Sexy offer time....
Wow!
So, I've just been voted the best choice for car maintenance and repair in town! And now I have a deal for you!
I'm going to offer a special, where I will tweak your car - no matter what car, they're all basically the same so differentiation and special consideration is unnecessary - to make it better. I'm going to add accessories to it that will probably make it break less often, and change certain aspects to ensure it will be quicker and more fuel efficient. You don't really know much about this, but trust me, I'm the expert. Ignore what the other mechanic says about having tried this before and that not only did it not work, but actually made things worse.
Now, this service is clearly great, so you should want it regardless. Don't bother asking for price, just trust me that in the long run, it will be for the best. That other guy saying it'll be cheaper to do it his way is just wrong.
So, who wants me to work on their car? Anyone? No? Well luckily for me (and you! Really!), you have to let me do this now! Isn't this wonderful? No?
Welcome to Conservative C-10.
Mark
So, I've just been voted the best choice for car maintenance and repair in town! And now I have a deal for you!
I'm going to offer a special, where I will tweak your car - no matter what car, they're all basically the same so differentiation and special consideration is unnecessary - to make it better. I'm going to add accessories to it that will probably make it break less often, and change certain aspects to ensure it will be quicker and more fuel efficient. You don't really know much about this, but trust me, I'm the expert. Ignore what the other mechanic says about having tried this before and that not only did it not work, but actually made things worse.
Now, this service is clearly great, so you should want it regardless. Don't bother asking for price, just trust me that in the long run, it will be for the best. That other guy saying it'll be cheaper to do it his way is just wrong.
So, who wants me to work on their car? Anyone? No? Well luckily for me (and you! Really!), you have to let me do this now! Isn't this wonderful? No?
Welcome to Conservative C-10.
Mark
Comments
:arghh:
And I'm totally going to go through your wallet / purse that you left in the car - just in case. Don't worry, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you've nothing to fear!
If you don't like that though, then you're probably siding with identity thieves.
Mark
Just Mark getting all pissy about our MAJORITY CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT!
37% is the majority of people in Canada.
Mark
Apparently so.
Its not the people...its the seats afterall. Get the right person in the right seats, and you rule the country. Simple math really
And I could argue the misrepresentation of that system, but let's not. How about the science showing that MMS (minimum mandatory sentencing) and incarceration is ineffective in reducing, preventing, or diverting criminogenic behaviours? What about the proven HIGHER costs?
Victims advocacy groups are loving this, but isn't that kinda like asking a biased source?
Mark
Until they come up with a pill that makes them all decent citizens again, I say lock them away. Or bring back the death penalty. That would be cheaper.
We went through this a while back, and I cited research but basically harsher punishments / death penalty Do's and Don't
DON'T
Prevent crime
Act as an effective deterrent
Keep people safer
Keep "hardcore" criminals in jail longer
DO
Get headlines
Increase incarceration time for low-mid risk offenders
Cause high risk offenders to get LESSER jail sentences
Cost more money
If you REALLY want, I can try finding the studies again, or you can find them yourself, or you can just trust me. Finally, you can ignore all that and continue to agree with HVEEPoker.
Mark
The fact can't be argued that the Conservatives have run for years on the premise that smaller, more effective, less intrusive, fiscally responsible government is the way to go.
How does this fit into their agenda with crime rates as low as they are?
I would not argue the facts as you spelled them out, Mark, because you're right. I was looking at a much more simplified method for death penalty.
Found guilty...die immediately.
Zero additional costs, zero risk to reoffend, minimal media coverage.
Of course, only the worst of the worst would qualify...I'm talking the Benardo's and Pickton's and those who are convicted of crimes against children. Most would not qualify, sadly, but for those, I have no regret dumping their ass in the northest of northern wastelands with nothing more than a blanket and a pair of socks and tell them to never head south. No walls, no security, just don't bother us again.
Our society is much too kind to most criminals and convicts. Some would rather we pamper them and try to reform them, when the truth is they either don't want to be reformed, or take advantage of our goodwill until they get caught again. Harsher penalities need to be considered and enforced. Judges need to impose stricter conditions to qualify for lower/softer sentencing. Lawyers need to stop inventing new technicalities to get their clients off serious issues.
Soo
Take the "Judgement" ability away from "Judges". Lucky for you C-10 basically does that.
As for Str82Ace earlier. You say no cost, no waste, etc etc. Also, no chance for a safety net if someone was mistaken. How many times have we found people were innocent when we found them guilty? I'd bet that there are more like that than there are the truly heinous you want to insta-kill.
Mark
Well, it worked for the Liberals, didn't it?
For example, if a kid runs out of the Apple store with an iPad3 in his back pack, that is theft under $5,000.00 (is there a lesser charge?). Now, what if my wife and daughter are looking at cellies and, one of them inadvertantly pockets the new smartphone rather than her existing phone? Same charge, same sentence, and no taking into account the circumstances involved? Please . . .
One of the bigger driving factors behind this drive is privatizing prisons.
You have to do some 2nd level thinking here....do you want to put more people in jail, or do you want lower violent crime rates?
The conservatives know this bill will increase violent crime.
I'd like to hear more about this point of view too, in the west I know nobody who feels that way so I can't understand this point of view.
This would be a horrible justice system. But the point here is that society is breeding murders and then changing laws in such a way to breed more.
With the advent of privatized prisons in the good ole USA prison sentences increased five times. That's ridiculous. In Canada, over the last few years and over 100,000 paroles, more than 96% of those persons have NOT reoffended. Keeping them in jail is stupid. Period.
Mark
Pretty sure you got that backwards. There's the old mentality of "I'd rather see 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned" that's a better approach.
Mark
It's good for the economy. A writer noted this in his blog...
"By some estimates, 20-25% of the labour employed in the USA today is guard labour" and for guard labour click below:
http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/files/jayadev_bowles.pdf
Lol, volunteers?
Good for our economy? This doesn't change our economy....money has to come from somewhere...you don't jail people and money appears through jobs.
(as a side note, if these private prison owners are american then we just sold our economy in exchange for our freedom)
edit: admittedly leveled by literations post
I post close to never, give or take a Royal Cup or registering for a home game, but Mark mentioned this thread to me so I decided to chime in. First, I'll get my bias out of the way, for the few who don't know me. I'm a huge conservative supporter, and about as far to the right as DrTyore is to the left. Second, I think I'm more aware of the issues than the average citizen but not by much, and definitely haven't spent the amount of time some people have looking into this. Anyway, Mark gave an analogy to start, so here's a rebuttal.
Assume you own a store like Best Buy, and employees have some discretion in giving discounts to customers in order to make sales. One or more of these employees occasionally abuse this system, and decide to basically give stuff away, like big-screen TV's for a dollar. Obviously you can't stay in business very long, since this will bankrupt you. What's your recourse, since the employee was "technically" doing what he was allowed to do? You could fire this employee, but that doesn't prevent other current or future employees from doing the same thing. So instead, you change your system to prevent these discounts, or at least limit how big they can be. There have been so many cases of judges basically allowing criminals to go unpunished, or being activists making laws rather than enforcing those created by legislature, that a bunch of voters are upset. When judges don't judge properly, changes need to be made. The properly elected Government of Canada, a conservative majority, has enacted legislation to deal with this problem, which is what they're supposed to do (serve their constituents). They are not "going through my wallet/purse" without my consent, at least not any more than they are taxing me to fund other things in the budget (like The John Howard Society of Ontario - Our Funding
I think that's a pretty compelling argument, responding to voter concerns with big, visible changes. However, that's just me playing devil's advocate. I'm actually not a fan of the bill, and think it has some huge problems. I believe in harsher sentences for some criminals, but there are always scenarios that require some actual judgement and accommodation, and this has been taken away with MMS. Further, the cost of these measures are huge, and saying it's good for the economy is only good if you actually prefer bigger government and taxes, which is contrary to the normal conservative platform. As for young offenders, I have historically believed that most needed to be treated/punished more like adults, but I've changed my opinion in the last few years as I've learned more about how children's brains develop right through there teen years.
There are some good things in this bill, like the rescheduling of some drugs, changes to house arrest, etc., but overall, this omnibus has too many problems with it, and it's more of a marketing initiative to appease the misinformed masses than a decent solution. I mentioned judges messing up above, but I think that rather than MMS, a better solution would be to hold them accountable for their judgements. If a judge chooses to make law rather than enforce it, or hands out a grossly inappropriate decision or sentence, bring him/her before a panel of his peers for malpractice or misconduct, and fine/suspend/terminate him/her. I'm guessing they have something like this in place (although I'm too lazy to look it up right now), but make that process more public and the penalties more meaningful, and I think that would solve a good portion of the public disillusionment.
As for capital punishment, not sure why that got in this thread since it's not in the bill. My guess is simply because a lot of those who want harsher sentences also support capital punishment, myself included. However, that doesn't mean it should be brought back without appropriate checks and balances. Some "collateral damage" is to be expected, but it needs to be minimized as much as possible. That costs money, as does longer sentences, so if you really support harsher punishment, I don't think you can expect to do it both cheaply and humanely. Taking away a bunch of the apparent privileges and pampering from criminals is ok, but there still needs to be a minimum standard of decency and due process, even to those on death row. And back to the topic at hand, I don't necessarily mind spending what's required, but the stats seem to show that MMS is generally wasteful and ineffective spending.
Summary, I agree with what the conservatives are trying to do and that there are some serious problems that need to be fixed. But despite their good intentions, I think they really missed the mark in this case, and probably have created more problems than they solved.
I know in parliment the consevatives would just ignore the question, while the opposition waved the evidence in their hands.
More Conservative lies?
Relax, it was a joke. I was hoping I wouldn't have to explain it given the nature of this thread.