed gov on prosecution of these crimes. they are all public information i would think.
  15. we are better then the US on some issues. but on the ones that the US is better at: nationalism and military spending. they are double edged swords, but i think a little bit more of both would serve canada well right now. but socially we are ahead of US policies. sirriff
×
×
  • Create New...