The problem is that if voted in you have your tech covered nicely, now what about the other 99%. You can't ignore them, your in office
I think your version and ours of 'victimless' crime is different. An example of a victimless crime under this would be a man who physically abuses his girlfriend/wife. If the woman is unwilling to press charges then the police would not be able to do anything to improve the situtation.
The above example is good, but I was meaning that people that should not be on the list that are. So maybe a tougher criteria etc so that people that are not supposed to be there do not end up there. Eg. two teens sexting each other etc.
I'm sorta mixed on this one. You have to acknowledge that sex offenders have some of the highest re-offence rates of any criminal.
Thats actually not true. What does happen is that it has a 100% guarantee of ruining the life of someone, especially someone who is very young that ends up on it. So its prudent that we just don't slap people on there because the crown is just trying to get a conviction to keep his job.
While on one hand you have the right to privacy on the criminal. You also have the right of the community to know who is coming into their community on the other. If I know Johnny McPedophile is moving in down the street I'm not gonna let my kids wander around unattended.
If an offender has served time, is in a program and has paid back the community then that person should be respected enough that they are at least starting over and not committing further offenses. Indeed I agree that some people do need to know so that they do not waver from this path. That being correctional services and social workers etc so support is always on hand. Letting the public know has only caused mass illogical hysteria and fear of someone who has already paid for their crime sally soccer mom only wants people to keep paying for the crime. If thats the case then why not just leave them in jail and then let sally over there foot the tax bill?
The problem with this is sometimes lethal force is the only safe way to deal with a given situation. You remove the lethal force option from police you give hardened criminals a significant advantage because if it comes down to a gunfight they will be shooting to kill. Also you have situations like that gunman at Union Station where the only way to ensure the safety of the officers as well as the public is to take the shot. Thankfully such incidents are incredibly rare.
Its is incredibly rare. Use of "deadly" force may be used may be needed but such things as tasers are simply not necessary. The majority of the time the "police" is pestered for things like "youth" control, sits and drinks coffee or does "ride/safety and or highway enforcement" which does nothing for actual safety and instead just gouges the public. There is no need at all to provide the current budget level that they are continuing to use as well as their appetite to keep asking for more. Both prisons and law enforcement spending and corruption is out of control and raining in these two with proper legislation and policy change to focus more towards community policing will not only save the tax payer money but will in fact reduce over all crime.
[quoteWhile I agree we should have some limitations on military spending. The goal of eliminating the military all together is both unrealistic and unreasonable. We need to maintain a large enough force to protect our nations waters as well as our borders. Such things do not provide themselves.[/quote]
I agree if the are used for such things. That does mean protecting Canada from south of the boarder as well. We need to focus military more on Supporting and helping Canadians so that they are there when we need them and not in an illegal war.
I feel that we should restrict jobs in the government to citizens of Canada only. As well we should restrict jobs in the immigration section to people who were born here. Mostly because I feel that immigrants in general have rose colored glasses and have the potential conflict of interests by looking at immigration applications with rose colored glasses and letting some immigrants in who would be undesirable in our country.
I have to disagree on this one as the natural born Canadians are more lazy than immigrants. Immigrants, work hard, more paitriotic, have to take tests and exams and thus know more than Natural Born Canadians, are willing to work in jobs that Natural Born Canadians just do not want (think house keeping), work for no benefits and little to no pay, are willing to work loooooong hours, know that Canada is not found on one or two principles and is in fact multicultural. This and more shows they are quite fitting to hold the position on immigration and there is no proof that they would let undesirables in while Mr Kennedy, A natural born Canadian is letting in unskilled people that do have a certain "criteria" while those who are trying to escape squaller are left behind.
Quote from: zenwick
* Strict limits on how much government can spend (and therefore tax), with direct public votes allowing for temporary increases if deemed necessary by the public
Enironmental stuff is fairly good. I think we should focus on education and technology. If a place sells batteries/CFLs/Florescent Tubes they should have to take the used up ones there in say a bin or something. Like Home Depot does for CFLs. So they can recycle things like lead-acid batteries and mercury. Sometime's it is just a case of making something more convenient to change behavior.
Its also the benefits that need to be passed down. If we are recycling and then building, innovating then the product should be cheaper and better quality than something that has come far away.
Also with wind power/solar being free generated energy the local community should not have to pay for market costs. It should be free. The only thing that should be charged is just expansion, maintenance and man power costs. No time of use or such silly-ness.
If we use ethanol in the majority of our gas stations beyond the 10% we can bring down the price of transportation, local farmers and industry would benefit, creating local jobs which in turn the costs of other products being shipped will also fall to reasonable levels. This is a huge advantage.
Non of the current parties are even electable.
A good example of an unelectable party is the greens. They have good ideas etc. But then they want to INCREASE taxes on transportation fuels. That would translate massive hardship for the voting public. Why would anyone want that kind of strife in their life when there is alternatives that can reduce costs, be environmentally friendly and can actually be good for your car that you need to do tasks such as going to work etc.
