Seriously jays, you always throw a hissy fit and miss the point. When it comes to Trudeau you seem very emotional. Each time his name has been brought up you use the same old homophobic line about him sounding gay etc..like that has some big relevance to the whole thing.
OT: The News Thread
- Thread starter MindzEye
- Start date
LeafGm
Well-known member
While I don't share Jays' vitriolic hatred for Trudeau, those are pretty silly comments by him. Abortion/gay rights are red herrings for those who oppose the Conservatives to go after anyways. Harper has promised that neither of those debates will be re-opened as long as he's PM, and thus far he's been true to his word. One lone wingnut (who's been denounced by Harper and most of the rest of his party) tabling a private member bill aimed at abortion does not change that.
If the Liberals were smart, they'd go after Harper for his record when it comes to civil liberties. The mis-handling and trampling of civil liberties in the G8/G20, Vic Toews' "You either support us or you're a child pornographer" online surveillance bill and Bill C-11 would provide a lot more ammunition against Harper and the Tories for any party that actually wants to take up that cause. Then of course there's always the F-35 purchase, who's costs---as predicted by many, seem to be spiraling way past the absolutely ridiculous "$75M per plane" deal that the Tories claim they've struck, and Haper looking to reduce/delay OAS.
If the Liberals were smart, they'd go after Harper for his record when it comes to civil liberties. The mis-handling and trampling of civil liberties in the G8/G20, Vic Toews' "You either support us or you're a child pornographer" online surveillance bill and Bill C-11 would provide a lot more ammunition against Harper and the Tories for any party that actually wants to take up that cause. Then of course there's always the F-35 purchase, who's costs---as predicted by many, seem to be spiraling way past the absolutely ridiculous "$75M per plane" deal that the Tories claim they've struck, and Haper looking to reduce/delay OAS.
Worse than Joe Clark, Kim Campbell and John Turner, surely you jest.
Hell economically he ran into a number of problems mostly due to the timing of his run in Ottawa but in terms of social issues, he was bang on and arguably our best PM that way. Hell, he brought in a much needed Charter which while flawed due to the Notwithstanding Clause, is better than not having a charter.
I must ask though if the differences between the two parties are marginal at best and I don't necessarily disagree, why were you and the neo-cons on this board, aka Cork and Korea so adamant that you needed a majority and that the country would go down the shithole if Harper (a panty waist intellectual nerd himself) didn't win?
JaysCyYoung
Legend
Neither of those people were in office long enough (same with Sir Charles Tupper) to actually judge their worth as leaders. Similarly, you can't really call Garfield or Henry Harrison the worst American presidents due to lack of tenure.
JaysCyYoung
Legend
The old Bill of Rights was superior in many ways, particularly with its protection of property, which the current edition bizarrely omits.
agreed but for some stupid reason, the majority of the people don't give a crap about that and many hold the view, if you have nothing to hide, why would you care. I think that is an atrocious take but it is out there.
I have argued with lawyers in my own firm who think it is fine for the fuzz to type in your licence plate at stop signs even if you have done nothing wrong, saying well what if the car was stolen. I said don't you know what "reasonable cause" means. They don't seem to care. If lawyers don't care, why would Joe Average care?
JaysCyYoung
Legend
Agreed entirely except for the F-35 purchase comments.
The disdain for civil liberties at a time in the world when people are demanding more and more transparency with respect for their individual privacy rights from their governments is a very concerning development from the current government.
And it will make me re-consider whether they are worthy of receiving my vote again in three years.
Bill of Rights was not constitutional, could be trampled on at any time and was pretty much meaningless.
In any event, no other PM in our history has stared down the separatists the way he did, literally and figuratively. The way he handled the October Crisis alone puts him in the top 5 of all Prime Ministers, with Pearson, MacDonald, Laurier and King
blacksheep
New member
I have to admit, I'm not surprised by your response. Marginal? Chretien wasn't blowing away money on unnecessary new jails to house an increase in unreported crimes, or pushing through sweeping new online spying laws and SOPA-like changes to copyright laws. Sure, Chretien was no angel, and there is Adscam, but post-Chretien, there was also a surplus and single-digit unemployment. Post-Mulroney was a severe deficit, and if Harper continues down this path, post-Harper will be a much larger one.
As for P.E. Trudeau, he ruled this nation for over a decade, and protected us from some of the worst shit we've ever faced since WWII. He almost single-handedly ended the terror reign of the FLQ, and negotiated most of the outstanding First Nations issues out. None of his deals on those have come back to haunt us to this day. And like any other PM, he was no angel. He made crucial errors as well, but at least he wasn't lying to every single reporter who asked a question, or staging who can even ask questions at a press conference, like Harper's doing now. P.E. Trudeau also never caved to U.S. demands of Canada. His most famous picture was him fresh off a plane on the tarmac in the U.S. and shooting the finger at the camera. Love it. Much rather a man willing to stand up for Canada and Canadians than a weasel who pursues all the same draconian control and spy legislation that RWNJs south of the border demand of him.
Justin is nothing like his father, but given the legacy behind him, and his education and travel records, he's far more credible an opinion than you give him credit for.
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
One of my many current gripes is the Ontario governments ability to repossess your personal vehicle if you're caught going 50 over the limit. Do whatever you want to the license of the individual, that's well within a governments rights imo....but if I'm running a 120K BMW M6, who is anyone to take the fruits of my labour away from me without compensation?
Bleedsblue&white
Well-known member
Harper will have taken more than that by the time he's done, if we let him.
LeafGm
Well-known member
Glad to see we're in agreement (well, except for the F-35's).
It sucks though. I strongly suspect that I'm going to be ****ed when the next Federal election comes around. Bob Rae will likely have weaseled his way into taking the "interim" out of his current title and will be running the Liberals, so I won't be able to vote for them. If Harper keeps on pissing me off with his attacks on civil liberties, and if he forges stupidly ahead with purchasing those fighter jets even if they end up costing us double what they claimed they would, I won't possibly be able to vote for the Tories. I wouldn't trust the NDP and all of their "orange wave" nobodies to run a Dairy Queen, let alone the country. And then finally, I don't agree with the concept of a "protest vote", so I won't vote for the Green Party. I also don't believe it's proper to not vote at all.
Blech.
not sure if property rights would protect you
nominate Korea in your riding, then vote for him
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
A lot better than no property rights do. There isn't a leg to stand on right now if you want to challenge the constitutionality of Ontario's repossession law, if property rights were included in the Charter, there would absolutely end up being a challenge of the law on Constitutional grounds, and probably an overturn of it.
"Property" doesn't just mean where you live.
I suspect section 1 would save it to some extent depending on how it was crafted
police reason not to, "you will catch us beating up suspects" and "hey how can we then have sex with those we pick up"
a case just came down from the SCC I believe in that regard where the police tried to get a tape of some wrongdoing thrown out. A lawyer used his cellphone to video what was going on, they said it was two separate people and as a result was inadmissible. court said it was admissible. How that would apply to an individual is not known but it might be ok.