How will a Conservative government be better?

[MMMike]

Hidden agenda again, Rev.... :sleepy2:

 

[Reverend Blair]

Has anything really changed?

 

[Reverend Blair]

There are danger to voting for the Harperites

 

[SirKevin]

Look at the statistics. There is no evidence at all of a drop in gun violence as a result of this registry. If you are going to spend my tax dollars on this thing, the onus is on you to show that it will save lives, and save more lives than if it had been directed into, say... medical research.

The registry does not work, and the reasoning behind it defies logic. Criminals won't register their guns. Let's put this experiment out of it's misery.

Right, NONE of those peole would have gone on to commit a violent crime had they been given a gun.

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/media/reports/Commissioner-Report/HTML_files/sec03_e.html

From that same link -

I'm sure that none of those consultations led to a solved crime, eh?

I could pick through that site and post hundreds of things like that proving that the gun registry accomplishes some good. Of course the system is not perfect; but can you name one government program anywhere that is?

 

[MMMike]

I'm sure that none of those consultations led to a solved crime, eh?

I could pick through that site and post hundreds of things like that proving that the gun registry accomplishes some good. Of course the system is not perfect; but can you name one government program anywhere that is?

That graph shows nothing about the good that was realized. Has even one person's life been saved by this registry? Where is the proof. A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.

Is it proven? Are the criminals and gang-bangers dutifully registering their guns?

 

[Reverend Blair]

They call him Mr. Muzzle.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: How will a Conservati

Natives can see right through Harper

 

[SirKevin]

Please tell me I am not seriously explaining this to someone...

The good of a gun registry comes in crimes that DIDN'T happen. I can't show you "proof" of how many crimes were prevented because you cannot count something that did not happen.

That graph shows nothing about the good that was realized. Has even one person's life been saved by this registry? Where is the proof. A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.

Is it proven? Are the criminals and gang-bangers dutifully registering their guns?

 

[SirKevin]

Hi blue -- htanks again for your reply. Child care isn't an issue I will go into beyond face value largely because it's one I do not pretend to understand. Only being a teenager I have never really been faced with paying to send someone to daycare and how subsidies and so forth factor into that.

I would like to hear from you an argument against same sex marriage, however. I would be lying if I said that I do not find the anti-SSM stance to be one of bigotry and discrimination and considering that I would love to hear why you feel that we must uphold the traditional definition of marriage and perhaps more importantly an explanation of the bad that you think will happen if we don't.

To Sir Kevin:

Thanks for your comments, they were interesting. Just a couple of things, first of all the pot issue, if the pot were the same as it was when I was a kid, I would feel different. However, knowing some police involved in drug duty, they tell me that pot today is laced with other stuff like meth which makes it more addictive and more dangerous, which increases the possibility of it being a gateway drug. I have to take these guys words for this, they are in the business.

Daycare. This is an issue I know a lot about, my wife runs a home daycare. We were talking about this last night. My wife takes care of six kids per day, and it works out to $12 per hour for her. Point is she works a lot of hours per day, and is classed as self employed. This is the figure the Rev complained about when he said he knew university people in daycare making $12 hour. Present subsidies are based on family income, and are on a sliding scale, but on average, for most subsidized parents, they will pay less than one-third of the total monthly cost. There are parents whose fees are $350 - $400 per month who pay less than $100 out of their pocket. The rest is a form of subisdy, which comes from, you guessed it, the taxpayer. No problem with this, it has been like this for a lot of years. Now take the same scenario, but due to increased wages to the daycare workers under the national government run, unionized program, let's say the cost of the program increases the cost per kid by $100 per month, and let's say that the parents still need a subsidy that keeps their portion under $100. Somebody has to pick up the cost of the additional subsidy, which will again come from the taxpayer. The whole idea of this program is supposedly to provide a cheap form of daycare, but somebody has to pay for it at some point in time, and if it is the government, that means you and I. Muiltipy that by the thousands of kids in daycare, and you get my point about this being an expensive program that only replaces one that is out there now and works. This is the basis why I say that this program is not required.

Again, thanks for your reasoned responses, and while I may not agree with some of them, at least you present your arguments in a reasoned and respectful manner. The Health Care issue is one we will probably never come to an agreement on, though!

 

[Reverend Blair]

Child care isn't an issue I will go into beyond face value largely because it's one I do not pretend to understand

It is an issue that you will become all too familiar with over the next decade or so, Sir Kevin. I've watched family and friends struggle due the lack of a proper childcare program for many years. Not enough spaces, too expensive, sub-standard care...a lot of issues. I've also seen childcare workers, people who went to university for training, be asked to work for next to nothing and be treated so poorly that many of them simply left the field.

I would like to hear from you an argument against same sex marriage, however. I would be lying if I said that I do not find the anti-SSM stance to be one of bigotry and discrimination and considering that I would love to hear why you feel that we must uphold the traditional definition of marriage and perhaps more importantly an explanation of the bad that you think will happen if we don't.

I'd like to hear that too, with the added caveat that as soon as mention anything having to do with religion that your argument becomes invalid.

 

[no1important]

RE: How will a Conservati

The bottom line is Canadians want social programs - Medical, daycare ,EI, social services, senior benefits/services, equality,gun control, kyoto etc. All things Harper would take away.

 

[LadyC]

Please tell me I am not seriously explaining this to someone...

The good of a gun registry comes in crimes that DIDN'T happen. I can't show you "proof" of how many crimes were prevented because you cannot count something that did not happen.

How does registering my gun keep me from using it (or another one) to commit a crime? The gun registry is designed to solve crimes, not prevent them.

Same as fingerprinting kids. It doesn't prevent them from being kidnapped, it helps to identify the body.

 

[LadyC]

I've watched family and friends struggle due the lack of a proper childcare program for many years. Not enough spaces, too expensive, sub-standard care...a lot of issues. I've also seen childcare workers, people who went to university for training, be asked to work for next to nothing and be treated so poorly that many of them simply left the field.

Ah, yes, we all want the Cadillac of daycare with the Lada's sticker price.

No-one will ever get rich running a daycare, least of all the small family daycares in your neighbourhood. But why is it up to the government to provide universal daycare? If you can afford it, pay for it yourself. I'd rather see my tax dollars go toward spaces for those who need the help.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: How will a Conservati

Because the Canadian people need child care, Lady C. Not everybody is fortunate enough to be able to choose to work part-time.

 

[LadyC]

Of course, but universal daycare? Shouldn't those who can afford it be expected to pay for it?

 

[mrmom2]

All i ask for is a bit of a tax break to stay at home and look after my kids 8O The goverment does not need to spend our tax money on a universal daycare system :x I don't want my kids raised by strangers I think thats a big reason why we have the lack of respect problems we have with our youth :wink:

 

[SirKevin]

Re: RE: How will a Conservative government be better?

How does registering my gun keep me from using it (or another one) to commit a crime? The gun registry is designed to solve crimes, not prevent them.

Erm...and solving the crime becomes easier if your gun is on registry. Though that isn't the entire scope of argument for the registry, it is a refutation of the point that you make.

Same as fingerprinting kids. It doesn't prevent them from being kidnapped, it helps to identify the body.

People who commit crimes with guns can kill again, though.

 

[bluealberta]

Hi blue -- htanks again for your reply. Child care isn't an issue I will go into beyond face value largely because it's one I do not pretend to understand. Only being a teenager I have never really been faced with paying to send someone to daycare and how subsidies and so forth factor into that.

I would like to hear from you an argument against same sex marriage, however. I would be lying if I said that I do not find the anti-SSM stance to be one of bigotry and discrimination and considering that I would love to hear why you feel that we must uphold the traditional definition of marriage and perhaps more importantly an explanation of the bad that you think will happen if we don't.

To Sir Kevin:

Thanks for your comments, they were interesting. Just a couple of things, first of all the pot issue, if the pot were the same as it was when I was a kid, I would feel different. However, knowing some police involved in drug duty, they tell me that pot today is laced with other stuff like meth which makes it more addictive and more dangerous, which increases the possibility of it being a gateway drug. I have to take these guys words for this, they are in the business.

Daycare. This is an issue I know a lot about, my wife runs a home daycare. We were talking about this last night. My wife takes care of six kids per day, and it works out to $12 per hour for her. Point is she works a lot of hours per day, and is classed as self employed. This is the figure the Rev complained about when he said he knew university people in daycare making $12 hour. Present subsidies are based on family income, and are on a sliding scale, but on average, for most subsidized parents, they will pay less than one-third of the total monthly cost. There are parents whose fees are $350 - $400 per month who pay less than $100 out of their pocket. The rest is a form of subisdy, which comes from, you guessed it, the taxpayer. No problem with this, it has been like this for a lot of years. Now take the same scenario, but due to increased wages to the daycare workers under the national government run, unionized program, let's say the cost of the program increases the cost per kid by $100 per month, and let's say that the parents still need a subsidy that keeps their portion under $100. Somebody has to pick up the cost of the additional subsidy, which will again come from the taxpayer. The whole idea of this program is supposedly to provide a cheap form of daycare, but somebody has to pay for it at some point in time, and if it is the government, that means you and I. Muiltipy that by the thousands of kids in daycare, and you get my point about this being an expensive program that only replaces one that is out there now and works. This is the basis why I say that this program is not required.

Again, thanks for your reasoned responses, and while I may not agree with some of them, at least you present your arguments in a reasoned and respectful manner. The Health Care issue is one we will probably never come to an agreement on, though!

Kevin: thanks. Regarding SS unions, the claim is made that this is a rights and equality issue. SS unions now have the same rights and benefits that tradional marriages have. Therefore, it is not a rights issue, bu definition. As the same rights are conferred on SS unions as tradional marriages, then they are equal, ergo, no equality issue. I simply would like to preserve the defintion of marriage as a unions between a man and a woman, regardless of race. I believe in keeping some traditions in our society, and this is one of them. I have to ask a question back, though: If there are no additional rights or benefits, why the insistence by SSM supporters on using the term marriage? One last thing: No one has ever definitively said that churches will not lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to perform SS marriages. This makes me wonder about the scarey hidden agenda the supporters of SSM have. What are they out to destroy?

 

[Vanni Fucci]

:confused1:

Paranoia will destroy ya...

 

[bluealberta]

:confused1:

Paranoia will destroy ya...

No paranoia, just wondering about the left's hidden agenda.