Argument about what? You haven't actually said anything that was worth refuting. I'm sure you may actually believe that victim impact statements have some value other than whining but as I've said, you're very silly. Anytime you choose to stop being silly, let me know and I can "argue" all you want.
Andrew Coyne: No need for Tories’ ‘Throw Away the Key Act’
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Argument about what? You haven't actually said anything that was worth refuting. I'm sure you may actually believe that victim impact statements have some value other than whining but as I've said, you're very silly. Anytime you choose to stop being silly, let me know and I can "argue" all you want.
No, there's definitely no emotion there lol
One Harper political strategy is at least clear now.
Take a policy issue that on the face of it sounds well intentioned, but has very minimal impact except to appease an uninformed mass of people who believe the nature and scope of that policy measure is broad and widespread.
Terrorism and Ebola are good examples.
Conversely on matters of bad news that actually do have a significance, we need downplay or deflect.
Like that whole oil thing that he frames as having a minimal impact.
One Harper political strategy is at least clear now.
Take a policy issue that on the face of it sounds well intentioned, but has very minimal impact except to appease an uninformed mass of people who believe the nature and scope of that policy measure is broad and widespread.
Terrorism and Ebola are good examples.
Conversely on matters of bad news that actually do have a significance, we need downplay or deflect.
Like that whole oil thing that he frames as having a minimal impact.
Last edited:
So are you saying that relatives and friends of Clifford Olson's or Willy Pickton's victims should have no consideration by the Justice System?
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Of course I can. Stop being so silly!
Holy f-ck man. You're becoming a bigger idiot every minute.
The idiot version of The Quickeing.
So instead of whining about the cons perhaps you could inform us about how perfect the libs were? Seems a lot of Canadians disagreed with you, or are you one of those persons who insists that it was a minority that elected the cons?
Stop being so silly. Of Course you won't. You can't even wrap your head around the fact that you're silly, despite ample evidence
Well I understand you feel it important to deify me, The fact that I don't make a fool of myself making silly statement about tax credits, farming, Russia and a host of other things is a clear indicator that I have a ways to go to catch you on the idiot scale. I for one can't for see it happening, simply because you're obviously trying to win the race
I'm not sure what you want. Perhaps if you made some comment that wasn't ridiculously silly, I could rebut it
Of course you neglect to mention that most civil servants need not worry about being reelected and could care less what the public wants. Sorta like you.
"Specialize in the justice system" You mean like lawyers?
I see that I have struck a nerve here... All this back peddling and hopeless attempts at redirecting the issue from your obsession with Justine to anything else.
Of course you're not sure... This comes as no surprise
Skookumchuk did. It's a lot easier to try and shift the focus to the Liberals then to try and defend the Conservatives. It's not particularly effective, just easier.
Is this another one of your gems I'm supposed to rebut?
Honestly if it could be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person did the crime then I'd rather have them put to death and save us the cash of catering to their sorry *** the rest of their lives.
Since that won't likely happen, prison for actual life is fair to me. If they, for example, take a life then why should they have a chance at one of their own?
But then I'm also in favor of making cons work for pay and that pay goes back to victims' families, fines incurred, re-education (the not lifers) and only then on luxuries for prison. I also think lesser offenders should be allowed out (and guarded) to do menial work like highway clean ups and such to pay back what they owe, education if they don't have any and then, again, luxuries.
If I have to pay taxes to keep your sorry butt in jail then you should have to pay back what you owe society somehow.
Since that won't likely happen, prison for actual life is fair to me. If they, for example, take a life then why should they have a chance at one of their own?
But then I'm also in favor of making cons work for pay and that pay goes back to victims' families, fines incurred, re-education (the not lifers) and only then on luxuries for prison. I also think lesser offenders should be allowed out (and guarded) to do menial work like highway clean ups and such to pay back what they owe, education if they don't have any and then, again, luxuries.
If I have to pay taxes to keep your sorry butt in jail then you should have to pay back what you owe society somehow.
How do you know the work ethic of 'most civil servants' or even waldo's for that matter?
Interesting that you propose to rebut your own words
Expectation of entitlements