Glorious Leader Stephen Harper reduces Canadian protected lakes and rivers from 2.5 million to 162
62 replies, posted
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38760269]I can't tell if this was supposed to be sarcastic, or what, because I've seen so many ridiculous conspiracy theories out of people I don't know if they're serious or not anymore.[/QUOTE]
Its not sarcastic. He is clearly doing alot of what you said he isn't. Now defend him.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38760269]I can't tell if this was supposed to be sarcastic, or what, because I've seen so many ridiculous conspiracy theories out of people I don't know if they're serious or not anymore.[/QUOTE]
Didn't people in the conservative party wanted to ban abortions at some point?
I mean, that's pretty much going against women's rights.
[QUOTE=Cl0cK;38760409]Didn't people in the conservative party wanted to ban abortions at some point?
I mean, that's pretty much going against women's rights.[/QUOTE]
The debate around that has been over the rights of the fetus as well, if it constitutes a person in itself, and to basically summarize what the debate is around, if the woman having an abortion constitutes them murdering a person. I'm not going to defend their attempts to outright abolish abortion, though I will say several of them are representing concerns voiced by their constituents on the matter, I've seen several pull out anti-abortion petitions sent to their office. I disagree with those attempts, though they were never officially supported by Harper, and he said that he didn't want to re-open the debate. The big issue here is if he told his MPs not to, he'd be criticized for not letting them represent their constituents' or their own views, and for muzzling them under some partisan curtain, but in letting them do so he's being criticized for letting them "defy" party policy. It's really a lose-lose situation here, no matter which way he played it the media would have attacked him.
"Because he has a majority" is the worst justification possible for some hidden extremist agenda. Using that same logic, the Liberals of the '90s were trying to turn Canada into the new USSR because communism is left, and they're left, and because they had a majority they were pushing a hidden extremist agenda. Nonsense drivel, but it makes just about as much illogical sense as saying Harper is trying to push some hidden far-right agenda simply because he has a majority. People have managed to come up with far better justifications for that conspiracy theory.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38760611]The debate around that has been over the rights of the fetus as well, if it constitutes a person in itself, and to basically summarize what the debate is around, if the woman having an abortion constitutes them murdering a person. I'm not going to defend their attempts to outright abolish abortion, though I will say several of them are representing concerns voiced by their constituents on the matter, I've seen several pull out anti-abortion petitions sent to their office. I disagree with those attempts, though they were never officially supported by Harper, and he said that he didn't want to re-open the debate. The big issue here is if he told his MPs not to, he'd be criticized for not letting them represent their constituents' or their own views, and for muzzling them under some partisan curtain, but in letting them do so he's being criticized for letting them "defy" party policy. It's really a lose-lose situation here, no matter which way he played it the media would have attacked him.
"Because he has a majority" is the worst justification possible for some hidden extremist agenda. Using that same logic, the Liberals of the '90s were trying to turn Canada into the new USSR because communism is left, and they're left, and because they had a majority they were pushing a hidden extremist agenda. Nonsense drivel, but it makes just about as much illogical sense as saying Harper is trying to push some hidden far-right agenda simply because he has a majority. People have managed to come up with far better justifications for that conspiracy theory.[/QUOTE]
There is no conspiracy theory. He is doing it. Now defend his doings if I'm exaggerating them.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38760642]There is no conspiracy theory. He is doing it. Now defend his doings if I'm exaggerating them.[/QUOTE]
Your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy and arises from and hinges on a hyperbole I made earlier to illustrate how ridiculous other hyperbolic statements were. There's really nothing to defend here because you haven't presented an argument, you've presented a fallacy.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38760766]Your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy and arises from and hinges on a hyperbole I made earlier to illustrate how ridiculous other hyperbolic statements were. There's really nothing to defend here because you haven't presented an argument, you've presented a fallacy.[/QUOTE]
I proved you wrong though, you said he isn't doing X and it turns out he is.
How do you explain Omnibus bills and Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Act (FIPPA) bills? What about the new pipeline?
He's not the devil but he's not good for us and doesn't represent a majority of us.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;38756407]Ugh
2015 come faster[/QUOTE]
2015 for the next elections or something?
[QUOTE=laserguided;38760801]I proved you wrong though, you said he isn't doing X and it turns out he is.[/QUOTE]
HE isn't doing anything to gay marriage, it's a DOJ lawyer doing something through their (mis)interpretation of a law that was passed by the Liberals in 2005, and once again people are blaming the person in charge, despite Harper admitting he knows nothing about this. And the case is now in the Ontario superior court, a provincial court in a province run by Liberals. As for cutting funding, he cut funding to a lot of groups, not just women's rights groups. IIRC, he mostly cut finds to activist and lobby groups, groups the government shouldn't be funding anyways because it's kind of suspicious when a group is funded by the government it's lobbying.
100% guarantee you this was changed just now so they could do something that was previously illegal.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;38756495]And this is the problem with a lack of gridlock and one party having too much power.[/QUOTE]
explain further in like 3 sentences please
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38760851]How do you explain Omnibus bills and Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Act (FIPPA) bills? What about the new pipeline?
He's not the devil but he's not good for us and doesn't represent a majority of us.[/QUOTE]
I explained this last time, Omnibus bills are nothing new and have been used for decades by both sides of the fence, and most of the opposition to the China deal seems to be just because it's an economic partnership with China, one of the last powerful communist dictatorships in the world. Parts of this agreement, like the CNOOC-Nexen deal, are even supported by the opposition. And which pipeline, there are several in the works, Keystone or the one to BC, which is mostly being handled by the provinces of BC and Alberta, IIRC.
I've also addressed the "doesn't represent the majority of us" one too. Trudeau's majority didn't, Chretien's majority didn't either. One of Mulroney's majorities did, the other didn't. FPTP is almost never majoritally representative, and that's nothing new either. It is no fault of his that he doesn't have popular vote, almost no majority politicians do, it's another fact of Canada's government that is selectively ignored and brought up when opportune for the arguing parties, like omnibus bills.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38760861]HE isn't doing anything to gay marriage, it's a DOJ lawyer doing something through their (mis)interpretation of a law that was passed by the Liberals in 2005, and once again people are blaming the person in charge, despite Harper admitting he knows nothing about this. And the case is now in the Ontario superior court, a provincial court in a province run by Liberals. As for cutting funding, he cut funding to a lot of groups, not just women's rights groups. IIRC, he mostly cut finds to activist and lobby groups, groups the government shouldn't be funding anyways because it's kind of suspicious when a group is funded by the government it's lobbying.[/QUOTE]
I can't trust harpers word, he lies to much when it comes to important issues.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38760926]I explained this last time, Omnibus bills are nothing new and have been used for decades by both sides of the fence, and most of the opposition to the China deal seems to be just because it's an economic partnership with China, one of the last powerful communist dictatorships in the world. And which pipeline, there are several in the works, Keystone or the one to BC, which is mostly being handled by the provinces of BC and Alberta, IIRC.
I've also addressed the "doesn't represent the majority of us" one too. Trudeau's majority didn't, Chretien's majority didn't either. One of Mulroney's majorities did, the other didn't. FPTP is almost never majoritally representative, and that's nothing new either. It is no fault of his that he doesn't have popular vote, almost no majority politicians do, it's another fact of Canada's government that is selectively ignored and brought up when opportune for the arguing parties, like omnibus bills.[/QUOTE]
There is a very big difference between a 144 page omnibus bill and a 900 page omnibus bill.
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;38760956]There is a very big difference between a 144 page omnibus bill and a 900 page omnibus bill.[/QUOTE]
How about an over 1000 page omnibus bill? Obamacare was a large omnibus on health, like how C-10 was an omnibus on crime, but few here took contention with it. Yes, I know it's not a Canadian example, but it's an example of the selective hatred of omnibus bills.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38760950]I can't trust harpers word, he lies to much when it comes to important issues.[/QUOTE]
Then we appear to have hit a stone wall here, because you entered into this intent on blatantly ignoring anything I said in an attempt of justification simply because you distrust the person. That's not arguing, it's not even debating, it's wilful ignorance.
And you should never trust any politician, they all lie, but making these statements creates accountability. Harper is accountable to not changing gay marriage in parliament, and he isn't, this is all the courts' fault.
snippage
[QUOTE=Liem;38756523]Harper
What are you doing?[/QUOTE]
HARPER.
STAHP
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38761101]How about an over 1000 page omnibus bill? Obamacare was a large omnibus on health, like how C-10 was an omnibus on crime, but few here took contention with it. Yes, I know it's not a Canadian example, but it's an example of the selective hatred of omnibus bills.
Then we appear to have hit a stone wall here, because you entered into this intent on blatantly ignoring anything I said in an attempt of justification simply because you distrust the person. That's not arguing, it's not even debating, it's wilful ignorance.
And you should never trust any politician, they all lie, but making these statements creates accountability. Harper is accountable to not changing gay marriage in parliament, and he isn't, this is all the courts' fault.[/QUOTE]
I don't know what planet you were on, but we flipped a lot of shit over the last omnibus bill. It's not like we can really do anything though, because of the majority government, and how Harper controls his party.
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;38761658]I don't know what planet you were on, but we flipped a lot of shit over the last omnibus bill.[/QUOTE]
I know, I was making a point that nobody here flipped a shit over Obama's omnibus healthcare bill, which was over a thousand pages long. I know people flipped a shit over Bill C-10. Perhaps you should re-read what I said.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38761683]I know, I was making a point that nobody here flipped a shit over Obama's omnibus healthcare bill, which was over a thousand pages long. I know people flipped a shit over Bill C-10. Perhaps you should re-read what I said.[/QUOTE]
"Obamacare was a large omnibus on health, like how C-10 was an omnibus on crime, but few here took contention with it."
Few here took contention against C-10?
[editline]9th December 2012[/editline]
Most Obama's was actually healthcare related, that's why FP didn't flip shit over that.
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;38761689]"Obamacare was a large omnibus on health, like how C-10 was an omnibus on crime, but few here took contention with it."
Few here took contention against C-10?
[editline]9th December 2012[/editline]
Most Obama's was actually healthcare related, that's why FP didn't flip shit over that.[/QUOTE]
The segment mentioning C-10 was an aside about it. It was a parenthetical element to the sentence, and hence why I employed the use of commas. The sentence meant that few took contention with Obamacare, but that it was an omnibus like C-10.
And while I'm not well versed on the particulars of C-10, from what I do recall of it a lot of it involved crime, just many different segments of it, like creating new crimes, changing existing ones, and changing the rules for a pardon of a crime. I'm also not necessarily saying all of C-10 was good, especially the pardon part of it, but like I said, I'm not extremely well versed on it, though I recall much of the contention being that the scope of "crime" that the bill covered was too wide and that the bill was based on little criminological fact or research, another thing I disagree with; ignoring the facts and research of the matter, seeing as my "pet political cause" exists as such a hotly debated topic due to ignoring facts and research.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38761744]The segment mentioning C-10 was an aside about it. It was a parenthetical element to the sentence, and hence why I employed the use of commas. The sentence meant that few took contention with Obamacare, but that it was an omnibus like C-10.
And while I'm not well versed on the particulars of C-10, from what I do recall of it a lot of it involved crime, just many different segments of it, like creating new crimes, changing existing ones, and changing the rules for a pardon of a crime. I'm also not necessarily saying all of C-10 was good, especially the pardon part of it, but like I said, I'm not extremely well versed on it, though I recall much of the contention being that the scope of "crime" that the bill covered was too wide and that the bill was based on little criminological fact or research, another thing I disagree with, ignoring the facts and research of the matter, seeing as my "pet political cause" exists as such a hotly debated topic due to ignoring facts and research.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, C-10 went a bit backwards on somethings, and was regarded as a bad move by the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Some things in there I'm okay with, like most things with the Conservatives, but some things, I'm really really not.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlkwHvuEMic[/media]
Put that bilingualism to good use fellow Canucks!
[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;38761812]Yeah, C-10 went a bit backwards on somethings, and was regarded as a bad move by the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Some things in there I'm okay with, like most things with the Conservatives, but some things, I'm really really not.[/QUOTE]
Well it appears we've reached a consensus on the matter then, I feel a fairly similar way about it.
[editline]9th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Florence;38761821][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlkwHvuEMic[/media]
Put that bilingualism to good use fellow Canucks![/QUOTE]
Things like this make me wish I'd found space for French in between math, science, and compulsory English in high school beyond grade 10.
Nooooooooo
Whyyyyy
This is the worst thing Harper has done
He is horrible
[QUOTE=Otsegolation;38760867]100% guarantee you this was changed just now so they could do something that was previously illegal.[/QUOTE]
This is my main worry. As benevolent as allowing people to make footbridges sounds. I'm pretty sure that this just was passed as you said to allowed certain corporate actions that weren't allowed before.
Dacommie swimming in a sea of the misinformed. Misinformed angry sharks
[editline]9th December 2012[/editline]
Honestly the fake outrage in this thread is retarded, did none of you read the article?
I know one of Harper's cousins, and even he thinks Stephen is fucking stupid, god damn.
Why does Harper make such retarded decisions?..
Now ya'll know what it's like having a shitty leader for a few years.
Not gonna knock on us for being unable to get rid of Bush now, eh?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.