I am in no way as concerned with the increase in the current deficit in this budget as I am with Canada seemingly pulling back from the free worlds war on terror. The deficit currently is quite low compared to back in the 80's and that was at a time of huge interest rates, almost crippling as I recall. With todays interest rates I think it is as good a time as any to spur on the economy via infrastructure projects, etc. However I think our position on the world stage is in great danger of being seriously scrutinized with our position on ISIS and while Trudeau did not exactly say we are not at war with ISIS he did leave that impression by saying "the conflict with ISIS does not fit the true definition of war." Not the smartest thing to say at a time like this imo.
It doesn't fit the true definition of war. Unless you want to convey upon ISIS the true definition of a state. In which case we have already lost because what they want is to establish their caliphate, ie an Islamic state.
Don't give them what they want ffs.
If you formally declare war against ISIS you give them legitimacy as a state. Which is what they want. It will make it easier for them to recruit fighters to their cause if they are formally recognized as a state by any country. Come on, you have to be smart about this shit.
Quoted for comparisons after the current Government gets voted out. they're already 20% of the way there. I think they can make it.
Quote whatever the fuck you want. What does Canada have to show for Harper's debt? Sweet fuck all. Absolutely nothing. Won't be hard to beat that legacy.
Just don't think that you and your children won't have to pay off Harper's or Mulroney's debt. Mulroney's debt is huge, even compared to PE. Trudeau. So I don't know why you far right wingers are always so concerned with deficits and debts. It's absurd and basically hilarious to anyone who has the least bit of knowledge on the subject.
Or bodies start showing up in Trenton. But he'll be there, passing out hugs I am sure.
Are you far right wingers getting impatient that there hasn't been a terrorist attack yet? Sounds like you're wondering when the terrorists are going to get around to attacking Canada, you know, because Trudeau has left us defenseless and all.
Oh, but wait a minute. Wasn't there a terrorist attack while Harper was PM? Oh yeah, I thought there was one crazy Islamist who stormed Parliament and shot a guy. And after Harper cut the security budget too. I forgot about that. Seems like all you far right wingers did too. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
You keep implying that I am a "far right winger". I'm not. So lets address a few things . . .
You want to slam Harper for his increase to the debt load as a means of ignoring Trudeau's doing the same thing. While I recognize that a certain level of debt accrual can be necessary and even practical (infrastructure improvements, and the like), the current budget goes WAY beyond that in adding debt to our National finances. I do not see that as a good thing, REGARDLESS of who is driving the bus.
You have bought into the Prime Minister's notions with respect to daesh and using the term "war" to describe the situation. Your comment about legitimizing them, and helping them to recruit are patent nonsense. Legitimacy comes from Government's being willing to "deal" with them on a State to State basis, and no one is going to do that. As to recruitment, despite all the recent articles about what truly lies in store for new members, they don't seem to have a problem with recruiting, though numbers are down somewhat of late. The idea that calling this situation a "war" somehow gives daesh an advantage is just silly. It also is a bit of a slap in the face to the folks in harm's way, which is what my reference to Trenton was implying.
The Merchant Marine were denied benefits given to soldiers who fought in WW2 for the longest time. Hell they were even denied acknowledgement of their service, though they took the same risks as Naval personnel in the Atlantic convoys. Soldiers who fought in Korea suffered similarly, because it was not a "war", but a Police Action. You may think the semantics unimportant, but I can assure you that, from the perspective of those who are at the sharp end of the sword, words mean things.
And, whether the PM calls is a "war" or "military action", or whatever . . . at some point, troopers are going to end up dead.
As to the whole left/right thing . . . I reject the notion of being "right" for the following reason:
Far Right types like big government just as much as Far Left types do, they just want the intrusiveness to follow "their" biases. Me, I want the government out of my life as much as possible. This country is NEVER going to approach a Libertarian idyll, but that does not mean that I have to like the intrusive nature of it, regardless of which side of the political spectrum it comes from.
I support things that most far right, law and order types would reject, like safe injection sites, equal marriage (why shouldn't gays be as miserable as the rest of us?), refugee influx, and immigration in general.
I also support things that most far left, hippy dippy types would despise, like firearms ownership (though I own none myself), eliminating the census, and being more selective in who we allow into the country.
My positions are not dictated by "left" or "right".
I'm no huge Trudeau fan (although over time I may warm to him, jury's still out) however this article from a very obvious pro Conservative media outlet does little to enhance your argument re debt being a choice vs circumstance. It is always a choice. In this case I'm in favor, we need to keep pushing our economy away from one being so heavily dependent on natural resources.
What you guys need to do is come up with YOUR OWN honest feelings, not simply quote or parrot media or other biased sources. This goes for both sides of the argument.
My own honest opinion is that much of the debt being piled up is NOT in the area of infrastructure spending, as the article points out. Article is linked not to BE my argument, but to SUPPORT it.
You keep implying that I am a "far right winger". I'm not. So lets address a few things . . .
You want to slam Harper for his increase to the debt load as a means of ignoring Trudeau's doing the same thing.
Not at all. You've got it backwards. I've never posted anything about Harper that was not in response to one of the right wingers slamming Trudeau while at the same time ignoring Harper's failings. I don't ignore what Trudeau is doing. As a matter of fact I fully acknowledge that this is a large deficit. The right wing insists Harper balanced budgets while slamming Trudeau for running a deficit.
They're pretty much the worst thing ever.... Judges are supposed to use their discretion and consider the facts of cases individually... the "cut and paste" approach to sentencing leads to the same shit as "3 strikes" in the states where people are serving (AND COSTING TAXPAYERS) for dozens of years for a relatively innocuous crime.
I've always felt the judges role in legal system is to apply the law much like a ref enforces the rules in a sport. If the laws/rules are out of wack, that should be examined, as opposed to handing that discretion to an individual which leads to giant discrepancies in how the law is applied. Costing taxpayers should not be a factor, and to be totally honest, shame on anyone that thinks it should. Citing cases where people have been given extremely long sentences for innocuous crimes is as applicable as those cases where a rapist has been set free because a judge decided that would "serve the interests of justice".
Actually it does not lead to discrepancies in sentencing . . . at least not like you are implying. Sentencing is based on precedents set by prior convictions for similar offences, That is why the Muzzo decision was pretty accurately predicted by legal experts He actually received a stiffer sentence than most "first-timers" who plead guilty.
I am not a fan of "zero-tolerance" rules, or MMS regulations. To me they become tantamount to "know thought required" scenarios. sorry, but I want people and judges to THINK about what they are doing, PARTICULARLY when they are in the process of removing someone's liberty.
The ONLY thing I hate more than Mandatory Minimums is concurrent serving of sentences. In the Muzzo case, everyone screams bloody murder that he got "only 10 years in prison. But that is factually incorrect. He received 10 years for EACH death, but is allowed to serve all four sentences at the same time. That is something I disagree with.
In the Muzzo case, everyone screams bloody murder that he got "only 10 years in prison. But that is factually incorrect. He received 10 years for EACH death, but is allowed to serve all four sentences at the same time. That is something I disagree with.
You do realize that you contradicted yourself within the space of two lines right? If everyone was saying that he only got a 10 year sentence, then you would be correct.
Sentencing is based on precedents set by prior convictions for similar offences
And that's exactly the problem. Because every single case is unique. I'm aware that's there's criteria for what a judge is supposed to look for in sentencing.
No contradiction. The reference to the "10 years" is the actual time he will serve (less credit for pre-sentencing time, etc.). The "actual" length of sentencing was 10 years x4 = 40 years.
Comments
Canada not at war with ISIS, Trudeau says following Brussels attacks | CTV News
War has been redefined cause it's 2016.
We'll just wait until they bring their attacks here.
Quoted for comparisons after the current Government gets voted out. they're already 20% of the way there. I think they can make it.
Don't give them what they want ffs.
If you formally declare war against ISIS you give them legitimacy as a state. Which is what they want. It will make it easier for them to recruit fighters to their cause if they are formally recognized as a state by any country. Come on, you have to be smart about this shit.
Quote whatever the fuck you want. What does Canada have to show for Harper's debt? Sweet fuck all. Absolutely nothing. Won't be hard to beat that legacy.
Just don't think that you and your children won't have to pay off Harper's or Mulroney's debt. Mulroney's debt is huge, even compared to PE. Trudeau. So I don't know why you far right wingers are always so concerned with deficits and debts. It's absurd and basically hilarious to anyone who has the least bit of knowledge on the subject.
Are you far right wingers getting impatient that there hasn't been a terrorist attack yet? Sounds like you're wondering when the terrorists are going to get around to attacking Canada, you know, because Trudeau has left us defenseless and all.
Oh, but wait a minute. Wasn't there a terrorist attack while Harper was PM? Oh yeah, I thought there was one crazy Islamist who stormed Parliament and shot a guy. And after Harper cut the security budget too. I forgot about that. Seems like all you far right wingers did too. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
RCMP security gaps on Parliament Hill were exacerbated by budget cuts: OPP - The Globe and Mail
You want to slam Harper for his increase to the debt load as a means of ignoring Trudeau's doing the same thing. While I recognize that a certain level of debt accrual can be necessary and even practical (infrastructure improvements, and the like), the current budget goes WAY beyond that in adding debt to our National finances. I do not see that as a good thing, REGARDLESS of who is driving the bus.
You have bought into the Prime Minister's notions with respect to daesh and using the term "war" to describe the situation. Your comment about legitimizing them, and helping them to recruit are patent nonsense. Legitimacy comes from Government's being willing to "deal" with them on a State to State basis, and no one is going to do that. As to recruitment, despite all the recent articles about what truly lies in store for new members, they don't seem to have a problem with recruiting, though numbers are down somewhat of late. The idea that calling this situation a "war" somehow gives daesh an advantage is just silly. It also is a bit of a slap in the face to the folks in harm's way, which is what my reference to Trenton was implying.
The Merchant Marine were denied benefits given to soldiers who fought in WW2 for the longest time. Hell they were even denied acknowledgement of their service, though they took the same risks as Naval personnel in the Atlantic convoys. Soldiers who fought in Korea suffered similarly, because it was not a "war", but a Police Action. You may think the semantics unimportant, but I can assure you that, from the perspective of those who are at the sharp end of the sword, words mean things.
And, whether the PM calls is a "war" or "military action", or whatever . . . at some point, troopers are going to end up dead.
Far Right types like big government just as much as Far Left types do, they just want the intrusiveness to follow "their" biases. Me, I want the government out of my life as much as possible. This country is NEVER going to approach a Libertarian idyll, but that does not mean that I have to like the intrusive nature of it, regardless of which side of the political spectrum it comes from.
I support things that most far right, law and order types would reject, like safe injection sites, equal marriage (why shouldn't gays be as miserable as the rest of us?), refugee influx, and immigration in general.
I also support things that most far left, hippy dippy types would despise, like firearms ownership (though I own none myself), eliminating the census, and being more selective in who we allow into the country.
My positions are not dictated by "left" or "right".
Andrew Coyne: Liberal?s $30B deficit a debt of choice, not circumstance | National Post
What you guys need to do is come up with YOUR OWN honest feelings, not simply quote or parrot media or other biased sources. This goes for both sides of the argument.
Not at all. You've got it backwards. I've never posted anything about Harper that was not in response to one of the right wingers slamming Trudeau while at the same time ignoring Harper's failings. I don't ignore what Trudeau is doing. As a matter of fact I fully acknowledge that this is a large deficit. The right wing insists Harper balanced budgets while slamming Trudeau for running a deficit.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-says-two-tough-crime-laws-unconstitutional-140641048.html
Minimum Mandatory = bad bad idea
Mark
My opinion is that the less power in a judges hands the better but I'd like to see why it would be a bad idea.
They're pretty much the worst thing ever.... Judges are supposed to use their discretion and consider the facts of cases individually... the "cut and paste" approach to sentencing leads to the same shit as "3 strikes" in the states where people are serving (AND COSTING TAXPAYERS) for dozens of years for a relatively innocuous crime.
Rehabilitation and Retribution.
Mark
I am not a fan of "zero-tolerance" rules, or MMS regulations. To me they become tantamount to "know thought required" scenarios. sorry, but I want people and judges to THINK about what they are doing, PARTICULARLY when they are in the process of removing someone's liberty.
The ONLY thing I hate more than Mandatory Minimums is concurrent serving of sentences. In the Muzzo case, everyone screams bloody murder that he got "only 10 years in prison. But that is factually incorrect. He received 10 years for EACH death, but is allowed to serve all four sentences at the same time. That is something I disagree with.
just remember, if you have to kill someone, might as well kill all those other idiots you've been planning to murder also. it's just logical.
You do realize that you contradicted yourself within the space of two lines right? If everyone was saying that he only got a 10 year sentence, then you would be correct.
Sentencing is based on precedents set by prior convictions for similar offences
And that's exactly the problem. Because every single case is unique. I'm aware that's there's criteria for what a judge is supposed to look for in sentencing.
Clearer now?