Radsickle
-
Posts
798 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Radsickle
-
-
It'll be interesting for sure. Mr. Layton should get a post. Mr. Duceppe should too. Mr. Rae and Mr. Ignatieff might not get posts due to their up-coming leadership duel. I hope the coalition shows responsibility from the start by reducing the size of the cabinet, unlike what Harper has done. And they better re-think leaving the limos to idle all day long like Harper's thugs were prone to do.
-
Waaah, we did not get elected, let us subvertly abuse the laws so we can steal Harpers candy and then wave it in his face while we push him out of the crib.
More like `Waaah, lets do the same thing Harper tried to do when he was in opposition'.
Actually, more like `lets fight against fascism wherever we find it'.
Fascism is "economic and social rigidity with the suppression of opposition".
Thursday's `Economic update' revealed how fascist Harper's always been.
Screw your class-action lawsuit, buddy.
-
I think the Conservatives should scuttle the coalition and call an election - the Liberals have no leader, and they'll be even more vulnerable than before.
Of course, I can't see how this coalition can hang together.
It was a fascist inclination to try to suppress their opposition's source of public funding. I think the Conservatives would be seen as even more fascist than they are now if they tried to `scuttle' the coalition, ignoring due process. They'll look equally as bad if they try to close this session of parliament this week and wait till next year to do any governing.
The Conservatives are the ones who are `scuttled', thankfully.
As for Dion leading, I would've prefered Elizabeth May or Jack Layton but I suppose the only legitimate option was the current leader of the `official' opposition.
Why is it so important to everyone that there be a specific, singular `leader'? Is it that hard for us to agree with numerous people? It looks like the coalition is able to agree among themselves.
Seems we all agree that Dion doesn't have long-term leadership potential. Why can't Layton be the leader, if we must have a particular figurehead?
-
I guess we could also say that a greater majority also did not want Layton, or Dion period....
Actually, the lesser amount of voters did not want the alternative. It's simple math: less than 40% for the Conservative Party, more than 50% for THE OTHER GUYS. For those math-challenged, Layton + Dion is greater than Harper.
And Omar in the same place as the stupid men that fired upon approaching Afghan and American forces DOES NOT EQUAL automatic guilt.
-
What part of Canadians don't you understand.....not to mention basic math.
Canadians that voted in the last election is what I'm talking about. Of those that voted, less than 40% chose Harper's goons.
-
Point of order.....since voter turnout was only 59%, this is technically incorrect.
*** We now return you to your regular programming.. ******
umm, what part of `voted' don't you understand? I don't care if only 59% showed up, the majority of them didn't want Harper, Period.
Canada will forever regret what it's done to Khadr.
-
A majority of Canadians? Perhaps you could explain to us how a coalition where NDP voters can also be considered Liberal supporters, along with ONLY those Quebecers who want to break up the country represent a majority of Canadians.
The majority of Canadians voted for anything but Conservative. A coalition of the opposition would represent them. Period. If you want to opine the details, why not do it in the proper forum topic?
Khadr's fate is the topic of this forum thread. Do you have anything to add about that?
-
He is a disconnected elitist.
He currently meets my ABD requirements, but is this all there is on offer? Someone who hasn't been in Canada for 30 years?
A worldly scholar and a Canadian Politician for years now? The metaphorical Philosopher King? Could Canada be so lucky?
-
Maybe if Harper's kicked out of power by a coalition representing the majority of Canadians, Khadr's fate will change.
-
Chretien never gave a damn what the opposition said or wanted. And his term in office was one of graft, corruption, and huge, ten thousand dollar a plate dinners dedicated to himself. He never evidenced the slightest discomfort for all that money coming in from big business - until his last year in office, of course.
And Chretien was famously vindictive and unforgiving towards his enemies. He was and remains a man who can nurse a grudge until his dying day.
Sounds like you've a grudge yourself...
So Chretien's only reason for changing the rules was to screw Mr. Martin, eh? That's the legacy Chretien's enemies would like remembered.
-
Oh please. Chretien had not the slightest interest in making election financing more democratic. He was and remains a vindictive man wrapped in bitterness, and he brought that law in at the tail end of his reign for only one purpose; to screw Paul Martin.
You always see that much bitterness in people's motives? I think he made it law because his opposition and some of his own party wanted him to.
-
Ignatieff has spent most of his life as an American academic living in Boston.
Actually, Ignatieff was only in the States for 5 recent years as director of Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.
-
The Chretien Liberals who followed added enormously to that deficit in the first few years of their reign as well, until the deficit ended.
Hmmm... the deficit was growing and growing and then just suddenly ended? Wow. Well, it couldn't have had anything to do with sound fiscal management under Liberal leadership, eh?
-
Here is one supporter who would increase her donation to help make up for the federal subsidy, if and when it is canceled.
You've every right to do that, up to a certain amount: an amount that the average individual Canadian could give.
After that, your monetary influence becomes unfair.
-
Public Funding for Federal Parties started in the 70's...
Political contributions backgrounder
... But the most significant overhaul came in 2003, with Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (Political Financing), also introduced by Chrétien. Prior to this, political contributions could be made by individuals, corporations, unions and other organizations, Canadian or not, a point which was widely criticized.Canadian or not?!?!
With these new rules, there will be no more black holes for campaign contributions," said Chrétien during the bill's second reading in 2003. "No more allowing un-receipted money and unaccounted expenses." This made the election process more grassroots, quelling the public's fear that corporations making large donations would wield undue power in the government. Chrétien said there was "a perception that corporate and union contributions buy influence." He said Bill C-24 would address the issue head on. "I firmly believe that the elimination of contributions to political parties by business and trade unions will greatly improve the political culture in Canada."Why are some trying to portray the Liberals as bad when they brought the non-democratic political financing under control? Sure, they might've shot their own foot off a bit, but at least they tried to be accountable. Harper doesn't want to be accountable for where his party's money comes from. That's why he wants to cancel Chretien's efforts.
What could be a more democratic method of financing a pluralistic government than giving every Canadian a toonie of their own money and asking them to spend it on the political party of their choice?
-
Harper wants to take away the public money going towards each vote because he wants to disable his opposition's financing. Jean Cretien put a stop to large donations influencing government long ago by limiting financial contributions and offering so much public money per vote instead. In other words, the NDP or Reform Party would get $1.95 of tax-payer money for every vote it received in an election. This was a great democratic move and gave an incentive for people to vote!
The savings from cancelling this are MINIMAL for Canada but VERY BENEFICIAL for the government in power. The old Tory Party couldn't afford itself anymore once Cretien changed the financing rules. Harper's trying to devolve and dissolve that so that he ALWAYS has the most money come election time.
If Harper's going to take advantage of the times and be petty by concentrating on political targets instead of making the moves most Canadians need right now, I hope he's politically destroyed soon and the Opposition forms a government instead. Far too much credit has been given to these Mike Harrisites already.
-
Reformers and other hard-right-wingers in this country want the Liberal Party to be `history' but...
too bad. Screw U. Suck up to another minority parliament till the proper party gets its act together and vanquishes your Hillbilly asses out of power.
-
Say they bring him back and he is found guilty and gets 20-40 years in jail.Would you be fine with that.
If he's judged guilty of a charge brought on him by fellow Canadians and judged by fellow Canadians, then I would be fine with that. I would be happy if he were treated like a human being and given a friggin' trial. But we seem complacent to let him rot in a Dick Cheney - created limbo.
Screw the Republican party of our neighbours. They've forgotten what justice is.
-
It's amazing how many of you know Khadr so well as to consider him a `killer' or `anti-Canadian'.
How many of you have met him?
How many of you are regurgitating what you've heard instead of thinking and finding out the facts for yourselves?
How old are you people?
Canadians aren't a paranoid, angry mob on a witch-hunt. We don't imprison kids without trial and we don't torture people, especially our own.
What's the average age in these forums, 14?
Grow up.
-
Go ahead and try to take my comments out of context, if you're that desperate. I'm saying that Canada has legal responsibilities to its citizens, regardless of background.
-
Even decapitation couldn't stop Canada from adhering to a left-of-centre Political Mixture. Most Liberals who were pissed off (whether at Dion or Gerrard Kennnedy), moved to the NDP or Green camp. They were still on the left, just decamped from the Liberals. This election denied Harper his last chance at a majority and I say HOOEH to that.
Why do people try to demonize Trudeau so?
-
Isn't there already a court and arbitration system in place that basically supercedes our own legal system? Elizabeth May was the only leader that I know of went anywhere near NAU when she raised the point during the English Language Debate about the guy from Arizona who sued in an effort to establish a private medical clinic in Canada.
That's one of the main threats to HealthCare in Canada. The North American Free Trade Agreement's Chapter 11 allows private companies to sue for lost monies if the host government's policies interfere.... But only if the industry already exists in Canada. We can mostly thank Ontario, Alberta, and Quebec for allowing private medical clinics to start in Canada. Now they'll all want a part of the market in ALL provinces.
We need to re-think NAFTA and forget about the NAU and SPP; far too many acronyms for one decade.
Look at the history of English law, and the nature of the court system: by the 19th century, there were a number of courts that simply fell into disuse because other courts creeped into their jurisdiction; the same will arguably happen in Canada; as NAU becomes more of a reality, concerned parties will simply seek to have their grievances addressed in what they believe to be a more suitable court.hmmm... like letting Omar Khadr be judged by the American Military instead of Canadian Courts?
-
... The US government has fumbled the ball badly , ... But now you want to hand off that ball to our government.
Dude, our government was supposed to catch that `ball'. We fumbled it by allowing the US interference.
...And instead of concentrating on this forgotten terrorist boy we should be compling all the leasons learned and trying to come up with a viable solution to ensure it does not happen again....that the next terrorist put on trail is done correctly and sends a clear message to the world...Why should Omar be sacrificed while Canada slowly learns that what Bush did with him was very illegal?
Canadians need to wake up and smell the coffee, before we pack up our rifles and bullets we should know a little about our enemy,... and pretend we actually give a shit about how we as a nation are precieved by a bunch of terrorists...I give a crap about how we're perceived as a nation by ANYONE.
Why do you assume `Canadians' need to wake up and smell the cliches?
-
Firstly, the UN's ISAF for Afghanistan was created in 2001. NATO took control in 2003. Look it up.
Secondly, a lot of the bullets being used in Iraq come from a Canadian company.... though you're right, Canada has been more mature in the amount of government money it spends on Defence. Granted, the Liberals might've cut a bit too deeply into this budget but that is being fixed. What we don't want to get into is trying to invent wars with other countries so that we can buy more weapons and equipment and keep more people employed in the bullet business.....
I like Elizabeth May's suggestion: change it from the Department of Defence to the Department of PEACE.
Military Industrial Comples is a catch phrase used by people who often don't know what they are talking about....case in point.Immature brush-offs like that are used by people who can't even spell the problem, let alone understand it.
Why Dion as coalition leader?
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Harper has never been anything more than a good CEO of some Alberta-based Energy company. He's never been a natural leader; just look at how much eye-liner the wierdo wears and how many cliches he uses daily.