Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Cons add Lib Crime Bill Amendments they rejected earlier.


Recommended Posts

Are you seriously equating a Defence Minister taking a ride in a military aircraft for possible personal use with the AdScam scandal of millions of dollars, only a paltry amount of which could be traced in Judge Gomery's audit?

"Mommy! Mommy! I'm sorry I burnt down the house playing with matches! But that's old stuff! Didn't you see that my brother was picking his nose just now?"

No exceptions.

When did it become right ?

Wrong.

InnaGaddaGazebos, Tony ... $50m too ...

Racking it up ...

Edited by jacee
Link to post
Share on other sites

You bitch when he rejects the opposition suggestions, and you bitch when he accepts them.

No thats not the point.

I'm not happy because if bills are looked at and debated from all sides and then moved along with or without amendments/rejected etc etc it is the most efficient cost effective way for the government to work!

Does saving money,time and being effecient mean anything?Does to me!

WWWTT

Link to post
Share on other sites

No exceptions.

When did it become right ?

Wrong.

InnaGaddaGazebos, Tony ... $50m too ...

Racking it up ...

You just gotta mix up everything into one anti-Tory ball of wax, don't you?

I've already said that I can see that Tony has made a mistake and there should be an inquiry - with teeth!

The issue here is the Defence Minister's use of military aircraft - a completely different issue!

I realize that to you and Olp1fan it's all the same and if someone disagrees with you on one he HAS to also disagree on the other but I'm afraid I just can't do live up to your caricature!

For the record, based upon what we know at this point in time I support McKay but not Clemente.

I'm sure you have a whole list of things that I HAVE to believe! Sorry if I won't play your game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you seriously equating a Defence Minister taking a ride in a military aircraft for possible personal use with the AdScam scandal of millions of dollars, only a paltry amount of which could be traced in Judge Gomery's audit?

"Mommy! Mommy! I'm sorry I burnt down the house playing with matches! But that's old stuff! Didn't you see that my brother was picking his nose just now?"

You're talking a difference in degree rather than in kind.

The CPC promised accountability and transparency. They promised to end the sense of entitlement in Ottawa.

All I've seen from them is the exact same sense of entitlement with even less accountability and transparency than the LPC had.

If you're going to criticize the LPC for it, you ought to be criticizing the CPC just the same. Unless, of course, your problem with adscam has nothing to do with accountability, transparency and a sense of entitlement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canadians deserve passionate, yet reasoned legislators that are willing to compromise.

Compromise is something you need to do in a minority government situation. I don't know if you have any experience working with committees, but they're ridiculously slow and ineffective at solving problems, because they try to make everyone happy. As for the current government, they are passionate about getting things done, which, IMO, is a refreshing change from the Liberal years, when very little got done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Compromise is something you need to do in a minority government situation. I don't know if you have any experience working with committees, but they're ridiculously slow and ineffective at solving problems, because they try to make everyone happy. As for the current government, they are passionate about getting things done, which, IMO, is a refreshing change from the Liberal years, when very little got done.

But don't you think it's a little weak to refuse to compromise and then to decide after the fact that the other guy may have been right after all? I mean, it is the sort of weak moment that could happen to any of us but still...

Edited by Evening Star
Link to post
Share on other sites

A majority government is not license for a dictatorship. Roughly 24% of all eligible voters cast a ballot for the CPC. About 61% of those that voted had voted for other parties. The appropriate thing to do is let those parties have a say and come to an agreement. Otherwise, they might as well shut down parliament for the rest of the CPC's term and just let them draft whatever legislation they feel like.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to post
Share on other sites

A majority government is not license for a dictatorship. Roughly 24% of all eligible voters cast a ballot for the CPC. About 61% of those that voted had voted for other parties. The appropriate thing to do is let those parties have a say and come to an agreement. Otherwise, they might as well shut down parliament for the rest of the CPC's term and just let them draft whatever legislation they feel like.

It's a license to do what the majority of Canada (based on our system of ridings) has voted for. That's how it's always been in Canada. Nothing new. He did run on a platform, so following through is better than do something completely different, which would be more dictator-like, wouldn't it?

Yes, 61% voted for other parties. And this is a thread about Harper adopting Liberal amendments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What people in Ottawa dont seem to understand is mandatory sentencing assumes there will be charges and trials. But most of these cases do not even make it into court. The system here in BC is clogged up and we are dismissing real criminal charges simply because its taking too long to get people their day in court.

This is all just utter idiocy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What people in Ottawa dont seem to understand is mandatory sentencing assumes there will be charges and trials. But most of these cases do not even make it into court. The system here in BC is clogged up and we are dismissing real criminal charges simply because its taking too long to get people their day in court.

This is all just utter idiocy.

Absolutely.

Especially since the cost of bill will be footed by the provinces. Maybe we can ship all of those cases to Alberta where the expense of trial and keeping people locked up for longer can be covered in Conservatopia. Preferably, Stephen Harper's riding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely.

Especially since the cost of bill will be footed by the provinces. Maybe we can ship all of those cases to Alberta where the expense of trial and keeping people locked up for longer can be covered in Conservatopia. Preferably, Stephen Harper's riding.

Or perhaps we can let them all run around free outside of your house

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or perhaps we can let them all run around free outside of your house

Haven't you heard? Crime rates are dropping and historically I'm pretty damn safe in my house.

But, preach on. If politics is your religion I can be your outlet, brother.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...