nicky10013
-
Posts
3,479 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by nicky10013
-
-
Indeed, this is the reason that hatred of certain groups is considered an aggravating factor in sentencing of violent crimes.
-k
So you're for hate crimes legislation?
-
They're magnified because of the way that Iggy was chosen, or rather forced upon the Liberals. By everything I've heard the whole coalition fiasco and Iggy's selection and ultimate rejection of it has indeed left a disgruntled group. But I've talked to a few Liberals who feel Iggy never really achieved the leadership the proper way, and feel his leadership is tainted.
Maybe, but those same stories existed under Dion and he got in fair and square. These stories would've been around no matter what. If a party isn't power, and by no means just the Liberals - there's infighting within the party. This kind of speculation dogged the PCs for decades.
-
If Iggy manages to trigger an election and the Liberals lose seats, and more to the point if Harper manages to get his majority, I'll see your "united" and raise you an "early Liberal leadership convention".
Of course, but if we're to be fair, even if there were never any stories about infighting whatsoever, he'd still be gone if he lost seats in an election. There are lots of stories about infighting within the CPC (Peter McKay, anyone?), yet, the Liberals are magnified problems are magnified simply because they're not in power.
-
It may very well be insulting to a number of Central Asian cultures, where it has been a fixture since before the advent of Islam. But that seems beside the point to me, and the worst aspect of multiculturalism as it is currently formulated, the underlying notion that insult should not be given to any cultural group even where we view their practices as barbaric. I doubt Justin Trudeau would have said anything so stupid if somebody had said lopping off young girls' clitorises was barbaric, but that's because it's so much more immediately heinous. And yet, to some cultural groups, it might very well be viewed as insulting.
I think we should be critical but I also think we should be fair. Communities within Canada should be criticised for not speaking up on the issue, but lets be frank, this doesn't just happen in only one community, in this example the muslim community, and to pretend like it does I personally do find offensive.
-
Most murder is not considered a cultural practice but rather an abhorrent act that is outside the realm of acceptable behavior.
Some in this thread are objecting to the characterization of "honor killing" as barbaric on the basis that it's culturally insensitive.
I'm just asking: to what culture? Is that an unreasonable question? I have yet to hear those who argue it's culturally insensitive offer any example of what culture it's actually insensitive to.
-k
I personally don't know if I'd say it's cultural. Like I said, people here kill their spouses all the time for infedelity real or imagined. Why not call that an honour killing?
-
Our civilization has long made distinctions between different kinds of murder. Regicide was viewed not just as murder, but as high treason. Patricide, matricide and infanticide were viewed as far worse than most other forms of homicide.
I didn't dispute the fact that we make distinctions and to be fair I disagree with Trudeau, I merely asked why in this case honour killing is more barbaric?
When we boil it down, an honour killing is a father or brother killing a woman in the family for showing independence in one form or another. Is that truly worse than a husband killing a wife for insurance money - or a better example yet - a husband or wife killing their spouse because of an affair?
-
Still waiting to hear whose culture is actually being insulted by the description of "honor killing" as barbaric.
-k
All murder is. Why is this particularly more babaric than other forms?
-
Pride isn't family friendly, it's not a family activity. I don't view homosexuals celebrating their sexuality as appropriate viewing for children.
Ah so there it is. You don't mind public funding for events (like the Calgary Stampede) but not for funding for events for "the gays."
People who view the treatment of animals in the stampede to be immoral have views just as valid as yours. This is what pisses me off about conservatives. They pretend to be morally superior; they "protect freedom." Except if you're gay, want an abortion - I was going to say a muslim but lets be honest and say anyone who isn't christian.
-
It makes you wonder why 2 months before the budget's out, the Liberal Party's so adamant to reject the budget they haven't seen.
It makes you wonder why weeks before the Oda, the In-and-Out, the Court ruling, the two-times contempt on Parliament ruling.....the LIberal Party has already made up its mind to trigger an election. The recent controversies only gave the convenient excuse to make this determination easier to trigger.
It makes you wonder why Ignatieff is shooting his foot by such a reckless, desperate announcement such as the funding of an arena....at a time of economic distress.
It makes you wonder why with such a consistently dismal poll projection....the Liberal Party is still quite determined to have this election.
I suspect that behind closed doors, Ignatieff's been told he has to go. As the policy of the Liberal Party seems to be that a leader has to go through at least one election before he can be booted out....this spring must be it for Ignatieff.
Come what may, win or lose.....there has to be an election. Soon. The Liberals know they need a new leader.
No. The party is far more united than any CPC supporter wants to hear.
-
Finally, somebody asks the magic question. Good for you, Shakey! Valuable kimmy-points will be credited to your account!
Should they make it about Harper? No. Making the election about Harper will just remind the voter of what the alternatives to Harper are... and most voters find the alternatives about as appealing as a case of genital warts.
Harper is easily the most recognizable figure of all the political leaders. The fact that his approval rating is at 26% says a lot. Ignatieff's is low but no one knows him. He has just as big an opportunity to move up as he does to stay where he is which is about as low as he can get. The bar is so low that he'd have to be crawling to trip over it. He's going to impress a lot of people by just being fluent.
Should they make it about Afghan detainees? I don't think Canadian voters actually care about Afghan detainees. I don't think there's many votes to win on that issue. (Ditto with Li'l Omar.)
Thumbing their nose at Parliamentary committees? I think most voters will just view that as typical partisan politics. Not something that's going to win votes.
Elections Canada and the "in-and-out" scheme? Can't hurt, but I don't think it's a major vote-getter either. That's not your major ammunition.
I can't disagree with most of this. I wish Canadians were engaged enough that it would be otherwise, yet I think this is true.
Jet fighters? For the Liberals that's a little risky because it will remind voters of the time we spent hundreds of millions of dollars cancelling helicopter contracts and didn't end up with any helicopters at all. You can raise the question of whether we're spending too much. You can ask why we didn't look at other suppliers. But don't even consider promising that you're going to scrap the purchase or you'll remind voters of the EH-101 fiasco.
Unsigned contract. No money lost. That and the replacement of the sea king was cancelled so long ago I doubt if the institutional memory is there for it to be a negative. If anyone were to vote against the Liberals for cancelling the Seaking it'll be the Conservatives that STILL don't vote for the Liberals because of Trudeau.
Should they make it about the G20 "police state"? I actually find that idea pretty funny. I think most Canadians feel that the G20 protesters were a bunch of morons who went looking for trouble. I think that Canadian voters will recall images of burning police cars and smashed storefronts and feel not an ounce of sympathy for the protesters.You know, for the most part I agree with you. I think the term police state is ludicrous. I also think a lot of protestors knew what they were getting into. Yet, there were still serious abuses. For all the hooliganism, the videos of cops beating protestors is still very real and it shouldn't have happened. Steve Paikan himself was beaten and arrested despite the film crew he was with and the press pass he was holding. For all the over-reaction, there's still legitimate grievances.
What will resonate with voters: "Fake Lake". The $1 billion plus price-tag for G20. Remind voters how much that fiasco cost. Tell voters what could have been done with all that money instead. Then remind the voters about the budget deficit. (If you're the Liberals, also remind the voters that the last time you were in charge we had an annual budget surplus that was paying down the national debt and reducing our annual interest payments.) Point out some of the other Conservative financial decisions that have resulted in questionable results for Canada. Dig into the "stimulus package" and show Canadians what all that money really bought for us (and regardless of whether it was actually well spent or not, you can find a way to make it look like it was wasted. It's a winning strategy.)That's where the Conservatives are really vulnerable. That's what the opposition should make the election about.
-k
I don't disagree. The problem on the economy is fighting perception, though. You see it with Wild Bill and Blueblood. Despite the citing of undisputable history, people refuse to believe that any party other than the CPC are fisaclly responsible.
-
I don't support this, yet I laugh at the lack of institutional memory. Not too many people here were opposed to the funding when Harper waved it in the face of Quebec until the city and project rejected the idea of any kind of federal involvement.
-
$26 million? That's peanuts compared to Liberals spending $300 million to advertise in Quebec (which later on became or is related to the Sponsorship scandal). And there wasn't even any recession then!
There wasn't a recession. There was a little thing called the referendum. That's what the advertising was for and all of it save a fraction of what some idiots in Quebec shaved off the top, contrary to what most conservatives claim actually did go to advertising.
-
You really don't know much about Ontario police outside of the GTA, do you? Toronto is not all of Canada or even Ontario. You really should get out more!
Have you ever heard of Caledonia? You must be totally ignorant if you think that Ontario police could never do such things on their own and must be led by the feds! McGuinty's boys threw an entire TOWN to the wolves! They left them with ZERO protection of law!
It's posts like yours that are part of the reason everybody likes to hate Toronto!
Everything has a reason. Remember Dudley George? If McGuinty had sent in the OPP to crack skulls and someone ended up dead, you might not have a problem with it but it would seriously undermine the authority (already lacking) of the provincial and even federal authorities on both sides of the issue.
Also, the reason why everyone likes to hate Toronto is an inferiority complex. Toronto isn't any better or worse than any other place, it's just bigger. It gets the most attention in the news because the most amount of people live there. Our sports team gets covered the most because there are more viewers that watch them than any other team in the country - obviously not because they're better but because they make more ad revenue due to the higher audiences. They hate Toronto because for some stupid reason people outside of Toronto think that Torontonians only care about themselves precisely because Toronto gets the most coverage even though that one is true, but then again everyone does that. Which is where this problem lies. You're bemoaning him about the fact that he only cares about what happens in downtown Toronto and not in Caledonia. However, you're doing the exact same thing. You're totally ignoring the fact that what happened in the G20 really had an effect on the people that live and work in the city.
Unless of course I'm getting wrong the reason why people hate Toronto - why is that?
-
Well, what I would like to know is that even though Conservatives are claiming that they don't support funding for any public event, how come it's always pride they complain about? Why aren't there any threads condemning the massive amounts of money something like the Calgary Stampede recieves?
-
Too risky for Harper to call the election. The voters will turn on him.
If all Opposition Parties got together and defeat the government....Harper can say that the Liberals never wanted to make Parliament work, that it's all an opportunistic move. That, plus the economy will make for a powerful campaign, considering how badly Ignatieff is deemed as a leader in the first place.
The only thing is to survive from today until the 22nd without any more scandals happening.
It doesn't matter who triggers the election. THe opposition might try to blame him, but it won't stick because it never has before. Harper called the election in 2008 pretty much out of the blue. How badly did it hurt him? The story over who called the election is a one day thing.
-
Well Harper could take the initiative, but then he doesn't have the budget to wave around either. At the moment, if the NDP have the guts, this is strategically the very best time to do it. Wait until the Tories release the budget, and they've given the Government the ultimate bully pulpit.
Of course, the Tories could give the NDP some goodies to take home and avoid an election. While I'm not sure Harper wants an election, it's pretty clear that a lot of Tories do, so maybe whether the 21st or earlier, it's inevitable. I was saying even a week or two ago that it wasn't likely, but now I think Parliament is just a steam train racing towards the cliff.
Whether he gets to deliver the budget to parliament or not, it's what Harper will be running on. I don't think in the end who ends up triggering the election or why will end up being the ballot question. If the opposition brings down the government on corruption charges then that could end up being a story that runs a few days and who knows where the momentum from that can go. Then again, Harper may think there's no chance of that happening. We'll see what happen.
-
Pundits are saying the Liberals are going to try to bring down the government possibly on Mar 21, the day before the bduget is announced. They'll try to come up with a non-confidence motion. The Liberals cannot let the budget be announced if they want to have an election....since the budget allegedly has good things for seniors, among other things. The Liberals cannot have themselves seen as voting against those goodies.
Some say Layton won't go with the Liberals on this. It is expected that Layton will support Harper.
What do you think?
I know for a fact that it's the 21st. It's all up to to the NDP now.
edit: unless Harper calls a snap election sometime in the week running up to the 21st.
-
Don't you mean riding his ski doo off into the sunset?
I stopped voting Reform/CA when Day was elected. Even before the full weight of the fact that he was a religious nut came to light, the guy was clearly a few slices short of a loaf. I honestly believe that Manning was close to a breakthrough in Ontario, and he was literally tossed like yesterday's trash because he had had to do what all politicians who want to put forward any part of their agenda must do; compromise. I don't know about you, but a lot of Reformers seemed to have got this strange notion in their head that they could get everything they wanted, that it was Manning who was preventing it. It demonstrates the key flaw in grassroots organizations, there is a severe detachment from reality, and that pretty much describes Stockboy Day in a nutshell; a complete disassociation from reality.
As much as I agree with this, recently he's been one of Harper's strongest cabinet ministers. He did his job and didn't really cause any scandals. I'm curious as to who they think they can replace him with.
-
If he is, I wish him well.
Certainly. Apparently he was diagnosed with terminal inoperable lung cancer in 2005. If he's hung on this long, all I have to say is good for him. Now, I'm completely in the dark as to any activities he might be doing, but his would be a great story to get out there and fundraise for the CCS. He could do some real good, if it isn't his health of course that is keeping him from his schedule.
-
There are debates and there are debates. Political debates are very rarely cerebral exchanges like one gets in an academic setting. They're down in the much brawls, verbal cage matches if you will.
But this is Iggy's chance to prove himself, if it comes to an election. I don't have a lot of confidence that he will distinguish himself, he has proven a most awkward and ineffectual leader, and more to the point lacking the kind of reckless daring that Harper shows. For all his flaws, Harper is willing to take big risks, and while they sometimes backfire (the 2008 prorogation comes to mind), at the same they sometimes prove fortuitous.
The sad fact is that the Liberals need another Chretien, a streetfighter who is willing to give as good as he gets. I've observed for some time that the true Son of Chretien is Stephen Harper. I have a feeling as much as Harper disliked Chretien's policies and political ideology (such as it was), I think he must have been taking notes, because both men are insanely bold and have no problem with using the tricks, dirty or otherwise, available to them through their office to bully allies and send chills through opponents.
Frankly, I think Iggy would make a very good Minister of Foreign Affairs. I don't think he has the least little bit of Prime Minister in him.
He's definitely got fight, to think that he doesn't isn't being fair. The reason why there hasn't been much of a response is due to money. Why spend money and end up in an ad war that you'll get trounced on because you don't have the money? Why do that especially when you won't have money to fight a campaign that's going to start a week monday (especially since they've got just enough money to run a campaign with no debt)? Why do it when you'll never actually move the polls outside the writ?
I just ask the question how visible is Ignatieff really? I've never seen him on local news. He's only really on cable news which no one really watches and he's in the papers far less than Harper is. No one knows who the guy is. He's doing as much as he can with the exposure he's got. Your view is completely understandable but you'll never get the entire story until you actually see him out on the stump. To say that he's not Prime Ministerial - not ready for a fight - at this point is ridiculous. Wait 2-3 weeks into the campaign and then let's revisit the issue.
-
I should have said Turner never ran as leader before 1984. He got killed in the debates Harper isn't Turner he has been through it all before. It is a much different situation. Iggy is closer to Turner which is not a good thing.
Harper has never been a good debater. The fact that Harper has been through it before and the last time I checked only had a 26% approval rating I think speaks to a great problem Conservatives don't want to face.
To say Ignatieff won't be a good debater is premature. We haven't seen him in one. Though, he has considerable skill in public speaking and was a professor at Oxford and Harvard tells me that he should be ok.
-
Yah Turner never ran an election as leader Harper has. Mulroney never lost an election as leader. You really have to get history right here.
You're right about Mulroney, but you might want to check about Turner. He ran against Mulroney in 1984. He took over the party leadership from Trudeau.
-
The important thing is that the Harper Tories are crushing everyone else. bring on the election. I cannot believe that the opposition will be that stupid.
That's what Turner said. That's what Mulroney said. That's what us Liberals said with Harper. Will this be the same? Who knows.
One thing I do know is that polls before an election don't matter because no one pays attention before an election. With Ignatieff as the only new guy in the field despite how bad he's polling, he's at least got a fresh start. Everyone knows Gilles, Jack and Stevie wonder. They're going to take a hard look at Ignatieff and if any of his tours which have all recieved great reviews (even from the National Post) he's got a great shot of shocking people.
So please, continue with the hubris, it only helps the Liberals.
-
Unless Harper pre-empts the politicians (hell, I'd do it if I were him). March 21st. Book it.
Guilty: Harper Government Found in Contempt of Parliament
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Now...while precisely 5% of the Canadian public is truly paying attention to politics...