Canadians let's be real... a coalition will ruin this country... VOTE CONSERVATIVE

[secretlifter3]

See this is my point exactly, I don't expect any of that to come unless I work for it myself. Therefore politics really has no influence on my life, so why should I care if families get extra education funding (liberals) vs a family tax break (cons)? I don't even want a family.

I don't plan on going to prison, so why should I care about how the prison system works? I'm not going to pretend to understand the best way to punish/rehabilitate people, so I don't care about that either. Lock em up or let em come at me. What I do want is the ability to live my own life as I see fit without other people telling me how to do it, so libertarian for me I guess.

Cons and Libs are both for-profit entities at this point, I don't see why anyone would trust one over the other. NDP too.

Let's be serious, if in Florida you got robbed at gun point.. the person who robbed you would get 10 years minimum in prison.

Here, they'd be out in a few months if it's their first offence.


And you can't pretend like it can't affect you... you can have family/friends killed, etc. and watch injustice be served like it is now under Liberal based laws. Everyday justice is not served for serious crimes.

The average Canadian must be concerned over that because it can affect you. "Liberal laws" can easily come back and haunt the same Liberal voters.

[Own3r]

I am NEVER votinc conservative, screw you 6 months possible sentence for possession of under an OZ of Ganj, get realy we are in the 21st century.

I am not a fan of Ignatieff, but he is still better. Overall I am voting Bloc this Election!

[Zigrakil]

lolwut

Strong dumbass.

These crime bills are the same ones that will save your ass. I strongly suggest you don't debate me on this topic.

- Preventing criminals from getting pardons (such as Paul Bernado's wife)
- Preventing criminals from getting 2 for 1 for time they served in jail
- Getting much tougher sentences on rapists/child rapists
- Doubling parole ineligility periods for murderers
- Keeping criminals locked up instead of out on the streets to reoffend


is a bad thing ?????

lolwut

are you stupid? every credible sociologist has discredited these moronic "tough on crime" policies. they don't work. furthermore, canada has a ridiculously low crime rate, so it's not even an issue.

there's seriously no reason to vote conservative this election. bad economics, bad social policies, an embarrassment of a leader.

[secretlifter3]

And how about the gun registry ??

Wtfs the point of that... Spending all this money when 99.99% of gun crimes occur with illegal hand guns.

[Zigrakil]

Let's be serious, if in Florida you got robbed at gun point.. the person who robbed you would get 10 years minimum in prison.

Here, they'd be out in a few months if it's their first offence.


And you can't pretend like it can't affect you... you can have family/friends killed, etc. and watch injustice be served like it is now under Liberal based laws. Everyday justice is not served for serious crimes.

The average Canadian must be concerned over that because it can affect you. "Liberal laws" can easily come back and haunt the same Liberal voters.

considering that america has a much higher crime rate than canada (and ours is extremely low) i see no reason to adopt failed american policies.

[plasmicfury]

I will be voting conservative, not because I like them by any means, but because they are much better than the other parties.

[Zigrakil]

And how about the gun registry ??

Wtfs the point of that... Spending all this money when 99.99% of gun crimes occur with illegal hand guns.

how bout because every police organization in the entire country opposes it on the grounds that they use it to protect their officers from entering dangerous situations?

[secretlifter3]

are you stupid? every credible sociologist has discredited these moronic "tough on crime" policies. they don't work. furthermore, canada has a ridiculously low crime rate, so it's not even an issue.

there's seriously no reason to vote conservative this election. bad economics, bad social policies, an embarrassment of a leader.

"Tough on crime" policies are intended to PUNISH criminals AFTER the crime has occurred.

Why don't you go here and actually READ these examples:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=133645981

Crimes are inevitable, and tough on crime policies are meant to punish. Prevention is an entirely different aspect of sentencing.

[blackhatt]

are you stupid? every credible sociologist has discredited these moronic "tough on crime" policies. they don't work. furthermore, canada has a ridiculously low crime rate, so it's not even an issue.

there's seriously no reason to vote conservative this election. bad economics, bad social policies, an embarrassment of a leader.

THIS exactly

[naturalnumba]

Let's be serious, if in Florida you got robbed at gun point.. the person who robbed you would get 10 years minimum in prison.

Here, they'd be out in a few months if it's their first offence.


And you can't pretend like it can't affect you... you can have family/friends killed, etc. and watch injustice be served like it is now under Liberal based laws. Everyday justice is not served for serious crimes.

The average Canadian must be concerned over that because it can affect you. "Liberal laws" can easily come back and haunt the same Liberal voters.

The chance to be killed by someone abusing their freedom is a risk of living in a free society. If you can't come to terms with that risk, then you are a coward who is undeserving of the freedom you have been granted.

[Zigrakil]

"Tough on crime" policies are intended to PUNISH criminals AFTER the crime has occurred.

Why don't you go here and actually READ these examples:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=133645981

Crimes are inevitable, and tough on crime policies are meant to punish. Prevention is an entirely different aspect of sentencing.

and the point of punishing is...what, exactly? i understand that victims want revenge, but that's no reason to make a law which serves only to validate vengeance. the point of prison sentences is isolation until a convict is fit to re-enter society. it has nothing to do with punishment; that's a strange conservative notion of what constitutes moral justice.

[secretlifter3]

how bout because every police organization in the entire country opposes it on the grounds that they use it to protect their officers from entering dangerous situations?

That sentence made zero sense. Opposes it? Wants it? what are you debating?

There's tons of cops who want it gone. It serves zero use and cops will have to be in much more dangerous situations than entering an average citizen's house who has a case of violence fearing "being shot." If they are to be shot, it will be with an illegal handgun.. not with a registered shot gun. Common sense.

[Jacked_J]

I like low corporate taxes but I don't trust Harper.

He's too secret. It is ridiculous.

He called up a one-on-one debate. Backed out.
Said that the report from Sheila shows that Conservatives well spent at the G8 and is able to release the report right now. Backed out.

He's a beta b*tch who will change his mind right in front of the camera. Lies like a mother fukcer. He signed coalition papers in 2004 and denies it that he ever did now. He's such a tool.

[omglazer]

atheism annoys me. agnoticism is where it's at. come at me bro (no negs I respect religions)

[Zigrakil]

That sentence made zero sense. Opposes it? Wants it? what are you debating?

There's tons of cops who want it gone. It serves zero use and cops will have to be in much more dangerous situations than entering an average citizen's house who has a case of violence fearing "being shot." If they are to be shot, it will be with an illegal handgun.. not with a registered shot gun. Common sense.

which cops, other than julian fantino, want it gone? what you fail to understand is that non-premeditated gun crimes occur with registered firearms, not with illegally acquired ones.

[Montre]

While I'm not a huge Conservative fan + being an atheist... I don't support many Liberal beliefs (and against others).

But here's 3 scenarios:

1) Coalition --> let's get NDP + the Bloc some power (combined with Liberals) and watch what happens

2) Conservative Minority --> Election in 2 years again

3) Conservative Majority --> We get a better result than a coalition and won't have an election in 2 years again


Number one is by far the worst option and it will result should the Conservative win a minority.

Ignatieff has no right to even be here. He is no patriot and he is disgusting. You bet your ass he doesn't give a **** about this country and everything he does has, and will continue to reflect. Anyone that votes in a guy who won't even live in his own country, and disrepects it nonstop should have their voting rights taken away, because their simply shooting everyone in the foot. It's suicidal ffs.

I'm not a big politics guy, not sure who I'd vote for, but I know its not going to be ignatieff. Also, Harpers done tons of stupid ****, but all in all, when you look at whos coming out of the recession ontop...

[blackhatt]

That sentence made zero sense. Opposes it? Wants it? what are you debating?

There's tons of cops who want it gone. It serves zero use and cops will have to be in much more dangerous situations than entering an average citizen's house who has a case of violence fearing "being shot." If they are to be shot, it will be with an illegal handgun.. not with a registered shot gun. Common sense.

Cops oppose scrapping it because they use it for their safety. Contrary to what you state, the most dangerous situation for police is entering a citizens home, as that is how the majority of them die, not on the street in a shootout with gang members (as the conservatives would love you to believe)

As for punishing offenders, which would you rather have
A country with low offending rates, with slightly less punishment
A country with high offending rates, with more punishment

Personally I would rather not be the victim of crime in the first place rather than just punish the person after the fact

As for the person stating Ignatieff ^^^^^^^^^^^ While I agree he is not the greatest choice as liberal leader, you are electing the platform and the policies not just the face of the organization. If you are unwilling to vote for a party just because of one person if you otherwise agree with the policies, you really are quite narrow minded.

[SlamDuncan]

credible sociologist

Enjoy your constantly changing field of social science. Not even remotely similar to what it would have looked like ten years ago. Not exactly something I want to have as a deciding factor in the social policies created by our government

[vabyss]

It actually makes me feel a bit better knowing that other countries have to tolerate primitive conservitards as well.

[Zigrakil]

Ignatieff has no right to even be here. He is no patriot and he is disgusting. You bet your ass he doesn't give a **** about this country and everything he does has, and will continue to reflect. Anyone that votes in a guy who won't even live in his own country, and disrepects it nonstop should have their voting rights taken away, because their simply shooting everyone in the foot. It's suicidal ffs.

I'm not a big politics guy, not sure who I'd vote for, but I know its not going to be ignatieff. Also, Harpers done tons of stupid ****, but all in all, when you look at whos coming out of the recession ontop...

the conservative mentality seems to be: hey, you went out into the world and became successful after growing up in canada? phuck you we don't want you back. ignatieff got into HARVARD as a professor and you guys act like this was a betrayal. clearly harper, who wanted alberta to cede from canada, is the better choice.

[Zigrakil]

Enjoy your constantly changing field of social science. Not even remotely similar to what it would have looked like ten years ago. Not exactly something I want to have as a deciding factor in the social policies created by our government

thats because the world as whole is trending to the left as we acquire more knowledge. it's no secret that the more educated tend to vote for leftist parties.

[secretlifter3]

and the point of punishing is...what, exactly? i understand that victims want revenge, but that's no reason to make a law which serves only to validate vengeance. the point of prison sentences is isolation until a convict is fit to re-enter society. it has nothing to do with punishment; that's a strange conservative notion of what constitutes moral justice.

You're the same retard who will eat up these words if your own family member was murdered.

Punishment has always been the number one purpose of sentencing around the world. Saying you have no problem in not punishing someone who just killed your family, just proves you have some sort of a psychological problem.

You're the same type of guy who supports criminal's rights over victim's right. Let's have someone tortured, raped and murdered be given parole eligibility in 10 years and have their family attend those hearings every 2 years after that till they're dead.

It makes perfect sense to further ruin the victim's family's life JUST so that the criminal's rights can be respected right?


gtfo with these non sense beliefs.

[Montre]

"Tough on crime" policies are intended to PUNISH criminals AFTER the crime has occurred.

Why don't you go here and actually READ these examples:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=133645981

Crimes are inevitable, and tough on crime policies are meant to punish. Prevention is an entirely different aspect of sentencing.

Only works if the country does not give a single ****. Look at place like Cuba, you can go there as a rich white tourist (rich to them) and the crime rate there is very low. Simply because if they go to jail, their family has to provide them with meals, no government assisted bull****. Families there can't afford to do this, so no one goes to jail because they'll either starve or **** over their entire family.

Tough on Crime doesn't work in Canada because we're too bleeding heart. People do stupid **** and get away with disgustingly low charges. Look at Karla Homolka. Fck rapists get like 5 yrs.

Tough on Criminals only works when the sentancing is actually hard as ****.

[Zigrakil]

You're the same retard who will eat up these words if your own family member was murdered.

Punishment has always been the number one purpose of sentencing around the world. Saying you have no problem in not punishing someone who just killed your family, just proves you have some sort of a psychological problem.

You're the same type of guy who supports criminal's rights over victim's right. Let's have someone tortured, raped and murdered be given parole eligibility in 10 years and have their family attend those hearings every 2 years after that till they're dead.

It makes perfect sense to further ruin the victim's family's life JUST so that the criminal's rights can be respected right?


gtfo with these non sense beliefs.

you're missing the point. the state is supposed to maintain justice. there's a reason we don't let the victim of a crime decide the sentence, and that's because they're biased. if my family was murdered, i would want revenge, but i wouldn't be in a right state of mind to make a legally fair choice. all human beings have inalienable rights. that's the issue here.

[blackhatt]

Only works if the country does not give a single ****. Look at place like Cuba, you can go there as a rich white tourist (rich to them) and the crime rate there is very low. Simply because if they go to jail, their family has to provide them with meals, no government assisted bull****. Families there can't afford to do this, so no one goes to jail because they'll either starve or **** over their entire family.

Tough on Crime doesn't work in Canada because we're too bleeding heart. People do stupid **** and get away with disgustingly low charges. Look at Karla Homolka. Fck rapists get like 5 yrs.

Tough on Criminals only works when the sentancing is actually hard as ****.

Yeah because tough on crime is working so well in the US right?

[SlamDuncan]

thats because the world as whole is trending to the left as we acquire more knowledge. it's no secret that the more educated tend to vote for leftist parties.

Do you not see this as the result of liberal bias in our education system as compared to a direct influence of "educated people are intelligent, therefore the liberal party is intelligent as well!". Ignoring social bias it still raises the valid point that our country is not a meritocracy, education does not necessarily correlate higher iq, and that intelligent people can be wrong lol. Look at the gdp to political affiliation polls. Correlation does not equal causation bra.

[aceshin]

It actually makes me feel a bit better knowing that other countries have to tolerate primitive conservitards as well.

Most of ours are relegated to Alberta, but their population in Ontario has been growing partly because all they listen to, to and from work is conservative radio shows.


oh and OP, what fuking coalition? Enlighten me you mongoloid. Are you aware back in 05 I believe, Harper intended to form a coalition with the Bloc and NDP to topple the Martin government thereby making himself PM. This is fact, while your claim has no basis in reality. Or did you conveniently forget all that?

[secretlifter3]

Cops oppose scrapping it because they use it for their safety. Contrary to what you state, the most dangerous situation for police is entering a citizens home, as that is how the majority of them die, not on the street in a shootout with gang members (as the conservatives would love you to believe)

As for punishing offenders, which would you rather have
A country with low offending rates, with slightly less punishment
A country with high offending rates, with more punishment

Personally I would rather not be the victim of crime in the first place rather than just punish the person after the fact

As for the person stating Ignatieff ^^^^^^^^^^^ While I agree he is not the greatest choice as liberal leader, you are electing the platform and the policies not just the face of the organization. If you are unwilling to vote for a party just because of one person if you otherwise agree with the policies, you really are quite narrow minded.

Provide me proof that registered long guns are the main cause of death of police officers. I'm waiting.

Look up the 10-20-Life law in Florida which has reduced gun crime rates.

Minimum Sentences:

10-19 years if you pull a gun on someone

20+ years if you fire a bullet

25 years to Life if you shoot someone



Your argument makes zero sense anyways. We have reoffending murderers/rapists, these are the main targets of harsher sentencing. You're telling me getting harsher on them will = higher crimes rates. That is a logical error.

By focusing on prevention/rehabiliation of less serious criminals we will continue the lower crime trend in Canada. DONE.

By getting much much harsher sentences on murders, rapists, terrorists... we will have justice be served and never let serious criminals back on the streets EVER. We are not "hardening up" criminals, we are never letting them back into society ever again. Period.


that = a succesful justice system

[Zigrakil]

Do you not see this as the result of liberal bias in our education system as compared to a direct influence of "educated people are intelligent, therefore the liberal party is intelligent as well!". Ignoring social bias it still raises the valid point that our country is not a meritocracy, education does not necessarily correlate higher iq, and that intelligent people can be wrong lol. Look at the gdp to political affiliation polls. Correlation does not equal causation bra.

you can use that argument all you like, but it's obvious that conservative philosophy is deeply flawed. as someone who actually attends university, i can tell you that no professor ever tells students how to vote, but an ounce of study shows why conservativism is flawed. what does 'liberal bias' even mean? most political scientists of this day and age are leftists. do you think it's because left-wing parties are paying them, or something?

[SlamDuncan]

Most of ours are relegated to Alberta, but their population in Ontario has been growing partly because all they listen to, to and from work is conservative radio shows.


oh and OP, what fuking coalition? Enlighten me you mongoloid. Are you aware back in 05 I believe, Harper intended to form a coalition with the Bloc and NDP to topple the Martin government thereby making himself PM. This is fact, while your claim has no basis in reality. Or did you conveniently forget all that?

I don't care what you think of their social policies, but do you really so strongly disagree with their fiscal policies? They are the only party with a platform on india and brazil, the world's next recipients of china-like economic booms.