| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On May 03 2011 21:55 57 Corvette wrote: The thing is, its mostly not the immigrants that are making problems here, its the damn Refugees. We can't deny them, and they get on average more opportunities than immigrants. That's xenophobic, and pretty unbelievable. I'm embarassed that this opinion exists in Canada. | ||
|
REM.ca
Canada354 Posts
"The NDP is full of terrorists and they only got into power because of the vote of refugees." Ahhhh Canadian voters.... (don't lose too much hope, she did seems like she had mental problems...) | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On May 03 2011 23:31 Achilles wrote: They already get paid shit because what we have is a public system in place. What are you missing here? Layton (NDP), Danny Williams (PC-Lib), Paul Martin (Lib) etc. all opted for private healthcare for themselves despite shilling public healthcare to the public HMMM WONDER WHY. I have no clue what the US system is (and I doubt you do either tbh) but I know that if you don't have room to put the criminals, the new ones either: can't be "rehabilitated" or the old ones must be released (thus not rehabilitated) to make room for the new ones. I don't give a fuck if they withdrew their caps on a temporary basis, it's still because of how badly they got torn apart for the sheer thought of it. Can't see that changing. Crime is decreasing and we're building more jails? Its been shown that tougher sentencing has no effect on crime, and Canada already has comparatively strict sentencing in the commonwealth. So why tougher sentencing laws? to fill the jails. Why more jails? well.... | ||
|
Achilles
Canada385 Posts
On May 04 2011 00:34 REM.ca wrote: "Easy" is a bit of a euphemism considering it has never even happened in the history of any of the commonwealth countries. It also requires more than a House vote, being dependent on a comitee commisioned to investigate the matter. The results you cite are definately suprising given the situation but imo they're more a reflection of an uninformed/apathetic voting population than they are a comment on the necessity of re-election. Don't you think it would be wrong/unconstitutional/anti-democratic for a government to be found in contempt of parliament without an election? I think there has to be an election then. However, the circumstances and criteria "fulfilled" surrounding the contempt vote are dubious. Those parties were going to force an election no matter what. If they didn't get the election on contempt - it would've been the budget. It just sounds nicer for your campaign when the government was in contempt instead of "had a shitty budget", I think blaming the electorate for not getting the result you desired is just as anti-democratic to be honest. | ||
|
Achilles
Canada385 Posts
On May 04 2011 00:43 caradoc wrote: Crime is decreasing and we're building more jails? Its been shown that tougher sentencing has no effect on crime, and Canada already has comparatively strict sentencing in the commonwealth. So why tougher sentencing laws? to fill the jails. Why more jails? well.... Weird that crime has dropped during the Conservative's time in power.  tbh I don't care so much about the crime aspect but the drop in crime is another valuable argument. I was merely responding to the original pt where someone was just haphazardously listing off conservative policies. Don't get bothered by it rly. | ||
|
Trentelshark
Canada385 Posts
On May 03 2011 21:46 RoseTempest wrote: thus is the solution, don't let any immigrants in, and more people will vote :D You do realise at one point or another, unless you're of "Aboriginal decent", your family was immigrants to this country....correct? | ||
|
REM.ca
Canada354 Posts
On May 04 2011 00:46 Achilles wrote: I think blaming the electorate for not getting the result you desired is just as anti-democratic to be honest. Lol wow that was out of left field, herp derp! Thought we were having a healthy discussion here. No blame was assigned. I simply offered what I thought to be a parsimonious explanation as to how a government found in contempt could be re-elected with a majority. Interpretation of results =/= finger pointing. | ||
|
SPACETIME
Canada48 Posts
On May 04 2011 00:39 caradoc wrote: I don't know-- a lot of people vote against their own self interest, it's interesting that the right is generally able to mobilize the lower-middle class in some sectors of the population, and this is increasingly the case when you have larger corporate control over media. (Sorry people in the US, its true) This is one of the reasons I'm quite uncomfortable about Harper et al's remarks about defunding/eliminating the CBC. All this and all previous statements about Harper's/Conservatives plans is what I'm against. I'm not from Quebec and I voted NDP and so did all my friends. I see it as this: people voting Conservative are worried about themselves. They're worried about *their* job, they're worried about *their* profit, they're worried about *their* healthcare (ie. private healthcare) etc. People who are more to the left worry about *everyone's* problems. They are concerned that other people (the poor specifically) won't be given good healthcare, they are concerned about the rights of others (gay marriage/abortions). They are concerned about the environment (its easy to forget nowadays that we share this planet with a whole bunch of other creatures, who we are stifling and killing more of each day). I have yet to hear a Conservative defend their vote by saying they were looking out for other people. Conservatives are concerned about themselves, so as long as selfishness prevails, so will this party. | ||
|
REM.ca
Canada354 Posts
On May 04 2011 00:57 SPACETIME wrote: All this and all previous statements about Harper's/Conservatives plans is what I'm against. I'm not from Quebec and I voted NDP and so did all my friends. I see it as this: people voting Conservative are worried about themselves. They're worried about *their* job, they're worried about *their* profit, they're worried about *their* healthcare (ie. private healthcare) etc. People who are more to the left worry about *everyone's* problems. They are concerned that other people (the poor specifically) won't be given good healthcare, they are concerned about the rights of others (gay marriage/abortions). They are concerned about the environment (its easy to forget nowadays that we share this planet with a whole bunch of other creatures, who we are stifling and killing more of each day). I have yet to hear a Conservative defend their vote by saying they were looking out for other people. Conservatives are concerned about themselves, so as long as selfishness prevails, so will this party. That's a bit of an exageration and oversimplification of party principals and platforms. | ||
|
Achilles
Canada385 Posts
On May 04 2011 00:56 REM.ca wrote: Lol wow that was out of left field, herp derp! Thought we were having a healthy discussion here. No blame was assigned. I simply offered what I thought to be a parsimonious explanation as to how a government found in contempt could be re-elected with a majority. Interpretation of results =/= finger pointing. "The results you cite are definately suprising given the situation but imo they're more a reflection of an uninformed/apathetic voting population than they are a comment on the necessity of re-election" That's bordering on generalized finger-pointing and certainly gives me context to say what I said whether you like it or not. My original comment on it was mainly directed at the Liberal candidates who did just that though. Saying Canadians failed democracy. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
So I'm now missing basic human rights and no protection from hate crime for the next 5+ years. And there is nothing that can be done about it. Thanks for being incredibly stupid, Canadians. | ||
|
Achilles
Canada385 Posts
On May 04 2011 01:03 fusionsdf wrote: Yay. So I'm now missing basic human rights and no protection from hate crime for the next 5+ years. And there is nothing that can be done about it. Thanks for being incredibly stupid, Canadians. Much like this, REM. Was never intended to be personal against you, but my own generalized commentary. | ||
CTStalker
Canada9720 Posts
On May 04 2011 00:57 SPACETIME wrote: All this and all previous statements about Harper's/Conservatives plans is what I'm against. I'm not from Quebec and I voted NDP and so did all my friends. I see it as this: people voting Conservative are worried about themselves. They're worried about *their* job, they're worried about *their* profit, they're worried about *their* healthcare (ie. private healthcare) etc. People who are more to the left worry about *everyone's* problems. They are concerned that other people (the poor specifically) won't be given good healthcare, they are concerned about the rights of others (gay marriage/abortions). They are concerned about the environment (its easy to forget nowadays that we share this planet with a whole bunch of other creatures, who we are stifling and killing more of each day). I have yet to hear a Conservative defend their vote by saying they were looking out for other people. Conservatives are concerned about themselves, so as long as selfishness prevails, so will this party. agreed for the most part. anecdotal evidence, but my friends who voted blue did so for the following reasons: so they would be guaranteed not to pay more taxes so they can get hunting rifles easier | ||
|
Flaccid
8887 Posts
On May 04 2011 01:03 fusionsdf wrote: Yay. So I'm now missing basic human rights and no protection from hate crime for the next 5+ years. And there is nothing that can be done about it. Thanks for being incredibly stupid, Canadians. Out of genuine curiosity, what do you expect the government to change? I mean, hate crimes are on the books - regardless of the fact that you live in the hate-crime-capital of Canada. Unless you plan on having an abortion in the next few years? Seems like you're blaming the government for human ignorance - correct me if I'm missing something obvious. | ||
|
REM.ca
Canada354 Posts
On the subject of Contempt of Parliament, I am simply expressing my surprise that it did not play more of a role in influencing the electorate. Then I tried explaining it to myself (hence the "imo") with what I still feel is a pretty parsimonious interpretation of the situation. I mean, you can try to argue that most people who voted conservative were informed about Contempt and made well argumented choice that it was not an important issue. I just think it's more probable that most of those voters didn't even know about it. | ||
|
DoubleZee
Canada556 Posts
| ||
|
NPF
Canada1635 Posts
On May 04 2011 01:00 REM.ca wrote: That's a bit of an exageration and oversimplification of party principals and platforms. How so, I thought the conservative mantra was auto-dependance. Basically you provide for yourself and it will work out if people do the right thing. Like business will hire people instead of just raking in more profit (sorry a bit negative there). But the more left mentality is to worry about everyone well being. Which is fine, you could argue that people should not do things that put them in disadvantage positions but it's not always there choice. Someone brought up a few pages back that people that are poor should not have kids if they don't have the money (basically bashing child support), but should the child suffer because his parents did not do "the right move". Equally sure there was going to be an election called either on the contempt or the budget, but it says something that a comittee found the goverment in contempt, plus there is equally the auditers report about the conservatives misdirecting the info on G8 costs and using money in the conservative ridings (the full details of the report shall be interesting). I'm aware that the conservative goverment is efficient, but there efficient in the issues that I'm not for and they have of late a bad track record with the law or the whole Bev Oda charity funding which I'm not sure how it ended up but, I still don't like hand writing comments on a official document after another member signed it even if it's her right. | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
And here I thought permanent residents could vote! Silly me. | ||
|
SPACETIME
Canada48 Posts
That's a bit of an exageration and oversimplification of party principals and platforms. To fit into a post that makes sense, it sort of has to be. I still maintain the point though. What Conservative party principal/platform is based on common good? Prisons are for punishment, not rehabilitation. Lowering taxes is basically a bribe for a vote. I'm not wealthy by *any* means but I'd glady pay more taxes if I knew our healthcare and human rights weren't in question. *edited to fix quote! | ||
|
Flaccid
8887 Posts
faggots. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
WardiTV Team League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Patches Events
BSL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
