Lawsuit to stop BILL C24 : Member Crimesinister

[ari5323]

My vote is going to Harper because of you. I haven't been reading any of the nonsense you have been writing about since it's a waste of time but if you ever succeed in what you are trying to do (0.0000001% chance) then I guarantee you it will be easily turned down and will go back to garbage shortly after. And remember, CIC can recover their costs of defending their case from you. So go ahead challenge the new law and let's all laugh.

I can not wait to have my first election and vote for Harper , bill c 24 is a must for canada if they want stay an healthy country. Thank you Mr. Harper !!

 

[blueray333]

This discussion on the lawsuit to stop Bill C24 ready make me smile. It made me asked why would this people have the gall to question a law that would protect Canadians. These people who are not yet citizens of this great dominion has to asked for stopping a law that would stripped any dual citizens, if convicted of henious crimes, of their canadian citizenship. This is a bunch of horsesh*t.

+1. i've been a lurker for quite some time. I do believe that this will not prosper. if you are in this country to be a law abiding citizen (to be), contribute to the economy and help your family and community, then there is nothing to fear from this bill.

 

[crimesinister]

I can not wait to have my first election and vote for Harper , bill c 24 is a must for canada if they want stay an healthy country. Thank you Mr. Harper !!

If a post by some random guy on some random Internet forum is the basis on which you decide whom to vote for, you're a counterexample for the merits of democracy.

 

[troll2]

I only read this topic when there is nothing to watch on Comedy Chanel.

 

[Bigudi]

Where all the soldiers on the streets that the liberals predicted under harper government. Where's all the secret agenda that was spewed when Harper formed government 10 years ago. Nothing happened. That's what. Nothing. Creationism is not coming to school.

That's fear mongering you are trying to employ. Trying to paint harper as the boogieman you try to make him out to be. The liberals have failed again and again to make harper a boogieman for the last 10 years. If harper was truly a boogieman, he wouldn't have lasted one election. As it turned out, he lasted 10 years. Perhaps he is not the boogieman everyone seems to think he is after all.

It seems that you believe harper still have a secret agenda still after 10 years proving otherwise.

Anyone who believe any political leader that has a secret agenda, in my opinion, is the one being ignorant.

Gee, man, relax.
I used the “creationism” just as an allegory for the backwards way they handle the Country.
I never said anything about secret agendas. I just disapprove a conservative government. Society must move forward, not backwards. That’s all. I really don’t think Harper has a secret agenda, I just think he is inadequate to manage a country like Canada. I don't think Harper is capable of having a secret agenda.
Lasting long, by the way, dos not mean it is a good representative or a good government. Several awful leaders lasted way too long. George W. Bush as a remarkable example.
It just means that the majority likes the guy. The majority is not always right. Actually, very often, the majority is very wrong (thinking now on the country I come from). But of course I respect the majority’s will when it comes to the election of representatives. But I can still criticize it. I can still be unhappy.
But I do apologize for bringing this subject to the matter. My political views have nothing to do with the thread.
I just thought a little bit too much the rant about voting on Harper BECAUSE of people like X or Y. I am pretty sure that you detected the arrogance on that rant as well.
I am very curious about what the lawyers would think of all of it.

 

[screech339]

Gee, man, relax.
I used the “creationism” just as an allegory for the backwards way they handle the Country.
I never said anything about secret agendas. I just disapprove a conservative government. Society must move forward, not backwards. That's all. I really don't think Harper has a secret agenda, I just think he is inadequate to manage a country like Canada. I don't think Harper is capable of having a secret agenda.
Lasting long, by the way, dos not mean it is a good representative or a good government. Several awful leaders lasted way too long. George W. Bush as a remarkable example.
It just means that the majority likes the guy. The majority is not always right. Actually, very often, the majority is very wrong (thinking now on the country I come from). But of course I respect the majority's will when it comes to the election of representatives. But I can still criticize it. I can still be unhappy.
But I do apologize for bringing this subject to the matter. My political views have nothing to do with the thread.
I just thought a little bit too much the rant about voting on Harper BECAUSE of people like X or Y. I am pretty sure that you detected the arrogance on that rant as well.
I am very curious about what the lawyers would think of all of it.

You think bush was a bad example of leader. Look what is happening under Obama. The peace Nobel winner. Russia taken over Crimea, now involved in Ukraine. Syria killing their own citizens. ISIS taken over Iraq. And the list goes on.

I rather have a hawkish US president than an useless soft president with no backbone.

 

[Bigudi]

You think bush was a bad example of leader. Look what is happening under Obama. The peace Nobel winner. Russia taken over Crimea, now involved in Ukraine. Syria killing their own citizens. ISIS taken over Iraq. And the list goes on.

I rather have a hawkish US president than an useless soft president with no backbone.

Oh, man. I can't believe you just said that. Not to consider the creation of ISIS is a direct consequence of Bush's policies, I will leave this here from old Ben:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin

 

[screech339]

Oh, man. I can't believe you just said that. Not to consider the creation of ISIS is a direct consequence of Bush's policies, I will leave this here from old Ben:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin

There wouldn't be any ISIS if Obama didn't pull all the troops out completely. He could have let the troops stay there long enough until the local forces are capable of defending themselves. But noooooo, got to pull them out despite the plead of the locals for them to remain. No it's Obama's fault for leaving them totally defenseless.

The same can be said for the Taliban of Afghanistan. It's US's fault for pretty much abandoning the country after Russia left the country. They could have at least rebuild it and probably be able to prevent the Taliban from rising up against defenseless Afghans.

Isn't that that the Marshall Plan of Europe was for. Rebuild Europe to prevent Communism from flowing into the rest of Europe.

 

[alphazip]

You think bush was a bad example of leader. Look what is happening under Obama. The peace Nobel winner. Russia taken over Crimea, now involved in Ukraine. Syria killing their own citizens. ISIS taken over Iraq. And the list goes on.

I rather have a hawkish US president than an useless soft president with no backbone.

Well, I'm a native-born American and I think Bush was the worst president ever. People from other countries come to North America and want authoritarian leaders like they had in the old country. Well, Vladimir Putin is a very strong leader. So, wouldn't it be best for people who like that kind of thing to look to Russia as an immigration destination?

 

[screech339]

Well, I'm a native-born American and I think Bush was the worst president ever. People from other countries come to North America and want authoritarian leaders like they had in the old country. Well, Vladimir Putin is a very strong leader. So, I guess, it would be best for people who like that kind of thing to immigrate to Russia.

The world is in a mess because they all know that Obama is a softie. He won't walk the talk. He won't stand up for those who needed US's help the most. Even some of the NATO countries don't have any confidence in Obama coming to their help if needed. Obama may be a favorite inside US with his expensive Obamacare plan but his world policy is a complete major fiasco.

Even Clinton had a better foreign policy than Obama. He, at least, stepped in and stopped Serbia from slaughtering innocent people in Kosovo.

Whatever happened to "speak softly and carry a big stick" when it comes to foreign policy.

 

[alphazip]

The world is in a mess because they all know that Obama is a softie. He won't walk the talk. He won't stand up for those who needed US's help the most. Even some of the NATO countries don't have any confidence in Obama coming to their help if needed. Obama may be a favorite inside US with his expensive Obamacare plan but his world policy is a major failure.

Whatever happened to "speak softly and carry a big stick" when it comes to foreign policy.

I don't disagree that the world is a mess, though we may well disagree about the causes and solutions. As to Obamacare, my problem with it is that it was originally a Republican idea! I favour universal healthcare as offered in all other western nations. If you don't, feel free to cut up your OHIP card.

 

[screech339]

I don't disagree that the world is a mess, though we may well disagree about the causes and solutions. As to Obamacare, my problem with it is that it was originally a Republican idea! I favour universal healthcare as offered in all other western nations. If you don't, feel free to cut up your OHIP card.

If I had a choice in the Obamacare, I would prefer the single income tax approach like we have in Canada. You pay for your medical through your taxes. The problem with the obamacare is that you still have to pay for Obamacare even without a job. How can you get to keep your insurance if you have no money for pay for it. It doesn't solve the problem. It was one of the biggest lie Obama ever told, "you get to keep your plan if you like it". Tell that to those who lost the plan and had to pay for extra medical plans they don't need through obamacare. If any of them got to keep it, their rates has gone up.

I even had a Dutch visit me and my family. I asked her about the medical system they have. She said you still have to pay a monthly fee to get access to free medical care. If you don't pay, you don't get free medical care. So if you are out of a job, you can't pay the fee, you are out of free medical care. Sounds familiar?

The point is that I also agree with the universal health care too but Obamacare approach is the wrong way to do it.

 

[alphazip]

If I had a choice in the Obamacare, I would prefer the single income tax approach like we have in Canada. You pay for your medical through your taxes. The problem with the obamacare is that you still have to pay for Obamacare even without a job. How can you get to keep your insurance if you have no money for pay for it. It doesn't solve the problem. It was one of the biggest lie Obama ever told, "you get to keep your plan if you like it". Tell that to those who lost the plan and had to pay for extra medical plans they don't need through obamacare. If any of them got to keep it, their rates has gone up.

As I stated, I favour universal coverage as in Canada. However, the idea of a government-sponsored system could not have passed in the U.S. Congress. Republicans are not even in favour of Social Security or the minimum wage, let alone government-sponsored healthcare. The so-called Obamacare plan was developed by a Republican think tank and originally introduced in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney.

Americans are extremely afraid of the Canadian system. I have numerous American friends and relatives who have asked me how I've fared under "socialized medicine." Horror stories about Canadians who died while on a waiting list are common. (Republicans even aired ads featuring a Canadian Conservative complaining about the Canadian system.)

As to your contention that even the unemployed (poor) must pay for expensive insurance, that is false. There are numerous exemptions and tax credits. Medicaid was expanded (where Republicans didn't block it) to provide free (to the user...taxpayer supported) coverage to anyone considered "poor." Under no circumstances does anyone have to purchase insurance if it would cost more than 8% of their income.

 

[screech339]

As I stated, I favour universal coverage as in Canada. However, the idea of a government-sponsored system could not have passed in the U.S. Congress. Republicans are not even in favour of Social Security or the minimum wage, let alone government-sponsored healthcare. The so-called Obamacare plan was developed by a Republican think tank and originally introduced in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney.

Americans are extremely afraid of the Canadian system. I have numerous American friends and relatives who have asked my how I've fared under "socialized medicine." Horror stories about Canadians who died while on a waiting list are common. (Republicans even aired commercials featuring a Canadian Conservative complaining about the Canadian system.)

As to your contention that even the unemployed (poor) must pay for expensive insurance, that is false. There are numerous exemptions and tax credits. Medicaid was expanded (where Republicans didn't block it) to provide free (to the user...taxpayer supported) coverage to anyone considered "poor." Under no circumstances does anyone have to purchase insurance if it would cost more than 8% of their income.

You are right. The poor / unemployed get access to free medicaid at taxpayers expense. So why was Obamacare needed in the first place. The purpose of obamacare was to allow those without medical to be able to afford medical insurance. If they can't afford it before Obamacare came, then that means they have medicaid.

Even our health care system is not perfect either. There is the long wait time at ERs, for appointments for specialists, etc etc. I do like Canada to at least examine the hybrid medical system in Europe. They seem to have the best bang for their buck in value and quality of care and wait times.

Anyway this Obamacare talk is going off topic of original thread. So let drop this Obamacare.

 

[alphazip]

You are right. The poor / unemployed get access to free medicaid at taxpayers expense. So why was Obamacare needed in the first place. The purpose of obamacare was to allow those without medical to be able to afford medical insurance. If they can't afford it before Obamacare came, then that means they have medicaid.

There is much misinformation in your post, but I think it would be pointless to explain why. You are a Republican (in U.S. terms...a Conservative here) and Republicans hate Obama and Obamacare, even if that healthcare program was originally a Republican idea (via the Heritage Foundation). Unlike many others here, I grew up in the USA and know that things were not just fine without Obamacare. My neigbour, for example, a man in his early 20s with a low-paying job, injured himself and was taken to hospital. He stayed there a couple days and was presented with a bill of over $10,000. He had no insurance, so the bill was turned over to a collection agency. This is the free enterprise system of healthcare that Republicans are quite happy to keep in place.