[Newsbot]

Title: Tory ad suggests Bloc protecting child traffickers rather than children
Category: Political
Posted By: WDHIII
Date: 2009-07-04 08:20:54
Canadian

[poquas]

The Conservative party really has to give its collective head a shake. Attack ads always come back to bite the promoter in the ass.
This is so far over the top, I don’t see another term for Harper as anything but opposition in the parliamentary coatroom.

Fools.

[Donny_Brasco]

Really what they are doing is assuming voters are stupid and taking an event out of context to promote their party.

So ya, if the shoe fits, your a stupid voter and will jump off the deep end because of a pamphlet in the mail - put a blue C beside your name and call yourself a Conservative.

[EyeBrock]

And voters are clever?

[Bodah]

Their going to boot the tories because of commercials... ?

The only people that are saying this are people that would never vote for the tories are you guys. Even if they discovered the cure for world peace and cancer, you still wouldnt vote for them.

Thanks for the laugh, continue on with your circle jerk.

[Donny_Brasco]

Bodah Bodah:

The only people that are saying this are people that would never vote for the tories are you guys. Even if they discovered the cure for world peace and cancer, you still wouldnt vote for them.

With the collective brain power of a truck full of hammers the chances of the Torys discovering anything but shit in their own pants is pretty much zero.

So don't worry your fat little ass about it.

[Bodah]

Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:

With the collective brain power of a truck full of hammers the chances of the Torys discovering anything but shit in their own pants is pretty much zero.

So don't worry your fat little ass about it.

So we had our office pot-luck on friday, to honor our annual Diversity Day celebrations. As usual, my fat ass ate way too much. These are funny events because what some people think passes for food is just crazy. Much of it was tasty, but there’s always some smart-ass who brings in a food item that is impractical and not really appealing.

We were all super-politically correct because of people’s food allergies and whatnot. That meant we had to list the ingredients (couched in light of wanted to share the recipe). Don’t want anyone who’s allergic to gluten to suck down a loaf of banana bread.

Turns out one of the new employees in the office is a Vegan, which is a person who not only eats no meat, but also eats no dairy, eggs, or in this case wheat/gluten. Needless to say, she didn’t eat anything at the pot-luck. I’m pretty sure that, with the exception of health reasons, the Vegan lifestyle is retarded and makes no sense. It’s not even going back to basics with how humans existed 10,000 years ago. It turns the person into a social outcast, who can’t be invited to lunch or even relate to how society operates with regard to food. I have no sympathies for those who choose this lifestyle.

I think I need to find the vomitorium now….

[ridenrain]

poquas poquas:

The Conservative party really has to give its collective head a shake. Attack ads always come back to bite the promoter in the ass.
This is so far over the top, I don’t see another term for Harper as anything but opposition in the parliamentary coatroom.

Fools.

Stop playing petty politics and do the right thing for a change.
Since that article told NOTHING about the background of Bill C-268, here is some background:

$1:

Member of Parliament Joy Smith has tabled a bill that would create a minimum prison sentence of 5 years for anyone convicted of trafficking a minor.

Canada’s Criminal Code currently makes no such distinction and allows judges the discretion to sentence anywhere from 0-14 years for trafficking offences.

Imani Nakpangi, the first person in Canada convicted of human trafficking involving a minor, received a three year sentence for the trafficking of a 15 year old girl but was credited 13 months for pre-trial custody. He made over $350,000 sexually exploiting her over two years before she was able to escape. Essentially he will spend less time in jail than he did exploiting her.

Last year, Montreal resident Michael Lennox Mark received a two-year sentence, but with double credit for the year served before his trial, the man who horrifically victimized a 17-year-old girl over two years spent only a week in jail after his conviction.

This bill is an important step in combating human trafficking in Canada. With the Olympic games coming to Vancouver in 2010 (and the history of dramatic increases in human trafficking in cities hosting the Olympic games), the timing of this bill crucial.

We urge you to speak to your Members of Parliament and the Justice Minister (Rob Nicholson) about supporting Bill C-268.

$1:

UPDATE: Bill C-268 was voted on at Second Reading on Wednesday, April 22, 2009. It received 232 votes in favour and 47 opposed. Bill C-268 received near unanimous support from the Conservative, Liberal and NDP parties. With one honourable exception, the Bloc voted against mandatory minimums for child trafficking.

Before you start bitching about manditory sentances, keep in mind that it convinced ALL NDP AND BUT ONE Liberal. If it was a bad idea, they wouldn't have voted for it but instead all but one thought it was a great idea.
If it was a great idea then when they all voted for it, why then is it bad to blame the Bloc for letting it fail?
This is just more of the "gotcha" politics we've come to expect from the morally bancrupt, Toronto party. When is the professor going to actully come up with policy of his own and stop relying on Cat Meat Kinsella for his smear tactics.

[herbie]

You're right. I'm absolutely disgusted my NDP member got sucked into it. Only ONE party stuck to their guns over mandatory minimums.
The pretense that voting against the Bill is "supporting child trafficking" is a new LOW for Tory bullshit. The Party stoops ever further into gut issues the more they're called on anything actually important.

[OnTheIce]

Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:

Really what they are doing is assuming voters are stupid and taking an event out of context to promote their party.

So ya, if the shoe fits, your a stupid voter and will jump off the deep end because of a pamphlet in the mail - put a blue C beside your name and call yourself a Conservative.

Voters are, in your words, are "stupid".

If you think otherwise, you're being very naive.

[ridenrain]

herbie herbie:

You're right. I'm absolutely disgusted my NDP member got sucked into it. Only ONE party stuck to their guns over mandatory minimums.
The pretense that voting against the Bill is "supporting child trafficking" is a new LOW for Tory bullshit. The Party stoops ever further into gut issues the more they're called on anything actually important.

I do believe you mean what you say because I doubt you'd be choking down puke just to keep the "gotcha" going.If that is the case, you have far bigger problems with you're party than I have.

On the topic of manditory minimums for these POS. Right now their getting almost nothing so even a little is better than what their getting now.

[N_Fiddledog]

Is it even correct to categorize these ads as "attack" ads? The CBC guy says so, but does that make it so?

Don't "attack ads" attack the personality, not the policy? This one appears to clearly attack the policy, and that seems pretty kosher to me. It's saying this is not a policy you want people supporting. It also claims the Bloc does support this policy. The bigger question to me here is, do they?

In fact to me it's an indication of a weak campaign if you can't call attention to what you think are bad policies your opposition supports. You should do that. It not only points out instances of what you consider bad policy, but clarifies your own stance on the particular issue.

There's no justification for an "attack ad" complaint here, in spite of what the Bloc, or the CBC may be claiming.

[commanderkai]

It's a mud slinging ad, but I agree, this isn't an attack ad. Attack ads are basically personal in nature, and don't attack a party for issues and stances.

[herbie]

You do not give up your right to Judge and Jury to orders from Parliament, especially when they are only passed due to sheer political expediency by the Opposition.
If we didn't have such an underfunded, nutless Civil Liberties Union there would already be Charter Appeals filed.
There isn't even any evidence that Judges have been 'too lenient on Child trafficking', if there was evidence you direct the Judges.

About the ONLY thing you can be sure of is whenever something needs to be addressed by Parliament, Harper will deflect attention by rolling out yet another 'crime bill' and appealing to lowest emotional denominator.
We're not fucked up because of crime: we're fucked up because people have no money, no confidence to invest, there's no reward to save, the supposed bail-outs are vapour and directed to the wrong places. The Bank of Canada rate is the lowest in history yet credit is at it's tightest, banks are raising charges and mortgage rates. The surge in the dollar exposed real productivity flaws, but instead of addressing them with incentives the Tories have done everything to lower the value of the dollar and sweep them back under the rug
Crime is not the ONLY ISSUE to address, it isn't even the most important!

[EyeBrock]

The bail-outs were forced on the government by the Libs and the Bloc.

Try not to be so partisan.
The Bloc need some public attention, they do nothing for Canada but we all pay for them to have the privilege of hating our country.