kcin94
-
Posts
66 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by kcin94
-
-
There is more than enough evidence that proves Harper has not been a good PM for this country, nor should he have the opportunity to continue. But he still might get that chance, and that would be a shame. But that's my opinion.
Notice - no ranting or raving or calling out any party followers idiots, morons or nutty-nuts.
Believe what you choose to believe but, look at the facts, and ignore the blathering of bigoted posters.
And again, ABH.
One line to contradict yourself.
❓❓❓
You say you won't call any party followers names, and then the next line call them "bigoted"
-
There is more than enough evidence that proves Harper has not been a good PM for this country, nor should he have the opportunity to continue. But he still might get that chance, and that would be a shame. But that's my opinion.
Notice - no ranting or raving or calling out any party followers idiots, morons or nutty-nuts.
Believe what you choose to believe but, look at the facts, and ignore the blathering of bigoted posters.
And again, ABH.
One line to contradict yourself.
-
Yep will see if your laughing if Harper gets another term at the trough he is gonna make Mulroney look like a saint.He already has the lying through his teeth down to an art form, the most ever spent on a election ever trying to bleed the other parties wow how blind are you? To bad you find the whittling away of our freedom by an egomaniac funny but hey I'm sure you have your reasons.^^^^ lol
Stubbed my toe today. Stupid Harper
-
The hijab issue is not necessarily connected to the refugee issue. The hijab issue should not even be an issue - people are identified before they swear the citizenship oath.
While they are not directly connected, they both came about the same way. Conservatives are racists and hate muslims. Here is your proof.
I never said that, nor would I ever. But the hijab issue is a despicable thing to raise as an election wedge issue.
BTW if you thought I was saying you thought the Conservatives are racist and hate muslims, I apologize for the unclear wording. I meant it was brought up by the opposition in that light (albeit, likely not in the same words)
-
The hijab issue is not necessarily connected to the refugee issue. The hijab issue should not even be an issue - people are identified before they swear the citizenship oath.
While they are not directly connected, they both came about the same way. Conservatives are racists and hate muslims. Here is your proof.
I never said that, nor would I ever. But the hijab issue is a despicable thing to raise as an election wedge issue.
While I do agree, the assertion that it was the Cons who brought it up is my point. It wasn't the cons who brought it up, and so disgust over it is being pointed in the wrong direction.
-
The hijab issue is not necessarily connected to the refugee issue. The hijab issue should not even be an issue - people are identified before they swear the citizenship oath.
While they are not directly connected, they both came about the same way. Conservatives are racists and hate muslims. Here is your proof.
-
I find it odd at people saying "Harper is using the Niqab issue ..."
From my recollection, none of this was an issue. Harper went to courts and lost which is nothing new. Nobody really cared.
Then some smuggler father put his wife and kids in a ricketty boat and his poor son washed up on shore. Media went crazy. Countries went crazy.
Then an NDP MP claimed that he informed the Cons about a sponsership about the boy earlier (denied by the boy's family) to blame the cons. Then everyone jumped on the Cons hate Muslims bandwagon and then these stories about Cons fighting the Nijab came out.
Then all of a sudden, people opened their eyes about the "Syrian refugees" in Europe, and started to support the Cons stance on the issue.
Where did the Cons start this whole situation?
-
Admittedly, I don't know anything about what is going in the UK regarding sharia law, but I did read the wikipedia article you reference and it says these tribunals are not legally recognized: "The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has no powers to grant a divorce which is valid in English and Welsh law. A talaq can be granted to recognise divorce. A sharia marriage has no bearing on personal status under UK law. The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has no jurisdiction on criminal matters but can attempt reconciliation between spouses."
I recommend looking at news reports coming out of Europe as opposed to stuff coming out of the CBC and ask yourself whether you want that happening here.
-
They can't make a law like this b/c it's a violation of the woman's human rights.Why does a woman have to uncover for a passport photo? Do we make "accommodations" for that? Get them alone and away from prying eyes of men? Do they get accommodated at airports? When they walk into a licensed beverage room, what happens then?
Courts get things wrong. Its the role of the people to create laws and the courts to enforce them not the other way around. If the Cons win a majority, they should absolutely put through a law to ban the Niqab. Why on earth would we, as Canadians, condone or endorse something that is used to control and marginalize women? That is despicable conduct for any Canadian.
which is your opinion
-
If they were correct, they wouldn't keep losing in court.
So if a law is a law, we can't think it is wrong.
If so, why does Trudeau, Muclair and May want to legalize marijuna. It's against the law. All current laws must be right, therefore they must be wrong.
You can think everything is wrong if you're so inclined. TUP's pronouncement of it as fact that it's correct was inaccurate.
If the Liberals win the election and attempt to legalize pot, only to be rejected in court and again in appeal, then yes, they'll be wrong about being able to legalize it.
He thinks it's correct. That's his opinion. The fact that the courts disagreed with him. I think it's correct to legalize and tax marijuna. That's my opinion. 82% think it's correct to ban the niqab at citizenship ceremonies. That's our opinion. It doesn't mean we are racist.
Not to mention once again, there is no religious requirement for muslims to hide their face. Hence only 10% or so of muslim women wear a burka or niqab. Many more wear a hijab or other garments to show modesty.
-
If they were correct, they wouldn't keep losing in court.
So if a law is a law, we can't think it is wrong.
If so, why does Trudeau, Muclair and May want to legalize marijuna. It's against the law. All current laws must be right, therefore they must be wrong.
You can think everything is wrong if you're so inclined. TUP's pronouncement of it as fact that it's correct was inaccurate.
If the Liberals win the election and attempt to legalize pot, only to be rejected in court and again in appeal, then yes, they'll be wrong about being able to legalize it.
He thinks it's correct. That's his opinion. The fact that the courts disagreed with him doesn't change it. I think it's correct to legalize and tax marijuna. That's my opinion. 82% think it's correct to ban the niqab at citizenship ceremonies. That's our opinion. It doesn't mean we are racist.
-
If they were correct, they wouldn't keep losing in court.
So if a law is a law, we can't think it is wrong.
If so, why does Trudeau, Muclair and May want to legalize marijuna. It's against the law. All current laws must be right, therefore they must be wrong.
-
The Conservatives began their climb when they started appealing to racists in Quebec. The niqab issue will win them the election b/c a lot of people are scared of muslims and Harper is doing what he can to stoke that fear.
To date there have been two women who were refused the oath of citizenship b/c of a niqab, but the Conservatives have been able to turn this into a major issue. One sued the gov't and has won, twice. Harper will also lose at the Supreme Court...again. But it doesn't matter b/c by then he will be the pm again.
Like the 82% of Canadians who agree with the ban.
By the way, it's been mostly the Bloc taking those votes, not the conservatives. The conservatives have taken some, but not most.
-
Defeating a government on a confidence motion (the first opportunity would be the throne speech) doesn't necessarily mean an election. It's up to the governor general to decide. He can either send it to an election or ask one of the parties to try and gain the confidence of the house. They wouldn't even need a formal coalition, just enough support to get things passed. As I said though, I don't see either the NDP or Liberals being willing to work with each other if they're the second fiddle. As much as they are "**** Harper" they are also power hungry.
While that may be true, would they view propping of Harper to be more damaging to future election success that working with the other party.
-
***I understand why the opposition take the hardline approach because they want to sway those voters that might be turning away from the Cons but arent yet ready to go with Liberals or NDP. ie. people who might want a minority. They have to get those people to really commit to change. But I wonder if it could have the opposite effect. if the Cons continue to rise and you have the opposition saying "we will defeat this government immediately", will some of the undecided sway to the Cons to avoid another election?
If you strongly say "Canadians dont want a long election", how can you also say "Canadians want another election immediately".
I believe a lot of ABC voters believe that it won't mean a new election, but that the Liberals and NDP would form a coilition and run things instead. Technically it's possible, but any attempts in the past to do so have failed (in my limited recollection). However I believe many people are convinced it will happen.
I dont know... I have a sense that voters dont want a coalition. I dont think it plays well. I could be wrong and its a legitimate aspect to our system but I think its too easy to frame it as "the losers stole the election" type of narrative. Plus, one of the opposition (cant remember off hand) has said he's open to it and the other said not a chance. So someone ends up a liar.
I think more likely, the opposition would grandstand about not supporting the government, make some back channel deals to get concessions from the Cons and then begrudgingly say they will vote for the budget or whatever other initiative until such time as enough time has passed or polls look better and then bring them down. Remember, the Cons have a lot of money. The opposition, not so much. They dont want another election.
I think the voters who only care about getting Harper out would welcome a coalition. However I agree that others would not. As a former NDP supporter, I was pissed that the NDP tried to form coallitions with the Bloc.
-
***I understand why the opposition take the hardline approach because they want to sway those voters that might be turning away from the Cons but arent yet ready to go with Liberals or NDP. ie. people who might want a minority. They have to get those people to really commit to change. But I wonder if it could have the opposite effect. if the Cons continue to rise and you have the opposition saying "we will defeat this government immediately", will some of the undecided sway to the Cons to avoid another election?
If you strongly say "Canadians dont want a long election", how can you also say "Canadians want another election immediately".
I believe a lot of ABC voters believe that it won't mean a new election, but that the Liberals and NDP would form a coilition and run things instead. Technically it's possible, but any attempts in the past to do so have failed (in my limited recollection). However I believe many people are convinced it will happen.
-
Gee I wonder why. No media bias though
But wait! There goes another NDP'er
@OutlawTory: NDP candidate Stefan Jonasson disfavourably compares Jews to the Taliban. Yikes. Someone's done. http://t.co/4gVvkA45sG#CdnPoli #Elxn42
One Con candidate wants to end the separation of Church and state. Another said abortion is worse than the Holocaust. We could do this all day with crazy candidates.
He said more lives were ended than during the holocaust, which is true if you count a fetus as a life.
-
I'm actually a bit tired tired of all of these resignations. People do silly things all the time and that doesn't mean they can't do the job. People have different views and that doesn't mean they can't do the job. Very few of these resignations have been necessary. I understand them, but wish they didn't happen. If you are not voting for one person or one party because of one issue, then you are missing the big picture. If they didn't commit a crime, let it go.
Realistically, you're right. Let the people decide. They arent really resignations. They are firings dressed up like resignations. The problem is, if you force your candidate to quit over stupid remarks, the discussion ends. if you let him/her continue, you can be dogged with those remarks and the idea that they represent the ideology of the party.
For example, Mulcair was asked about Pat Martin and he joked about it. That might not matter to most of Canada but it will play here and people will question the NDP to a degree. Its a character and maturity and behavior issue.
On one hand we can say 'well gee we were all young and stupid once, so what if someone said something goofy on twitter six years ago'. On the other hand, if a candidate isnt smart enough to cleanse their social media, its a measurement of smarts and/or judgement on their part. And it really goes to the greater issue of young people who treat social media like its a private conversation between friends. Facebook hurts my brain many days reading everything from racist posts to just barely intelligible ramblings and excessive F bombs etc, people have Albums called "Random Drunk Pictures". Just stupid stuff.
The first thing a lot of companies do when they hire is look at your Facebook. Running for office is no different.
I understand that. It all start when someone does something stupid, then the other parties start calling for resignations. Then when their candidates do something stupid, they have to force a resignation or else they are hypocrites. The circle continues.
I suppose it annoys me when it turns from do something stupid (pee in a cup) to having an unpopular opinion (pro-life, or this latest one by the NDP guy) All of a sudden am I not suppose to vote for Professor Popsicle because I disagree with one thing he says?
-
I'm actually a bit tired tired of all of these resignations. People do silly things all the time and that doesn't mean they can't do the job. People have different views and that doesn't mean they can't do the job. Very few of these resignations have been necessary. I understand them, but wish they didn't happen. If you are not voting for one person or one party because of one issue, then you are missing the big picture. If they didn't commit a crime, let it go.
-
Income splitting seems like a common sense thing to me. And if those that can afford it choose to have one parent (doesnt have to be the woman) stay home full or part time to raise children, I see no problem with that...thats a good thing.
Are you for real? I sure hope not.Income Splitting is just the small c conservative way of keeping women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. I'm certainly no women's lib zealot, but I can't stand that kind of backwards thinking. There shouldn't be a special tax break to let women sit at home.
I think anything that might encourage or enable a parent (either one) to stay at home with the kids is good policy. We need more parent control over their own children.
I just vehemently disagree with this thinking....so we're going to have to agree to disagree.
I just have one question. If my wife has a baby and goes on maternity leave she will make $18000 less. How much money should I have to earn to make up for that?
-
In the last minute of the Montreal game, the Blue Bombers scored a touchdown and missed the 2 pt convert.
On the subsequent kick off, Lumbala takes a knee and then gets up and returns for 16 yards.
I know kneeling by the QB is the end of the play, and kneeling in the endzone would immediately give up a safety or rouge. To me, kneeling on the kickoff in play should result in a dead ball (as per Rule 1 Section 4 of the rule book):
"• When a ball carrier is on the ground and, in the judgment of the official, is not
attempting to advance the ball, the official shall immediately declare the ball dead."
Now, the reason I bring this up is our actions on the 2nd to last play of the game. With 6 seconds left, Troy Smith throws a pass to Brandon Whitaker for 7 yards to the Wpg54. Shouldn't the Bombers have let Whitaker lie on the ground for an additional second or two to run out the clock, rather than tackle the defenseless player immediately?
IMO, if Lumbala kneeling does not trigger a whistle on the kick off, the same rules should apply to Whitaker and the whistle shouldn't blow until he's touched.
I thought that as soon as a knee is down, the play is called dead. Much like you see when control tower is checking to see whether a knee was down prior to a fumble.
As I missed that particularly play did his knee actually touch the turf because if it wasn't, it's a legit play, no?
Not quite. Someone has to touch you. It's not an automatic. If you trip and fall and your knee is down you can get back up. The play is only blown dead if the ref feels the player is giving himself up.
That's odd, because, in essence, if you're taking a knee, you are giving yourself up.
It isn't a stumble, it was a conscious effort to stop, and take a knee.
I'd imagine we'd get flagged quite quickly if he was hit on doing so.
Only if you intentionally take a knee. Not every knee is intentional. Here it looked he did take the knee intentionally and hence it should have been blown dead but he got up and started running so I guess the ref let it go. No big deal. He cost himself some yards/time in the process.
-
In the last minute of the Montreal game, the Blue Bombers scored a touchdown and missed the 2 pt convert.
On the subsequent kick off, Lumbala takes a knee and then gets up and returns for 16 yards.
I know kneeling by the QB is the end of the play, and kneeling in the endzone would immediately give up a safety or rouge. To me, kneeling on the kickoff in play should result in a dead ball (as per Rule 1 Section 4 of the rule book):
"• When a ball carrier is on the ground and, in the judgment of the official, is not
attempting to advance the ball, the official shall immediately declare the ball dead."
Now, the reason I bring this up is our actions on the 2nd to last play of the game. With 6 seconds left, Troy Smith throws a pass to Brandon Whitaker for 7 yards to the Wpg54. Shouldn't the Bombers have let Whitaker lie on the ground for an additional second or two to run out the clock, rather than tackle the defenseless player immediately?
IMO, if Lumbala kneeling does not trigger a whistle on the kick off, the same rules should apply to Whitaker and the whistle shouldn't blow until he's touched.
I thought that as soon as a knee is down, the play is called dead. Much like you see when control tower is checking to see whether a knee was down prior to a fumble.
As I missed that particularly play did his knee actually touch the turf because if it wasn't, it's a legit play, no?
Not quite. Someone has to touch you. It's not an automatic. If you trip and fall and your knee is down you can get back up. The play is only blown dead if the ref feels the player is giving himself up.
-
Yes the refs should get fined for a bad call.
And QBs should get fined for missing a throw
Receivers should get fined for every bad route, dropped catch or missed block
Running back should get fined for every missed cut
OLine for missed blocks
Dline every time they fail to get passed a block
Defence for missed tackles, bad angles
DBs for every pass that an offense catches
Punters who don't kick more than 40 yards
Kickers who miss a FG
Coaches who have a negative play
GMs if a player they sign doesn't work out.
That way, nobody will get paid anything and all the best talent and referees will want to play/work here.
Hell, Drew Willy is celebrated as a hero. However he has missed 32 passes this year. He should be paying us to watch him play.
-
What happened to the CFL.ca mathematical rankings? They used to be far more entertaining
Election 2015
in General Discussion
Posted
I doubt it. It hasn't been that long since Conservatives had a split right and everybody was calling for unity. I doubt they will split so quickly. Getting a new leader was necessary as after enough time everybody can find something wrong with Harper. The same was true of Mulroney, Cretien. The best thing for them to do is get a more moderate leader for the future. Unfortunately, so many candidates have left before this election.