Alta4ever Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 So then you admit that the Tory ad is accusing the BQ of being soft on pedophiles. And you expect this to be a big winner? Wow thats a stretch, not I have posted even remotely looks like that, but then again you have no idea what soft on crime is, as a member of the liberal party you are also soft on crime, please tell me why the liberals vote for the crime bills in the house only to hold them up beyond the public eye in the senate and in committee? Do you not have the moral fortatude to campaign against the Conservatives on a crime and justice platform? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 The liberal party must be too scared to make justice a ballot issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Wow thats a stretch, not I have posted even remotely looks like that, but then again you have no idea what soft on crime is, as a member of the liberal party you are also soft on crime, please tell me why the liberals vote for the crime bills in the house only to hold them up beyond the public eye in the senate and in committee? Do you not have the moral fortatude to campaign against the Conservatives on a crime and justice platform? The ones who held them up were the Tories. They wanted to debate other bills in the Senate first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 The ones who held them up were the Tories. They wanted to debate other bills in the Senate first. Just like the senate term limits bill all of two paragraphs right? That must have been held up by the Conservative Party in the liberal dominated senate right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 (edited) Whens the check with the liberal party bosses to find out why they are unwilling to make justice a ballot issue? Someone who posts as muuch liberal party spin as you must have enough connections to find out why the liberal party is too scared to go toe to toe with the conservatives on justice during an election? Is it they know they are wrong and would lose? Edited July 5, 2009 by Alta4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Just like the senate term limits bill all of two paragraphs right? That must have been held up by the Conservative Party in the liberal dominated senate right? Now you are just changing the subject. If the Tories really want Senate changes, they should talk to the provinces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Whens the check with the liberal party bosses to find out why they are unwilling to make justice a ballot issue? Someone who posts as muuch liberal party spin as you must have enough connections to find out why the liberal party is too scared to go toe to toe with the conservatives on justice during an election? Is it they know they are wrong and would lose? The Tories are free to call an election anytime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Now you are just changing the subject. If the Tories really want Senate changes, they should talk to the provinces. I guess so because god knows the liberal senate will never let any reform go through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Gutter politics, that is what the result of this add has been. If nothing else and for no other reason this kind of thing should be stopped. This may in fact be where the Harper folks want to go with politics. Maybe they want to get down and dirty, who knows. I suppose on the one hand all is fair unless it is false but it gives me no great pleasure to see what direction is being chosen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 (edited) I object to the spin of the words 'soft on crime'. One need not be 'soft on crime' to see mandatory minimum sentences as utter stupidity. One need not be 'soft on crime' to respect the role of judges (and juries) and expect them to have a better take on a given situation than do short-term MPs on a mission of public posturing, who never have and never will hear the particulars of what they are pre-judging. The bills offered are less 'tough on crime' than they are 'don't give me details. Details hurt my head.' Details like cost and outcome and actual justice.... Edited July 5, 2009 by Molly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Personally I think it's about time that the Liberals came out with attack ads which accurately describe Harper's history. How many Canadians remember that Harper lead the charge against lesbians marrying before he was elected? How many Canadians remember that even after he was elected Prime Minister, he attempted to take away their right to marry by "revisiting" the issue in Parliament? How many remember that he voted against making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the murder of homosexuals? How many remember that he spent almost no time in the work force except as a professional politician? How many Canadians know that Harper is nothing more than a professional politician who jumped from the Liberals to the Progressive Conservatives to the Reform Party, who suddenly underwent a religious conversion to become a member of Preston Manning's evangelical church, then joined the extremist Northern Foundation then quit the foundation when he claimed it had extremist members, then had a falling out with Preston Manning and quit the Reform Party and jumped to the National Citizens Coalition, then joined the Alliance Party, then had a falling out with Tom Flanagan, his longtime mentor? How many Canadians remember that Manning fired Harper as Finance Critic and replaced him with Herb Grubel, a financial conservative with a PhD in Economics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Lets dig up the dirt on politicians, its there to find no doubt. That way we can all ignore the issues and fixate on the partisan leaders boyfriend and girlfriends, yeah that makes sense.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Lets dig up the dirt on politicians, its there to find no doubt. We don't need to dig up any dirt on Harper. Canadians have short memories. They need to be reminded of Harper's history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 We don't need to dig up any dirt on Harper. Canadians have short memories. They need to be reminded of Harper's history. You folks can call them truth ads or attack ads or whatever the hell you want, but when you sink down to that level it is a long climb up to the light. Canadians do indeed have short memories, that is why we keep this ancient system we have, because it plays upon that single issue. I think that Canadians need to be reminded that we can do things, not just the government but the people can do things. We need to be reminded of the achievements of the nation and the people. We need to be reminded that a positive vision draws support and attention to the same degree a negative one does. Canadians need to be reminded that we have the freedom to choose. Canadians need to be reminded that the citizens are not sheeple but people! They need to be reminded that government is a servant of the people, not the master of the sheeple. Any leader, can stand up and attract attention, but there are few that inspire. Inspiration is what Canadians need, especially in these times of trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Show me one single piece of evidence to support that. Oh come on. Are you kidding me? You haven't read a paper in thirty years? Crime is as perfect a measure of political polarity as there is in this country. The conservatives always want stricter laws. The liberals always oppose. The three left wing parties have resolutely opposed every crime bill the tories have put forward over the past twenty five years. Hell, the liberals, ndp and bq even did their level best to stop the age of consent being moved upwards from fourteen. All of our soft laws, be they on violence, fraud, or for that matter, our ludicrously relaxed laws on immigration, are a product of liberal policies, liberal laws, and liberal judges and panel members. It seems to be in their nature for conservative to want to thump people for getting out of hand while liberals want to "understand" the criminal and think they can talk to him and convince him of the errors of his ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 And the Tories want to put 10 year olds in adult prisons? That is the way you guys and the separatists spun the law on violent youth last election, of course. In truth, that law simply gave judges the option of increasing the sentence for young offenders guilty of extremely violent crimes. And you opposed it tooth and nail, you and the BQ and the NDP. Again, evidence of your hug a thug approach, and how extraordinarily soft on crime you are. It's funny how you're all for giving judges more latitude and not restricting their choices - UNLESS that latitude allows them to hand out more severe sentences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 This is what Duceppe said although he said 14 year olds at the time. So you are using separatist tactics, but, because 14 didn't sound bad enough, you decreased the age to 10 to make it sound nastier. I can't imagine why anyone questions the honesty or integrity of your postings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 I think you are losing it. I was raising Duceppe's comments because they are as over the top as Harper's are.Duceppe was trying to say the Tories wanted to put children in prison so they could be raped by adults as some sort of punishment. Harper is trying to say that the BQ is soft on pedophiles. Understandable, both comments soured people on politicians in general. Actually, Duceppe's comments were extremely effective, and caused a lot of people to vote for the BQ. Also, while his comments were untrue, any suggestion the BQ is soft on crime in general, including pedophiles, is fundamentally true. I don't see why you seem to believe making that suggestion is somehow unfair or sleazy. Your party has a similar mentality, of course. Perhaps that's why you oppose the tactic of revealing that sort of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 It isn't just about crime. It says the BQ are not protecting children and that they are soft on the issue. To emphasize the point, they have a man leading away a child. You know full well the message is that the BQ are soft on pedophiles.Gutter politics. Pointing out that a party is soft on crime is not gutter politics. On the other hand, your party jumping up and down, screaming and pointing when Harper hesitated to mouth the god,mom and apple pie words "I love Canada" were gutter politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 (edited) That is the way you guys and the separatists spun the law on violent youth last election, of course. In truth, that law simply gave judges the option of increasing the sentence for young offenders guilty of extremely violent crimes. Option? I think what the BQ pointed out was that the Tories seemed headed to legislation that would raise 14 year old violent crime to adult court automatically. The Tories generally distrust judges or juries to these things on ther own. And you opposed it tooth and nail, you and the BQ and the NDP. Again, evidence of your hug a thug approach, and how extraordinarily soft on crime you are.It's funny how you're all for giving judges more latitude and not restricting their choices - UNLESS that latitude allows them to hand out more severe sentences. Actually, I support giving judges discretion on all sentencing within the law. Minimum and maximum punishments are already set through legislation and precedent. The Tories want to ensure the court has no discretion on sentencing and that large prison sentences are automatic. Edited July 5, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Pointing out that a party is soft on crime is not gutter politics. The picture is gutter politics. No way of getting around that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 So you are using separatist tactics, but, because 14 didn't sound bad enough, you decreased the age to 10 to make it sound nastier.I can't imagine why anyone questions the honesty or integrity of your postings. Give me a break. I was mocking your statement with the same over the top remarks are you were making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 What Liberal attacks are you referring to, something specific to Ignatieff or Dion? How about your ongoing sleazy campaign to mention Alberta in negative terms as often as you can, and imply that Harper and his party are merely some kind of evil western import into what you regard as your pristine liberal politics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Nor you, it would seem.I say it because when Harper attacked the BQ by calling them separatist in English and sovereignists in French, BQ supporters took it personally. They are likely to take this personally as well. Good. Who gives a crap what BQ supporters want, think, do, or say? They're BQ supporters! They can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 And Paul Martin was defeated.Are you saying that a strategy that ultimately left a party in defeat is going to work for the Conservatives? Oh please. Your party has been using mainly attack ads for the last thirty years. Who the hell do you think you're fooling? I still remember the big scary campaign against Stanfield and his wage and price controls (zap, your frozen), ads suggesting the policy would drag Canada into another great depression - and then the Liberals implimented the policy themselves. I also still remember your attack ads over Joe Clark's seven sent gas tax, which were pretty much along the same lines, and yet once again, once you guys got back in, you implemented an even higher gas tax. Not to mention all those years of attack ads suggesting the tories wanted to destroy health care, and your continued scaremongering over immigration, especially in ethnic communities. The Liberal party has unquestionably been the sleaziest by far in terms of flinging muck at others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.