Jump to content

Canadian Politics


Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...

So, with NK able to strike deep into North America should we be spending money to militarize & have some kind of defensive capabilities to shoot down any NK missile that crosses into our airspace. The Russians also want to assert sovereignty over the North & don't recognize our 200 mile territorial limit. We can't depend on the nutbar President to the south to protect us. We need to protect ourselves. The world is a more dangerous place now more than ever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

So, with NK able to strike deep into North America should we be spending money to militarize & have some kind of defensive capabilities to shoot down any NK missile that crosses into our airspace. The Russians also want to assert sovereignty over the North & don't recognize our 200 mile territorial limit. We can't depend on the nutbar President to the south to protect us. We need to protect ourselves. The world is a more dangerous place now more than ever. 

Quite sure that if we are attacked in any way, the nutbar president to the south will have our back.  I'm more worried about the guy running our country.  If NK attacks us, his first response will be to ask them what we did to make them attack us like that, and how can we make it up to them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Quite sure that if we are attacked in any way, the nutbar president to the south will have our back.  I'm more worried about the guy running our country.  If NK attacks us, his first response will be to ask them what we did to make them attack us like that, and how can we make it up to them?

Time for us to be our own country & not depending on the US. You think if it meant destroying Winnipeg to save Chicago that Trump would hesitate? Not a chance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Time for us to be our own country & not depending on the US. You think if it meant destroying Winnipeg to save Chicago that Trump would hesitate? Not a chance. 

Lol well yes I hope that decision never happens but it doesn't matter if it's Trump, Obama, or Abe Lincoln, if the decision for a US prez is Winnipeg vs Chicago, they're taking Chicago.

We can be our own country but military might is not cheap.  If we have a big brother who wants to protect us from the rest of the world, I think we're right to rely on them.  With only ~35 million people, we're never going to be able to defend the second largest country in the world.  We need the US and they need us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

We need to stand on our own 2 feet ourselves. Have a leader with a vision of national security that is willing to put Canada first when it comes to the military & immigration. 

Well we're not getting that any time soon.  We are likely stuck with Trudeau until he decides it's time for him to leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Well we're not getting that any time soon.  We are likely stuck with Trudeau until he decides it's time for him to leave.

Lots of things have changed since Snowflake was elected. The world is a different place.  By 2019 it'll affect the general election. I think that national security of our borders will become a major election issue.  Something it wasn't in 2015. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

There was some debate about selective abortions in this thread earlier and the issue has been in the news again over the last couple days with Iceland "eradicating" Down Syndrome, i.e. aborting all fetuses who show signs of the condition.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/

What are everyone's thoughts on this, and to relate it back to this thread, should this kind of thing be allowed in Canada?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Atomic said:

There was some debate about selective abortions in this thread earlier and the issue has been in the news again over the last couple days with Iceland "eradicating" Down Syndrome, i.e. aborting all fetuses who show signs of the condition.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/

What are everyone's thoughts on this, and to relate it back to this thread, should this kind of thing be allowed in Canada?

Tommy Douglas and Nellie McClung would agree that this should be allowed in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/08/2017 at 3:36 PM, Atomic said:

There was some debate about selective abortions in this thread earlier and the issue has been in the news again over the last couple days with Iceland "eradicating" Down Syndrome, i.e. aborting all fetuses who show signs of the condition.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/

What are everyone's thoughts on this, and to relate it back to this thread, should this kind of thing be allowed in Canada?

One:   It is allowed in Canada. We are the only Western country to have no law regarding abortion at all.  If you can find a Dr. to 'abort' your baby at 8 and a half months, then you're all set.

 

Two: should it be allowed? Tricky.   I am 100% against abortion, especially abortions of convenience. Should it be illegal? No, I don't think so. I believe we all must choose for ourselves in the end.  that doesn't mean I think we should encourage it either.   God gave us free will, people will use it for good or evil.  If someone chooses to kill their baby, they will answer for it either by depression or what lies beyond.

 

Three:  It is a investigated fact that people with Down Syndrome are by far the happiest identifiable group on Earth.   What a waste it would be to snuff that out.

Edited by basslicker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, basslicker said:

One:   It is allowed in Canada. We are the only Western country to have no law regarding abortion at all.  If you can find a Dr. to 'abort' your baby at 8 and a half months, then you're all set.

 

Two: should it be allowed? Tricky.   I am 100% against abortion, especially abortions of convenience. Should it be illegal? No, I don't think so. I believe we all must choose for ourselves in the end.  that doesn't mean I think we should encourage it either.   God gave us free will, people will use it for good or evil.  If someone chooses to kill their baby, they will answer for it either by depression or what lies beyond.

 

Three:  It is a investigated fact that people with Down Syndrome are by far the happiest identifiable group on Earth.   What a waste it would be to snuff that out.

This will become a bigger issue as genetics are identifiable early.  When they can tell you you're child will be gay, then what?  Or hey, you wanted a tall baby with blond hair but your child will be short and have brown hair...then what.  Or hey, we can manipulate genes to alter your baby in the womb.

Anyway, I agree, Im against abortion too but the genie isnt going back in the bottle.  But having an abortion shouldn't be easy.  It should be treated like the grave decision it really is.  In my humble opinion.  And late stage abortion *should* be illegal.  It simply should not be allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

This will become a bigger issue as genetics are identifiable early.  When they can tell you you're child will be gay, then what?  Or hey, you wanted a tall baby with blond hair but your child will be short and have brown hair...then what.  Or hey, we can manipulate genes to alter your baby in the womb.

Anyway, I agree, Im against abortion too but the genie isnt going back in the bottle.  But having an abortion shouldn't be easy.  It should be treated like the grave decision it really is.  In my humble opinion.  And late stage abortion *should* be illegal.  It simply should not be allowed.

And before you know it, Brave New World isn't so far-fetched..........How disgusting it would be to have a baby assembly line where traits are manipulated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
2 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

One time bump from their leadership debate im thinking.

I dunno, seems a lot of people are not too high on Trudeau anymore.  His constant selfies /lame photo ops, question dodging and all around ****** baggery had to wear out sometime.  I hope this continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, basslicker said:

I dunno, seems a lot of people are not too high on Trudeau anymore.  His constant selfies /lame photo ops, question dodging and all around ****** baggery had to wear out sometime.  I hope this continues.

Yes and I think people generally dont like the idea of higher taxes and massive debt.  While people do like getting stuff, I think the honeymoon is over.  The second coming of Camelot never happened. 

But I have very little faith in the Cons to put together a successful campaign when the time comes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

 

These quotes from the story are great and pretty accurate,

 

Quote

 

"Trudeau's red tape kills pipeline along [with] jobs in Alberta, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Saudi and Venezuelan oil dictators rejoice," tweeted shadow finance minister Pierre Poilievre.

"Canada will now continue to import foreign dictator oil into our refineries instead of Alberta oil, it's shameful," tweeted Brian Jean, who's running to be leader of the United Conservative Party in Alberta.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/morneau-company-france-ethics-1.4351933

Quote

Finance Minister Bill Morneau waited two years to disclose a private corporation that owns a villa in southern France that he shares with his wife to Canada's ethics watchdog, CBC News has learned.

In fact, Morneau only disclosed the corporation to conflict of interest and ethics commissioner Mary Dawson's office after CBC News discovered its existence and began asking questions.

Morneau's office says the failure to disclose the company is the result of "early administrative confusion." Communications director Dan Lauzon said the villa was disclosed but the company was not.

Uh-oh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...