sharkman
-
Posts
9,213 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by sharkman
-
-
One of the weaknesses of our Federal government in general is the ruling party has too much power. That's why people are so scared of a change in power. Canadians are pretty nonrisky people and aren't sure of what a new party might do, but if they had less power once voted in, it would curtail the excesses, like the ones we have heard regarding the Liberals.
-
This election could be really scary
By JOHN CROSBIE
...Already Paul Martin has commenced a campaign concentrating on arousing fears about Stephen Harper's Conservatives. Rather than discussing policy or what his government has done, Martin demonizes Harper.
This negative strategy to paint Harper as "scary" is intended to divert public attention away from what is really scary, namely the Liberal failures and mistakes in governing.
I find "scary" Martin's government and its Liberal predecessor, which not only failed to properly administer government programs, but permitted AdScam's fraudulent diversion of funds to Liberal friends and party coffers.
Two-tier fear
This article is right on, the Liberals have done way more negative campaigning than positive and I think with this extra long campaign, people will tire of the same old scaremongering. Give it time to sink in. Meanwhile, the Liberal scandals are not going away.
-
I can't believe that a place like Australia will bend their human rights so a minority can beat their wives. Pretty sick. Do you really think the Liberals would go that direction? I gotta tell you right now a lot of families from India and Pakistan treat women as second class citizens in B.C.
We've had more than a couple murders even of Indian women who ran afoul of the men in their lives here.
-
One wacko killing one doctor is not the same as osama masterminding 9/11...stop this...there is no substitute for the breeze of love...I give you a cup of water...the sand blows on the just and unjust...babys crying and lovers dying...the truth is always in grasp...is there a speck in your eye..adam was a garden master...if hate needs trying...seven is the perfect number, death is conquered though you slumber...(I had a sudden urge to do a Jonah post)
Show me where nutbar christians are blowing themselves up to kill as many Jews or whomever as possible and I will believe you. Unless you can, you are being intellectually bankrupt.
-
In Virginia they relaxed gun laws and found that there was no difference in gun crimes.
-
The 'War against Terrorism' = a fiction created by the Bush whitehouse in order to ensure it would be re-elected by instilling fear in the American public. The 'Jihad against the West' = a fiction created by Muslim leaders in order to ensure their regimes enjoy continued political support by installing fear in the Muslim public.
Okay, so what about 9/11, the USS Coal, the multiple U.S. Embassy attacks, I could go on and on. It seems you hate the U.S. The war on terrorism is a fiction like Christmas is in December. The attacks in Spain, Great Britian and the Philipines killed more innocent civilians and you think the war is fiction? The terrorists strike out whenever and where ever they can. We stayed out of Iraq yet they still take Canadian hostages. I am glad Bush is in charge and not some head in the sand delusional.
quote=Sparhawk,Dec 9 2005, 07:58 AM]Bush and Bin Laden are really moral twins - both justify the use of violance and various other human rights abuses (i.e. torture) in order to achieve the greater good as they define it. Bush's one virtue is he is democratically elected and there is a chance that he and his fellow war mongers will be tossed out on their a**es.
Bush does not condone torture and he cannot hold the hand of every soldier and CIA operative to make sure they don't. By comparsion, look how Muslim countries treat enemies. In Saudi Arabia, where Osama is from, they repeatedly tortured a Canadian to get him to admit he committed a crime. ( I forget his name) It's the norm there, but the exception in the U.S., and you can't blame Bush if soldiers decide to break the law.
quote=Sparhawk,Dec 9 2005, 07:58 AM]... The creation of Israel was a mistake - it has made the world a more dangerous place today. If the Jews needed a place to go there was plently of space in the US and Canada after WW2 but the latent anti-sematism prompted our political leaders to dump the problem on the Palistinians instead.
Who are you to decide if it was a mistake to create Israel? Have you a doctorate in Middle Eastern History? Or are you just talking on points that you've heard others do. Jews were flocking to the area that now is Israel for years before the UN decided to create a state for them. They wouldn't have wanted to go anywhere else since that is their homeland. That's where their civilization started, but no, just plop them down somewhere.
Also earlier you compared Osama to Pat Robertson. Robertson said Chavez should be taken out. Osama masterminded an attack that took out over 4,000 civilians. I hope you can see the difference.
-
IMO, best to let it simmer until January. It's obviously pretty serious and it usually takes the RCMP a while to start investigating. If it got big and hit the second week of January or so, what a christmas present for Harper!
-
Normie, Normie, Normie.
The hypocrisy in in your post is appalling.
If you switch CPC with Liberal and get rid of the other parties that is *exactly* how you feel. Your history of posts supports this proposition.
Putting words in the mouths of CPC supporters is sad. Many people are at least listening to Harper now instead of automatically tuning him out. That is all we can ask.
Liberals tend to do this when they no longer have anything uselful to say.
-
Yah, like the criminals are going to register anything, keep dreaming! I heard someone say on TV, if they outlaw handguns the only people who will have them will be outlaws.
-
...As far as minor possession, jail is rare...and I have no reason to suggest that the stats cited are not accurate. It is not uncommon to see a $50 fine for a first offence.
For those cases where jail is given for simple possession, it would not only be the amount that would be a factor, but more important would be the offender's past record, and whether or not he was on probation or bail at the time of the offence.
No matter how small of a joint you have, if you've done time for drugs before, and you're in breach of court order not to possess pot, you may very well hear the cell doors clang behind you...
Personally, this seems pretty even handed, a fine for minor possession first offence as things stand today, and jail time based on past record and if the offender is currently on probation. The Liberals are just trying to get votes, like the new gun policy they introduced. Whether these new policies would help or not doesn't really matter, it's all about the votes.
-
So does no one find it just a little hypocritical that the Libs preach Kyoto but ignore it on practical decisions like this?
-
Like what was said on another thread, hey, why don't they just ban murder! It'll have about as much effect. Or ban cars, since they kill so many more people than guns. But when votes are up for grabs, things like logic and cost go out the window.
-
We have people on the left faking hate crimes to whip up more hate for the right.(Are people on the right faking hate crimes?) We have people on the right actually being escorted with bodyguards, like Anne Coulter. Left wingers recently heckled her so much she had to curtail her remarks, which is what they wanted to do, stifle her free speech, and at all places a university where their is supposed to be a free exchange of ideas.
Last year, the former leader of Israel was booked to speak at a university in I think it was Montreal. On the appointed day, protests got so violent that the whole thing was cancelled, which is what they wanted, to stifle his free speech.
Show me some examples of the MAINSTREAM right doing this kind of thing. I know there are kooks on both sides, but these were university students! BTW, your link just took me to an emply SFGATE page.
I used to visit the Babble web site, but every time I commented on something I was shouted down and called all kinds of silly names. On our site, the tone much more civil, and yes I have seen you and Monty Burns go at it. But lefty types are allowed to present their ideas and their is a debate, not expressions of hate like at babble. The left is more intolerant.
-
I wonder: would some form of proportional represntation reduc eor eliminate teh need for strategic voting? It seems to me that, as a practice, strategic voting is entirely a byproduct of the first-past-the-post system.
In B.C. we had a referendum on some form of proportional representation during the last provincal election. It didn't pass, but it was close. Personally, I would prefer a system where you vote for the pm, not some local mp.
-
Actually bubber, Norman has been making comments on this topic all week. I am referring to the weight of his comments, not yours.
-
I didn't challenge the 5% percent figure. Reread my remarks. It fits perfectly with what I've been saying. I believe it, it's from Stats Can. Obviously you can't think clearly in this matter. If 95% are not going to jail and only 5% are, do you believe that it's the one's with the smallest amounts that do time, and bigger offenders get off?
Either you missed my point completely or you're simply wrong once again. Could even be both I suppose.
Those in the 95% group had less than 30 grams and those in the 5% group had less than 30 grams. That's the nature of the "crime". If you have evidence that those in the 5% group had greater amounts than those in the 95% group, let's see the evidence.
Of course you have no such evidence but even if you did, why would it be relevant?
Less than 30 grams is a small amount and no one should be going to jail for that even if you and social conservative Stephen Harper disagree.
You know, I enjoy debating the issues with people. I find it stimulating to discuss the various issues that face Canadians and have someone who can point out things from a different perspective.
But Norm, when you can't or won't allow a simple point that if 5% do jail time, it must be because they are offending worse than the 95%, then there is no point talking with you anymore. Then you ask 'why is it relevant' when you have been repeating that Harper wants the status quo which is jail time for tiny amounts of pot, and this point about 5% refutes your argument.
It's obvious you are here to campaign against the Conservatives, and for the Liberals. You know all their talking points and use terms like strategized voting. I will leave you to your efforts and hope things go well for you.
-
Kimmy, listen to what you just said. You know that one can safely smoke marijuana in Edmonton or Ottawa because they don't enforce the law. Same is true throughout British Columbia. However, a friend of a friend of mine was arrested and served time in Saskatoon for possession of less than 10 grams.
Do we actually want a law that's so dysfunctional that it's applied in one part of Canada but not another? Where's the logic in this?
I'm sure there are bad cops and good cops just as there are bad friends and good friends. Laws get applied differently because people are different and there can be extenuating circumstances. Norman, do you have any response for my above reply?
-
Ya gotta love CPC supporters.
First, challenge the 5% figure repeatedly and suggest that it's not true.
Second, when evidence is presented that 5% of Canadians do go to jail for simple possession of less than 30 grams, dismiss it as applying only to the "worst offenders",
even though simple possession means less than 30 grams.
Third, disparage those who provide the evidence.
Fourth, ignore the central issue that it's utterly irrational to criminalize a substance less harmful than a legalized but far more harmful substances like alcohol.
No wonder Martin now has a commanding lead. All he needs to do is wait for Harper and his supporters to step in yet another cowpie.
I didn't challenge the 5% percent figure. Reread my remarks. It fits perfectly with what I've been saying. I believe it, it's from Stats Can. Obviously you can't think clearly in this matter. If 95% are not going to jail and only 5% are, do you believe that it's the ones with the smallest amounts that do time, and bigger offenders get off? I think you only say these silly things to get a reaction, I refuse to believe you are stupid.
Your third point: When you haven't provided any evidence until now and your evidence doesn't back you up while mine supports me, I will point it out. You do the same you hypocrite.
Fourth: Obviously we disagree about whether pot should be decriminalized and we both know it. No point in repeating it again.
-
The only reason any party would defend the status quo is they have a stake in the economy that feeds off it. Think about it. A system where kids get unfettered access to the drug (ask any junior high student what's easier to for them to buy: pot or alcohol? The answer has been pot for the past 30 years) and where the black market economy is likely in the billions, why would anyone who really has the best interests of kids at heart be opposed to regulation and decriminalization? Why would they be opposed to cutting the organized crime monopoly and allowing citizens to have a few plants for personal use? Because they're making money.
Good grief Bubber, look at your comments. How exactly are 'they' making money? If the government legalizes it then they would of course tax it and make a truck load of cash on it. At present they don't make anything on the industry. You seem to be claiming that a party that defends the status quo on this is because they have a stake in the economy that feeds on it. or areyou saying big wigs in the CPC are making a ton of money on the black market?
Either way, you haven't even bothered to show how, or provide links for proof. Tell me another one.
-
Ah, I didn't notice blackdog's find. So only 5% of those charged with possession do jail time. It follows that these would be the worst offenders not those with tiny amounts, I doubt the Police even bother to charge someone for a single joint, knowing they have a 5% chance of getting convicted.
So it seems you've been sounding off on every thread about the pot possession=jail time theme all week for nothing, Norman. And how many links have you supplied to back up your claims? I think this is the first one, and only after you were directly challenged. Which issue will you wildly misrepresent next? No doubt another one that slanders the CPC, you are rather predictable.
-
But this has a real impact on our health care system. If less Canadians are getting trained, less doctors are available for our system.
-
Normie says people are getting convictions for possessing tiny amounts of pot. You concur with the 40% number of grow-op owners who get convictions, saying it's too high. At what point do you think a grow-op owner should do time? 50 plants or 500? At any rate, I'd like to see what's in your basement!
Maybe the big bad police should just mind their own business and let the Asian gangs knock off these 'small time' grow-ops that dig into their business here in B.C. You ever wonder why there's so many grow-ops that get outed to the police or firemen. "We received a call about an incident on this property and when we investigated, we found this grow-op."
Still waiting for Norman to provide some links for jail time on 'tiny' amounts of pot.
-
I suppose you have a point, Sparhawk, one has to make tough decisions on these matters. I respect him for being honest enough to admit fully what he'd do, but many in the party probably just want to drop the issue and let it be.
I remain sceptical of some members of the media, however. I don't think they would believe Harper if he did as you suggest. They'd refer to a hidden agenda or some such nonsense.
-
"Standing before a world environmental conference on climate change, Liberal Leader Paul Martin was dogged by questions about his party's gas-guzzling election plane. The ribbing about his choice of airplane underscored more serious criticism from his opponents Wednesday that the Liberals' commitment to the Kyoto accord was nothing more than lip service. "
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ote1129/BNStory
Paul Martin addressed the UN Conference for climate change this week, and he chastised other nations for not doing enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while Canada's emissions have actually gone up significantly in the last decade. And to put an exclamation point on it, the jet the Liberals are using to fly Martin around in is a Boeing 727, a 1960's design that consumes almost twice as much fuel as current designs and makes such a racket they have to be fitted with 'hush kits' to keep them legal. The NDP and CPC are using planes that use much less fuel than the 727, which uses 4883 litres per hour.
To top it off, the CTV News channel reported that the jet the Liberals are leasing is owned by a corporation that has a Liberal connected with the campaign on the board. No doubt he's giving his party a good deal, but shouldn't the priority be fuel consumption, since environmentalism and Kyoto is a main party plaform? Hypocrisy rears its ugly head.
ONTARIO IS FUNNY
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Yes, Canadians are too timid for change, and our government has too much power once elected. And because of it and hence the inevitable scandals that power brings, Quebec may leave Canada. That is something Mr. Dithers doesn't have the cajones to deal with.