A Challenge for Elizabeth May

[CNP]

I almost choked on my breakfast when I read this one in the National Post (http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/challenge+Elizabeth/4558757/story.html):


"Having a national debate without the Green party is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You leave a lot of useless, noisy baggage behind." (Topically edited from the original by Jed Babbin, former U.S. secretary of defense.)
Roger Jones, Thornhill, Ont.


Thanks Roger for brightening my day:)

[Beerfish]

May is a windbag but if the BloQ who only runs candidates in Quebec gets a seat at the table then the Greens who run candidates in all regions of the country and got 7% of the vote in the last election deserve a seat at the table.

[TheClash]

don't we want a system where all that want to run have a chance to voice their platform in a debate? I personally hate it when we do not have parties represented at debates.

[Ryry4]

I was under the impression that only parties that met the party status were to be allowed in the debate. The Greens do not meet that status.

[TheClash]

and I tend to agree and disagree with that.....I don't think you can let any joe blow that has a "platform" into the debates..but I do think the greens and the wild rose have enough of a "following" to warrant a seat at the debates. But maybe that is just me...i have been wrong before lol.

[Okotokian]

One must remember that there are LOTS of registered political parties in this country You just don't hear about them and they have no chance of winning a seat or even remotely affecting the outcome in a riding. We don't want to have to listen to the Leader of the Communist party or the Rhinoceros party drone on in a debate. It has to be limited to impactful parties. Right now the criteria is seats. The Bloc makes it, Greens don't. Perhaps change it to percent of votes cast and seats contested.

What I'd be really interested in is a two person debate; Harper versus Ignatieff. They are the only guys that can form a government and become Prime Minister. That's your option. I'd like to see just the two of them square off. I suspect the networks couldn't do it for free as it would be too preferential to just those two parties. Parties might have to pay for the airtime themselves.

[Ryry4]

and I tend to agree and disagree with that.....I don't think you can let any joe blow that has a "platform" into the debates..but I do think the greens and the wild rose have enough of a "following" to warrant a seat at the debates. But maybe that is just me...i have been wrong before lol.

Got to draw the line somewhere. Elizabeth May at the debate is just another left winger throwing stones at Harper.

[Okotokian]

Base it on actual party memberships sold. If a newcomer like the Green or Wildrose party gets out there and sells a ton of memberships, that indicates public interest and support. Sell as many memberships as the big boys, you get to come to the dance.

[209x50]

I'm tired of paying for political parties. Why should my tax money go to the Bloc or May, or any of them?

[Cowtown guy]

Unless the party runs a candidate in every riding they shouldn't be given party status.

Kick out all of the wasted votes for the parties that can never run and then you will see truer representation.

I realize that this isn't how democracy works but until then we can still keep having these ridiculous minority governments where hardly anything meaningful gets done.

Green's, Bloc's, Marijuana party... all votes that are effectively "wasted". Yes it is someone else's right to vote for who they choose but how does that help parliament? Minority governments waste tons of money with all of the bickering and in-fighting that goes on. If something meaningful is to be passed and it irks someone else then everybody wants to take their ball and go home angry.

[nsmitchell]

This debate debacle is getting the Green Party all of the free advertising they need. I appreciate the humour in the original post.

[Redfrog]

I'm tired of paying for political parties. Why should my tax money go to the Bloc or May, or any of them?

X2 you want to play get some support and win a seat or two. May is a legend in her own mind. However she's as relevant as fart in a windstorm in my mind.

People in the fringe parties remind me of a pup who just discovered he has a voice and now won't shut up.

If they truly believe in the green platform, why not join a party with some credibility and try to influence their platform to include your whacky ideas.
It makes more sense to get some part of the Green idealogy put into play than waste taxpayers and member money on a horse that can't run. I'm not saying May is a horse.:thinking-006:

[TheClash]

Base it on actual party memberships sold. If a newcomer like the Green or Wildrose party gets out there and sells a ton of memberships, that indicates public interest and support. Sell as many memberships as the big boys, you get to come to the dance.

true enough.

[Beerfish]

X2 you want to play get some support and win a seat or two. May is a legend in her own mind. However she's as relevant as fart in a windstorm in my mind.

People in the fringe parties remind me of a pup who just discovered he has a voice and now won't shut up.

If they truly believe in the green platform, why not join a party with some credibility and try to influence their platform to include your whacky ideas.
It makes more sense to get some part of the Green idealogy put into play than waste taxpayers and member money on a horse that can't run. I'm not saying May is a horse.:thinking-006:

LOL join a party with some cred like who? These 'fringe' parties are an important part of democracy and like any lobby group bring forth things that are relevant.

[Beerfish]

I was under the impression that only parties that met the party status were to be allowed in the debate. The Greens do not meet that status.

The Greens do have official party status and like the other major parties receive funding. They have no seats but have enough popular vote to have official status.

[Ryry4]

The Greens do have official party status and like the other major parties receive funding. They have no seats but have enough popular vote to have official status.

Could have fooled me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_party_status

[burblecut]

I'd like to see the Green Party in a debate with the big 3. Might as well make it 4. The 3 big party's don't represent all Canadians.
I vote Green, I'm sure alot more would if they knew more about the party.

3,2,1 :scared0018:

[Redfrog]

LOL join a party with some cred like who? These 'fringe' parties are an important part of democracy and like any lobby group bring forth things that are relevant.

You missed my point. When was the last time the Greens formed the gov't in Canada? When was the last time the NDP or CCF formed a gov't? when was the last time the Bloc formed the gov't in Canada.

Tell me how you think the green policies are relevant. They are talking points and will only become law when they are presented in the platforms of the parties who have a realistic chance to form gov't.

While that may not be the philosophy, that is the reality of the status quo.

Everyone has aright to a voice, unfortunately having a voice does not mean much unless it has enough support to implement your ideas.

One way to get your ideas to a place where they may become law is to present them to a party that has a chance of forming the gov't.

THe CCF/NDP have been around since Moses was in Grade two. When have they got any traction with their ideas other than with a minority gov't?

All the rhetoric and freedom of speech means little if you can't get the traction to implement the philosophy.

[ctd]

Hey the Debates are run by NEWS STATIONS. Guess what makes news for them. Pulling things off like like not allowing the Green Party to debate. Look what has dominated Canadian News for the past few weeks. Yup you guessed it, the Political situation within Canada for not allowing a Party to be on the Debate.

If The Green Party wants a Debate then she should set one up herself with each of the leaders. That way she may actually say something that might sink into them.
The last election where she was part of the debate, she really was not part of it.

[209x50]

You missed my point. When was the last time the Greens formed the gov't in Canada? When was the last time the NDP or CCF formed a gov't? when was the last time the Bloc formed the gov't in Canada.

Tell me how you think the green policies are relevant. They are talking points and will only become law when they are presented in the platforms of the parties who have a realistic chance to form gov't.

While that may not be the philosophy, that is the reality of the status quo.

Everyone has aright to a voice, unfortunately having a voice does not mean much unless it has enough support to implement your ideas.

One way to get your ideas to a place where they may become law is to present them to a party that has a chance of forming the gov't.

THe CCF/NDP have been around since Moses was in Grade two. When have they got any traction with their ideas other than with a minority gov't?

All the rhetoric and freedom of speech means little if you can't get the traction to implement the philosophy.
Well put and closer to the point, look at all the money out of mine and your pocket has been frittered away keeping these fringers employed.

[huntinstuff]

They should let her attend

Then, during a heated part of the debate, they should focus the camera on her for the official "stunned" moment

That would be her only contribution

[sheephunter]

Give her and her party lots of attention......it's not like she's stealing votes from the Conservatives. I'd actually encourage a lot of Liberals and NDPers to vote for the Green Party! It's definitely not a wasted vote ;)

[Scott N]

Give her and her party lots of attention......it's not like she's stealing votes from the Conservatives. I'd actually encourage a lot of Liberals and NDPers to vote for the Green Party! It's definitely not a wasted vote ;)


I like the way you think sheephunter. :)

[Cowtown guy]

I vote Green, I'm sure alot more would if they knew more about the party.

That's the funniest thing I have seen here for a while.

[lineman4 life]

Correct me if I am wrong, but is the Wildrose Alliance not a provincial party at this point in time? Would a party not need MP candidates as opposed to MLA's to be included in a national debate?

[Redfrog]

You're correct.

[BlackHeart]

Give her and her party lots of attention......it's not like she's stealing votes from the Conservatives. I'd actually encourage a lot of Liberals and NDPers to vote for the Green Party! It's definitely not a wasted vote ;)

At first I did not want to see this greenbag lady whine irrelevantly at a debate where she really has no ideas or the ones she has as fashioned from disney cartoons like bambi and fly away......but

Based on the logic of sheephunter, now I want her there...at least to irk Cracker Jack.

[Redfrog]

SH I gotta say you're right:) Good idea.

[Ryry4]

Sheep I thing you're on to something here. :)

[SonnyJ]

Give her and her party lots of attention......it's not like she's stealing votes from the Conservatives. I'd actually encourage a lot of Liberals and NDPers to vote for the Green Party! It's definitely not a wasted vote ;)


You sir win the cigar..lol

http://www.faqs.org/photo-dict/photofiles/list/530/1816cigar.jpg

[CNP]

I'd like to see the Green Party in a debate with the big 3. Might as well make it 4. The 3 big party's don't represent all Canadians.
I vote Green, I'm sure alot more would if they knew more about the party.

3,2,1 :scared0018:


Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Morinville, Alberta
Posts: 81




Say you're not from Morinville:sign0161: What are you running from? ........the only good reason to include EVERY party is to know your enemy. In my mind, the green would not benefit from national exposure. Here are some Green Visions: Ban Handguns; ban semi-automatic rifles, ban assault rifles, ban combat weapons, ban the commercial seal hunt. Their Animal Welfare vision has me suspicious at best and Arctic Strategy is a strategy to do nothing. Committed to a federally funded child-care programme and legalizing marijuana.......so they want to take away our guns in trade for satisfying the potheads. Position on defence of Canada is absent. They have lots of good visions too...nothing that makes me want to stray their way.

[Bolete]

I'd like to see the Green Party in a debate with the big 3. Might as well make it 4. The 3 big party's don't represent all Canadians.
I vote Green, I'm sure alot more would if they knew more about the party.

3,2,1 :scared0018:

If you read their policy on gun ownership, you may change your mind. I fully support protection of the environment, as do most hunters I presume, however the Green Party of Canada is so left, they make Jack Layton sound like Rush Limbaugh.
Ms. May deserves about as much regard as most Canadians give her - which is exactly none.

[TheClash]

why not post it for us to read...

[eastcoast]

the media couldn't have done anything better for the green party than this, look at the attention she is getting from it.:sign0161:

[Bolete]

Google is your friend.
Here is one line in particular that may be of interest to you:

"The risks created by having dangerous weapons in our urban centres are significant. We will introduce balanced and fair measures to ban handguns and semi-automatic firearms."

Sounds fair and balanced to mehttp://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc256/DoctorBowie/facepalm.gif

[Redfrog]

the media couldn't have done anything better for the green party than this, look at the attention she is getting from it.:sign0161:

Do you think it was intended, or do you think they excluded her for all the right reasons?

[TreeGuy]

A fractured left does a happy right make. That's why the cbc et al do not want her included.....

[TheClash]

this is what I was able to find:

Green Party MPs will:

* Provide increased support for Integrated Border Enforcement Teams made up of officers from the RCMP, Canada Border Services, U.S. Customs and the U.S. Coast Guard in their gathering of intelligence and arresting of gun smugglers.
* Put strict measures in place for those who attempt to cross the Canada/U.S. border with illegal firearms. Ensure that gun smuggling is prosecuted as a gun crime of the highest order rather than as a customs violation.
* Fulfill Canada's obligation under international agreements (United Nations Firearms Protocol and the Organization of American States Firearms Convention) to mark all imported firearms, as recommended by the Canadian Association of Police Boards and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
* Ensure that gun crime charges are not dropped to facilitate convictions on lesser charges.
* Work hard to create a registration system that is fair, free, and easy to use. We support the elimination of registration fees for hunting rifles and will ensure law-abiding citizens do not have their firearms confiscated.
* Ban handguns and combat weapons including semi-automatic rifles and assault rifles. Eliminate their use through consultation and a full buy-back program. Consult especially with holders of collections to ensure guns are rendered non-functional to eliminate usefulness to thieves, and with target shooters to establish safe and protected locations where target shooting can be practiced. Streamline the gun registry in consultation with First Nations, and with gun sports and hunter organizations. Ensure the registration system is fair for all users.



have at 'er...

[eastcoast]

Do you think it was intended, or do you think they excluded her for all the right reasons?

who knows they were the ones excluding her, and they ran the story, but with all that's going on right now with lybia,the us shutdown,egypt,yemen,ivory coast,japan it's not like they need filler?.

[Redfrog]

Was that a yes?:)

[eastcoast]

Was that a yes?:)

now that I think about it id say no, they probably excluded her for the right reasons, they have given her alot of free press over it, lets hope they don't cave like last time.

I think it should be harper,iggy and layton in the debates, the bloc are a regional party and the greens don't have any mp's.

[Scott N]

now that I think about it id say no, they probably excluded her for the right reasons, they have given her alot of free press over it, lets hope they don't cave like last time.

I think it should be harper,iggy and layton in the debates, the bloc are a regional party and the greens don't have any mp's.

I think a lot of why May was allowd to participate last time was because the Green Party actually had an MP. He (she?) wasn't elected but crossed the floor, so technically they had a sitting MP. Not this time though.

I also agree that the Bloc should not be in the English language debate at the very least.

[KLOC]

I'm tired of paying for political parties. Why should my tax money go to the Bloc or May, or any of them?

Well ... they don't. Parties get $2 for each vote they get.

Oh ... I'm' new here. I build split-cane bamboo fly rods for fun.

[209x50]

Well ... they don't. Parties get $2 for each vote they get.

Oh ... I'm' new here. I build split-cane bamboo fly rods for fun.
So each vote generates $2. From where? Where does the money come from to pay the $2?

[rhuntley12]

So each vote generates $2. From where? Where does the money come from to pay the $2?

Well check your wallet before you vote then check it after, might be a toonie lighter! I think being paid from tax dollars per vote is one of the most obsurd things I've heard of since moving here.

[Grizzly Adams]

May is a windbag but if the BloQ who only runs candidates in Quebec gets a seat at the table then the Greens who run candidates in all regions of the country and got 7% of the vote in the last election deserve a seat at the table.

But, the Bloc, at least, has Table manners.:lol: May is just the uncouth country cousin.

Grizz

[Okotokian]

Well check your wallet before you vote then check it after, might be a toonie lighter! I think being paid from tax dollars per vote is one of the most obsurd things I've heard of since moving here.

Well, it's the price we pay for getting corporate and union money out of the electoral system. The subsidy was brought in when corporate and union donations were banned. Personally, I'd like to see if the parties could effectively campaign and get theri message out with just personal donations alone and no subsidies, but I'm glad we have the corporations and unions out of the system.

[Ryry4]

Well, it's the price we pay for getting corporate and union money out of the electoral system. The subsidy was brought in when corporate and union donations were banned. Personally, I'd like to see if the parties could effectively campaign and get theri message out with just personal donations alone and no subsidies, but I'm glad we have the corporations and unions out of the system.

I got to agree with you there.

[eastcoast]

Well, it's the price we pay for getting corporate and union money out of the electoral system. The subsidy was brought in when corporate and union donations were banned. Personally, I'd like to see if the parties could effectively campaign and get theri message out with just personal donations alone and no subsidies, but I'm glad we have the corporations and unions out of the system.

yeah I agree lesser of 2 evils.

[burblecut]

Say you're not from Morinville:sign0161: What are you running from? ........the only good reason to include EVERY party is to know your enemy. In my mind, the green would not benefit from national exposure. Here are some Green Visions: Ban Handguns; ban semi-automatic rifles, ban assault rifles, ban combat weapons, ban the commercial seal hunt. Their Animal Welfare vision has me suspicious at best and Arctic Strategy is a strategy to do nothing. Committed to a federally funded child-care programme and legalizing marijuana.......so they want to take away our guns in trade for satisfying the potheads. Position on defence of Canada is absent. They have lots of good visions too...nothing that makes me want to stray their way.

You made some good points, and I yes, there are some policies they have which I don't like.

Ban Handguns – Will never happen.
Assault Rifles - Don't care, If I wanted an assault rifle, I would go back in the military.
Seal Hunt - Do you eat Seal? Have you ever seen it at Safeway? If I could eat seal, I would support it, but once again I don't see it, so I could care less if it's banned. Canada boasts about this seal hunt, yet seal isn't even readily available to Canadian's.
Legalize pot - Don't care. I' m more of a rum drinker myself. To each their own though. I don't judge a book by its cover.

I care about the environment, I care about a Strong Defence(I like Harper for that), I like the idea of more jails and harder sentences. The Cons have all of this except environment. If they had this, they would get my vote.

Am I a Lefty? No, I’m in the middle, whatever that is.. Each party has a little bit of something I like, however I have not done the homework like some of you obviously have. I’ve always held the Environment at the top of my list though.

Redfrog made a good point in his past post:
One way to get your ideas to a place where they may become law is to present them to a party that has a chance of forming the gov't.

The Greens will never be in power, I know that, you know that, we all know that, so maybe I should be pressing the Cons with my issues. I really don’t want a minority again, that’s for sure.

I haven’t spent a lot of time researching each party with all of their policies..I may have jumped the gun in my first post saying who I will vote for. I’m glad people on this forum are involved though. It opens up my eyes to how little I know about bills & policy’s.


Cheers

[Beerfish]

You missed my point. When was the last time the Greens formed the gov't in Canada? When was the last time the NDP or CCF formed a gov't? when was the last time the Bloc formed the gov't in Canada.

Tell me how you think the green policies are relevant. They are talking points and will only become law when they are presented in the platforms of the parties who have a realistic chance to form gov't.

While that may not be the philosophy, that is the reality of the status quo.

Everyone has aright to a voice, unfortunately having a voice does not mean much unless it has enough support to implement your ideas.

One way to get your ideas to a place where they may become law is to present them to a party that has a chance of forming the gov't.

THe CCF/NDP have been around since Moses was in Grade two. When have they got any traction with their ideas other than with a minority gov't?

All the rhetoric and freedom of speech means little if you can't get the traction to implement the philosophy.

So I take it the Wildrose party is irrelevant because they have never formed a government? Or the reform party? Or the Bloq?

The NDP has formed many provincial governments that were majorities and some very good governments as well.

If you took the concerns of the Green party and stuck them in one of the other major parties they'd get drowned out by all the other issues these parties need to adhere to in order to try and rule. 7% of the people who voted last election voted Green, not an insignificant number.

By all means have an opinion about parties and their message but to just try to drowned them out is undemocratic.

[Beerfish]

But, the Bloc, at least, has Table manners.:lol: May is just the uncouth country cousin.

Grizz

Their leader certainly is a windbag no doubt about it and May in my mind really hurts their cause. I agree about the BloQ too, I hate the idea behind their party and that they have as much say in the country as they do but I actually like Duceppe strictly as a party leader.

[kreator]

this is what I was able to find:

Green Party MPs will:

* Provide increased support for Integrated Border Enforcement Teams made up of officers from the RCMP, Canada Border Services, U.S. Customs and the U.S. Coast Guard in their gathering of intelligence and arresting of gun smugglers.
* Put strict measures in place for those who attempt to cross the Canada/U.S. border with illegal firearms. Ensure that gun smuggling is prosecuted as a gun crime of the highest order rather than as a customs violation.
* Fulfill Canada's obligation under international agreements (United Nations Firearms Protocol and the Organization of American States Firearms Convention) to mark all imported firearms, as recommended by the Canadian Association of Police Boards and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
* Ensure that gun crime charges are not dropped to facilitate convictions on lesser charges.
* Work hard to create a registration system that is fair, free, and easy to use. We support the elimination of registration fees for hunting rifles and will ensure law-abiding citizens do not have their firearms confiscated.
* Ban handguns and combat weapons including semi-automatic rifles and assault rifles. Eliminate their use through consultation and a full buy-back program. Consult especially with holders of collections to ensure guns are rendered non-functional to eliminate usefulness to thieves, and with target shooters to establish safe and protected locations where target shooting can be practiced. Streamline the gun registry in consultation with First Nations, and with gun sports and hunter organizations. Ensure the registration system is fair for all users.



have at 'er...

Doesn't look that bad to me. Doesn't say abolish the registration system, though, only revamp it. I'm perfectly fine with banning handguns and assault weapons.

[Okotokian]

Doesn't look that bad to me. Doesn't say abolish the registration system, though, only revamp it. I'm perfectly fine with banning handguns and assault weapons.

Let's agree to not use the term "assault weapons" No one really knows what that means. If you mean you are fine with banning automatic weapons, I would agree with you. If you mean you would favour banning semi-automatic guns that are black and look vaguely like those used by our military, I'd have to disagree.

Gotta disagree with you on the handguns too. For the most part I'd leave restricted licensing and registration as is, except that I can find no reason why they shouldn't be used for hunting.

[Redfrog]

So I take it the Wildrose party is irrelevant because they have never formed a government? Or the reform party? Or the Bloq?

The NDP has formed many provincial governments that were majorities and some very good governments as well.

If you took the concerns of the Green party and stuck them in one of the other major parties they'd get drowned out by all the other issues these parties need to adhere to in order to try and rule. 7% of the people who voted last election voted Green, not an insignificant number.

By all means have an opinion about parties and their message but to just try to drowned them out is undemocratic.



Are you kidding me?? Or just being obtuse?

Do we pay for the WRP votes. Do they have a realistic chance to form either gov't or official opposition?
Forming the gov't is not what makes a party relevant. It is offering a credible platform not some pie in the sky,'a chicken in every pot" promises that they know they have no finances to deliver on or reasonable expectation to have to, I can promise everyone on here guided fishing trips and new firearms if they vote for me, but it means nothing if I can't deliver without having Okotokian pay for it.:)

The reform party??/ what's that? Are they relevant? I don't see them on the news at all. Will they be at the debates?

The very existence of the BLoc is an attack on relevancy. A party that is a provincial party on it's best day, whose platform and policies are not only restricted to Quebec but are implemented at the expense of the very gov't they are trying to destroy. What will happen when Harper gets a majority and does away with paying for votes.The bloc will have to actually put their money where their mouths are? We'll see how committed they are then.

OKie, I agree with restricting corporation donations. Nothing stopping the wingnuts from soliciting........well soliciting may not be the correct word when referring to big Fanny May.... but I digress. :scared:

I have no interest in paying someone to vote for the Bloc, or a hockey arena or any other feel good project. Let the folks who want them go door knocking or sell cookies to raise the money. That's reality.

I doubt I would be fiscally responsible if you handed over your credit cards and said have at it.

[dogboy]

Well, it's the price we pay for getting corporate and union money out of the electoral system. The subsidy was brought in when corporate and union donations were banned. Personally, I'd like to see if the parties could effectively campaign and get theri message out with just personal donations alone and no subsidies, but I'm glad we have the corporations and unions out of the system.

so youd rather see big biz. and the Unions be the only voice in politics, like the states?? I know a tax is the last thing we want to hear but for a fair democricey, is this not a good price? also small donations are still ok i think?

[Redfrog]

Doesn't look that bad to me. Doesn't say abolish the registration system, though, only revamp it. I'm perfectly fine with banning handguns and assault weapons.



Excellent. I need a list of stuff you want to do or own so I don't ever make the mistake of supporting something I'm perfectly fine with banning.:thinking-006:

[Redfrog]

so youd rather see big biz. and the Unions be the only voice in politics, like the states?? I know a tax is the last thing we want to hear but for a fair democricey, is this not a good price? also small donations are still ok i think?

Those are not the only options for support. I belong to a political party and donate my money to help get them elected. Why should I pay for your political party. Mine works fine.:) you want it, you pay for it.

and don't even bring the states into this.Without the copr or unions or big money support, if you only looked at theirs through the man in the street voter, you would see that their 'Joe six pack" is less informed than ours.

[Ryry4]

Doesn't look that bad to me. Doesn't say abolish the registration system, though, only revamp it. I'm perfectly fine with banning handguns and assault weapons.

:snapoutofit:

Who are you to tell me what I can and can't have? Like Redfrog says please give me a list of things you have and enjoy so I can lobby the government to have them banned.

[Okotokian]

so youd rather see big biz. and the Unions be the only voice in politics, like the states?? I know a tax is the last thing we want to hear but for a fair democricey, is this not a good price? also small donations are still ok i think?

LOL I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I said "I'm glad we have the corporations and unions out of the system." :)

[kreator]

Let's agree to not use the term "assault weapons" No one really knows what that means. If you mean you are fine with banning automatic weapons, I would agree with you.

Fair enough, I'll agree to that. I'm fine with banning automatic weapons.

[Redfrog]

Fair enough, I'll agree to that. I'm fine with banning automatic weapons.

And do we need a reason to ban them or is it just cause today is Wednesday?

[kreator]

And do we need a reason to ban them or is it just cause today is Wednesday?

Why do you feel the need to use them?

[hal53]

Why do you feel the need to use them?
I am not a fan of them or have ever used one, but a ban on them would be totally useless...do you seriously think that would make them go away???...or from what I understand the hoops you have to go thru' now to possess them, a criminal is going to go thru' the process or get one from the black market....handguns have been severely restricted in Canada since the mid -thirties....hasn't helped much with the bad guys getting them...

[Okotokian]

I am not a fan of them or have ever used one, but a ban on them would be totally useless...do you seriously think that would make them go away???...

Perhaps I'm misusing the word "ban". I really don't care if there are a few grandfathered or collector full autos in some people's hands, but aren't automatic weapons already banned in Canada from a practical point of view? I can't go out and legally buy a C6, can I????

[Ryry4]

Perhaps I'm misusing the word "ban". I really don't care if there are a few grandfathered or collector full autos in some people's hands, but aren't automatic weapons already banned in Canada from a practical point of view? I can't go out and legally buy a C6, can I????

No you can't go buy a full auto legally.

[blackpheasant]

Perhaps I'm misusing the word "ban". I really don't care if there are a few grandfathered or collector full autos in some people's hands, but aren't automatic weapons already banned in Canada from a practical point of view? I can't go out and legally buy a C6, can I????

No not legally but readily available Illegally, I don't even think they register those ones, if that makes any sense....

[IR_mike]

I can't go out and legally buy a C6, can I????

No you can't.

But okie why can't you?
You seem to be a rational, well grounded, law abiding citizen.
What harm could possibly come from you possesing a fully automatic weapon?

The govt already sees fit for you to own a .270 for hunting.
Why not a c6 for plinking?

[Redfrog]

Why do you feel the need to use them?

So your argument is ban everything unless someone can show why they "feel" the need to use something?

Like I said I need a list of stuff you own or do so I can see if I 'Feel" they need banning.

[Beerfish]

Are you kidding me?? Or just being obtuse?

Throwing and insult doesn't help your argument, but you must know that already. :)

Do we pay for the WRP votes. Do they have a realistic chance to form either gov't or official opposition?

When the WRP was first created did it have a reasonable chance to form a govt? Or the provincial Bloq? Or the reform party? Nope they all started as ****ant little movements that gained momentum and made something of themselves when they started off mostly as one issue parties.

Forming the gov't is not what makes a party relevant. It is offering a credible platform not some pie in the sky,'a chicken in every pot" promises that they know they have no finances to deliver on or reasonable expectation to have to, I can promise everyone on here guided fishing trips and new firearms if they vote for me, but it means nothing if I can't deliver without having Okotokian pay for it.:)

The Green party, the NDP, the Bloq all have platforms with $ and cents projections and as we know only one party has the 'correct' projections if you are a die hard supporter of them already?

The reform party??/ what's that? Are they relevant? I don't see them on the news at all. Will they be at the debates?

Yes they sure are seeing as they merged with the present conservatives and our prime minister was a member of the reform party before the merger. There were a number of other reformers that were elected after the merger and the reform party, like other 'fringe' parties started off slow and gained a decent federal following.

The very existence of the BLoc is an attack on relevancy. A party that is a provincial party on it's best day, whose platform and policies are not only restricted to Quebec but are implemented at the expense of the very gov't they are trying to destroy. What will happen when Harper gets a majority and does away with paying for votes.The bloc will have to actually put their money where their mouths are? We'll see how committed they are then.

Yeah, no one said and certainly not me that they liked or endorsed the BloQ, they are a federal joke but under our present constitution and rules they are a valid party with a lot of seats.

OKie, I agree with restricting corporation donations. Nothing stopping the wingnuts from soliciting........well soliciting may not be the correct word when referring to big Fanny May.... but I digress. :scared:

I have no interest in paying someone to vote for the Bloc, or a hockey arena or any other feel good project. Let the folks who want them go door knocking or sell cookies to raise the money. That's reality.

Yes you are off on a real tangent but I totally agree with you on this. By far the bigger sin though in regards to funding than the cash paid per vote is the political party tax deduction. It's far more beneficial to give money to a political party than a charity. Do away with that as well.

[kreator]

So your argument is ban everything unless someone can show why they "feel" the need to use something?

Like I said I need a list of stuff you own or do so I can see if I 'Feel" they need banning.

Frankly, I don't really care all that much about it. If they disappeared it would be no skin off my behind, but I'm certainly not lobbying anyone to get it done.

[TheClash]

going to play a little devils advocate here...just because I am curious.


Do our police...either city or RCMP have full auto weapons?

[Redfrog]

Beerfish No insult intended. I asked two questions because obviously I couldn't follow your thought process.

Re: the Reform. they are gone and after taking a couple runs realized they were not going to form the gov't. I did suggest in another post if a party is not relevant that they should join a more mainstream party where they had some chance to influence policy making. That is what the reform did. IMHO

I have no problem with someone starting a party ala WRP but don't come crying to me to support it financially or otherwise through gov't spending if I do not agree with the policies they put forth.

Those parties are making promises that the country can never afford. On one hand the attack the Conservatives for spending and then trot out programs that cost many times what the Conservatives are spending in tough times.
They can't a have it both ways. ...........oh wait yes they can. All they have to do is raise taxes.

We'll see how many seats the Bloc get after the Conservatives cut the 'Buy my vote" program.

[Ryry4]

going to play a little devils advocate here...just because I am curious.


Do our police...either city or RCMP have full auto weapons?

I believe swat does. The regular officers do not.

[Redfrog]

Frankly, I don't really care all that much about it. If they disappeared it would be no skin off my behind, but I'm certainly not lobbying anyone to get it done.

And that folks is one of the reasons the gun registry is in place.

"No skin off my behind" excellent philosophy. If I ever get you list I'll apply that criteria to it.:sHa_shakeshout:

[Redfrog]

I believe swat does. The regular officers do not.

I'm not sure they 'feel ' they need them:sHa_shakeshout:

[Ryry4]

And that folks is one of the reasons the gun registry is in place.

"No skin off my behind" excellent philosophy. If I ever get you list I'll apply that criteria to it.:sHa_shakeshout:

Apathy runs rampant in this country.

[TheClash]

I believe swat does. The regular officers do not.

Ok so the excuse, reason etc. that I have always heard...again not my position or my view but just offering some information here....is the ban on full auto is so that the police, in theory, still posess the superior fire power.

which doesn't hold water imho because criminals don't follow the rules...

[209x50]

Frankly, I don't really care all that much about it. If they disappeared it would be no skin off my behind, but I'm certainly not lobbying anyone to get it done.
I have absolutely no use for cars, booze, cigarettes and golf clubs. We should ban them at the same time.

[Redfrog]

Ok so the excuse, reason etc. that I have always heard...again not my position or my view but just offering some information here....is the ban on full auto is so that the police, in theory, still posess the superior fire power.

which doesn't hold water imho because criminals don't follow the rules...

Why not just ban criminals?

[Ryry4]

Ok so the excuse, reason etc. that I have always heard...again not my position or my view but just offering some information here....is the ban on full auto is so that the police, in theory, still posess the superior fire power.

which doesn't hold water imho because criminals don't follow the rules...

:confused0068:

You mean they don't? Who would have thunk it. But the liberals said all crime would stop with the registry.

[TheClash]

Why not just ban criminals?

lol, exactly. I'm in for that!!

[Ryry4]

Why not just ban criminals?

Excellent idea. Baffin Island could be our new Australia.

[hal53]

Why not just ban criminals?
better get it done quick, before that lawyer gets them unionized so they have the "rights" they deserve (????)....

[Redfrog]

Yeah what's up with prisoners rights. I must have been absent the day they were given the vote and a pension. when I was in school with moses prisoners had no voting rights.:angry3:

[TheClash]

Yeah what's up with prisoners rights. I must have been absent the day they were given the vote and a pension. when I was in school with moses prisoners had no voting rights.:angry3:

This frustrates me to no end...I often watch the lockdown programs and I get so sick of hearing real criminals talk about how their rights are being violated....puuulease!!!

I honestly think prison for convicted big time criminals should be an island. They can have some cattle, some pigs, chickens, seeds etc....learn how to live off the land or die...and if you want to make shanks, shivs, weapons or whatever and beat and kill each other...have at it....

[Bolete]

* Ban handguns and combat weapons including semi-automatic rifles and assault rifles

They are not talking full autos (the only true assault rifles), which have been effectively banned since 1977. Consider that your Ruger 10/22, Remington 1100, Browning BAR, etc. would fall under this definition. Classic "divide and conquer" thinking.

Remember that they will never ban your hunting rifle - first they will call it a "sniper rifle", then ask why you would possibly need it, then ban it.


Thanks, but I would rather support a party which recognizes my right to own property.

[hal53]

* Ban handguns and combat weapons including semi-automatic rifles and assault rifles

They are not talking full autos (the only true assault rifles), which have been effectively banned since 1977. Consider that your Ruger 10/22, Remington 1100, Browning BAR, etc. would fall under this definition. Classic "divide and conquer" thinking.

Remember that they will never ban your hunting rifle - first they will call it a "sniper rifle", then ask why you would possibly need it, then ban it.


Thanks, but I would rather support a party which recognizes my right to own property.
Yeah it's nice to own property....would also be nice to be able to protect it and your family.....but.........

[AxeMan]

It is getting to the point that we should ban bans......and that is not a typo.
:)

[Redfrog]

Does this help?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXnDbOpxU4

[AxeMan]

Does this help?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXnDbOpxU4

Amen! :happy0034: