Will the Canadian Public understand

Thecure

that Stephen Harper is trying to just cause another election. the Speech from the Throne was him telling people i am going to do what i want and if you don't like it, let go voting again. 3 Elections in the past 3 1/2 years. how much money are we spending.

evenkat

I know it's probably hard on the public to have 3 elections in 3 1/2 years but I wish we could do something like this so we could kick Bush out of office.

Kel Varnsen

The thing I don't think any of the other parties in Canada are in much of a position to challenge for power, so why wouldn't he put things his government wants to do in the throne speech? We will see soon enough if there is an actual vote of non-confidence but even if there is any change in government (especially with a typical Canadian 4-5 week campaign). Personally I didn't see anything outrageous in the speech.

even flow?

I agree with Kal that there wasn't too much in his speech to shake the others to want another election right now. The only thing Harper has going for him is the fact that the Libs are in la-la land right now. But the war would come back and bite Harper's sorry ass if he did want to go tete a tete with Canada.

Thecure

Kel Varnsen wrote:

The thing I don't think any of the other parties in Canada are in much of a position to challenge for power, so why wouldn't he put things his government wants to do in the throne speech? We will see soon enough if there is an actual vote of non-confidence but even if there is any change in government (especially with a typical Canadian 4-5 week campaign). Personally I didn't see anything outrageous in the speech.

The problem that i have with the speech is that everyting that harper wrote is stuff that he tried to do before but was rejected. i think what Harper is doing is hold the people hostage.

i have to state that i understand why Harper would do something like this i.e. he does see the liberals sinking in the polls, but i don't like how he is going about doing it.

surferdude

Thecure wrote:

The problem that i have with the speech is that everyting that harper wrote is stuff that he tried to do before but was rejected. i think what Harper is doing is hold the people hostage.

i have to state that i understand why Harper would do something like this i.e. he does see the liberals sinking in the polls, but i don't like how he is going about doing it.

As I see it he's trying to put through a lot of what he promised to put through. He's the elected government, it's what he's supposed to be doing, keeping his word. I can understand not liking his policies, etc... but I don't see how anyone can have a problem with a politician doing their best to do what they promised to do.

Thecure

surferdude wrote:

As I see it he's trying to put through a lot of what he promised to put through. He's the elected government, it's what he's supposed to be doing, keeping his word. I can understand not liking his policies, etc... but I don't see how anyone can have a problem with a politician doing their best to do what they promised to do.[/Q

My problem with this is that as an elected government, he must also listen to the people. the Canada people have stated that what they want and care for. the care about the enviroment and the war.

Harper has gone against the people in stating that he wants our army in teh war until 2011 and he gave up on Kyote. he did all of this to get an election.

yet again this was all stuff that you said before and it was not passed. can we not work into gettign an idea that all parties can agree on and work with.

surferdude

Thecure wrote:

My problem with this is that as an elected government, he must also listen to the people. the Canada people have stated that what they want and care for. the care about the enviroment and the war.

Harper has gone against the people in stating that he wants our army in teh war until 2011 and he gave up on Kyote. he did all of this to get an election.

yet again this was all stuff that you said before and it was not passed. can we not work into gettign an idea that all parties can agree on and work with.

I'd say the issues you listed are primary for some of the other parties but they were not of the primary importance to the PC when the PC were elected. They are trying to do what they said they'd do and what people voted for.

They are addressing the war by having a committee headed by a Liberal (Manley). Canada is committed to spring of 2009 so nothing has to be done about the war this fall or spring. Harper statig he'd like Canada having a presence until at least 2011 is his wish but has said he'd leave that for a free and non-confidence vote. That seems like a pretty fair approach given our commitemnts to NATO.

I agree on the environment that they are lagging but I think the long term solution is much trickier than imagined. I don't see any of the provinces taking any real lead. Alberta is still drilling oil, Ontario is still building trucks and cars with crappy fuel efficiency and not making only hybrids. BC still has some natural gas sources of hydro. Saskatchewan and NFLD are getting into the oil industry. I see no leadership anywhere. As for Kyoto, I'm glad we've stated we cannot meet the assinine levels the Liberals commtted Canada to. Kyoto is a horrible trade deal for Caanda and it's people. It only places responsibility for greenhouse gas on the producing country and not the consuming country. The EU completely swindled the Liberals and the Liberals subsequently swindled Canada.

Kel Varnsen

Thecure wrote:

My problem with this is that as an elected government, he must also listen to the people. the Canada people have stated that what they want and care for. the care about the enviroment and the war.

Harper has gone against the people in stating that he wants our army in teh war until 2011 and he gave up on Kyote. he did all of this to get an election.

yet again this was all stuff that you said before and it was not passed. can we not work into gettign an idea that all parties can agree on and work with.

I think the speech said that he would put extending the Afganistan mission to a vote. Which is fine by me, I think Canadian Troops are doing a lot of good there and it parliment decides to let them stay then so be it. How is that not listening to the people (or at least their representatives)?

Truthmonger

I could see this backfiring on Harper insofar as people seeing him making a powerplay with the situation. I don't think its shrewd, or clever. Its just gamesmanship and bullshit posturing.

Afghanistan till 2011 ??? Kyoto down the toilet ?? Getting tough on crime (which never works anyways) ?? This clown needs to hit the bricks....

Kel Varnsen

Truthmonger wrote:

I could see this backfiring on Harper insofar as people seeing him making a powerplay with the situation. I don't think its shrewd, or clever. Its just gamesmanship and bullshit posturing.

Afghanistan till 2011 ??? Kyoto down the toilet ?? Getting tough on crime (which never works anyways) ?? This clown needs to hit the bricks....

Whats wrong with extending the Afghanistan mission (if parliment votes to extend it, which I would call a pretty big "if")? The Afghan government wants help keeping the Taliban down. I just think the Canadian government should do more to get other nations involved so we don't have to do so much.

As far as being tough on crime, from what I read it is being tough on violent, especially repeat violent, offenders. If these people keep showing up in court rooms, maybe if they are in jail longer they won't have as much time outside to comit crimes. and they won't waste the time of as many judges.

As far as posturing goes, what would you have him do? A lot of the stuff in the speech was along the same lines as the platform he got elected on. Would you rather he ignore the mandate the voters gave him?

Truthmonger

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Whats wrong with extending the Afghanistan mission (if parliment votes to extend it, which I would call a pretty big "if")? The Afghan government wants help keeping the Taliban down. I just think the Canadian government should do more to get other nations involved so we don't have to do so much.

As far as being tough on crime, from what I read it is being tough on violent, especially repeat violent, offenders. If these people keep showing up in court rooms, maybe if they are in jail longer they won't have as much time outside to comit crimes. and they won't waste the time of as many judges.

As far as posturing goes, what would you have him do? A lot of the stuff in the speech was along the same lines as the platform he got elected on. Would you rather he ignore the mandate the voters gave him?

His election win was a we're-fed-up-with-the-scandal-plagued-Liberals-right-now "mandate". I'd be cautious in suggesting that Canada is really pushing to the right currently.

Afghanistan is a disaster. What are you reading to the contrary ? (please provide it, I can't wait to see it). Moreover, Canada is not there to "keep the country together"; it is there, ostensibly, to eradicate the "enemy". In case you haven't noticed, poppy production which fuels the Taliban is at an all-time high, and we're actually creating more terrorists than we're killing.

As for crime, small "c" conservative approaches to crime never work. It just sounds good. You know, like when right-wing arseholes such as Trent Lott wanna get tough about the Middle East and suggest that the U.S. "should mow the whole place down and see what happens". Its like a hit of crack - it feels good at the time, but there';s a deeper unaddressed problem that keeps on festering. If getting tough on crime was the answer, then American jails would be empty....instead they're bursting at the seems.

Thecure

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Whats wrong with extending the Afghanistan mission (if parliment votes to extend it, which I would call a pretty big "if")? The Afghan government wants help keeping the Taliban down. I just think the Canadian government should do more to get other nations involved so we don't have to do so much.

As far as being tough on crime, from what I read it is being tough on violent, especially repeat violent, offenders. If these people keep showing up in court rooms, maybe if they are in jail longer they won't have as much time outside to comit crimes. and they won't waste the time of as many judges.

As far as posturing goes, what would you have him do? A lot of the stuff in the speech was along the same lines as the platform he got elected on. Would you rather he ignore the mandate the voters gave him?

i understand that he was elected on but he tried to do this already. it was not approved by the other parties. also i agree with you that the parliment would not vote yes for the extension of the war, but as harper has stated he will take everything as a call for a vote of non-confidence. it sounds very childish. like if i don't get what i want i am taking my ball home.

Kel Varnsen

Truthmonger wrote:

Afghanistan is a disaster. What are you reading to the contrary ? (please provide it, I can't wait to see it). Moreover, Canada is not there to "keep the country together"; it is there, ostensibly, to eradicate the "enemy". In case you haven't noticed, poppy production which fuels the Taliban is at an all-time high, and we're actually creating more terrorists than we're killing.

As for crime, small "c" conservative approaches to crime never work. It just sounds good. You know, like when right-wing arseholes such as Trent Lott wanna get tough about the Middle East and suggest that the U.S. "should mow the whole place down and see what happens". Its like a hit of crack - it feels good at the time, but there';s a deeper unaddressed problem that keeps on festering. If getting tough on crime was the answer, then American jails would be empty....instead they're bursting at the seems.

Here is your answer about Afghanistan the president of the country wants us there because without Canada there "Afghanistan would fall back into anarchy" (check out my link). He also says there have been major improvements to the lives of the people since the Taliban was removed. How is that not a good reason? Not to mention that 24 Canadians died in the World Trade Centre and it was the Afghan government who provided support (including government offices) to the people responsible.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070918/Karzai_canada_070918/20070918?hub=CTVNewsAt11

As far as crime goes, how does tough sentences for violent criminals equate to bombing the entire Middle East? I think Canada does a lot to help people so that they have a options other than crime. If people are still committing crime, what exactly should you do with them?

Truthmonger

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Here is your answer about Afghanistan the president of the country wants us there because without Canada there "Afghanistan would fall back into anarchy" (check out my link). He also says there have been major improvements to the lives of the people since the Taliban was removed. How is that not a good reason? Not to mention that 24 Canadians died in the World Trade Centre and it was the Afghan government who provided support (including government offices) to the people responsible.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070918/Karzai_canada_070918/20070918?hub=CTVNewsAt11

As far as crime goes, how does tough sentences for violent criminals equate to bombing the entire Middle East? I think Canada does a lot to help people so that they have a options other than crime. If people are still committing crime, what exactly should you do with them?

But we're not there to do Karzai's bidding: ie: keeping the peace and securing the nation so that they can have peace. That would mean a perpetual presence, which we cannot and should not provide. We are there to get the "bad guys".....but guess what ?, it's not working, b/c they move around, and b/c we keep creating more of them for ourselves. Do you really think the Canadian public has the stomach for another 4 years of this shit ? - its only 2007 for fuck sakes.

I wasn't equating domestic crime with the problems of the Mid. East. I was, however, saying that simplistic answers are easy to profer for both, and that doing so would be folly in both cases. Its the easy answer that is wrong. "Mowing the place down" = "lock 'em up, throw away the key". Both sentiments aren't likely to achieve much, it only sounds good.

By the way, you didn't respond to the discrepancy of tougher courts and American jails....why are they full instead of empty (?), as you would wish ?

Thecure

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Here is your answer about Afghanistan the president of the country wants us there because without Canada there "Afghanistan would fall back into anarchy" (check out my link). He also says there have been major improvements to the lives of the people since the Taliban was removed. How is that not a good reason? Not to mention that 24 Canadians died in the World Trade Centre and it was the Afghan government who provided support (including government offices) to the people responsible.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070918/Karzai_canada_070918/20070918?hub=CTVNewsAt11

As far as crime goes, how does tough sentences for violent criminals equate to bombing the entire Middle East? I think Canada does a lot to help people so that they have a options other than crime. If people are still committing crime, what exactly should you do with them?

I wonder if the Canada army wrote that speech for him like the last one. i agree with you somewhat about Canada helping people so that they have options but at the same time it can be greatly approved. child poverty is at a high, housing is very expensive, food is very expensive. all these things lead to violences. we must fix alot of these issues or we will always be sending people to jails. as tu-pac once said " instead of a war against poverty, they got a war against drugs so that teh police can bother me"

Kel Varnsen

Truthmonger wrote:

But we're not there to do Karzai's bidding: ie: keeping the peace and securing the nation so that they can have peace. That would mean a perpetual presence, which we cannot and should not provide. We are there to get the "bad guys".....but guess what ?, it's not working, b/c they move around, and b/c we keep creating more of them for ourselves. Do you really think the Canadian public has the stomach for another 4 years of this shit ? - its only 2007 for fuck sakes.

I wasn't equating domestic crime with the problems of the Mid. East. I was, however, saying that simplistic answers are easy to profer for both, and that doing so would be folly in both cases. Its the easy answer that is wrong. "Mowing the place down" = "lock 'em up, throw away the key". Both sentiments aren't likely to achieve much, it only sounds good.

By the way, you didn't respond to the discrepancy of tougher courts and American jails....why are they full instead of empty (?), as you would wish ?

To me if a country that you are allied with asks you for help, the right thing to do is help them. It would be the same thing if one of our Nato allies ask for military help. Do you really want to pull out and let the Taliban take over again?

As far as your question about why aren't jails empty because of tougher penalties. My feeling on prison is that it isn't supposed to be any kind of deterrent or anything like that. The primary purpose of prison (especially for repeat violent offenders) is to remove someone from society so they can't keep committing crimes. For example if a guy is sentenced to 5 years for armed robbery, that is 5 years where he is unable to commit any more armed robberies. It is especially important when you hear facts about how the average person in criminal court has already been arrested something like 4 times. It's pretty simple math, the more time a recidivist criminal spends in jail, the less time he is out of jail and committing more crimes. Now I am all for helping people and giving them options so that they aren't forced into a life of crime, but for those who choose it anyways there should be serious consequences.

Thecure

Kel Varnsen wrote:

To me if a country that you are allied with asks you for help, the right thing to do is help them. It would be the same thing if one of our Nato allies ask for military help. Do you really want to pull out and let the Taliban take over again?

As far as your question about why aren't jails empty because of tougher penalties. My feeling on prison is that it isn't supposed to be any kind of deterrent or anything like that. The primary purpose of prison (especially for repeat violent offenders) is to remove someone from society so they can't keep committing crimes. For example if a guy is sentenced to 5 years for armed robbery, that is 5 years where he is unable to commit any more armed robberies. It is especially important when you hear facts about how the average person in criminal court has already been arrested something like 4 times. It's pretty simple math, the more time a recidivist criminal spends in jail, the less time he is out of jail and committing more crimes. Now I am all for helping people and giving them options so that they aren't forced into a life of crime, but for those who choose it anyways there should be serious consequences.

i agree with you that if a allied does ask for assistance that we should help but does that mean that we must be there. i might be wrong in this as i have never been in a war fighting but would it not be harder to teach the afgan army how to protect itself while they are busy with the war. is that not like having a cop learn everything while fighting crime. we have training areas for police to learn about being a cop why can't we have canadian soldiers training the afgan soldiers in a another area that is safer. that way, the soldiers are not learning how to fight on the go and can be better trained. if that is possible than we could be out by 2009.

secondly, sending a person to prison should be used to help educate teh people there find a place in society. if we do that, then when they come out of prison they have a higher chance of not going back into their life of crime. you stated the simple truth. when a person is in jail they are not commiting crimes, but what we have to do is have it that when a person leaves jail they have a chance of changing their lives. that way, a person (i am not saying all of them) will not commit another crime when they are out.

Thecure

"And Conservative sources said the new omnibus legislation will strip out some amendments that had been passed in the last session – forcing the opposition to accept at least some measures they deemed unacceptable last term"

So now Harper is going back against thinsg that were passed in the last parliment and trying to get thinsg that he wanted in but was voted out. is this a productive use of time. if it was passed last year why are we going back to change it.

Ps. i would like to put a link up for the whole article but i hav eno idea how.

Kel Varnsen

Thecure wrote:

secondly, sending a person to prison should be used to help educate teh people there find a place in society. if we do that, then when they come out of prison they have a higher chance of not going back into their life of crime. you stated the simple truth. when a person is in jail they are not commiting crimes, but what we have to do is have it that when a person leaves jail they have a chance of changing their lives. that way, a person (i am not saying all of them) will not commit another crime when they are out.

I don't disagree with you here, I just think that at some point you have to review a person’s situation and if they keep committing crimes over and over, even if they are given the chance to change, then I think that longer sentences could be a good option. Since to me it is even worse if, someone goes to jail and you help them and give them a chance to change and then once they are released they betray that trust and keep being a criminal. And from my understanding the new crime legislation is aimed at keeping repeat offenders behind bars longer.

Thecure

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I don't disagree with you here, I just think that at some point you have to review a person’s situation and if they keep committing crimes over and over, even if they are given the chance to change, then I think that longer sentences could be a good option. Since to me it is even worse if, someone goes to jail and you help them and give them a chance to change and then once they are released they betray that trust and keep being a criminal. And from my understanding the new crime legislation is aimed at keeping repeat offenders behind bars longer.

at the present moment, the government is not releasing details about the crime bill. my worry is that all types of crimes will be listed. so let's say that a person is found to have some drugs and is charged will they face long sentences. i guess we will have to wait until teh crime bill is introduced today.