William Ashley Posted September 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 It was. Did you expect the Senate to vanish upon the conclusion of the vote count? I'm not the one who tied snuffing Canada and snuffing the senate together, look again at the posts in question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) I'm not the one who tied snuffing Canada and snuffing the senate together... The Senate won't be snuffed until the country is; or, at least, the provinces are. A federated country requires a bicameral parliament. [sp] Edited September 1, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 The Senate won't be snuffed until the country is; or, at least, the provinces are. A federated country requires a bicameral parliament. [sp] I find myself smarter about the workings of our Parliamentary system, thanks to your posts bambino. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) I find myself smarter about the workings of our Parliamentary system, thanks to your posts bambino. Thank you. Aw, shucks! Yer makin' me blush. [sp] Edited September 2, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted September 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 (edited) This is so scary Omnibus crime bill extension of mission in Libya An agreement with the U.S. on trade and perimeter security Scrapping the gun registry Ending the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly Human smuggling bill Appointment of Supreme Court judges Fall reports from the (new) Auditor General New RCMP commissioner Fall economic statement oh and http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-top-soldier-under-scrutiny-for-jet-setting-ways/article2168996/ Edited September 17, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 Um ... I think HARPER just made it worse. “As you know, when I travel, whenever I travel or, for that matter, any of our ministers travel, on government aircraft that is for personal usage, we reimburse the treasury the [equivalent] commercial cost of that,” Mr. Harper told reporters during a visit to Saskatoon“When [the jets] are used for personal or private travel, that we expect that travel at commercial rates to be reimbursed to the taxpayers,” he said.“That’s what I do and I think that’s protocol that should be respected across government.” So ... just how often does Harper use $12,000/hr government aircraft for personal use, and pay for a $500 commercial flight? Is that supposed to make it ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 (edited) The Senate won't be snuffed until the country is; or, at least, the provinces are. A federated country requires a bicameral parliament. [sp] Well, tell that to the NDP who really do want to snuff the Senate LOL As for keeping criminals in jail, well, that little boy would not have been abducted if that piece of crap hadn't been released, he had been tried at least twice for offences involving minors, He has at least 11 assault and burglary convictions, and was also accused of attempting to abduct and molest a Sparwood boy in 2007. He was convicted of sexual assault in 1985, and more recent one did involve violence which brought an assault conviction. Why was he still out wandering around to commit more crimes. Edited September 17, 2011 by scribblet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 (edited) Well, tell that to the NDP who really do want to snuff the Senate LOL As for keeping criminals in jail, well, that little boy would not have been abducted if that piece of crap hadn't been released, he had been tried at least twice for offences involving minors, He has at least 11 assault and burglary convictions, and was also accused of attempting to abduct and molest a Sparwood boy in 2007. He was convicted of sexual assault in 1985, and more recent one did involve violence which brought an assault conviction. Why was he still out wandering around to commit more crimes. Because there wasn't la enough evidence for the lawyerss to get him convicted. That won't be changed by tougher sentencing. Edited September 17, 2011 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 Well, tell that to the NDP who really do want to snuff the Senate LOL As for keeping criminals in jail, well, that little boy would not have been abducted if that piece of crap hadn't been released, he had been tried at least twice for offences involving minors, He has at least 11 assault and burglary convictions, and was also accused of attempting to abduct and molest a Sparwood boy in 2007. He was convicted of sexual assault in 1985, and more recent one did involve violence which brought an assault conviction. Why was he still out wandering around to commit more crimes. He wasn't taking his medication. If as much money was to be put in to mental health treatment as in Harper's Mega-jails and mandatory sentencing initiatives he wouldn't have been on the street to abduct the boy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 Really, our liberal laws don't allow us to force people to take meds, or put them away in a facility and so on. This guy is just one example of people who should not be wandering free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarg Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 Really, our liberal laws don't allow us to force people to take meds, or put them away in a facility and so on. This guy is just one example of people who should not be wandering free. If you have a propensity for harming others, or say kidnapping children, you shouldn't be in circulation. Some people involved with certain special interests that have a higher likelihood of criminality don't see it that way, some just have a pathetic weakness known as liberal guilt, those people should be ignored and marginalized. Give the guy some help in a controlled environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 17, 2011 Report Share Posted September 17, 2011 Well, tell that to the NDP who really do want to snuff the Senate Why? Does the NDP have some magic way to convince all ten provinces that they don't need any influence in the federal legislative process and the prime minister should have even more power? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted September 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2011 (edited) ---- Edited September 19, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted September 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 19, 2011 (edited) Really, our liberal laws don't allow us to force people to take meds, or put them away in a facility and so on. This guy is just one example of people who should not be wandering free. Sure they do. You don't seem very versed in the mental health diversion side of things. It allows people to be taken out of the court process, and locked away even after the trial process "they are removed from" has finished. No verdict required, essentially the mental health stream can lock people away indefinately without them being able to represent themselves in a "real court". It is totally arbitrary process - far more of a breach of constitutional rights than say the antiterror laws.. these things are indefinate arbitrary imprisonment in the mental health stream. They have places like London Psychiatric, jails for the innocent. http://www.sjhc.london.on.ca/ In the basements of hostpitals - crisis stations around Canada there are people who have no access to justice having their constitutional rights infringed, and the government supporting and turning a blind eye on those violations of peoples basic human rights. They will shove a needle up your but if you don't take those meds. They will strap you to a bed with your hands and legs in restraints, they will lock you in a room, they will shove an IV in your arm. They will abuse your rights. They will physically attack you and drug you with a knock out drug if you attempt to leave and fail. These are prisons for the innocent, those without basic access to the justice system. The fences around those facilities are not to keep people out.. they are to keep people in. These facilities are places with multiple strong door access, meaning that multiple points of locked and secure access doors need to be passed to enter or leave, they are jails for the innocent. Edited September 19, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted September 20, 2011 Report Share Posted September 20, 2011 Why? Does the NDP have some magic way to convince all ten provinces that they don't need any influence in the federal legislative process and the prime minister should have even more power? I didn't say they did, but it's the NDP policy to get rid of the Senate, not the Consdervative policy. 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.