Argus Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 The guy who's constantly calling people idiots complete misses the point. Imagine that. I'm not constantly calling people idiots. In fact, I rarely call people idiots. Sometimes I call them morons, or sub-literate cretins or other things but only where applicable. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Why should I provide YOU of all people a reference to Supreme Court rulings? You don't even understand their role or what they do and you refuse to learn. Because thems the rules of the web site and basic logic, comrade. If you want to complain about something then show me the evidence, don't complain and then tell me to look it up. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Thanks for the compliment. Trudeau is taking money from those little voices so he can be the mouthpeice. In actual fact, the Conservative Party has always gotten the bulk of its money from small, private donations from numerous little people. One of the reasons the Liberals have been in trouble the last decade is that most of their money came in big, fat cheques from rich people and corporations, and that was no longer legal. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
GostHacked Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 In actual fact, the Conservative Party has always gotten the bulk of its money from small, private donations from numerous little people. One of the reasons the Liberals have been in trouble the last decade is that most of their money came in big, fat cheques from rich people and corporations, and that was no longer legal. Are you telling me that people with money can buy power and influence? I am taken aback by this incredible revelation. Quote
Argus Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Are you telling me that people with money can buy power and influence? I am taken aback by this incredible revelation. Merely pointing out that your statement that he is taking money from 'little people' to be their voice was in the context that he didn't have any damned choice any more. Otherwise he'd be holding those $25,000 a plate fundraising dinners like his predecessors had. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
GostHacked Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Merely pointing out that your statement that he is taking money from 'little people' to be their voice was in the context that he didn't have any damned choice any more. Otherwise he'd be holding those $25,000 a plate fundraising dinners like his predecessors had. I was refferring to a point where he was getting paid for making speeches at certain institutions. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/06/16/justin_trudeau_offers_to_pay_back_all_public_speaking_earnings.html OTTAWA—Federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is offering to compensate all the organizations for which he did paid public-speaking engagements while an MP, saying Canadians expect a lot of him and he wants to make it right. Trudeau was responding to a simmering controversy over how charities were billed for speeches he delivered between 2008 and 2012, including a demand late last week that he return the $20,000 that he charged a financially troubled seniors organization. “I’m willing to pay all of it back if that’s what it comes to,” Trudeau told interviewer Kevin Newman on Question Period, CTV’s Sunday political-affairs show. “I’m going to fix this.” He could have just done it for free to begin with. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Oh, I see! It's the lack of statistics which is bothering you! These cases are not isolated. Right now two guys are on trial for trying to blow up a train south of Toronto. Wow. I wonder how they ever ended up on trial. Could it be we already have laws on the books. Quote
dre Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 and no judge can, under the constitution grant permission to ignore the constitution. Yes they can... virtually any of your rights can be suspended by the judiciary. Im wondering how anyone could even make a statement like this... Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Derek 2.0 Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Politics plays a part in how almost every bill is drafted, regardless of what party is in power. And without a doubt, the Liberals support of the Bill is also politics.......and I assume the the adults within the LPC attempting to avert disaster in October. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 That's why Justin Trudeau appeals to so many. He doesn't play the partisan nonsense, and he truly cares about all Canadians, not just the filthy rich. Be back in a minute - I have to throw up. You DO realize that the Liberals were most impacted by the campaign financing changes - because it was the "filthy" rich and big business who donated most to the Liberals - while the little guys were donating to the Conservatives. Quote Back to Basics
Keepitsimple Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Like Argus, after 16 pages now - I haven't seen any explanation of how this legislation - specifically - would affect the rights of everyday Canadians. What rights - and how so? I previously posted the experience of the UK but it seems to tellingly have been ignored: In Canada, academics and advocacy groups are warning about threats to freedom of speech from a law that would put people in jail for five years for the advocacy or promotion of “the commission of terrorism offences in general” whether such acts are done intentionally or recklessly. Liberty, a British human rights group, presented the same arguments in 2006. It argued that an overly broad definition of “terrorism” might lead to passionate expression of a political view being interpreted as the reckless encouragement of a crime that could turn those calling for the overthrow of repressive regimes such as North Korea and Zimbabwe into terror advocates. Walker said much of the controversy has blown over, primarily because there have been so few charges. “Police are being very cautious about the use of these powers and these offences,” he said. “They realize that they will always be viewed as controversial or infringements of free speech and so they seem to be very reluctant to use these powers except against blatant and repeated cases.” Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/02/06/few-convictions-under-uk-terror-law-that-served-as-model-for-canada.html# Quote Back to Basics
Derek 2.0 Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Like Argus, after 16 pages now - I haven't seen any explanation of how this legislation - specifically - would affect the rights of everyday Canadians. What rights - and how so? I previously posted the experience of the UK but it seems to tellingly have been ignored: Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/02/06/few-convictions-under-uk-terror-law-that-served-as-model-for-canada.html# Agreed…….the legislation, in full, is available online………what changes exactly are people so apparently fearful of? Quote
eyeball Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 And you were never going to vote for him not matter what he does. So your opinion is irrelevant.I thought it didn't matter who voted for who once an election was over. Oh well another illusion shattered.BTW Chretien also introduced Anti-Terrorism laws, was he killing our democracy too?Absolutely. Our politicians are dancing around a common center of fear and in a doe-see-doe fashion taking us towards authoritarianism not away from it. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Bob Macadoo Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 I thought it didn't matter who voted for who once an election was over. Oh well another illusion shattered. Absolutely. Our politicians are dancing around a common center of fear and in a doe-see-doe fashion taking us towards authoritarianism not away from it. I notice when a non-partisan admission is made the partisan that initiated this speaking point ignores the reply and moves onto another member for a partisan jab. Why is it so hard to believe people think past actions/behaviours were unacceptable? Is everything in the past beyond reflection and improvement? Quote
Argus Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Wow. I wonder how they ever ended up on trial. Could it be we already have laws on the books. Until such time as you become an expert in how to weed out terrorists and would-be terrorists from among the more 'peaceful' Muslims I think I'll listen to those who ARE experts when they ask for a few more tools. That's especially so given your complete inability to show the damage to my 'rights' caused by this legislation. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) Yes they can... virtually any of your rights can be suspended by the judiciary. Im wondering how anyone could even make a statement like this... Are you being pedantic? If the constitution allows for certain types of treatment by government then that treatment is by definition constitutional. That does not mean the judge or the police are 'ignoring the constitution.' Edited February 8, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Until such time as you become an expert in how to weed out terrorists and would-be terrorists from among the more 'peaceful' Muslims I think I'll listen to those who ARE experts when they ask for a few more tools. That's especially so given your complete inability to show the damage to my 'rights' caused by this legislation. You yourself can see that the people you mentioned who are currently, are there with the use of existing laws. Perhaps if you think about it for a while you may just be able to the significant difference between that a crime (will be) and (may be) commited with regard to the lowering of the threshold required to get a judge to issue a warrant to throw you in jail. Plus it makes CSIS a pseudo police force who can look over your shoulder as they wish. Police themselves have said they dont need more powers, they need more resources to uphold the ones they already have, which Harper has depleted through budget cuts. Quote
socialist Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 Be back in a minute - I have to throw up. You DO realize that the Liberals were most impacted by the campaign financing changes - because it was the "filthy" rich and big business who donated most to the Liberals - while the little guys were donating to the Conservatives. Do you have any evidence to back this up, because I simply don't believe it. Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
Big Guy Posted February 8, 2015 Report Posted February 8, 2015 To Keepitsimple - I have been trying to find any research and stats that would indicate any correlation between the support for a federal political party and the income of the individual. I have been unable to locate it. Please share your source. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Keepitsimple Posted February 9, 2015 Report Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Do you have any evidence to back this up, because I simply don't believe it. For Socialist and Big Guy: I'd appreciate if you could acknowledge what I said, supported by this CBC article. Does it change your view in any way - to know that what you've always believed is exactly the opposite? Didn't think so...... The Liberals, who had been heavily reliant on donations from corporations and wealthy individuals, struggled for years to raise money under the new regime. Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-post-best-fundraising-results-in-10-years-just-in-time-for-election-1.2919270 Edited February 9, 2015 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Big Guy Posted February 9, 2015 Report Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Thank you for the source. I was hoping for a more detailed statistical report rather than an approximation by a reporter. The article did quote the reporter as stating the Liberals had been relying on corporations and wealthy individuals before the new rules came in but are doing far better now. I could find no reference as to Conservatives being funded by the little guys. But that is political nit picking and I am not into that. I do try to understand the Canadian electorate. I find it interesting to see voting patterns and how they can be manipulated. Unfortunately voting and support patterns change depending on Polls. For example, an EKOS poll showed that 37% of people who had not finished high school voted Liberal but 63% who were University graduates voted Liberal. The more education you have generally the more money you make so that may explain the more wealthy voting Liberal. Does that mean anything - I do not know. But I have been looking for any statistical correlation between income and political position. I am not into the "my guy is better than your guy" silly arguments I read here so please don't expect one. If you do locate an impartial statistical analysis which shows any correlation between political leanings and income I would appreciate the source. Thank you for your reply. Edited February 9, 2015 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
On Guard for Thee Posted February 9, 2015 Report Posted February 9, 2015 Thank you for the source. I was hoping for a more detailed statistical report rather than an approximation by a reporter. The article did quote the reporter as stating the Liberals had been relying on corporations and wealthy individuals before the new rules came in but are doing far better now. I could find no reference as to Conservatives being funded by the little guys. But that is political nit picking and I am not into that. I do try to understand the Canadian electorate. I find it interesting to see voting patterns and how they can be manipulated. Unfortunately voting and support patterns change depending on Polls. For example, an EKOS poll showed that 37% of people who had not finished high school voted Liberal but 63% who were University graduates voted Liberal. The more education you have generally the more money you make so that may explain the more wealthy voting Liberal. Does that mean anything - I do not know. But I have been looking for any statistical correlation between income and political position. I am not into the "my guy is better than your guy" silly arguments I read here so please don't expect one. If you do locate an impartial statistical analysis which shows any correlation between political leanings and income I would appreciate the source. Thank you for your reply. All kinds of surveys point out that people with post graduate degrees tend to vote Liberal, and not only in Canada. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted February 9, 2015 Report Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) All kinds of surveys point out that people with post graduate degrees tend to vote Liberal, and not only in Canada. I agree - and that helps to support the fact that Liberals have been traditionally supported by the rich - who tend to have those post-graduate degrees - and big business - who tend to be led by executives with post-graduate degrees. Academia in general is acknowledged to be Left-leaning. Kind of smacks of those one per-centers that everyone seems to detest, doesn't it? Edited February 9, 2015 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
On Guard for Thee Posted February 9, 2015 Report Posted February 9, 2015 I agree - and that helps to support the fact that Liberals have been traditionally supported by the rich - who tend to have those post-graduate degrees - and big business - who tend to be led by executives with post-graduate degrees. Academia in general is acknowledged to be Left-leaning. Kind of smacks of those one per-centers that everyone seems to detest, doesn't it? No it just indicates that people with higher learning tend to lean toward the political center left. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted February 9, 2015 Report Posted February 9, 2015 Actually, I took my contention a little too far. As per the article I linked to - it was common knowledge that prior to the fundraising rules being changed, the Liberals raised most of their funds through rich individuals and big business - while the Conservatives tended to raise funds from smaller donations and a broader funding base. That's why they held such an advantage when the rules changed. That's a fact. What I did not mean to imply - because I have no data to support it....is that overall, higher incomes tend to vote either Liberal or Conservative. My point was only meant to relate to how the parties raised their funds. Quote Back to Basics
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.