Election 2015

[StevetheClub]

Tough to be anti death penalty a day after a 2 year old was killed.

Not if you really believe in it. It's not emotional for me. If that was my child would I want to rip his throat out? Ofcourse. But unemotionally and taking God out of the debate we can't have a death penalty when we've convicted innocent people. Period.

Why is God part of the debate? Piece of advice: just ignore the fundamentalists

If your faith is important to you, why wouldn't God be part of the debate? And what does that have to do with fundamentalism?

[The Unknown Poster]

 

Then we agree!

Oh yes. I don't know why you can't be a conservative & not be religious. I'm definitely not a social conservative. That guy Huckabee in the US sticking up for Kim Davis is a joke.

 

I agree there too.  Huckabee is a disgraceful person.  I get that there can be the perception of bias towards Christians especially in the sense people seem open to letting other religions be practiced freely and yet sort of snub their nose at Christianity.  But I think some Christians are overly sensitive in that they think any exception to the far right or certain issues is an attack on the entire religion and thats generally not true.

 

Here's a classic scene from West Wing that illustrates some of the issues with the religious right's silly attack on gay marriage as a religious freedom.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHN2yO3QeXU

[The Unknown Poster]

 

 

 

Tough to be anti death penalty a day after a 2 year old was killed.

Not if you really believe in it. It's not emotional for me. If that was my child would I want to rip his throat out? Ofcourse. But unemotionally and taking God out of the debate we can't have a death penalty when we've convicted innocent people. Period.

Why is God part of the debate? Piece of advice: just ignore the fundamentalists

If your faith is important to you, why wouldn't God be part of the debate? And what does that have to do with fundamentalism?

 

God is important to me.  my point was to say, Im against the death penalty for reasons that have nothing to do with faith.  Because if the debate centers on religion, then you start entering territory that a lot of people cant buy into.  I've always been against capital punishment.  Im not sure I'd be in favour if justice was perfect either...for example we know Paul Bernardo did it.  Thats usually the response from the other side "well what about Paul Bernardo". 

[StevetheClub]

 

 

 

 

Tough to be anti death penalty a day after a 2 year old was killed.

Not if you really believe in it. It's not emotional for me. If that was my child would I want to rip his throat out? Ofcourse. But unemotionally and taking God out of the debate we can't have a death penalty when we've convicted innocent people. Period.

Why is God part of the debate? Piece of advice: just ignore the fundamentalists

If your faith is important to you, why wouldn't God be part of the debate? And what does that have to do with fundamentalism?

 

God is important to me.  my point was to say, Im against the death penalty for reasons that have nothing to do with faith.  Because if the debate centers on religion, then you start entering territory that a lot of people cant buy into.  I've always been against capital punishment.  Im not sure I'd be in favour if justice was perfect either...for example we know Paul Bernardo did it.  Thats usually the response from the other side "well what about Paul Bernardo". 

 

 

I hear you and I think you make sense. I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to Mark H.

[iso_55]

Bernardo who was also convicted of other rapes & his wife Karla Homolka who is now free under an assumed name. She even remarried & is allowed to have children after all that happened. Both should have been executed for what they did to Homolka's sister.

Clifford Olsen who raped, tortured, strangled & bludgeoned 11 (that Police know of) children while tormenting the families of the dead kids during his trial & subsequent parole hearings should have been put to death. He loved the attention he got from the news media. Luckily, cancer did the job our justice system wouldn't do in 2011 when he passed away. 

Robert Picton murdered 6 women & buried them on his pig farm in BC. From all accounts, the crime scene was absolutely horrific yet he lives.

The guy who murdered those police officers in cold blood in Halifax.There's another guy sitting in jail who should have been executed. However, at least the law was changed by the Conservatives so he isn't allowed parole for 35 years, I believe. It's still not enough time served if he is someday released at the end of those 35 years. Yes, I'm all for the death penalty for individuals like these. 

[Mark H.]

Just to clarify: there are Bible verses that are interpreted as being in favour of capital punishment, especially by fundamentalist Christians. That's what I was referring to.

[Fraser]

Bernardo who was also convicted of other rapes & his wife Karla Homolka who is now free under an assumed name. She even remarried & is allowed to have children after all that happened. Both should have been executed for what they did to Homolka's sister.

Clifford Olsen who raped, tortured, strangled & bludgeoned 11 (that Police know of) children while tormenting the families of the dead kids during his trial & subsequent parole hearings should have been put to death. He loved the attention he got from the news media. Luckily, cancer did the job our justice system wouldn't do in 2011 when he passed away. 

Robert Picton murdered 6 women & buried them on his pig farm in BC. From all accounts, the crime scene was absolutely horrific yet he lives. Yes, I'm all for the death penalty for individuals like these. 

 

I agree these things are heinous but the sytem isn't perfect and one innocent person executed is too much.

 

I do think prisoners should have to pay their society back to debt with labour though

[iso_55]

 

Bernardo who was also convicted of other rapes & his wife Karla Homolka who is now free under an assumed name. She even remarried & is allowed to have children after all that happened. Both should have been executed for what they did to Homolka's sister.

Clifford Olsen who raped, tortured, strangled & bludgeoned 11 (that Police know of) children while tormenting the families of the dead kids during his trial & subsequent parole hearings should have been put to death. He loved the attention he got from the news media. Luckily, cancer did the job our justice system wouldn't do in 2011 when he passed away. 

Robert Picton murdered 6 women & buried them on his pig farm in BC. From all accounts, the crime scene was absolutely horrific yet he lives. Yes, I'm all for the death penalty for individuals like these. 

 

I agree these things are heinous but the sytem isn't perfect and one innocent person executed is too much.

 

I do think prisoners should have to pay their society back to debt with labour though

 

Those convictions I refer to were iron clad. Especially Olsen. He boasted & laughed how he killed those kids knowing where they were all buried yet refused to say where for all of them. He wanted to write a book. I believe at one point there was talk of a movie & he complained to the media saying he should be able to profit off of both. He knew he'd never get out so he put the families through hell whenever he could. He also knew he'd never be executed so he had no fear of dying. The man was sadistic, heinous, conniving, cunning & manipulative. 

[The Unknown Poster]

If prison was tougher, if sentences were longer, wouldnt that be enough?

 

Like Fraser said, and this is my main point, until we can guarantee that no innocent people get convicted, we cant even consider capital punishment.  Whats the expression, may a 100 guilty men go free rather than one innocent man convicted?

 

The justice system needs an over-all.  Cops too often file charges without investigation, kicking it up to the Crown to make a decision.  Crown is bogged down with penny ante cases that shouldnt have even been filed.  How many times do they plea down legitimate cases simply because they are physically incapable of taking them to trial due to the backlog?

 

In the case of Karla, it sucks.  But the Crown made a deal.  And they have to live with it.  And as far as we know, she has not re-offended.

[StevetheClub]

Just to clarify: there are Bible verses that are interpreted as being in favour of capital punishment, especially by fundamentalist Christians. That's what I was referring to.

 

That makes more sense. Fundamentalism in any religion is dangerous, for sure.

[iso_55]

If prison was tougher, if sentences were longer, wouldnt that be enough?

 

Like Fraser said, and this is my main point, until we can guarantee that no innocent people get convicted, we cant even consider capital punishment.  Whats the expression, may a 100 guilty men go free rather than one innocent man convicted?

 

The justice system needs an over-all.  Cops too often file charges without investigation, kicking it up to the Crown to make a decision.  Crown is bogged down with penny ante cases that shouldnt have even been filed.  How many times do they plea down legitimate cases simply because they are physically incapable of taking them to trial due to the backlog?

 

In the case of Karla, it sucks.  But the Crown made a deal.  And they have to live with it.  And as far as we know, she has not re-offended.

Well, bully for her. That makes it right. No offense but I don't agree. 

[The Unknown Poster]

 

If prison was tougher, if sentences were longer, wouldnt that be enough?

 

Like Fraser said, and this is my main point, until we can guarantee that no innocent people get convicted, we cant even consider capital punishment.  Whats the expression, may a 100 guilty men go free rather than one innocent man convicted?

 

The justice system needs an over-all.  Cops too often file charges without investigation, kicking it up to the Crown to make a decision.  Crown is bogged down with penny ante cases that shouldnt have even been filed.  How many times do they plea down legitimate cases simply because they are physically incapable of taking them to trial due to the backlog?

 

In the case of Karla, it sucks.  But the Crown made a deal.  And they have to live with it.  And as far as we know, she has not re-offended.

Well, bully for her. That makes it right. No offense but I don't agree. 

 

Im not saying it makes it right.  But it makes it legal.  And its not a justification for capital punishment.

 

And while Im generally a tough on crime advocate, I also believe in rehabilitation and second chances.

[iso_55]

 

 

If prison was tougher, if sentences were longer, wouldnt that be enough?

 

Like Fraser said, and this is my main point, until we can guarantee that no innocent people get convicted, we cant even consider capital punishment.  Whats the expression, may a 100 guilty men go free rather than one innocent man convicted?

 

The justice system needs an over-all.  Cops too often file charges without investigation, kicking it up to the Crown to make a decision.  Crown is bogged down with penny ante cases that shouldnt have even been filed.  How many times do they plea down legitimate cases simply because they are physically incapable of taking them to trial due to the backlog?

 

In the case of Karla, it sucks.  But the Crown made a deal.  And they have to live with it.  And as far as we know, she has not re-offended.

Well, bully for her. That makes it right. No offense but I don't agree. 

 

Im not saying it makes it right.  But it makes it legal.  And its not a justification for capital punishment.

 

And while Im generally a tough on crime advocate, I also believe in rehabilitation and second chances.

 

Some inmates can't or refuse to be rehabilitated & don't deserve a second chance. Not everyone is/was worth saving. Especially Clifford Olsen. 

[The Unknown Poster]

 

 

 

If prison was tougher, if sentences were longer, wouldnt that be enough?

 

Like Fraser said, and this is my main point, until we can guarantee that no innocent people get convicted, we cant even consider capital punishment.  Whats the expression, may a 100 guilty men go free rather than one innocent man convicted?

 

The justice system needs an over-all.  Cops too often file charges without investigation, kicking it up to the Crown to make a decision.  Crown is bogged down with penny ante cases that shouldnt have even been filed.  How many times do they plea down legitimate cases simply because they are physically incapable of taking them to trial due to the backlog?

 

In the case of Karla, it sucks.  But the Crown made a deal.  And they have to live with it.  And as far as we know, she has not re-offended.

Well, bully for her. That makes it right. No offense but I don't agree. 

 

Im not saying it makes it right.  But it makes it legal.  And its not a justification for capital punishment.

 

And while Im generally a tough on crime advocate, I also believe in rehabilitation and second chances.

 

Some inmates can't or refuse to be rehabilitated & don't deserve a second chance. Not everyone is/was worth saving. Especially Clifford Olsen. 

 

Correct.  I didnt say everyone does.  What I mean is, we have to be careful about locking up prisoners and throwing away the key.

 

The other issue (and this is really probably off topic) is FASD which is probably the largest driver of people to prisons in North America and is 100% preventable.  And its disgraceful how little effort and funding go into education and prevention.  Wipe out FASD and you empty the prisons.

[iso_55]

That'll never happen as you can't legislate intelligence & the way people conduct their lives. I'd argue that children with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome are abused & maybe we should look at putting the parents behind bars if a child is diagnosed with it. However, all that does is make our already overcrowded penal system more crowded so what can be done?  Banning alcohol was already tried in Canada & the US in the 20's & 30's. We all know what happened with that. So, I don't believe that money poured into education & funding will wipe it out. People already know it's dangerous to drive under the influence of alcohol yet millions still do everyday around the world. So, hoping FASD can be wiped out through education is a fallacy that I don't think will ever happen. 

[The Unknown Poster]

That'll never happen as you can't legislate intelligence & the way people conduct their lives. I'd argue that children with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome are abused & maybe we should look at putting the parents behind bars if a child is diagnosed with it. However, all that does is make our already overcrowded penal system more crowded so what can be done?  Banning alcohol was already tried in Canada & the US in the 20's & 30's. We all know what happened with that. So, I don't believe that money poured into education & funding will wipe it out. People already know it's dangerous to drive under the influence of alcohol yet millions still do everyday around the world. So, hoping FASD can be wiped out through education is a fallacy that I don't think will ever happen. 

While I agree you will never wipe it out completely, there is means to educate and help people.  The justice system isnt equipped to deal with it either.  The usual means of dealing with "thinking errors" dont work with many FASD sufferers.

[iso_55]

 

That'll never happen as you can't legislate intelligence & the way people conduct their lives. I'd argue that children with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome are abused & maybe we should look at putting the parents behind bars if a child is diagnosed with it. However, all that does is make our already overcrowded penal system more crowded so what can be done?  Banning alcohol was already tried in Canada & the US in the 20's & 30's. We all know what happened with that. So, I don't believe that money poured into education & funding will wipe it out. People already know it's dangerous to drive under the influence of alcohol yet millions still do everyday around the world. So, hoping FASD can be wiped out through education is a fallacy that I don't think will ever happen. 

While I agree you will never wipe it out completely, there is means to educate and help people.  The justice system isnt equipped to deal with it either.  The usual means of dealing with "thinking errors" dont work with many FASD sufferers.

 

Ever try to reason with a teen who drinks? Pregnant or not? Or a hardcore alcoholic trying to tell her not to drink in order to protect her unborn child? Unfortunately, my family has had to deal with alcoholism over a couple of generations. I have first hand experience trying to help a loved one. Nothing you say works. Nothing you do works. The only way they can be helped is if they finally want to be helped themselves. The bottle is the most important thing. Family is second, third or 364th on their list. then you think they'd be worrying about an unborn child?

I am extremely thankful it was was my father who was the alcoholic & not my mother as I was born a healthy baby. She never, ever drank or smoked when she was pregnant, before or after I was born as I had an older brother or sister & it was the same for them. Not to get personal here anymore than I have to but my father (who I loved) put my Mother thru hell for 45 years of marriage. Yet she never wavered. She stuck by him when other women would have walked out. he never was a violent drunk. never abused us as kids or my Mother.never raised a hand to her or us so for that I'm also extremely grateful. But he would disappear for days on end. At times we thought he must've died only to surface many days later, come home & then do it all over again.

Money was scarce in our house as he was the only wage earner & we'd have  no food or even bread & milk. My Mother had to get a job as a maid to feed us & pay our bills. The sixties were not good times in our home. Only after she passed away in 1985 & due to declining health himself in his later years where my Father could no longer drink which cleared his head, did he suffer personal pain & sorrow for what he did. He had a ton of regrets & wished he could go back & change what happened. He asked for our forgiveness which we gave him. He never realized how good he had it until she was gone. Just sad. Anyway, I could have been one of those FASD kids had my mother drank as well & with the home life I had growing up who knows where I may have ended up. 

[The Unknown Poster]

You're right.  They should do nothing. 

[iso_55]

You're right.  They should do nothing. 

I didn't say that. Why do you twist things around? I said alcoholics don't want to help themselves until they want to be helped. You think sitting in a counselling session when they don't want to be there is going to magically change things? It won't. People have to want to help themselves first. They have to hit rock bottom before they can come back. Some do & a lot don't, unfortunately. An alcoholic or drug addicted mother is going to drink or use if they want regardless of the harm to the fetus. No amount of education is going to help unless they want help. My father knew there was no food in our house yet did that stop him from blowing 50% of his paycheque on booze? No, never. he knew but it didn't matter. For people who want help there are already some great programs out there to wean them off alcohol & drugs. More funding & more programs are needed so I don't disagree totally with your point. I just don't see more education as a way to clear out the jails as you suggest. 

[Noeller]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-emerges-as-leader-with-new-economic-vision-for-canada/article26417694/

 

While it was at times hard to find the economic meat in this muddled sandwich of political finger-pointing and out-shouting, the Liberal Leader gave by far the most convincing case yet for his road map for the Canadian economy of the future.

First, though, he and his two counterparts, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair, had to get their dreary, intelligence-insulting political games out of the way. All of the leaders were guilty, early and often, of ignoring the moderator’s questions in order to pound away at their rehearsed talking points and misleading scare tactics. They all twisted the facts about the other parties’ platforms in order to score points at the expense of their opponents.

Thank heavens for the second half of the debate, when the moderator engaged the leaders in a more free-form discussion and insisted they actually answer some direct questions. And this is when Mr. Trudeau seemed to warm up – both to the audience and to his policies.

For Mr. Trudeau, especially, the most important goal tonight was not so much to sell his economic plan, but to sell himself as the man who can actually execute it. Canadians seem to have come around surprisingly quickly to his bold, even risky proposal to run modest short-term deficits in order to invest big on infrastructure. But polls show that despite liking the plan, they don’t have a lot of faith that Mr. Trudeau has the skill, smarts and experience to manage the economy.

Was he convincing? Not always. But he did better than his two opponents in explaining the rationale behind his policies. He presented himself as the only man of the three with something meaningful to offer. And he looked like he knew what he was talking about.

So did Mr. Harper. But the role he chose was to be the guy who has seen it all and done it all, and thus should be trusted to just keep on doing it. He seemed content to be the guy devoid of new ideas.

An election ago, Mr. Harper won a majority government on economic pledges that voters could sink their teeth into: He was going to cut taxes and balance the budget. Well, done and done. So what was the point? Um, to promise to keep the tax cuts and keep the budget balanced. If we imagined that these were means to an end, that once achieved there would be a grand plan cashing in the dividend from all that hard work, we were wrong. If Mr. Harper has anything more to offer beyond his reputation and his record, he wasn’t eager to talk about it.

Mr. Mulcair’s biggest contribution looks to be to increase the corporate taxes that Mr. Harper has cut. His best argument? Mr. Harper’s tax cuts didn’t save manufacturing jobs, big business should pay its “fair share” – and at any rate, it won’t be so bad. We know there’s a philosophy behind Mr. Mulcair’s corporate tax policy. Did he explain it? Not adequately – not even when he was directly asked. Nor did he adequately explain the economic value of his national affordable childcare proposal, other than to assure us that it, too, can be done with a balanced budget.

Beyond the predictable and tedious three-way finger-wagging about balanced budgets and the parties’ varying willingness and competence to achieve them, there was a disappointing lack of economic substance for a 90-minute debate that was entirely about the economy.

The three leaders had an opportunity to address the country’s debt-bloated housing market, and the risk it poses to the country’s economic stability. All three chose instead to deliver motherhood-and-apple-pie platitudes about having a secure roof over your head.

Trade? It didn’t even come up until the final five minutes of the debate. For a trade-intensive economy like Canada’s, the lack of discussion on the trade file was, frankly, mind-boggling.

The three leaders were their most animated and engaged in each other, by far, in discussing immigration policy. But the discussion about the economic role of immigration in Canada’s future growth as its population ages was utterly lost in an argument about refugees and security issues.

Nevertheless, the three distinguished themselves from each other on the economy Thursday. Mr. Mulcair came off as less scary on the economy than the NDP is often painted to be. Mr. Harper defined himself as the safe choice on the path that, while not so great, also hasn’t been so awful.

But whether you like it or not, only Mr. Trudeau offered voters a vision of something new.

[Mr Dee]

Are you guys having your own, personal debate?

[The Unknown Poster]

That certainly shows you perception is biased.  Thats the first place Ive seen anywhere that claimed Trudeau didnt shoot himself in the foot last night.

[Atomic]

Too funny.  Every news outlet has declared a clear winner in the debate and it's a different guy in each one

[iso_55]

Can anyone tell me why the Conservatives keep hammering home that Justin is not ready yet there have been very few attack ads against Mulcair & the NDP? I just don't get it. Any theories? 

[iso_55]

Are you guys having your own, personal debate?

No, just saying that education is fine but not the total answer having experienced addiction first hand. Probably never should have brought my personal experiences into it but I felt it was the thing to do.