Harper pledges.......
- Thread starter Ocean Breeze
- Start date
So you fix election dates, but only for majority governments? Oh, that's a brilliant one. So we could have fixed dates four years apart, but have seventeen elections in the interim four years.
Sure. Sounds like a conservative plan, alright. Pretty well thought out, that one.
Sure. Sounds like a conservative plan, alright. Pretty well thought out, that one.
Fixed election dates make no sense without proportional representation. Without PR, all they would do is lock us into a permanent campaign race. The presence of an elected Senate would make that permanent race even worse.
I don't understand proportional resentation, seems a little too complicated at first glance. I prefer the present system, or at least I understand it. 
As President of the US and the fact that the Republicans own a majority in congress they could turn the US into a theocracy at any time yet they don't. All the examples above can be related to Canada also. Why do places of worship pay no taxes? Why are Catholic schools subsidized with public taxes? In Ontario, public funds will be available to all religious schools soon. Why did McGuinty fight tooth and nail to allow Sharia law in Ontario? Why do we sing "God! Keep Our Land" and not Athiesm! Keep Our land"?
All you're doing is fear mongering. I still think Layton would turn Canada into a communist state if given the opportunity. His tax and spend policy along with wanting to unionize everything that moves is quite clear.
Laytons agenda of raising taxes?
The Liberals don't have a hidden agenda. People just expect them to steal our money.
Blocking who's progress? Who is going to send in an army of military personnel to stop the genocides? France or Canada? Or maybe they're going to send in "peace" keepers to stop a war.
Back in what way? Sending in their military so people like you could criticize them? It was the UN that sent in the US to Iraq in Gulf War I. Same with Kosovo.
Why is it always up to the US to do something about it? Do you not find it convenient that the two countries that benefited the most from OFF are the same two countries that opposed the US invasion of Iraq?
I support Harper because I'm tired of having my money stolen from the Liberals. I stomached the first 5 or 6 Liberal scandals but the last dozen or so were just too much for me. Too bad, many Canadians are content with corruption.
If this isn't the pot calling the kettle black. I caught you on many occassions singling out the Conservatives when the Liberals are clearly more corrupt than any party in the history of Canada.
I think the ladies on this forum would take offence to that. Have you no shame?
Actually it was YOU that introduced the topic when you made this ridiculous comment
I'm not worried. As long as Layton is around there will always be jobs where she could work three hours, get paid for eight and still go on strike for fairness of pay and job security.
Give it up, Breakthrough. I could go through each of your points, but after reading them I realise that none of your points have any point to them.
In the end you are just another incompetent liar. A political neophyte with an axe to grind and not enough intelligence to plug in the wheel.
You have nop understanding of the UN. No understanding of the US. No understanding of politics. No knowledge of current events. You are clueless and infantile. You are a Harperite.
In the end you are just another incompetent liar. A political neophyte with an axe to grind and not enough intelligence to plug in the wheel.
You have nop understanding of the UN. No understanding of the US. No understanding of politics. No knowledge of current events. You are clueless and infantile. You are a Harperite.
1997 Harper speech resurfaces mid-campaign
A teaser:
Just in time to give his political foes ammunition to use during Thursday's leaders debate in Vancouver, an eight-year-old speech has resurfaced, threatening to trip up Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.
The 1997 speech was delivered in Montreal to a meeting of the Council for National Policy, an obscure right-wing American organization.
In the speech, which gathered dust on the organization's website until an anonymous tipster recently alerted the Canadian Press to its presence, Harper refers to Canada as a "Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term."
He also tells the Americans "your country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world." [/end of teaser]
What a prick. He is scarey. He definitely has plans to get into bed with "W".
A teaser:
Just in time to give his political foes ammunition to use during Thursday's leaders debate in Vancouver, an eight-year-old speech has resurfaced, threatening to trip up Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.
The 1997 speech was delivered in Montreal to a meeting of the Council for National Policy, an obscure right-wing American organization.
In the speech, which gathered dust on the organization's website until an anonymous tipster recently alerted the Canadian Press to its presence, Harper refers to Canada as a "Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term."
He also tells the Americans "your country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world." [/end of teaser]
What a prick. He is scarey. He definitely has plans to get into bed with "W".
What I see in Harper is a mean, lying little greed hog who prefers the USA to Canada. That's what shows up in the eight year old speech, and that's what shows up in his speeches today.
That is absolutely true. And oddly enough, that's why he wasn't in the PM's chair after the last election. And I won't be surprised if the same results happen again.
Harper didn't get the message the first time. Maybe he will this time.
Harper won't use opt-out clause on same-sex
A teaser:
OTTAWA AND VANCOUVER -- Conservative Leader Stephen Harper moved last night to inoculate himself from attack on the issue of same-sex marriage, revealing in the first federal election debate that he would not use the constitution's override clause to block the right of gays to get married.
Mr. Harper made the unexpected pledge during the French-language debate in Vancouver, while Liberal Leader Paul Martin and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe had focused on the sponsorship scandal, integrity and national unity.[/end of teaser]
I say bullshit. It is just a ploy for votes. If he had a majority he would use it.
A teaser:
OTTAWA AND VANCOUVER -- Conservative Leader Stephen Harper moved last night to inoculate himself from attack on the issue of same-sex marriage, revealing in the first federal election debate that he would not use the constitution's override clause to block the right of gays to get married.
Mr. Harper made the unexpected pledge during the French-language debate in Vancouver, while Liberal Leader Paul Martin and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe had focused on the sponsorship scandal, integrity and national unity.[/end of teaser]
I say bullshit. It is just a ploy for votes. If he had a majority he would use it.
If he won't use the Notwithstanding Clause, then he cannot ban SSM. It's that simple. So his promise to hold a free vote in the House simply does not make sense.
I liked his claim that Martin threatened to use notwithstanding on this issue too. That was an outright lie and such a thin one that I'm surprised Harper would utter it.
Martin said that he would use nothwithstanding to protect the churches' right not to marry somebody if he had to, but the court said that was protected under freedom of religion so it was a non-issue.
I liked his claim that Martin threatened to use notwithstanding on this issue too. That was an outright lie and such a thin one that I'm surprised Harper would utter it.
Martin said that he would use nothwithstanding to protect the churches' right not to marry somebody if he had to, but the court said that was protected under freedom of religion so it was a non-issue.
If your going to admit defeat, at least bow out gracefully, but it appears that you ended our debate the same way you started it. With personal attacks and blabbering nonsense.
This will be my last post on this thread. If I want to witness infantile behaviour, I'd rather watch my 2 year old daughter with the neighbours kid. At least they don't stoop to personal attacks.
Good day.
Re: RE: Harper pledges.......
Geez.
Harper is a politician. If elected, he will want to stay in power. That means, like everyone else, he will do his best to avoid the most divisive issues. A free vote to fulfill his promise, in which SSM will be sustained or not, if not, a change of law to redefine marriage, which goes to the Supremes, and is sustained or not. No
notwithstanding, and I don't think gays have a thing to worry about.
Were I running things, I'd get out of the marriage definition business altogether, call all unions of two people "civil unions" and leave marriage to the churches, where it belongs.
no1important said:
Geez.
Harper is a politician. If elected, he will want to stay in power. That means, like everyone else, he will do his best to avoid the most divisive issues. A free vote to fulfill his promise, in which SSM will be sustained or not, if not, a change of law to redefine marriage, which goes to the Supremes, and is sustained or not. No
notwithstanding, and I don't think gays have a thing to worry about.
Were I running things, I'd get out of the marriage definition business altogether, call all unions of two people "civil unions" and leave marriage to the churches, where it belongs.
What Harper is doing is trying to have it both ways. It doesn't work that way though. According to most of the constitutional experts in this country, he would have to use Notwithstanding. His claim that he can overturn SSM without invoking that clause is corrupt.
If he were to somehow win a free vote the SCOC will make gay marriage legal anyways. The notwithstanding clause is only way he can ban gay marriage and that aint gonna happen.
Man this debate just goes in circles. We explain that notwithstanding clause is only way to get rid of ssm and it is asked again and again in with another spin put on it.
That's because people prefer to listen to shallow sound bites that appeal to their emotions than experts explaining complex issues, No1.
Re: RE: Harper pledges.......
Rev, you have been throwing the word corrupt around a lot lately.
Personally, what I think is corrupt is repeating the same lies over and over and over.
The Supreme Court of Canada has NEVER ruled on whether the traditional definition of marriage is legal or not.
Should I repeat that?
The Supreme Court of Canada has NEVER ruled on whether the traditional definition of marriage is legal or not.
Here it is:[url]http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2003/doc_30946.html[/url]
What they have done, and ALL they have done, is ruled that the Liberal law on SSM would be legal.
This was my point. So Harper has a free vote. I think SSM would be supported in the house (practically all BQ, NDP, and Liberal members would be for it, as would a significant number of CPC members).
Worst case scenario: SSM is over-ruled. Those gays married stay married, the CPC drafts a traditional definition of marriage, it goes to the SCOC. Probably the SCOC overturns it, and SSM is back. Harper has promised no use of the notwithstanding clause, he thankfully drops the subject.
The proponents of SSM win, one way or another. A lot of BS for nothing, but hardly a disaster for the gay community.
Reverend Blair said:
Rev, you have been throwing the word corrupt around a lot lately.
Personally, what I think is corrupt is repeating the same lies over and over and over.
The Supreme Court of Canada has NEVER ruled on whether the traditional definition of marriage is legal or not.
Should I repeat that?
The Supreme Court of Canada has NEVER ruled on whether the traditional definition of marriage is legal or not.
Here it is:[url]http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2003/doc_30946.html[/url]
What they have done, and ALL they have done, is ruled that the Liberal law on SSM would be legal.
This was my point. So Harper has a free vote. I think SSM would be supported in the house (practically all BQ, NDP, and Liberal members would be for it, as would a significant number of CPC members).
Worst case scenario: SSM is over-ruled. Those gays married stay married, the CPC drafts a traditional definition of marriage, it goes to the SCOC. Probably the SCOC overturns it, and SSM is back. Harper has promised no use of the notwithstanding clause, he thankfully drops the subject.
The proponents of SSM win, one way or another. A lot of BS for nothing, but hardly a disaster for the gay community.
The Supreme Court never ruled on that because it was not a question they felt they should be hearing. They DID NOT say that Harper's definition of marriage was legal, they said that they wouldn't consider the question unless somebody made it law and it got taken to court.
Since the last law like that has been struck down by courts all over the country, the SCC DID rule that legal unions (as proposed by the Harperites) were NOT the same as marriages, and that EVERYBODY has the right to marriage, and every constitutional expert not working for Harper (and many that are) says the only way to overturn the present law is by using Notwithstanding.
In other words, Harper is lying. Lying is corrupt. That means Harper is corrupt.
It is the Conservatives that are repeating the same lies over and over, using soundbites to evoke emotions instead of listening to the considered opinions of experts and taking all of the data into consideration.
Since the last law like that has been struck down by courts all over the country, the SCC DID rule that legal unions (as proposed by the Harperites) were NOT the same as marriages, and that EVERYBODY has the right to marriage, and every constitutional expert not working for Harper (and many that are) says the only way to overturn the present law is by using Notwithstanding.
In other words, Harper is lying. Lying is corrupt. That means Harper is corrupt.
It is the Conservatives that are repeating the same lies over and over, using soundbites to evoke emotions instead of listening to the considered opinions of experts and taking all of the data into consideration.
Re: RE: Harper pledges.......
No rev, you are full of it.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the legality of a law recognizing the traditional definition of marriage. Yes, Provincial Appeals Courts have. NONE OF THEIR DECISIONS HAVE BEEN APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT.
If the SCOC had ruled on an appeal, or even if they had refused to hear an appeal, thus allowing the Court Of Appeals decision to stand, you could claim the traditional definition of marriage had been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
THEY HAVE DONE NEITHER.
Yet the proponents of SSM consistently, never-endingly claim that the SCOC has ruled. IT HAS NOT.
By your own definition, "lying is corrupt". The NDP, the Liberals, and the BQ are lying. The Conservative Party of Canada is the only one telling the truth.
So who is corrupt?
Reverend Blair said:
No rev, you are full of it.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the legality of a law recognizing the traditional definition of marriage. Yes, Provincial Appeals Courts have. NONE OF THEIR DECISIONS HAVE BEEN APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT.
If the SCOC had ruled on an appeal, or even if they had refused to hear an appeal, thus allowing the Court Of Appeals decision to stand, you could claim the traditional definition of marriage had been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
THEY HAVE DONE NEITHER.
Yet the proponents of SSM consistently, never-endingly claim that the SCOC has ruled. IT HAS NOT.
By your own definition, "lying is corrupt". The NDP, the Liberals, and the BQ are lying. The Conservative Party of Canada is the only one telling the truth.
So who is corrupt?