• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Politics in 2016

Status
Not open for further replies.
jollyjacktar said:
Christ almighty, there's plenty of idiots my age who cannot make an informed decision.

So age is clearly not the issue.
 
Speaking of party resolutions, here's one the Conservatives are considering for a month-end conference coming up:
... That the party believes in a “mutual obligation in the form of a military covenant between the people of Canada and each individual member of the Canadian Forces ... this covenant recognizes that there is no equivalent profession to that of service in the Canadian Forces.” ...
Anyone know where to find the rest of the text of this one?  Looks interesting, in light of previous statements about this:
... "At no time in Canada's history has any alleged 'social contract' or 'social covenant' having the attributes pleaded by the plaintiffs been given effect in any statute, regulation or as a constitutional principle written or unwritten." ...
 
George Wallace said:
Question now may be:  When does one no longer need parental permission?  [:D

To add to that,

Even with parental permission,  "Under the National Defence Act, members of the Canadian Forces who have not yet reached the age of 18 may not be deployed to any theatre of hostilities, or indeed, any area where armed combat is a possibility. The Canadian Forces also do not permit persons under the age of 18 to be deployed in any domestic emergency where weapon use cannot be ruled out.”
http://www.refworld.org/docid/486cb0f026.html

"While the Canadian Forces enrol 16 and 17 year-olds, the Forces have a policy which precludes members under the age of 18 from participating in hostilities or from being deployed to hostile theatres of operations."
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=proposed-amendment-to-the-national-defence-act-to-reflect-commitment-to-the-new-un-protocol-on-child-soldiers/hnmx18z3
 
George Wallace said:
OK.  Point taken.  Question now may be:  When does one no longer need parental permission?  [:D

Once we think you're mature enough, George, we'll let you know.  Until then, though, grownups are talking.  >:D

 
George Wallace said:
OK.  Point taken.  Question now may be:  When does one no longer need parental permission?  [:D

wait one.  I'll need to ask my parents... [Xp
 
We can drop th voting age to 16 for Municipal election, which should increase the number of people voting in them by .000016%
 
>If you can make a decision to sign on to join your country's armed forces and swear allegiance to the crown and serve it no matter whether you agree with who is in charge then are you saying that the same person cannot make an informed decision at age 16?

No.  I'm saying there is no obvious chain of reasoning from "may join armed forces" to "should be allowed to vote".

Youths are subject to various levels of supervision in matters of driving, joining the armed forces, things they do in the armed forces, etc.  Voting is an exertion of political power over others, and a secret ballot is unsupervised.
 
I would suggest further that you have to be a contributing member of society to vote....and be 30 yrs old min.  When I say contributing member I mean not in jail, but I could be persuaded to add further caveats to that criteria too 😁.
 
It is interesting to compare this voting age discussion with that of the legal age for drinking.

Around the time of Trudeau senior they changed the age from 21 to 18. As an aside, in Sask it went from 21 to 18 then back to 19.

All this did was greatly increase the drunk drivers on the road and push alcohol abuse at a higher rate directly into the school age pupils.

Quite a price for society to pay so some political party can increase their voter stock.  Amazing how Trudeau Jr. is following into the footsteps of Trudeau Sr.




 
Jed said:
All this did was greatly increase the drunk drivers on the road and push alcohol abuse at a higher rate directly into the school age pupils.

My uneducated guess is that it may have had something to do with the surge in popularity of drugs with Baby Boomers. ie: Maybe they thought it the lesser of the two evils would be to lower the drinking age?

That's just my guess. It would not be the first time I have been wrong.  :)

For those of us who remember the LCBO purchase order forms, it's amazing how much times have changed,

1. Customer will fill in purchase order form as to date, brand number, quantity, kind, unit price, amount, permit number and address.
2. This form must be signed by the customer at the permit endorser’s wicket and in full view of the permit endorser.
3. Hand purchase order and permit to permit endorser who will hand it back after making the necessary entries on the permit.
4. Take purchase order to cashier’s wicket and pay for the goods. Purchase order will be received back from the cashier after being stamped by the cash register.
5. Present purchase order at counter and take delivery of the goods from the counterman.

The stores were not the "boutique" style they have now, and if I recall correctly, bottle labeling was not as attractive as it is now.

They didn't call it the Liquor Control Board of Ontario ( LCBO ) for nothing.  :)



 
Saskatchewan, or at least small town Sask. used to follow behind the trend by a couple of years. Drug use didn't really take off until after they lowered the drinking age. I'm not sure how things went in T.O. or points east and west.

 
I just want to say I'm very impressed with the Prime Minister today.  While he's pointed out he's a feminist numerous times and came up with tidbits of wisdom like stop interrupting women, it was only after he elbowed MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau along side "manhandling" Gord Brown that I thought to myself he really does believe in treating women the same as men. 

Great stuff.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-conservative-whip-1.3588407

 
;D


http://www.thebeaverton.com/national/item/2690-entire-ndp-caucus-arrive-in-neck-braces-wheelchairs-to-house-of-commons-after-trudeau-s-assault

 
Remius said:
;D


http://www.thebeaverton.com/national/item/2690-entire-ndp-caucus-arrive-in-neck-braces-wheelchairs-to-house-of-commons-after-trudeau-s-assault

Haven't seen a political knockdown since we lost Mayor Ford. RIP
 

Attachments

  • djs6206144370_high_jpg_size_xxlarge_promo.jpg
    djs6206144370_high_jpg_size_xxlarge_promo.jpg
    26.7 KB · Views: 120
So lost in the MMA match on the Commons floor yesterday, NEB has approved Transmountain pipeline.

157 conditions but whatever, approval is approval,right?
 
Altair said:
So lost in the MMA match on the Commons floor yesterday, NEB has approved Transmountain pipeline.

157 conditions but whatever, approval is approval,right?

ddddddddouble spin. I was wondering when someone was going to try to make a flippant remark about the PM being at minimum unprofessional, but realistically acting like my 3 year old when he doesn't get his way. You also managed to spin approval from NEB for a badly needed pipeline into something horrible for us. Its like you feel its completely impossible to both produce/use fossil fuels and be environmentally responsible.
 
Trudeau should have stayed in his seat.

The NDP shouldn't have barricaded Brown.

Brown shouldn't have pretended he was being barricaded.

The Liberals shouldn't have introduced the motion.

The opposition shouldn't have delayed the bill that has to become law very soon.

And on, and on.

Trudeau was wrong, but he's certainly not a woman abuser.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top