Canada Election 2015

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by kiwi

My biggest issue with Harper is that he brings his personal religious ideology into Canadian social policy and forcing his bible thumping delusions into Canadian law.

This is false to me. I don't think Harper gives two shits about Christianity. It's merely a tool for him to secure his base. Nothing the man does can be considered representative of Christianity. I get that he represents a Canadian version of the Republicans, but even they don't actually represent Christianity in my view.

Harper runs the country like a CEO, not a Bible thumper.

[ssiguy]

Governments come and governments go. Sometimes we agree with most of what they do and if we don't or are sick of them then we just kick them out. Due to this some governments and their policies we like and some we don't, it's just the nature of the beast.

For many in the anti-Harper camp it's not so much his government as much as it is his governance.

The man is a complete dictator who runs the entire government from the PMO and backbenchers are to be seen and not heard. His genuine view is that MPs should NEVER question even the most trivial of regulations........their job is clap like trained penguins at House votes and shut up and collect their paycheque for the remaining 4 years.

He is always right and will never admit a mistake and scientific proof, statistical facts, or just plain common sense is irrelevant. He has a complete antipathy for the democratic process and will of the constituents with his forced MP constraints, puroging {sp?} of parliament, constant use of omnibus bills, and making every trivial vote in the House one of confidence effectively stifling any debate from the opposition or his own MPs.

He refuses to take responsibility for anything except if it works to his benefit and his willingness to toss his so-called friend Nigel Wright under the bus is proof of that.

Even for some who agree with his policies this is why very few totally embrace the man and nearly nobody like him. He is a very nasty, cold, and narcissistic individual and is well reflected in how he governs.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

Well, the way I see it, it's certainly not a personal quest for a "fair" society if you're genuinely trying to make sure there are different types of laws for different types of citizens. You're much closer to... the exact opposite, actually.

Fair == helmet mandatory for everyone on a motorcycle. Period. (Or else, helmet optional... for everyone. It's the case in NH and IIRC several other states.)

Unfair == helmet only legally mandatory for some.

You have to have seriously warped definitions of what's fair to argue for anything else...

So that's the single topic to define your vote in this election? The niqab? Seriously?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I just don't see the functional benefit of this approach. Like I said in the previous post, I see religion as basically the same as a mental illness and approach it in the same way as other disabilities.

But people who do illegal things and then claim mental illness (including religion) normally don't get away with it scot-free.

Either the claim of mental illness is rejected, and they have to face the legal consequences of their actions, or else they are indeed found to be officially mentally ill, in which case they will not be immediately set loose on the streets like a totally normal free citizen with zero medical/psychological follow-up and full freedom.

What you are advocating for is unfair: you want to have mentally ill people be officially able to get away with things that non-mentally-ill people wouldn't be able to get away with, YET at the same time you also want these mentally ill people to continue to fully enjoy normal non-mentally-ill citizens' rights.

If I walk on the street fully naked, and decide to claim "mental illness/religion" as my reason for doing so, fine, but I can't expect to get a free pass from the authorities to continue to do so unpunished and with no consequences.

That's how it is now, and that's how it should continue to be.

Being officially recognized as mentally ill does allow you to have much lighter consequences for your past illegal actions, but it does not allow you to continue "business as usual" like you weren't mentally ill. Can't have it both ways. If you're mentally ill, the healthcare system will normally be trying to take care of you to fix that problem...

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lio45

Mental illness doesn't give one a free pass to disrespect laws without having to face the consequences either...

So the phrase "Not criminally responsible" doesn't ring any bells? Don't you live near QC?

But of course we're talking about how we choose to write the laws, not how the laws are enforced once they're written.

Originally Posted by lio45

Fine. Let them set their own priorities then.

If your religion forbids you from wearing brown, it's your choice to refuse that UPS job offer. "Spending an eternity in damnation" is a pretty big deal, so I can understand setting your priorities that way -- but you can't have it all. Priorities mean sacrifices. It's like that for everyone. No one can keep their cake intact while also eating it.

Remember, I'm only talking about the state, not private enterprise.

But I think you have to be very careful with the direction of that argument. Saying that it's ok to do something that people find very upsetting and traumatic because they're making the choice to resist it could be used to justify a lot of things that would be better handled with a touch of empathy and compassion.

Originally Posted by lio45

A bias in favor of the State being secular and religion-neutral, sure.

Most people, at least here, would be biased like that (90%+ of people) and it's not going to change.

No, a bias in favour of sticking it to the religious and subtly trying to steer them away from religion by making things as unpleasant as possible. A state being secular and religion neutral means not trying to encourage (or discourage) religion and not favouring one religion over another. It has nothing to do with considering the comfort or wishes of will of the varying people you represent when structuring your legal framework.

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I agree with that and it annoys me when people make self-centered comments being worried about "my portfolio." Well I'm not wealthy enough to even have a portfolio.

I've had an investment account since I was in high school earning minimum wage. Nobody "isn't wealthy enough" to have a portfolio, it's simply a matter of priorities and discipline.

I don't mean to single you out with this statement either, Loco. This is a sentiment I hear all the time and I think it really points to a deficiency in our education system with respect to personal finance. With online self directed investing, it is very cheap and easy to manage your own portfolio these days. I am lucky that I've been interested in investing since a young age and was able to teach myself; but most people are not in the same situation. There really needs to be a greater focus on teaching important concepts like time value of money, mortgage financing, and savings / investment in this country.

[Black Star]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

This kind of thinking is what's — us over collectively. Environment<Economy. Social justice<Economy. Refugee crisis<Economy. Privacy<Economy. Human rights<Economy.

Any important issue always gets trumped by the economy in a Conservative mind. All that matters is what your investment portfolio is doing today. Fuck future generations. Fuck poor people. Fuck third world countries. Fuck the environment. This Wall Street mentality is ruining the world. Want proof? Look no further than that asshole who bought the rights to that drug used to treat Aids and Cancer patients and raised the cost 5000% overnight. Under our system he's doing nothing wrong. I'm not equating you to him but this is where that line of reasoning ultimately leads.

Also how much of this business uneasiness is becoming self fulfilling prophecy for conservatives? The government hasn't even produced their first budget yet. Lay off the anxiety meds.

No one is disputing the fact that a healthy environment or social issues are not important. There all of course piece of the collective pie.

The last I checked. All of what you just said is financed by a healthy economy.

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I agree with that and it annoys me when people make self-centered comments being worried about "my portfolio." Well I'm not wealthy enough to even have a portfolio. I would prefer that we all have excellent health and social services before having a portfolio.

+1.

It's not the government's job to protect your investments - it's an individual's job to invest wisely. If you're portfolio is taking a huge hit due to the election of a government who has committed to minor tweaks of law and policy, you've either done a terrible job at investing or the ultimate blame for your loss lies elsewhere (the drop in oil prices, let's say).

Sometimes governments have to intervene in the market for the greater social good, and sometimes that means some investors lose out. There were plenty of people who were hit hard by the restrictions put on tobacco, for example, but I think we can all agree that those restrictions have accomplished an important social good.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

So that's the single topic to define your vote in this election? The niqab? Seriously?

No, not at all, but it does drive both the NDP and LPC slightly down in my overall voting intentions while pushing both the BQ and CPC up a bit.

Which... merely widened the gap that was already there.

[MolsonExport]

Harper's the only one IMO that can ruin our economy. And make us look like goofs and weaklings on the International stage.

Moderator to Harper......How would you respond to climate change?.....Crowd just starts to laugh!!

amen broutha

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lio45

But people who do illegal things and then claim mental illness (including religion) normally don't get away with it scot-free.

Either the claim of mental illness is rejected, and they have to face the legal consequences of their actions, or else they are indeed found to be officially mentally ill, in which case they will not be immediately set loose on the streets like a totally normal free citizen with zero medical/psychological follow-up and full freedom.

What you are advocating for is unfair: you want to have mentally ill people be officially able to get away with things that non-mentally-ill people wouldn't be able to get away with, YET at the same time you also want these mentally ill people to continue to fully enjoy normal non-mentally-ill citizens' rights.

If I walk on the street fully naked, and decide to claim "mental illness/religion" as my reason for doing so, fine, but I can't expect to get a free pass from the authorities to continue to do so unpunished and with no consequences.

That's how it is now, and that's how it should continue to be.

Being officially recognized as mentally ill does allow you to have much lighter consequences for your past illegal actions, but it does not allow you to continue "business as usual" like you weren't mentally ill. Can't have it both ways. If you're mentally ill, the healthcare system will normally be trying to take care of you to fix that problem...

I think I need to clarify something. I'm not referring to laws that have other citizens as the victim, ie, assaulting, harassing, stealing from, or otherwise oppressing in any way. I'm only referring to things like the citizenship oath, where the only real issue is an objection solely on principles.

As far as —, I don't think that should be illegal period.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

So the phrase "Not criminally responsible" doesn't ring any bells?

Yes, but that status (mentally ill therefore not criminally responsible) comes with nearly-permanent MAJOR trade-offs in terms of "ordinary free citizen" rights.

What you're arguing for with your religion analogy is letting people be mentally ill criminals, be declared "not criminally responsible", AND continue to live exactly like non-mentally-ill, non-criminal, ordinary citizens, free to continue their "criminal" behavior, for which they're getting a "mentally ill" pass.

It's not AT ALL how it works, nor is it how it should work...

I know you posted before reading the post right above yours, in which I've been addressing all this before you posted... but my reply to this argument of yours is already written there, in that post.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

You do realize that the only way to address many of the issues you apparently care about is through a strong economy, right?

A society that does not value entrepreneurs and the contributions that they make will ultimately become an impoverished society. An impoverished society will not be able to provide the social services we all desire.

Many left wingers can't grasp how important wealth creation is.

Then explain to me why countries like Norway and Sweden have managed to do it so well without turning into this post-apocalyptic wasteland Conservatives always claim socialism leads to?

I am an entrepreneur. I work for a small business. I'm not anti-business. I'm anti corporate dole outs and anti growth at all costs.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Governments come and governments go. Sometimes we agree with most of what they do and if we don't or are sick of them then we just kick them out. Due to this some governments and their policies we like and some we don't, it's just the nature of the beast.

For many in the anti-Harper camp it's not so much his government as much as it is his governance.

The man is a complete dictator who runs the entire government from the PMO and backbenchers are to be seen and not heard. His genuine view is that MPs should NEVER question even the most trivial of regulations........their job is clap like trained penguins at House votes and shut up and collect their paycheque for the remaining 4 years.

He is always right and will never admit a mistake and scientific proof, statistical facts, or just plain common sense is irrelevant. He has a complete antipathy for the democratic process and will of the constituents with his forced MP constraints, puroging {sp?} of parliament, constant use of omnibus bills, and making every trivial vote in the House one of confidence effectively stifling any debate from the opposition or his own MPs.

He refuses to take responsibility for anything except if it works to his benefit and his willingness to toss his so-called friend Nigel Wright under the bus is proof of that.

Even for some who agree with his policies this is why very few totally embrace the man and nearly nobody like him. He is a very nasty, cold, and narcissistic individual and is well reflected in how he governs.

Well put. He has actually alienated many Conservatives as well for these reasons. I know a few who will be voting ABC for the first time in their lives. He also doesn't like it when there's someone smarter than him in the same room so he insulates himself with yes men and ostracizes critics.

[Black Star]

Originally Posted by wg_flamip

+1.

It's not the government's job to protect your investments - it's an individual's job to invest wisely. If you're portfolio is taking a huge hit due to the election of a government who has committed to minor tweaks of law and policy, you've either done a terrible job at investing or the ultimate blame for your loss lies elsewhere (the drop in oil prices, let's say).

Sometimes governments have to intervene in the market for the greater social good, and sometimes that means some investors lose out. There were plenty of people who were hit hard by the restrictions put on tobacco, for example, but I think we can all agree that those restrictions have accomplished an important social good.

No it's not the governments job as you say!

Since the dawn of time... Governments in a capitalist system or any governmental system will to a small or large degree dictate how a economy will react to their financial philosophy. If you have some financial knowledge on how my portfolio will not be affected by govt policy I'm all ears!

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Acajack

That's actually pretty insulting to persons with disabilities. Obviously you don't have a disability or someone close to you who does.

What made me think of this scenario was asking a worker at a government facility if there was an elevator there and they replied "Yes, but it's only for the disabled". In fact I was asking on behalf of my disabled mother.

I'm curious about which aspect of what I wrote that you consider insulting.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

No, a bias in favour of sticking it to the religious and subtly trying to steer them away from religion by making things as unpleasant as possible. A state being secular and religion neutral means not trying to encourage (or discourage) religion and not favouring one religion over another. It has nothing to do with considering the comfort or wishes of will of the varying people you represent when structuring your legal framework.

So, you honestly believe that, say, supporting having rules in place to prevent kids from bringing lethal weapons to school... is in fact an attitude that's mainly motivated by a hidden anti-Sikh agenda?!?

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Black Star

No one is disputing the fact that a healthy environment or social issues are not important. There all of course piece of the collective pie.

The last I checked. All of what you just said is financed by a healthy economy.

That balance has been completely reversed under Harper's tenure as PM. The economy trumps everything else, even science to this government. And what do we have to show for it now? An economy that's tanking because Harper put all our eggs in the oilsands basket.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lio45

Yes, but that status (mentally ill therefore not criminally responsible) comes with nearly-permanent MAJOR trade-offs in terms of "ordinary free citizen" rights.

What you're arguing for with your religion analogy is letting people be mentally ill criminals, be declared "not criminally responsible", AND continue to live exactly like non-mentally-ill, non-criminal, ordinary citizens, free to continue their "criminal" behavior, for which they're getting a "mentally ill" pass.

It's not AT ALL how it works, nor is it how it should work...

I know you posted before reading the post right above yours, in which I've been addressing all this before you posted... but my reply to this argument of yours is already written there, in that post.

Correct, I hadn't seen it. The page is moving very quickly and it's tough to keep up lol. And you may not have seen the post above this where I responded to the suggestion that I wish to give a free pass to criminal behaviour.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

As far as —, I don't think that should be illegal period.

...

That's a bit extreme, at first sight, but come to think of it, I think I'd be libertarian enough to agree with you on that one.

I mean, why not?

As long, of course, as the rules are the same for everyone. Either anyone can be naked, or no one can. As you probably could've guessed by now, I personally wouldn't support anything like "Jews can legally walk around naked for some reason, but non-Jews can't", etc.