takeanumber

I think the NDP actually threaten several seats in Saskatchewan and British Columbia. I think the Cons have lost ground in Ontario, they won't be able to hold onto many of their seats.

True True -- it might be legal: it doesn't make it right. Doesn't sit right.

Yes, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I misread the criminal code. It just doesn't seem right that it would be perfectly legal. ---- Sounds like Grewal was asking the Liberals for a bribe...that's just the impression I get from the tapes.

Alright, if it's really true that you can wiretap in Canada (which I think is just fucking insane...what ever happened to privacy?): onto the substance of the tapes. I've read what has been released on the transcripts. From what I can tell, they're just wasting time talking. They sound like two old hens going on and on and on about nothing. Here's how it reads to me: Grewal: I'm for sale. How much? GoBetween: Well, what's your price? Grewal: Senate seat. GoBetween: I don't think that's possible. Grewal: Senate seat. GoBetween: Well, abstain and who knows. Now, Grewal is clearly leaking this out in dribs and drabs...

Fabulous. They can choose not to have abortions then. Hey hey, that's great. Gay Muslims, hindus, sikhs and jews don't have to get married then. Moreover, I know a few observant hindus who are pro-same sex marriage. Being religious doesn't always correlate with being a shortsighted homophobe. I know of two minority liberal MP's who support SSM.

I have nothing against free speech. I do have something against mindless spam. In many cases, they're sending twenty copies of the same form letter off to these offices. And yes -- it's in the same league as a denial of service attack. The fact that many cons are supporting FOF's (Focus on the Family) DNS campaign demonstrates their hypocricy. Are the cons in bed with FOF or against them?

That doesn't quite seem right...that you should be legally allowed to record somebody who doesn't know that they're being recorded...

Hyperbole much?

Quote the whole law: 184(1) "Every one who, by means of any electro-magnetic, mechanical, or other device, wilfully intercepts a private communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to improisonment for a term not exceeding five years." (2) Saving Provisions: (a) A person who has the consent to intercept, express or implied, of the originator of the private communication or of the person intended by the orginator thereof to receive it;" The law says that you can't record somebody unless you have their implied/explicit consent. Of course, we can't tell if the go-between had consented to it...I'm guessing that he did not give consent. So, where are the charges?

Gary Goodyear, Con, is also onside with Focus on the Family efforts.

So, Focus on the Family has been using those auto-dialers and instant reply spam to target pro-same sex marriage MPs, shutting down the servers and fax machines. This in effect prevents everybody else from getting in touch with their MPs. The Bloc and Libs both want Parliament to stop the spam/jam. Jason Kenny of the Cons stands up and argues that it isn't an 'attack', but rather, Canadians just trying to get a hold of people..."It's not harassment..." So, Focus on the Family, it is alleged, is purposesly blocking other Canadians from getting ahold of their MPs. All I gotta say: Jason Kenny: Sad.Grim.Pathetic. Spam is Spam. Harassment is Harassment. Oh, here is somebody else. Jim Gouk of the Cons is supporting the Focus on the Family effort. Well, well. And they're the same letter, with dozens of identical letters, in sequence, comming out of the machine. None of them are signed. I don't know who to blame for keeping my emails out...Focus on the Family or the Cons?

I refer you to S.183, S 184 of the criminal code that states that recording without informed consent is illegal, subject to up to 5 years in prison. (I just looked it up again to make sure that I was right) So, I ask again, why havn't charges been laid?

Grewal has already confessed that he wiretapped. So where's the arrest? It's illegal wiretapping. We have laws in this country. I want to see charges filed. Why is there an exception for Conservatives?

Keep politics out of religion. Keep religion out of politics. When you mix religion and politics together, you get war and strife. This is something that fundamentalist sects don't seem to get. Moderate, secular Canadians have a duty to keep Canada secular...it's the reason why this is such a peaceful country. If you're so pationate about your religion, Utah is nearby, as is Saudi Arabia. Nobody is keeping you.

When will the RCMP press charges against Grewal and the CPC leadership for illegal wiretapping?

I don't even have to be in a thread for you to personally insult me. That's classy Reagan. Really classy.

This is one of the admitted contradictions in liberalism. Should people be free to organize their own schools for their own religion? Or Are the benefits of non-segregation better for society as a whole? (Religious/Private schools ARE segregatory). Conservatives make the mistake of going one step furthur. They argue that not only should there be segregation, but moreover, they should not have to pay into the public, secular system...as though they don't benefit at all from the public system. That arguement becomes incredibly flawed when you point out that single and infertile people, and senior citizens...also pay for schools...and they can hardly argue that they're getting no benefit from it. The liberal comprimise is called 'sunday school'. That way you get the benefits of the both, while reducing externalities.

Don't like it, don't watch it. That's the wonderful thing about Choice. That's right, liberals are in favour of CHOICE. Different concept eh? Maybe the Cons can play lip service to the concept in their next policy platform.

When are the charges against Grewal and the CPC leadership coming. Wiretapping without consent is illegal in Canada. I want to know why the double standard?

Two big problems with the Cons: 1. A total lack of empathy for anybody in society. (See: The attitude that since some ppl abuse AISH, Welfare, then nobody should be able to get any help...a clear demonstration of a total lack of empathy.) (See: Positions on Same Sex Marriage.) (See: Veterans bill flip flop) 2. A tendency to characterize anybody who does not share their principles as being 'unprincipled'. (See: The inability to see issues other than corruption as being important.) (See: Positions on Same Sex Marriage.) Canadians see through them. *Coughs* When are those wiretapping charges going to be laid against Grewal and key members of the CPC leadership?

I'll bite. Slavery is freedom. Ignorance is strength. Letting them rot in prison is more just. coughs *Ramsay* coughs I'll just point one thing here: when aboriginal women are sexually assaulted, conservatives tend to be remarkably silent. Just saying; it's an interesting point. But indeed, why not increase penalties? Most violent crimes are one off offenses, done with passion...so...how do we tell which ones are going to repeat? For me...the second time you do something, the penalty should be strengthened. By no means 'three strikes' rule, but two violent strikes...absolutely. Society plays a role, I think. If you have kids growing up in crushing poverty with no hope...what the hell do you expect to get out of it? Cons don't want women having abortions, but they sure as hell don't want to give any of their hard earned money, 'their money--that they earned all by themselves without the help of anybody whatsoever', to allievate child poverty. Meh -- it's a complex problem. I don't think it's nearly as simple as 'lock the bastards up'. Liberalism IS secularlism. That's the defining point of classical liberalism. If you bring your definition of what God says (which, by the way, is totally twisted by the religiously 'fundamentalists'.), go ahead...but it always turns political debates into theological debates...and ultimately to war really. It's something that religious conservatives just don't get...they can't win any religious debate because they're fundamentally wrong about religion. 1. I expect a hand up should I fall down. Your portrait of Canada -- one in which nobody gets a hand up A-La-Klein, is frankly inhumane. That said, I've read conservative logic on this board where because a few people abuse systems...(AISH), nobody should be able to get AISH. For me: go after the fraudsters and these generations of families that live off the public purse...but leave the programs in place to help the people who really need the help! 2. I expect public utilities to be maintained. Schools, hospitals, infrastructure. Your portrait of Canada -- one in which everything is neglected A-La-Klein, is frankly irresponsible. 3. "I mean free daycare for everyone It's insane." You mean a government program that doesn't benefit YOU? That's UNTHINKABLE!!!

Harper wants Canada to resemble Alberta under Klein. I suspect that most Canadians wouldn't want that.

PWNED!!!!!!11111111 Hot Sweal. Hot. ------------------- Belinda already told us about the hidden agenda by telling us what's not on it: There's no plan for youth, cities, or women. Three important priorities for this country: excluded. What's worse: you push those priorities, and you get mocked, demeaned, and shouted at. Now that's the Harper way!

Agreed. However, he's betting that rural Alberta will carry him. They just might, so it's very important not to underestimate him. He is in Calgary School, and those people are capable of anything.

That's the reaction I was looking for! Finally some vinegar!!! Well, it's hardly a stereotype, I've been in the orbit of Calgary School for the better part of a decade now, I know how the elites of the party think. It's hardly a stereotype...I know Conservative thought...I know how many of you REALLY think because I've had the time and experience in pealing away the political correctness, that's all. I'm not really trying to prove anything. I think many things I'm saying is in fact factual, and I think they resonate with many people on this board. I know this because moderates and classical liberals here support most of my assertions, and moreover, Conservatives often retort with personal attacks, swearing, and smears -- and so, you know when you start getting called names, you're hitting a nerve that's awfully close to the truth. That said, let's review. --------- Yeah, I caught the Cons on this one a few months ago. They can't prevent a private members bill, and their party philosophy demands a free vote...so, you know, the right to choose is at risk, by implication of party logic. Sure, plenty of people who arn't religious hate homosexuals. As for civil unions, it's just another way to be seen to be moderate, but to create a seperate but equal institution. It's called segregation, and it was tried in the Southern United States before it was ruled that 'seperate but equal' is not equal...that by the sheer fact of being seperate, it isn't equal. It's the same logic here (not the same scale of attrocity). You propose that you're being generous by saying, "fine, we'll keep the word 'marriage' for ourselves, but since we don't like you/agree with your lifestyle, we're going to create a SEPERATE institution. Well then, if you have no problem with homosexuals, then why not grant them equality? How is giving them the right to equal marriage, actual marriage, wrong? The reality is, you trick yourself into believing seperate is equal. It isn't. You should try to resolve this contradiction for yourself. If you truly dont' have a problem with homosexuals, then you should have no problem giving them equality. If you have no problem with equality, you should have no problem with equal marriage. Good for you, you understand the difference between old anti-liberalism and new anti-liberalism. I'm impressed. (really, no sarcasm here. You're the first con on this board to understand the distinction.) As a small 'l' liberal, I am stronly opposed to new anti-liberalism, that is, the creation of new inequality: ie. affirmative action. I believe in equalizing the playing field at birth and strong anti-racism laws...protections, not props. However, I have seen evidence that in the new conservative party, there is a strong tendency to confuse real liberalism (true equality) with new anti-liberalism, and as such, they become old anti-liberals, that is, defenders of OLD bigotry. This includes denying sihks the right to wear a turban with their RCMP uniform, and being anti-pay equity. As a small l liberal, I believe that if a woman wants to stay at home, she should be afforded the respect and opportunity for doing that. I do not believe however in Conservative policies that would see incentives for women to stay at home. (Ie. I, as a tax payer, do not want to pay you so that your wife can stay at home.) There should an equalization of opportunity there. Glad that you realize and understand the difference. This is where you really fall down. First: That would be the exception. Alright, so most of you go to church? How are those who don't go to church...how are they treated? Alright, 'sherlock', so since a few people abuse the system, everybody in your community turns a blind eye to it, and DON'T REPORT THE ABUSE (wtf is with that?!?!?!?) and proceed to argue that because there's a abuse, EVERYBODY WHO IS TRULY HANDICAPPED SHOULD SUFFER? That's the true definition of Conservatism right there: the absolute lack of empathy. You jumped straight to the logic that since some people abuse it, we're going to punish everybody. That's conservative justice right there. If that's what small town Alberta is selling: no thank you! You proved my point. Your answer is: "where's my pork?" The line of your party is both: "Pork: cut it out" and "Where's our pork?". It's hypocritical. Apparently the free market should only apply to those who live in the city and generate the bulk of the wealth in this country. --------- I look forward to your excellent reply.