Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
Specifically what part of the debates?
I watched all of them, and while Trudeau didn't deliver a masterful oratory performance (none of the candidates did), he certainly didn't say anything that made him look like a "complete idiot", and he definitely wasn't anywhere close to being a national disgrace and embarrassment like Rob Ford.
Trudeau has Kathleen Wynne as a supporter. It doesn't make him a fool but i'd stay as far away from Wynne as I could.
Negatively effect the economy, especially the oil field, which directly hurts me and family as well as many friends of mine. I am totally against his stance on marijuana so that will have a very big negative impact especially with me having young kids that will soon become teens.
Right. Cannabis.
I got news for you. Your teen kids will be able to obtain marijuana whenever they want from street dealers if it's not legal. It's very easy to obtain. Legalizing it keeps it out of criminal control, and will make it less available to your kids since they will require ID to purchase it.
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Drak For This Useful Post:
The marijuana fearmongering is ridiculous. Your kids will have access to it regardless, through their peers. If anything regulation will decrease the availability to people underage. Proper parenting has a much greater impact on drug use than legality.
Negatively effect the economy, especially the oil field, which directly hurts me and family as well as many friends of mine. I am totally against his stance on marijuana so that will have a very big negative impact especially with me having young kids that will soon become teens.
Honestly - how do you see it negatively impacting your kids? Is it possible you don't understand the consequences of legalization?
I am not so worried about them getting it, but it isn't nearly as easy to get as potheads try to spin it. That is part of my job as a parent to stop them from using it.
I am more concerned about the losers who smoke being able to do so more and now in places where people are normally safe from it. An increased interaction with potheads baked out of their mind is not something I want for myself or my kids.
Plus the more legitimate we make it the more people will think it is ok to use.
Trudeau has Kathleen Wynne as a supporter. It doesn't make him a fool but i'd stay as far away from Wynne as I could.
Isn't that exactly what he's doing? Anyone can support/endorse any candidate, and there's nothing you can do about that, but AFAIK, Trudeau has never jointly appeared on stage or attended a rally organized by Wynne during this election campaign. The same cannot be said about Harper and Rob Ford.
Also, for whatever faults Wynne may have, she's nowhere close to being in the same league as Ford when it comes to people intelligent, responsible politicians should avoid like the plague.
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by adc
I would say the overall thing is the way he delivers his message and to me he comes across as an idiot. I found he rarely answers the question but instead goes to buzz words/phrases or tries to spin it to something he might be able to pretend he knows about.
As for "in most eyes" not really sure I trust or care about what most eyes say especially if it is coming from the left wing media or Liberal supporters.
All politicans do this. They all have their talking points when it comes to debates.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Dion For This Useful Post:
I got news for you. Your teen kids will be able to obtain marijuana whenever they want from street dealers if it's not legal. It's very easy to obtain. Legalizing it keeps it out of criminal control, and will make it less available to your kids since they will require ID to purchase it.
If I wanted to find pot right now, a teenager would probably be the best source for finding it.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
I am not so worried about them getting it, but it isn't nearly as easy to get as potheads try to spin it. That is part of my job as a parent to stop them from using it.
I am more concerned about the losers who smoke being able to do so more and now in places where people are normally safe from it. An increased interaction with potheads baked out of their mind is not something I want for myself or my kids.
Plus the more legitimate we make it the more people will think it is ok to use.
Yes it is
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Winsor_Pilates For This Useful Post:
As for "in most eyes" not really sure I trust or care about what most eyes say especially if it is coming from the left wing media or Liberal supporters.
Yes, the dreaded left-wing media. Every major newspaper in the country, including the two national dailies, have endorsed the Conservatives and are running a Conservative advertisement as their front page today. That's the left wing media.
As for the liberals and their drugs, the sitting Conservative Prime Minister is publicly, openly gladhanding and pandering for votes with a known crack addict who happens to be a corrupt politician to boot.
If I were you, I'd be more concerned about the brothels that Trudeau plans to put on every corner.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
Kent Hehr posted this letter on his Facebook page earlier today:
Quote:
Hi there,
I just posted this personal story on my Facebook page and wanted to share with you to spread as you see fit.
Regards,
Patti Wardlaw
_______
Its time for me to stick my neck out of the turtle shell I've been hiding in during this federal election. I know that most of my family and many of my friends will have a hard time with this post, so this is very difficult for me.
I find it easy to talk about politics and economics, but human values? Well, that opens up a different kind of vulnerability...so I have stayed quiet.
I have been deeply conflicted. I have watched many of my friends and family choose their side of the battle field, and I have listened to divisive and judgemental arguments.
Afraid of being accused of destroying our economy by not supporting the conservative party, I have stayed quiet. Afraid of creating conflict and tension I have even led my family and some of my friends to believe that I share their viewpoints.
This is not what I want to model to my children, so I am speaking up now.
I was raised with conservative, right wing values. I have benefitted from our strong resource economy, my family will lose money under a non-conservative government. I am worried about the stock markets crashing, about accumulating national debt, about not getting our resources to market. And yet, I am more worried about the erosion of human rights, of our rights to intellectual property, our rights to fill out a full census form...the list goes on and on.
For the first time in our lives, my husband and I are voting for a Liberal government in this federal election. The conservative candidate in our riding is even a personal friend of mine who I respect, so this makes it all the more difficult to go public.
We are not fully confident in Trudeau as a leader, we do not support every aspect of the Liberal platform, but we are willing to give him a chance.
The erosion of human values, honesty and transparency under the Harper government needs to stop.
And we are willing to pay $ for this to happen. We are willing to give our $120 a month of child support to a family who needs it more than we do, we are willing to pay more in taxes.
Does this make us bleeding heart socialists? Maybe. But I don't even know what that term means anymore. All I know is that I want to live in a world that is not driven by competition, greed and the never-ending quest to grow our GDP. Does the idea of losing my wonderful lifestyle scare me? Absolutely. Is it a risk I'm willing to take for the future of our country? Absolutely.
Oh... yeah... his interviews... you're right.... But wait, which ones? What did he say? I am sure if he was saying some really dumb stuff we would have noticed. Maybe we missed them, can you share a link?
On Quebec radio: “If I believed that Canada was the Canada of Stephen Harper. . . I would think of wanting to make Quebec a country.”
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
The Following User Says Thank You to 2Stonedbirds For This Useful Post:
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
Isn't that exactly what he's doing? Anyone can support/endorse any candidate, and there's nothing you can do about that, but AFAIK, Trudeau has never jointly appeared on stage or attended a rally organized by Wynne during this election campaign. The same cannot be said about Harper and Rob Ford.
She was at a rally with him at an election rally in August of 2015.
Quote:
Appearing with Trudeau at a packed and sweltering rally Monday night in Toronto’s Regent Park, the Liberal premier said Mulcair, who leads in nearly every public-opinion poll, “talks a good game on child care and on increasing the minimum wage and abolishing the Senate.”
“But when you look at what he’s talking about, the ideas are either incomplete or they’re unworkable or they’re impossible,” she told about 600 party stalwarts gathered at the Daniels Spectrum on Dundas St. East.
“He’s all over the map — that’s not a clear, workable plan,” said Wynne, who was re-elected in the June 2014 Ontario vote with Trudeau’s help and is repaying the favour.
“I know where Justin Trudeau stands — he wants to grow the middle class, he wants to make sure that the wealthy pay their fair share, he wants to supports the people who need it the most and he is going to work with the provinces and the territories.”
Visibly energized by the large and raucous crowd, Trudeau said Harper “has gone out of his way to attack Kathleen . . . particularly on pensions — it’s completely irresponsible.”
Also, for whatever faults Wynne may have, she's nowhere close to being in the same league as Ford when it comes to people intelligent, responsible politicians should avoid like the plague.
Ford was an embarrassment as a Mayor with his drug use and such, for which there is no defence. Wynne of course was no where near that level of incompetence.
For me Wynne should focus on her own problems within her province and stay out of the federal election.
So I've been undecided this whole time. I started truly undecided, then basically ruled out the NDP a while ago. So my options are Len Webber and Matt Grant. Here's the thing:
1. I think I narrowly prefer the Conservative platform (mostly based on fiscal and tax policy), but there's nothing in the Liberal platform that is a deal-breaker for me, and there are certain proposals they have made that I support that aren't in the CPC's.
2. Matt Grant is, by all accounts, a pretty good dude. I've now talked to a whole slough of people who have nothing but good things to say about him. Meanwhile, I have basically no such positive vibe in re: Len Webber, the most notable thing I know about him is his storming out on the PC's in protest (see: rat fleeing sinking ship).
3. While I'm pretty comfortable with the prospect of a CPC minority or a LIB minority, I really don't particularly want the Libs to get a majority and it's trending that way, so strategic voting (which I am for the most part very much against) is once again entering my view.
I guess I'm like 60-40 voting for Grant, but... this is really the latest I've been this torn on who to vote for in any election in my whole adult life.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
So I've been undecided this whole time. I started truly undecided, then basically ruled out the NDP a while ago. So my options are Len Webber and Matt Grant. Here's the thing:
1. I think I narrowly prefer the Conservative platform (mostly based on fiscal and tax policy), but there's nothing in the Liberal platform that is a deal-breaker for me, and there are certain proposals they have made that I support that aren't in the CPC's.
2. Matt Grant is, by all accounts, a pretty good dude. I've now talked to a whole slough of people who have nothing but good things to say about him. Meanwhile, I have basically no such positive vibe in re: Len Webber, the most notable thing I know about him is his storming out on the PC's in protest (see: rat fleeing sinking ship).
3. While I'm pretty comfortable with the prospect of a CPC minority or a LIB minority, I really don't particularly want the Libs to get a majority and it's trending that way, so strategic voting (which I am for the most part very much against) is once again entering my view.
I guess I'm like 60-40 voting for Grant, but... this is really the latest I've been this torn on who to vote for in any election in my whole adult life.
Why though? If the Liberals have a minority, then they look to the NDP for help passing bills, which means some concessions to their platform. If there's nothing outright on the Liberal platform that is a deal breaker, wouldn't you want them to just go ahead with it in a majority instead of making adjustments so it will pass with NDP support?
Yeah there's some weird ideas going around among Conservative supporters that people who are ridiculously high in public would get a free pass to hassle people.
Are there a lot of drunks running around screaming at your children in your neighbourhood? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that marijuana legalization would include public intoxication laws.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following User Says Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
I am not so worried about them getting it, but it isn't nearly as easy to get as potheads try to spin it. That is part of my job as a parent to stop them from using it.
I am more concerned about the losers who smoke being able to do so more and now in places where people are normally safe from it. An increased interaction with potheads baked out of their mind is not something I want for myself or my kids.
Plus the more legitimate we make it the more people will think it is ok to use.
Are you being sarcastic? What a backwards view. "Safe from it"? You really think that keeping pot illegal is going to limit your kids ability or desire to use it? Do you not remember your days in junior high and high school? It's extremely easy to attain, it's completely unregulated (so you don't really know what's in it which IMO is one of the biggest issues), it's relatively cheap, and it's lining the pockets of the criminal class.
Legalizing it will put it on the same level as alcohol. Regulated, more difficult for minors to get, and taxed. It will put the dealers, distributors and growers out of business, who are the real offenders and in some cases violent.
What's the difference between alcohol and marijuana, really? Remember alcohol was also illegal for a period of time. Do you drink? Alcohol is actually way worse for the body than pot.
Btw I don't use marijuana, nor do any of my friends or family.
Why though? If the Liberals have a minority, then they look to the NDP for help passing bills, which means some concessions to their platform. If there's nothing outright on the Liberal platform that is a deal breaker, wouldn't you want them to just go ahead with it in a majority instead of making adjustments so it will pass with NDP support?
I've considered this. But I think ultimately it will play out as more of a bargaining strategy.
There's a type of arbitration called a "baseball" arbitration, and it works as follows. You've got a dispute between two parties. The arbitrator hears both sides, and then both sides go away and put together a proposed solution to the dispute. They then come back and give them to the arbitrator, and he picks the one he thinks is more reasonable. He can't modify either. So if you want to win, you have to be more reasonable than the other guys.
I think something similar will generally play out in this situation where you have two strong minority parties. The Liberals will be in the following position with respect to passing legislation: "here's our bill. We want it to go through. If we want to get the NDP on board, we'll have to give out X concession. If we want to get the CPC on board, we'll have to give out Y concession." Then they pick, on a reasoned basis, which concession makes the most sense. It encourages each opposition party to be more reasonable than their ideological foil so as to get what they want, while simultaneously ensuring the governing party has to strategically concede to at least someone, and can't just do as they please.
Feel free to tell me why I'm misguided in thinking the above, though.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Are there a lot of drunks running around screaming at your children in your neighbourhood? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that marijuana legalization would include public intoxication laws.
In my neighbourhood no, but if we have to go downtown then yes there are.
