Battletoads

Welcome to Harperland, enjoy your stay.

More con bullshit. Having an environment minister that doesn't understand why ozone is important is akin to having a minister of finance who doesn't understand what money is. But the cons couldn't care less about the environment, so this gets a pass. Who cares if evidence of the importance of the ozone layer is rock solid, to them anyone pro environment is some sort of commie who wants to 'redistribute the wealth'.

Another way of shifting costs to the middle and lower classes...

Might be a good idea, after the budget is balanced... (which will happen after the cons are turfed out on their asses)

Typical argument with a con: Moderate/Left Wing Supporter "I think the new crime bill goes to far for these reasons..." Typical Con Supporter "Well that's obviously because your a meth using pedophile"

Ask Lyin Brian what his debt cost the cons, and you'll find out where your spend happy government is headed.

I can't recall the last time I heard a con put forward an argument that wasn't laced with logical fallacies... I suppose it's expected as their base can only think in black and white terms.

How dare he speak the truth. Questioning a duly elected government with a strong, 39%, mandate. Why this ought to be considered treason.

How is representing the interests of your constituents disrespecting democracy?

"Its true definition is accepting that other civilized cultures are as equally valid as our own" You don't even need a high school diploma to understand that statement.

Not surprising, their goverment ran the country into the ground with their high deficits and corporate tax cuts... Hmm sounds familiar.

People might expect them not to slash important services while spending billions on questionable fighter jets, or their new spying/crime bill... ect...

The Cons, a steady hand on the tiller... that's steering us right into the rocks.

"Its true definition is accepting that other civilized cultures are as equally valid as our own. The key part of that definition is civilized, some people seem to think that the backwards societies of the world are valid in any way..." I understand you right wingers have difficulties with basic reading comprehension so I've bolded and underlined the initial text to make it clearer.

Its true definition is accepting that other civilized cultures are as equally valid as our own. The key part of that definition is civilized, some people seem to think that the backwards societies of the world are valid in any way...

"a "toothy tyrant" and a nuisance that wreaks havoc on its environment" - Typical Canadian Conservative "Beaver ponds, and the wetlands that succeed them, remove sediments and pollutants from waterways, including total suspended solids, total nitrogen, phosphates, carbon and silicates" "The actions of beavers for hundreds of thousands of years in the Northern Hemisphere have kept these watery systems healthy and in good repair" "The beaver works as a keystone species in an ecosystem by creating wetlands that are used by many other species" - Anyone with a smidgin of intelligence

No ones talking about "rural culture", we're talking about whether the regulation of deadly weapons is a good or bad thing.

I didn't say anything about what the source was. Again do you have a real argument or are you just going keep spouting this BS? So unless something can be 100% prevented it shouldn't be illegal? When you can brew guns in your bathtub the comparison between 1920's America alcohol laws and 2011 Canadian gun laws may have a sliver of validity. So you're for the legalization of drugs? How would making it easier to trace a weapons reduce crime? Maybe gun owners would stop selling their guns illegally if they knew they'd be easily traced back to them? The current registry. Do you really need me to spell something that simple out for you?

Still don't see any reference to penalties... Do you actually have an argument or are you just going to highlight parts of my posts and claim I said something I didn't?

Illegal guns come from somewhere, obviously any law that registers firearms would have to come in conjunction with another law that cracks down on the sources of illegal weapons. In other words, this current registry was only a half measure that didn't go far enough. I'd say the time he spent in Alcatraz was at least a minor distraction

I advise you to re-read my posts, because I've said nothing about current penalties.

So you are saying that banning criminals from owning guns is akin to prohibition?

Permanent gun bans for criminals = prohibition? What are you smoking and where can I buy some?

Speaking of drugs, you must be on some good ones because I can't seem to locate any mention of banning guns in my post... Nope, seem I was just talking about cracking down on people who own illegal weapons. By your response it would seem that you think that to be a bad idea.

Can you cons make the 80 hour work week a campaign pledge for the next election?