[Jawbone54]

I would define a hate crime as something that is already a crime (such as assault, murder, etc.), but influenced by hate stemming from an adverse opinion of one's sexuality, race, or religion. Speaking out against something is not a crime.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by besson3c

The polls are indicating that if the election were to be run tomorrow, the results would not be the same.

Tell us more about the Green party and what they stand for? Do they have the political experience and resources to lead a country, or do you just want for them to have more political control than they do now?

The green party is just a vote splitter for the NDP, for the most part the values of Green and NDP are the same. Last election NDP lost at least 7 ridings in BC from a vote split. I hope this time around it doesn't happen again.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

I believe in the government doing whatever the hell the majority wants, as long as it doesn't try to force the Church into doing those things as well. *cough*

I also believe in homosexuals NOT telling everyone and their mother what goes on in the bedrooms. We don't care. We don't want to know. If you're happy, fine ... let's keep it that way. But there's no need for the constant pressure we get from the gay agenda-ists to integrate homosexual learning into everyday life. It's f***ing bullshit.

The church is protected and can't be forced into doing gay marriages. That was part of the clause. And gay agenda is a myth. Gays just want acceptance from people like you, not to get there heads smashed in for something god made them into.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Monique

I just want the green party to have a few seats to make a difference in the balance and have them scream murder at the Commons when reports like we don't follow the Kyoto accord come front and centre. People should care more about the environment than we do right now.

Mon if you really support the environment and want your vote to count, go NDP. Environmentally NDP and Green are the same and some of the Green policies come from the NDP. Even David Suzuki is more of a NDP supporter then Green. Green has a long way to go before they are a viable party.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

It was a comment made in jest, my friend.

The reason Canada should be more careful concerning the harshness of their criticism is because of their level of dependence on the United States. Let's face it, if the U.S. does poorly, Canada does poorly.

If a minister preached against blacks or Jews in my church, I would leave and never come back. But to arrest someone for an opinion, no matter how ridiculous *COUGH*BELAFONTE*COUGH* is absolutely ludicrous.

1. We have more personal freedoms including speech here then in the US

2. Both countries are dependent on each other. And for the economy as we are trading more and more with Asia we are being less affected by the US in your hard times.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

I would define a hate crime as something that is already a crime (such as assault, murder, etc.), but influenced by hate stemming from an adverse opinion of one's sexuality, race, or religion. Speaking out against something is not a crime.

That is probably really close to the legal definition. I was thinking along the lines of verbal harassment, but I think you're right, you can say whatever hateful words you want as long as you don't punch somebody in the face.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Yes, the Canadian government (save Stephen Harper) have been harshly critical of Bush, but... so has virtually every other country in the world except for the UK (and even then, most of the citizens there have been against the war from the get-go). So, nothing terribly noteworthy there.

No need to exaggerate. And in those countries that have been critical, I would also note there are many people that also side with the US.

The gov doesn't speak for the people.

How far does freedom of speech go? Would it be okay if your minister decided to preach against Blacks or Jews?

Would it be ok as in Legal? Sure.

I would never do such a thing however.

[Athens]

lol but speak poor of Bush and FBI arrest you

[Kevin]

Nope, you can speak about Bush all you want, as long as you aren't making death threats.

And that can get you in trouble if you do that to anyone.

Watch this.

BUSH IS A BIG POOPY HEAD.

[Athens]

im so glad you agree Bush is a Big poopy head

[Kevin]

AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHHAAHHAAHHAHAHA


ahah

[Tomchu]

Originally Posted by Athens

The church is protected and can't be forced into doing gay marriages. That was part of the clause. And gay agenda is a myth. Gays just want acceptance from people like you, not to get there heads smashed in for something god made them into.

Gays won't ever get acceptance from people like as me as long as they keep marching around proclaiming loudly what they like to do in the bedroom. Sorry, but that's just something most of the world does not give a f*** about, so don't shout it at the top of your lungs.

As for the church being protected ... yes, it is, but there have been a few cases somewhere where a church minister has resigned due to feeling pressure from others/some level of government to perform gay marriages. That's just not right.

[Athens]

thats really ****ing funny because I happen to work downtown and that is arguably the largest concentration of gay people in North America for one small space and in a year and a half I have not seeing one gay man marching around proclaiming what he does in the bedroom. I've seen many kissing and holding hands, but guess what I see hetros doing that too. So I have no idea where you are seeing all this but I would like to know.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

Gays won't ever get acceptance from people like as me as long as they keep marching around proclaiming loudly what they like to do in the bedroom. Sorry, but that's just something most of the world does not give a f*** about, so don't shout it at the top of your lungs.

So all gays won't gain your acceptance because some march around? Do you see the holes in your reasoning?

[shabbasuraj]

Harper = Bush

[Athens]

Actually Harper scares me more then Bush to be honest.

[Athens]

For our American friends this is Steven (evil) Harper



This is our current clown, well he's not but his party is full of them


Jim Harris of the Green Party (had to look up his name)



Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Quebecois (if they didn't want to seperate I would vote for him)



And this is our friends and hopeful Jack Layton

[Athens]

HAHAH Martin has a serious chance of losing his own riding, that would screw things up for the Libs even if they did win.

Duceppe says Martin could lose riding
Last Updated Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:30:53 EST
CBC News
Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe says Liberal fortunes have sunk so low that Paul Martin faces possible defeat in his own Montreal riding.


RELATED: Bloc Québécois platform (PDF file)


Gilles Duceppe poses with candidate May Chiu during a campaign stop in Montreal on Saturday. (CP Photo)
Martin won the riding by a margin of 25,806 to 14,001 votes.

Duceppe was campaigning on Saturday in the riding of Jeanne Le Bar, right next door to Martin's LaSalle-Émard riding in southwest Montreal, where Bloc candidate May Chiu is focusing on the anger over the Liberal government's refusal to offer an official apology for the Chinese Head Tax.

Speaking to members of Montreal's Chinese community, the Bloc leader said Martin's personal apology last month wasn't enough. Duceppe is demanding the next government issue an official apology and compensation for the Chinese Head Tax.

Walter Chi-Yan Tom, who belongs to the Chinese Canadian Redress Alliance, said he is voting for the Bloc Québécois, even though he doesn't support Quebec independence.

He said the Liberal government has shown serious disrespect over the head tax his ancestors were forced to pay when they immigrated at the beginning of the 20th century.

Chiu said she hopes to draw votes from some 5,000 Chinese Canadians in LaSalle Émard who have traditionally voted Liberal.

"I think people are very, very cynical toward the Liberal party, and if people want a real choice, and a real change, you just have to compare my profile with Paul Martin's," she said.

[Athens]

Oh Mon here is the link to the NDP's solutions to the enviroment
http://www.ndp.ca/page/2993

and another link with Suzuki and Layton
http://douglas.ndp.ca/suzuki/en/

[Jawbone54]

*lost Post*

[ShortcutToMoncton]

You keep pushing the NDP to no end, but they've never had a successful government (provincially I mean). They simply spend too much on their social agenda. Look at the recent BC and Ontaria governments to show you what would happen if the NDP were elected to power. A collapsed government amid massive debt seems to be their inevitable conclusion.

Besides, I get my hate on for Olivia Chow. Someone should shut that bitch up.

greg

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

You keep pushing the NDP to no end, but they've never had a successful government (provincially I mean). They simply spend too much on their social agenda. Look at the recent BC and Ontaria governments to show you what would happen if the NDP were elected to power. A collapsed government amid massive debt seems to be their inevitable conclusion.

Besides, I get my hate on for Olivia Chow. Someone should shut that bitch up.

greg

Thats not true, while the NDP where in power in BC, we where having great economic times. In-fact the rest of Canada was in a recession while BC was booming. When the BC Liberals took power it was a reversal until the last couple years. Now government really had nothing to do with this as BC is so tied with Asia, when Asia does good we do good regardless of who’s in power. When Asia is down BC is down even if the rest of Canada is up.

In the case of the Liberals, the first 2 years after the NDP they cut lots of programs and still managed to run massive deficits. I don't know much about Ontario's NDP. Between conservatives and NDP I'll take NDP hands down. Liberals are toast this election. I rather see a NDP party under a minority government over Harper.

[Nicko]

Yea but...surely there is no way Harper will get a majority government is there? :0

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Athens

Thats not true, while the NDP where in power in BC, we where having great economic times.

Uh huh...and rocked by as much scandal as the current Liberal federal power (Clark et al.), and going from a majority in '95 or '96 to having 2 seats or whatever it was in 2001 (less than is needed for official party status recognition, I believe).

Well I don't really care either way, as long as Martin isn't elected back in and those idiots don't re-elect Svend Robinson. The NDP won't win the election, but I still wish they would get official opposition status or something. That would be more interesting.

greg

[shabbasuraj]

Minority gov again.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Uh huh...and rocked by as much scandal as the current Liberal federal power (Clark et al.), and going from a majority in '95 or '96 to having 2 seats or whatever it was in 2001 (less than is needed for official party status recognition, I believe).

Well I don't really care either way, as long as Martin isn't elected back in and those idiots don't re-elect Svend Robinson. The NDP won't win the election, but I still wish they would get official opposition status or something. That would be more interesting.

greg

funny how you bring up the scandal that took out the NDP, it was Campbell group that leaked info to the press about the investigation which he was found not guilty of. Was a terrible thing to do, putting a sitting leader under police investiagtion but hey it worked NDP was wiped out, and last election it was almost 50% again.

And before you bring up the ferries issue, it was BC Ferries that ****ed it up. They ordered last minute changes which cost lots more money to do half way through building them, and hte changes also made then useless for open ocean markets which is what the ship building goals where. And it thes Campbell that sold them off for next to nothing and now they are coming back to compete with BC Ferries lol. Wont mention the Swedish company that wanted to buy the ferries and put them in service under BC Ferries and pay for the retrofit costs to make them cheaper on fuel. But Campbell wanted to stick to the NDP and in doing so wasted millions of our money.

[shabbasuraj]

People...

Please vote tomorrow...!!!!!!!!!!

[shabbasuraj]

edit

[shabbasuraj]

edit

[spectre]

FOr me the choice has always been between liberal and ndp, and this time i'm going with the NDP. Honestly, I don't care if they have a poor economic record with provincial governments because they'll just be opposition... not to mention that the CCF and NDP have done all right in governing Saskatchewan for many of the last 50 years. Layton seems like he'll be good counter voice in a conservative minority.

Anyway... everyone go vote. Let's not have the embarrassing low turnout we had last time.

[shabbasuraj]

I predict some major UNPREDICATABLE results.

[aberdeenwriter]

Harper Won!

Conservatism creeps north of the border.

No separatism, either!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Harper Won!

Conservatism creeps north of the border.

No separatism, either!

I wouldn't say that Conservatism creeps north of the border, because the NDP captured a lot more votes than usual too. What happened seemed to be that a lot of votes that usually go Liberal were scattered elsewhere, and people saw the Conservatives as the best alternative. However, it wasn't enough to give Harper a majority government.

Considering the scandal and how badly the Liberals campaigned and debated, it's a wonder they managed seats in the triple digits.

Harper seems pretty humble in that he is not going to push a purely conservative agenda, but work with the other parties to implement some of the Conservative proposals. He can't afford to push a conservative agenda, since the NDP and Liberal party combined still outnumber the Conservatives, and it isn't clear that the BQ would ally with the Conservatives.

Speaking of BQ, they were also the losers, doing worse than they have in the past (and not as well as they had planned).

Also, Aberdeen, I'm also learning that the American concept of what conservatism is is different than the Canadian concept. Harper is an advocate of public health, and banning/removing guns, for instance.

American conservatism is very far right on the scale right now.

[Monique]

Harper had to be in favor of public health.

Again the West had his own Prime Minister.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I wouldn't say that Conservatism creeps north of the border, because the NDP captured a lot more votes than usual too. What happened seemed to be that a lot of votes that usually go Liberal were scattered elsewhere, and people saw the Conservatives as the best alternative. However, it wasn't enough to give Harper a majority government.

Considering the scandal and how badly the Liberals campaigned and debated, it's a wonder they managed seats in the triple digits.

Harper seems pretty humble in that he is not going to push a purely conservative agenda, but work with the other parties to implement some of the Conservative proposals. He can't afford to push a conservative agenda, since the NDP and Liberal party combined still outnumber the Conservatives, and it isn't clear that the BQ would ally with the Conservatives.

Speaking of BQ, they were also the losers, doing worse than they have in the past (and not as well as they had planned).

Also, Aberdeen, I'm also learning that the American concept of what conservatism is is different than the Canadian concept. Harper is an advocate of public health, and banning/removing guns, for instance.

American conservatism is very far right on the scale right now.

Funny thing is I don't mind that Canada has free health care. However, when push comes to shove I think it will be important that Canadians have the right to bear arms. There may come a time when the Govt won't be able to protect the citizens or that the Govt will OPPOSE the citizenry and add to that the hunters, sportsmen and target shooters and I think it's important that Canadians have guns.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Funny thing is I don't mind that Canada has free health care. However, when push comes to shove I think it will be important that Canadians have the right to bear arms. There may come a time when the Govt won't be able to protect the citizens or that the Govt will OPPOSE the citizenry and add to that the hunters, sportsmen and target shooters and I think it's important that Canadians have guns.

There has been no movement to ban hunting rifles, just handguns. As it stands, I believe most weapons are smuggled in from the U.S.. If we can find a way to plug this leak, it will be interesting to see if lesser handguns in circulation leads to (or helps deter) lesser violent gun-related crimes.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Also, Aberdeen, I'm also learning that the American concept of what conservatism is is different than the Canadian concept. Harper is an advocate of public health, and banning/removing guns, for instance.

American conservatism is very far right on the scale right now.

I think what Aberdeen doesn't understand is that the Canadian Conservative party is about as conservative as the American Democratic party.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Funny thing is I don't mind that Canada has free health care. However, when push comes to shove I think it will be important that Canadians have the right to bear arms. There may come a time when the Govt won't be able to protect the citizens or that the Govt will OPPOSE the citizenry and add to that the hunters, sportsmen and target shooters and I think it's important that Canadians have guns.

What? We're going to shoot the government?! They can't protect us?! OMG! And what ABOUT adding the hunters and sportsmen and target shooters? What are we adding them to, and why?? You didn't say anything about them. How do they make it important that we have guns?!

Damn. If you ever have some spare time, take a university course on critical thinking and debate sometime. From what I've seen on this forum, you pretty much use every point on the "Irrational and/or Inappropriate and/or Stupid Arguments" list.



greg

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

I think what Aberdeen doesn't understand is that the Canadian Conservative party is about as conservative as the American Democratic party.

But Harper has said some stuff in the past that seems close to American conservatism. He has said that he has moved to the center in recent years though.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c

But Harper has said some stuff in the past that seems close to American conservatism. He has said that he has moved to the center in recent years though.

True, but I think he's finally realized that the majority of voting Canadians (read: Ontario and Quebec) don't want a government based on American conservatism. This realization may not have occurred for the fundamentalists in the party, as evidenced by their lack of presence during the campaign; only the next few months will tell.

I think it's premature to say Canada has swung to the right. So far, all that can be said is that we've swung to the only other choice available after our last government became corrupt as a result of 12 years in office, as governments of ANY political persuasion might do ... hence the American rule that no government can serve more than 2 consecutive terms in office. Note, the current Alberta provincial Conservative government has been in power for almost as long as the Liberals were, and is almost as corrupt.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Funny thing is I don't mind that Canada has free health care. However, when push comes to shove I think it will be important that Canadians have the right to bear arms. There may come a time when the Govt won't be able to protect the citizens or that the Govt will OPPOSE the citizenry and add to that the hunters, sportsmen and target shooters and I think it's important that Canadians have guns.

we can bear arms, you just have get a licence

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

What? We're going to shoot the government?! They can't protect us?! OMG! And what ABOUT adding the hunters and sportsmen and target shooters? What are we adding them to, and why?? You didn't say anything about them. How do they make it important that we have guns?!

Damn. If you ever have some spare time, take a university course on critical thinking and debate sometime. From what I've seen on this forum, you pretty much use every point on the "Irrational and/or Inappropriate and/or Stupid Arguments" list.



greg

Ahhhh, spirited debate!

Governments, by virtue of their being made up of and by a relatively small group of human beings tend to want to control things and people. This experience is borne out when you look at the systems and at governments where constant, messy change is the order of the day.

Coups d'etat, juntas and revolution are substitutes for orderly change and transfers of power. Military strongmen, communism, fascism, dictatorships are the alternatives to the benign governments we may take for granted.

What makes our governments different from the horrible alternatives?

Strong basic governing principles spelled out in founding documents.

If for whatever reason those principles did not exist or were materially altered or were suspended or the government were overthrown the ONLY thing that would possibly save us from tyranny and oppression similar to those we see in the news is that the government knows that the people would fight for their rights.

It is an important and often overlooked or underestimated reason for the right to bear arms. But it was a vitally important clause in the minds of our forefathers. If Washington (George or D.C.) ever got too big for it's britches the people would have the final recourse.

Even though the Palestinians are operating under a misassumption, their armed protest against the Israelis show the example of what might happen when a citizenry opposes their government.

Without guns, they use bombs. To make the bombs most effective they strap them onto themselves to make sure the detonation does the most damage. To create enough of an impact to influence the Israeli government they need as many suicide bombers as possible. To have a sufficient supply of willing bomber/terrorists they create a culture that glorifies death. To assure the job is easier with the passage of time they inculcate these attitudes from infancy.

Ugh.

Guns are easier.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Athens

we can bear arms, you just have get a licence

I have no problem with that.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

I have no problem with that.

the notion of banning hand guns was a half thought out stupid election related promise that had no hope. Firt non of the other parties supported it, the people outside of cities didn't support it and Alerta didn't support it. So I was never worried about it. It came to be cuz of a rash of shootings this year in major cities, Toronto making a few headlines this year over shootings.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Athens

the notion of banning hand guns was a half thought out stupid election related promise that had no hope. Firt non of the other parties supported it, the people outside of cities didn't support it and Alerta didn't support it. So I was never worried about it. It came to be cuz of a rash of shootings this year in major cities, Toronto making a few headlines this year over shootings.

That's a pretty darn good summary!

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by besson3c

But Harper has said some stuff in the past that seems close to American conservatism. He has said that he has moved to the center in recent years though.

He used to be a liberal. His parents were Liberals.