Oleg Bach Posted October 31, 2008 Report Posted October 31, 2008 He's wrong - the liberal nanny state is all emotion based - eg..child poverty - is really adult povety - and stuff like feeding "the children" - with "Toonies for Tummies" - what a bunch of add executive parasitic crap. The warm and fuzzy puppy dog eye approach is by design to attack the emotions and manipulate them - there is no logic of intellect or solution to the liberal left - they are not liberal liberators but damned ants who have power in numbers and that is it. Like I said - a nanny loves you and liberals have no love - just emotion and there is a difference - love is intelligent and kind - liberals are liars - they lie to themselves - convince themselves then lie to us... Quote
madmax Posted October 31, 2008 Report Posted October 31, 2008 As a motorcyclist, I've seen far more reckless driver's then I've seen reckless motorcyclists but you don't see me calling for a ban on children in cars do you? We all drive and share the road. Some people forget that no sooner am I off the bike, then I can be in a car. That said, as a motorcyclist, it is not unusual to be cut off. This summer one driver text messaging while she drifted into my lane and put me on the curb next to the sidewalk. My 7 years old niece was killed in collision last year as a passenger in her moms car. As I've said, I'm not against the principle of this legislation, I'm against the way its put into practice. If the logic that was used in this law is extended, in a few short years we could see other "dangerous" activities banned. I can almost guarantee there are other activities children take part in that cause FAR MORE injuries then being a passenger on the back of a motorcycle I don't wish to get into the skiing, skateboard, bycycling, football, hockey,& swimming debates that can arise. I also don't think you are an unreasonable person based upon your position that you wish to have input into any changes. Quote
drewski Posted October 31, 2008 Author Report Posted October 31, 2008 I'd also like to point out that Ontario's definition of motorcycles includes more then just 2 wheeled vehicles “motorcycle” means a self-propelled vehicle having a seat or saddle for the use of the driver and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground, and includes a motor scooter so 3 wheeled vehicles like the 3 wheelers like the can-am spyder, trikes, 3-wheeled roadsters and motorcycles with sidecars (which could be fully enclosed like a car) Quote If you oppose Bill 117, the governments ban on child passengers on motorcycles, join this FB group http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=52185692512 Support Dominic LeBlanc for Liberal Party Leader http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=32208708169
OddSox Posted November 4, 2008 Report Posted November 4, 2008 How can they possibly claim that it's unsafe for 14-year-old to ride on a motorcycle, while allowing infants to ride in contraptions like this? http://astore.amazon.com/baby-strollers-gu...tail/B000H4E7EO Quote
Guest icbones Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 It is not just Helena Jaznek's private member's Bill to ban passengers on motorcycles under the age of 15 that has many people up in arms. It is also the record number of PMB's that are have been passed and are constantly being introduced, by MPP's that only seem to be concerned with making a name for themselves at Queens Park and not whether what they propose is constitutional. A recent story by CBC news critisizes the McGinty government for a record number of bans and attenpted bans, as well as many additional laws that ignore the due process that is a cornerstone of democracies. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/200.../bans-2008.html I've heard many times that Private Members Bills rarely succeed, but due to the massive number of them that are created, quite a few PMB's are made into law. A list of current and past PMB's can be found at this link http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_all.do?locale=en The fact that should concern freedom loving members of this Forum, is that the basis for some of these bills are based on lies and misinformation. One example id the so called anti street racing law, officially known as the Safer Streets for a safer Ontario Act. This was originally conceived of by Frank Kless to deal with modified cars running on NOX, but was modified by Liberal MPP Donna Caufied to include a lot of vaguely worded scenarios that would get your car impounded (and possibly destroyed) by the province. The standard photo ops with politicians and police chief patting them selves on the back thinking they have justified their bloated salaries makes them worthy of every citizens disrespect and contempt. http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_1233.aspx The incident that sparked this PMB was misreported by the media and misrepresented by politicians. The whole story can be seen here http://blog.legalaction.ca/does-ontario%E2...rter-of-rights/ It is long over due for people to start questioning politicians on how these PMB's receive enough support to become law. Before the usual we need to be protected from ourselves crowd start their juvenile name calling and baseless arguments, please take the time to read the info in the links I have supplied. Quote
Hydraboss Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 From Keng's link " Motorcycles • Based on motorcycle registrations, the involvement rate of motorcycles in fatal collisions has increased. However, the involvement rate in injury collisions has decreased in 2006. • The majority of motorcycle casualty collisions involved male drivers. Motorcycle drivers under the age of 25 had the highest involvement rate per 1000 licensed drivers. In particular, 16-17 year old motorcycle drivers had an involvement rate per 1000 licensed drivers of 49.8, a rate almost three times greater than that of the 20-24 year old motorcycle drivers. • Compared to drivers involved in total casualty collisions, motorcycle drivers were more likely to run off the road or pass improperly. However, motorcycle drivers were less likely to follow too closely, make an unsafe left turn or commit a stop sign violation. • Compared to drivers involved in all types of vehicle casualty collisions, motorcycle drivers were more likely to have consumed alcohol before the crash. • Vehicle factors were identified for 1.0% of motorcycles involved in casualty collisions compared to 0.8% for all types of vehicles involved in casualty collisions. • The majority of casualty collisions involving motorcycles occurred on dry roads. /" This has to be one of the most ridiculous pieces of...proposed legislation...I've heard of to date. Keng's submission that motorcycle riders are more dangerous is pure bunk. Take those same 16 & 17 year olds and put them in a car, and I guarantee you will have the same damn result - dangerous driving. This has nothing to do with what they operate; it has everything to do with mentality. I've been riding for over 25 years, and I'll tell you that I am a hundred-fold more cautious when I'm on my bike (even the 990lb one) than I will ever be in a car. As for kids, you are already not allowed to take any passenger that cannot properly reach the footpegs so that rules out 99% of the small children. Motorcycles don't cause traffic deaths...stupidity causes traffic deaths. Quote "racist, intolerant, small-minded bigot" - AND APPARENTLY A SOCIALIST (2010) (2015)Economic Left/Right: 8.38 3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.13 -1.23
eyeball Posted January 23, 2009 Report Posted January 23, 2009 How can they possibly claim that it's unsafe for 14-year-old to ride on a motorcycle, while allowing infants to ride in contraptions like this? http://astore.amazon.com/baby-strollers-gu...tail/B000H4E7EO I saw one of these recently, and there were two more kids in the trailer the bike was towing. But worst of all, their Mom was smoking. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
capricorn Posted February 17, 2009 Report Posted February 17, 2009 But worst of all, their Mom was smoking. Ah, but was she ticketed? Questions are being raised about the new law in Ontario that bans anyone from smoking in a vehicle with children under 16 inside.A 20-year-old Port Hope man was given a ticket for smoking in a car with a 15-year-old girl as one of his passengers. While Tory Ashton was waiting for his $155 ticket, the girl got out of the car and legally lit up a cigarette. Port Hope MPP, Lou Rinbaldi, says this is a glitch in the law that should be examined. The anti-smoking law took effect in January. It’s designed to protect children from highly concentrated tobacco smoke inside vehicles. http://www.cfra.com/?cat=3&nid=63133 It's illegal to sell smokes to minors, but it's not illegal for minors to smoke. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
eyeball Posted February 17, 2009 Report Posted February 17, 2009 It's illegal to sell smokes to minors, but it's not illegal for minors to smoke. Oh the humanity. Makes good sense to me that the same people telling them this also tell them pot is bad for them. Yup, that'll work. Apparently some doctors now say marijuana may cause cancer while others say masturbating may prevent it. When I have grandkids I think I'll tell them that masturbating will also make them immune to bullshit. That should really give the little bastards something to think about. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
madmax Posted February 17, 2009 Report Posted February 17, 2009 Ah, but was she ticketed?http://www.cfra.com/?cat=3&nid=63133 It's illegal to sell smokes to minors, but it's not illegal for minors to smoke. This is rediculous. McGuinty wants to legislate every act of individual freedom. He wants to create a straw man, and then the legislation is used improperly, or is draconian, or MAKES NO SENSE. The only one he has backed down on, was when the kids used Facebook as a weapon and had 100,000 supporters in 48 hours. The irony of the girl smoking, makes a mockery of the law and the intent of the law. Quote
capricorn Posted February 17, 2009 Report Posted February 17, 2009 The irony of the girl smoking, makes a mockery of the law and the intent of the law. Imagine if the girl had lit the smoke while still in the car. Maybe she too would have been ticketed for smoking with a minor present in the car (herself). Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
guyser Posted February 17, 2009 Report Posted February 17, 2009 Imagine if the girl had lit the smoke while still in the car. Maybe she too would have been ticketed for smoking with a minor present in the car (herself). Who knows , a young girl was arrested for possesion of child porn , she had taken photos of herself naked. Laws , at times, dont make sense. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted February 17, 2009 Report Posted February 17, 2009 Who knows , a young girl was arrested for possesion of child porn , she had taken photos of herself naked. Laws , at times, dont make sense. These laws do make sense if you can make sense of the sinister insincere mind that comes up with these rules --- The Ontraio socialist wack jobs put the no smoking law in place not to protect children but to further remove parental rights over their offspring. This is clearly the state saying to the livestock (citizen) - Your children are not your property they are our property to control and mold into what we desire - This law was actually an attack against independent parents...slowly,incrimentally the agenda is to remove parents from the equation. If you were to ask one of these hypocritical law makers to give up a weeks pay to feed a poor child...they would not ---- These are the same people who say that a husband or a wife are not property - That a wife does not belong to a husband and a husband is not the property of the wife. So if we belong to no one then we must belong to everybody---and may as well be gang raped repeatedly by the state that seeks to OWN us and our children. I would rather toss a babe into the river than submit to these A holes.... It is the lowest form of rule to control citizens emotionally through what they love and charish most - THEIR CHILDREN.. Quote
guyser Posted February 17, 2009 Report Posted February 17, 2009 --- The Ontraio socialist wack jobs put the no smoking law in place not to protect children but to further remove parental rights over their offspring. This is clearly the state saying to the livestock (citizen) - Your children are not your property they are our property to control and mold into what we desire - This law was actually an attack against independent parents...slowly,incrimentally the agenda is to remove parents from the equation. Uh huh....yup , you really nailed this one. 'Cept you forgot the part about the Courts being in on it too.Oh and the Lawyers, the Jews.....did I leave any of your whack job notions out? Quote
Oleg Bach Posted February 17, 2009 Report Posted February 17, 2009 Uh huh....yup , you really nailed this one. 'Cept you forgot the part about the Courts being in on it too.Oh and the Lawyers, the Jews.....did I leave any of your whack job notions out? This is very disheartening and highly unfair and nasty. I don't know who or what you are - but to toss in this grey poison as if I was a hater is inaccurate but probably highly satisfying to your ego and your support of a decayed status quo...you will say and do anything for money?...correct! As for the courts...they have no authoriship in this engineering I mention - Judges that are appointed are appointed because of their lack of intelligence these days....It's not their fault - so you can put that judical hate crime theory of yours to rest. The Jew thing ---- that was very stero-typical on your part...You know full and well that the poor Jews have no real authorship also....You are just a common hench person doing your job - I understand that but I will never empower your type with respect - Do you understand.? Quote
Oleg Bach Posted February 17, 2009 Report Posted February 17, 2009 FURTHERMORE: Once you corner these second rate bureacrats and their handlers the last care and concern are the "children" ------- their first concern is their mortgage - their delightfully gifted kids colleage fund Food for their bellies and that nice car to go to the northern cottage and that fine southern resort in the winter..............HYPOCRITES.........Do you understand what that word means? Probably not! Quote
guyser Posted February 17, 2009 Report Posted February 17, 2009 This is very disheartening and highly unfair and nasty. I don't know who or what you are - but to toss in this grey poison as if I was a hater is inaccurate but probably highly satisfying to your ego and your support of a decayed status quo Unfair and nasty? Oh brother ...you will say and do anything for money?...correct! Damn right. Everyman has his price. Judges that are appointed are appointed because of their lack of intelligence these days You're a Judge? Quote
Oleg Bach Posted February 17, 2009 Report Posted February 17, 2009 Unfair and nasty? Oh brother Damn right. Everyman has his price. You're a Judge? It does not say do not judge...."Judge lest ye be judged" - meaning if you are not afraid to be judged then all the power too you and judge - damn right I am a judge...and you -- are convicted of taking a bribe my good man! "every man has his price" - with your own mouth I sentence you... Having fun yet? Quote
guyser Posted February 18, 2009 Report Posted February 18, 2009 damn right I am a judge... Ok.... Oleg BachJudges that are appointed are appointed because of their lack of intelligence these days Quote
Oleg Bach Posted February 18, 2009 Report Posted February 18, 2009 Ok.... I was almost fearful to open the thread when I saw your name ---- I am not appointed - I am self appointed and annointed.. The Judges are not skilled..seriously - If you want to become real good at something as I have in some areas - you have go by the rule...the TEN THOUSAND HOUR RULE...which means you put in ten thousand hours into developing a skill and you will own that skill. The problem with todays average judge is that they have not put in the appropriate time actually making judgements..because the whole system is policy driven - they rarely judge. So in truth that average judge sitting on the bench may if hard working and rebelious towards the appointers...might have a few hundrend hours of skillful judgement under their belt - That's not enough to be considered a judge. Look at the Advocacy Society Of Upper Canada... they are a private club of old lawyers from rich families who have certain values and agendas in buisness - who appoint their juniors....They are not going to appoint someone who will not pull the party line...they appoint those that do what they are told - so in fact you have a judical shadow government in effect.... should I send you a bill for the lesson? Quote
guyser Posted February 18, 2009 Report Posted February 18, 2009 should I send you a bill for the lesson? Heres a nickel, keep the change. Of the Judges I know, none of them come even close to your description. Like I said before....you lost , we get it. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted February 18, 2009 Report Posted February 18, 2009 Ok.... I was almost fearful to open the thread when I saw your name ---- I am not appointed - I am self appointed and annointed.. The Judges are not skilled..seriously - If you want to become real good at something as I have in some areas - you have go by the rule...the TEN THOUSAND HOUR RULE...which means you put in ten thousand hours into developing a skill and you will own that skill. The problem with todays average judge is that they have not put in the appropriate time actually making judgements..because the whole system is policy driven - they rarely judge. So in truth that average judge sitting on the bench may if hard working and rebelious towards the appointers...might have a few hundrend hours of skillful judgement under their belt - That's not enough to be considered a judge. Look at the Advocacy Society Of Upper Canada... they are a private club of old lawyers from rich families who have certain values and agendas in buisness - who appoint their juniors....They are not going to appoint someone who will not pull the party line...they appoint those that do what they are told - so in fact you have a judical shadow government in effect.... should I send you a bill for the lesson? Quote
Average Joe Posted February 25, 2009 Report Posted February 25, 2009 The government wouldn't have to legislate such things if people weren't so stupid about certain things. You can't make common sense laws every time someone does something YOU perceive wrong. Would I do it ? No. Is it right or wrong, I don't know. Who am I to tell someone how to live their life? Why don't you outlaw kids meals at McDonalds or even the whole company because you think it will lead to fat kids and or adults. Wait a minute we should outlaw video games and tv because all that promotes is outta shape people as well, I can't remember the last time I had to slow down for a street hockey game. While we are making all these laws, lets mandate 1 hour outdoor exercise for everyone at 6 o'clock every night, do a couple of laps of the neighbourhood and get to know everyone and promote the it takes a village to raise a child theme to new levels. I just wish all levels of government would get back to the basics and stop trying to save the morons from themselves, no matter how hard you try you are not going to stop people from doing foolish things. Just leave me alone, my folks raised me with common sense and I don't need big brother checking on me . Quote
madmax Posted February 25, 2009 Report Posted February 25, 2009 Can I interest you in a home energy audit, courtesy of the Ontario Liberals? Quote
DrGreenthumb Posted February 25, 2009 Report Posted February 25, 2009 It is the lowest form of rule to control citizens emotionally through what they love and charish most - THEIR CHILDREN.. Kind of like taking a person's children into "protective custody" because they had a few unaproved houseplants in their home? Honestly I can think of no greater stupidity than insinuating that a child's well being is threatened by the presence of vegetation in the home. There is far more dangerous things to children in every medicine cabinet and under the sinks of 99% of Canadian homes than any potted plant will endanger them. Pills look like candy. Quote
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.