Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
?Impact

Doug Ford - leader of Ontario PCs

Recommended Posts

On 2018-04-24 at 6:22 PM, Argus said:

The Hell's Angels are not a street gang. Its members, as vile as they might be, are not out there breaking into houses and stores, mugging and beating people on the street, or engaging in shootouts downtown. If you want to live on the safest block in a city, they say, live on the block where the Hells Angels are. No crime there. Nobody has ever said that about living near the gang house of a street gang.

And my contempt for people of colour is illusory on your behalf. I have far more contempt for the bigotry of low expectations you and all your type subscribe to.

You know nothing about the Hell's Angels. They're not non-violent white collar criminals, and they also have white street crews to do their dirty work. In Winnipeg, the largest is called the Zig Zag crew. Once they have paid their dues by breaking into houses and stores, mugging and beating people on the street and engaging in shootouts downtown, they may become full patch members. I'm sorry to burst your bubble that only white people are good.

There was a full patch Hell's Angel I knew in the neighborhood I grew up in ( who I used to make fun of for the bald patch on his head where his dad broke a beer bottle). A couple of years ago, he beat a kid with leukemia with an iron bar for riding his bike down the back alley behind his house. Kind of makes your defence of them look ridiculous, eh?

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/hells-angels-member-gets-4-years-for-attack-on-child-cancer-patient-and-his-uncle-412493283.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Doug Ford’s Ontario PC Party enjoys commanding lead over NDP, Liberals: Ipsos poll

 

Much of Ford’s lead is down to his popularity in the seat-rich 905 suburbs surrounding Toronto, where the PCs (44 per cent) hold a considerable lead over the NDP (29 per cent) and the Liberals (24 per cent), with three per cent backing other candidates, according to the poll of 1,197 eligible Ontario voters interviewed between May 4 and May 7.

“The things he’s been talking about, particularly related to spending and taxes, and just even being able to talk to people in the 905 and his ability to connect with them is starting to come through,” said Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Global Affairs.

“For some reason, neither the NDP nor the Liberal Party seems to have a similar type of connection, so [905 voters] seem to be very strongly interested in change, and the change they’re looking at is Doug Ford.”

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4192820/doug-ford-ontario-pc-lead-polls-ipsos/

 

 

I know that some conservative folks just don't like Ford.  He may be a bitter pill to swallow (for some), but I think he's the one who'll win over Wynn.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4192820/doug-ford-ontario-pc-lead-polls-ipsos/

 

 

I know that some conservative folks just don't like Ford.  He may be a bitter pill to swallow (for some), but I think he's the one who'll win over Wynn.

Maybe the people of Ontario see Ford as another Trump like guy whom they are desperately looking forward to and to be able to get rid of the liberal/NDP big government socialists who have done nothing for Ontario except to turn Ontario into a major financial catastrophe and away from the good old days when Ontario was a WASP province. All that goes on in Ontario politics today is the result of electing fools who could careless about Ontario or the people of Ontario. Ontario has become nothing more than a third world multicultural basket case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2018 at 1:34 PM, Argus said:

There are white street gangs in Toronto? As far as I'm aware ALL Toronto street gangs, and in fact, almost all of those urban street gangs in Canada are ethnic. Most in eastern Canada are black, made up largely of immigrants and the sons of immigrants/refugees from Somalia, Jamaica and Hait.

And Turdaeu cannot get enough of them and he wants more of those lovely wonderful ethnic people to immigrate to Canada. They are just what Canada needs more of? More multicultural gangs. At least with the Hell's Angels they are a home grown gang. We did not have to import them into Canada. And let's be honest here? The HA have done some good things for the community. Those other ethnic gangs have done nothing for the community. Just saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about Doug Ford, I am now seeing Liberal attack ads saying Ford will take away abortion rights or something similar...   I guess they are relying on people not knowing that abortion is a federal issue, MPPs cannot take away that right.   Sure they could take away funding and close clinics I guess but they won't do that and he's never said he would do that.  Talk about a fear and smear campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scribblet said:

Talking about Doug Ford, I am now seeing Liberal attack ads saying Ford will take away abortion rights or something similar...   I guess they are relying on people not knowing that abortion is a federal issue, MPPs cannot take away that right.   Sure they could take away funding and close clinics I guess but they won't do that and he's never said he would do that.  Talk about a fear and smear campaign.

Can you point me in the direction of these ads you are "now seeing"? I worry that I'm being misled when you "forget" to cite things.

But Ford did make a play for the anti-abortion vote when he said he would not stand in the way of legislation that socially conservative members bring forward. So it wouldn't exactly be a fear and smear campaign. If it really existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

Can you point me in the direction of these ads you are "now seeing"? I worry that I'm being misled when you "forget" to cite things.

But Ford did make a play for the anti-abortion vote when he said he would not stand in the way of legislation that socially conservative members bring forward. So it wouldn't exactly be a fear and smear campaign. If it really existed.

Here's a couple. It says he'll restrict a woman's right to choose - among other outrageous claims. The second link is even more direct. These Liberals are shameless but heck, this is what they do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgLfoSbmTpM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uARJFjZV5tA

 

Edited by Centerpiece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

Here's a couple. It says he'll restrict a woman's right to choose - among other outrageous claims. 

 

It's a pretty clear attribution:

 

Quote

 

The comments follow Ford’s interview with a pro-life publication in which he said it’s time to reconsider whether girls under 16 should require parental permission for abortions, a stance that quickly drew fire from both inside and outside the party.

Unless it's an utter lie, he has to own what he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, scribblet said:

Talk about a fear and smear campaign.

I really thought it was too, but I guess it isn't.  Provinces have some jurisdictional domain over areas of the abortion process, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

It's a pretty clear attribution:

 

Unless it's an utter lie, he has to own what he said.Since 

I agree with him - and the comment is a far cry from taking away a woman's right to choose.   It's fundamentally a lie because a female under 16 is not a woman - the definition of which is an "adult female". It's a smear because Ford simply said it should be considered and never applied that consideration to a woman. 

Since pretty well half the population thinks that some restrictions should be placed on abortion, I'd hazard a guess that a healthy majority would agree with the tiny step that Ford is suggesting for consideration. I'd hazard a further guess that parents would be even more in favour. The attack ad is a perfect example of why Jordan Peterson is so popular around the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

1) I agree with him - and the comment is a far cry from taking away a woman's right to choose.   

2) It's fundamentally a lie because a female under 16 is not a woman.

3) I'd hazard a guess that a healthy majority would agree with the tiny step that Ford is suggesting for consideration.

4) The attack ad is a perfect example of why Jordan Peterson is so popular around the world.

1) I think the word was 'restrict' not 'take away' and this is definitely a restriction, to demand parental approval or notification.  

2) In the context of biology, it's definitely arguable that she is a woman.  Not a "lie" or "far cry".

3) Your guess isn't as good as a cite.

4) Non-sequitur and there is actually no way to prove this statement.  Jordan Peterson is popular because "Dancing with the Stars" and "Spam" is.  It has nothing to do with the Ontario PCs and their gorilla-like leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) I think the word was 'restrict' not 'take away' and this is definitely a restriction, to demand parental approval or notification.  

2) In the context of biology, it's definitely arguable that she is a woman.  Not a "lie" or "far cry".

3) Your guess isn't as good as a cite.

4) Non-sequitur and there is actually no way to prove this statement.  Jordan Peterson is popular because "Dancing with the Stars" and "Spam" is.  It has nothing to do with the Ontario PCs and their gorilla-like leader.

1) Again, younger than 16 is not a woman. A 13 year old consulting with her parents is not much of a restriction.

2) If you define a woman as a female who can get pregnant, you might have a point - but we don't define it that way in law or in life. Just think of your own children at 13 and 14 in grade 8 and 9 - and as a parent, would you not want to help protect your child's mental health as well as helping to organize their life to help raise the child or manage the mental trauma that can follow someone through their life?

3) Lots of surveys out there - but the MSM is loathe to drill down and instead, keep the narrative to one choice or another. The only nuanced surveys come from right-to-life organizations. I've attached a link to an environics survey - and while you'll see a correlation to the polarizing A or B answers - the drill down shows that a sizable number of Canadians - especially younger Canadians - do believe in some restrictions on abortion. 

Link: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/poll-young-canadians-want-to-restrict-abortion-to-12-weeks

Michael - this whole discussion just highlights why virtually all Western countries have had an adult conversation with its citizens and arrived at compromising legislation that balances a woman's right to choose with society's aversion to later term abortions....but also the importance of pre-abortion consultation to provide as much information and introspection to ensure they are making the most informed decision possible........look it up "abortion in European countries". Our MSM never educates Canadians as to what is going on in other "progressive" countries with regards to abortion - but they are gung-ho to using those same countries when it benefits their "progressive" social policies.

Edited by Centerpiece
Further enlightenment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I really thought it was too, but I guess it isn't.  Provinces have some jurisdictional domain over areas of the abortion process, I think.

Just processes and funding I suppose, but all Ford has said is  'we've got to consult parents' when it comes to minors' access to abortion'.  Nothing wrong with that, parents are consulted on other issues, why not a major medical procedure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ford dismissed Tanya Granic, who was pro-life and anti gay marriage.

Tanya Granic Allen removed as Ontario PC Party candidate

From the link-

The move comes after the Liberals revealed a controversial video of Granic Allen that afternoon. In the almost 30-minute speech, Granic Allen covers topics including abortion, progressive education and gay marriage.

Ford's comments when announcing her removal-

“We are a party comprised of people with diverse views that if expressed responsibly, we would respect. However, the fact is her characterization of certain issues and people has been irresponsible,” Ford said in the statement.

That does not seem like the attitude of a hardcore social conservative who wants to "make abortion illegal". And as scribblet said, even if he actually did, as Premier he would not have that authority anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

It's a pretty clear attribution:

 

Unless it's an utter lie, he has to own what he said.

 

Quote

The comments follow Ford’s interview with a pro-life publication in which he said it’s time to reconsider whether girls under 16 should require parental permission for abortions,

 

I see that as an  issue about parental rights!  A girl under 16!

That shows you that the Libs and the Socialist party are taking away the rights of  parents!  

 

Heck, you can't even drive if you're under 16....and that's only if you've got a learner's permit!       And here we are talking abortion?

Edited by betsy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, betsy said:

 

 

I see that as an  issue about parental rights!  A girl under 16!

That shows you that the Libs and the Socialist party are taking away the rights of  parents!  

 

Heck, you can't even drive if you're under 16....and that's only if you've got a learner's permit!       And here we are talking abortion?

If God determined someone old enough to be pregnant, she is old enough to choose what to do about that. We don't want religious wacko parents forcing young women to bear children they don't want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

If God determined someone old enough to be pregnant, she is old enough to choose what to do about that. We don't want religious wacko parents forcing young women to bear children they don't want.

Spoken like a true socialist. It's wrong unless it affects you. Can you honestly say that if you had a 13 year old daughter - you would not want to share in her decision to have a child? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

If a parent forces their teen to give birth to an unwanted child would they now be legally responsible for supporting it, raising it and giving it a chance? 

In my experience those who claim to be pro-life are really just pro-birth; they have no interest in guaranteeing any sort of quality to that life.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Slick said:

If a parent forces their teen to give birth to an unwanted child would they now be legally responsible for supporting it, raising it and giving it a chance? 

In my experience those who claim to be pro-life are really just pro-birth; they have no interest in guaranteeing any sort of quality to that life.

That's a pretty wild claim - do you have anything at all to support it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Seems like an obvious claim to me. The same side that tends to support the pro-life position also tends to be against the programs that help to break the cycle of poverty. Welfare, mat leave, healthcare, pharmacare, daycare, education grants, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Slick said:

If a parent forces their teen to give birth to an unwanted child would they now be legally responsible for supporting it, raising it and giving it a chance? 

 

They must be, if their daughter is still underaged.  Legally?  I'm not sure about that.....but I think they are.

Heck!  A lot of "underaged" 45s are getting financial help from their parents, some are even back at home living with them!

 

Quote

 

1 in 3 Adults Under Age 45 Still Get Financial Help From Mom and Dad

 

 

 

http://time.com/money/4432883/adults-financial-help-parents-cell-phone/

 

 

Quote

In my experience those who claim to be pro-life are really just pro-birth; they have no interest in guaranteeing any sort of quality to that life.

 

Pro-brith - to try give the child a chance to live his life,  that's all we can do.   I say try, because not all births end up with live children.  Some die at birth.  The only guarantee in life is that we'll all die at some point.

The young mother is not forced to raise the child.  There is adoption.  Many families want to adopt children.  We had 3 CAS siblings adopted by a rich couple in Toronto! 

 

Even if the child is raised in an orphanage, who's to say that he won't be successful in life?  You think no one from an orphanage , or from being raised by foster parents ever made it?  Though success does not necessarily mean to become a celeb, or to accomplish great achievements in life, here are some that did......

 

https://perpetualfostering.co.uk/10-celebrities-grew-social-care-system/

 

Now, don't give me that silly common retort that says adopted children are usually abused children!  Abuse happens everywhere - even with biological parents!

 

 

So......your next remark is nonsense.

Guarantee any sort of quality in life???   Who can guarantee quality in life?   Not even you can do that!!  That's a silly dream by the liberals.

You can give everything to your child to ensure he'll be successful,  and yet he - or circumstances like a car crash, that leaves him paralyzed - can still ruin your best-laid plans!  Guarantee quality in life, indeed!  You make the best of what you have!

 

Furthermore, define what you mean by "quality!"  Who are you to decide for another human being what should be his quality of life?   Why should one's "quality in life" be under your terms of what quality in life should be?

 

You may perhaps think all these material trappings are what's needed to have quality in life - whereas there are folks who view quality in life as having the whole family gathered together to partake in a lively dinner at the table at the end of the day, even if just to eat their pork and beans!  Of course, materialistic people will never understand that kind of quality in life.

 

In my experience (reading posts from various forums), pro-choice people (common to most liberals) have this "foggy" view about life.   Even when they're right in the middle of living life, and seeing reality around them - they still don't seem to get it.   This twisted sense of entitlement always get to rear its ugly head somehow.

Guarantee quality in life, indeed.  Oh boy.

 

"I beg your pardon......I never promised you a rose garden......along with the sunshine......"

 

 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Slick said:

Welfare, mat leave, healthcare, pharmacare, daycare, education grants, etc. 

These examples are all socialist programs and yet goes against "it's wrong unless it affects you".  I thought the plaint against Socialism was that it cared too much about helping the downtrodden ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


×
×
  • Create New...