Donating Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


seeker last won the day on November 15

seeker had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,016 Excellent


About seeker

  • Rank
    This Guy says:

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Somewhere; (only the shadow knows)

Recent Profile Visitors

5,359 profile views
  1. Well, my posts on this topic are in response to the article posted by Jaydee. The idea of giving "the youth" 2 or 3 votes while others get one is crazy. If anything it should go the other way. Very few people pay the tab for their public education, healthcare, etc until well into their 40s and many never do at all. I was a "youth" once and now no longer am. If I look back at myself when I was young I can clearly see that, although I was ambitious and (relatively) hard-working, I honestly had no real understanding of the issues. Can anyone truly understand what "deficit" means until they have a mortgage, a maxed-out line of credit and bills to pay and are facing an economic recession? I have voted in every Federal election since I turned 18 - did any of those votes I cast before I knew what I was doing, and what I was voting for, help the country move to a better place? It's quite probable that my vote, and others of my generation, reduced the ability of those who really did understand to elect an effective and responsible government. So, yes, I agree, disenfranchising a portion of the population isn't feasible but the opposite is also true - giving them "extra" voting power would be a disaster. As would following May's proposal of lowering the voting age to 16. Haha, you think it's bad now - we'd see political platforms including; "free" cellphone data packages and "free" pizza in school cafeterias (which isn't actually that far off what we have already seen). Compare the difference between Herbert Hoover saying that Republican prosperity meant "a chicken in every pot and a car in every backyard" vs Jagmeet Singh saying the NDP will "cap your cellphone bill and give you free tuition".
  2. Did you read to the end of my post? Maybe we consider volunteering at the school as "public service", maybe raising a family is public service or maybe it isn't - I hardly know the answer. My point is that society has too many "takers". Encouraging and rewarding those who step up would be a good thing - no?
  3. You've been misinformed by your Liberal tribe - the 1% pays more than their fair share of taxes. Obviously my 2 sentence description of some sort of contribution-to-earn-a-vote is not meant to be taken as a full plan.
  4. A "weighted" vote system is not a bad idea - the criteria should be; how much each person contributes to society. I am often reminded of Heinlein's book Starship Troopers. It's been made into a Hollywood movie that focuses on the sci-fi action but the book itself is more about politics and society. In the imagined society there are two classes; civilians and citizens. Both have rights but only the citizens get to vote and anyone can earn citizenship by public or military service. So those who are willing to contribute to society are the ones who get a say in how and where it goes. Seems like a good starting point. I've posted here before my feeling that only those who pay taxes should be able to vote. The British system used to be that only land-owners voted. Why should some person who never pays any tax but enjoys the benefits of a tax-payer supported life also get a vote in deciding anything? Perhaps a system where if you own property you get a vote, if you're a net-payer of tax you get a vote and if you're unable to meet either of these due to whatever reason you can earn your vote by public or military service.
  5. That's the kind of thing that can push me over the edge! If I see one, might just have to rip it off the person wearing it (or at least comment on the inappropriateness of it - which will, of course, lead to me being accused of being a homophobe).
  6. My recently developed feeling on the matter is this; First decide how much money your country can afford to spend on immigrants. Then figure out how many immigrants your country can successfully integrate per year. Whichever is the smaller number is the number you take each year. Then close the loopholes; illegal border crossings, chain migration, etc so that you get the best (most suited) immigrants. Lots of statements about how we "need" immigrants due to labour shortages - the shortages are not in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal so then decide where those immigrants will go; Timmins, Thunder Bay, Flin Flon, etc. You want to immigrate to Canada - fine, you and your family are welcome - in Prince Albert.
  7. Once rescued, both pimps were arrested and found guilty in a trial held earlier this year. At the time of arrest, Amina Ahmed, 30, was charged with two counts of trafficking in persons under 18 by recruiting, two counts of trafficking in persons under 18 by exercising control, two counts of advertising another person’s sexual services, two counts of procuring a person under 18 to provide sexual services and one count of possessing drugs. Nadio Ngoto was charged with two counts of trafficking in persons under 18 by recruiting, two counts of trafficking in persons under 18 by exercising control, two counts of procuring a person under 18 to provide sexual services and one count of uttering threats. Ontario Superior Court Justice Marc Labrosse has now struck down the mandatory minimum five-year sentence given to Ahmed and Ngoto for human trafficking involving minors, citing it as a case of cruel and unusual punishment. Instead of the minimum, the judge gave Ahmed time-served after spending 18 months in jail awaiting trial. Her accomplice received a suspended sentence after spending 175 days in custody. In the judge’s responses, he noted that because Ngoto was previously a victim of the sex trade herself, with Ahmed collecting half her profits, the public would be outraged if they received a five-year sentence for attempting to sexually exploit minors for profit. “Such a sentence would outrage the standards of decency,” said Labrosse. So, let's review; - both were found guilty in a trial so this is not some random punishment being served out. - there is a "mandatory" minimum sentence of five years - note the word mandatory so how is it that the judge is able to not follow the sentencing guidelines? Furthermore, how is a five year sentence "cruel and unusual"? Sounds about right for trying to sexually exploit a minor for profit (actually sound quite lenient especially when it would likely end up with half being day-parole). - particularly galling is the judge's statement; "Such a sentence would outrage the standards of decency." I think if you polled the public we'd find that not giving these women the mandatory sentence is the outrage. Furthermore, it's not for him to decide. Our legislators have decided that such a crime deserves a five year mandatory minimum sentence. In any case, this sentencing is not the kind that bother me the most. The ones that bother me the most are when someone is back for their 3rd, 4th or 10th time and gets some sort of watered down sentence. First time, ok, a sentence at the lower end of the possible range might be appropriate but when someone is back, found guilty, for their 6th or 7th time - maybe that person shouldn't be out walking the streets. Repeat offenders should face an ever escalating period of time off the streets. Canada needs some version of the 3-strikes law: Wikipedia: In the United States, habitual offender laws (commonly referred to as three-strikes laws) were first implemented on March 7, 1994 and are part of the United States Justice Department's Anti-Violence Strategy. These laws require both a severe violent felony and two other previous convictions to serve a mandatory life sentence in prison. The purpose of the laws is to drastically increase the punishment of those convicted of more than two serious crimes.
  8. Releasing dangerous criminals with a slap on the wrist or a few months in jail doesn't work either. Personally, since neither works I'd take the throw-them-in-jail-for-a-long-time option over just releasing them back to their former life and associates.
  9. Oh, yeah, Good old JT will spend us into prosperity. What nonsense. Maybe we should encourage him to really double down on the deficits so we gets all the prosperity that much quicker. Yes, the grammar is intentional - it's a joke
  10. “I wanted to choose a moment where we had had a lot of success before leaving,” she said. Well, that didn't work.
  11. I'm loving this whole Meghan Murphy thing. Murphy has argued and pushed for years to get special rights and benefits for women to the detriment of men - and it's worked too - changes to society through government intervention, changes to the legal system to advantage women, special quotas for hiring, grants, scholarships and bursaries. YAY! Feminism! Especially ironic when other groups are now using the same tactics successfully to win access to those special rights and benefits.
  12. In the judge’s responses, he noted that because Ngoto was previously a victim of the sex trade herself, with Ahmed collecting half her profits, the public would be outraged if they received a five-year sentence for attempting to sexually exploit minors for profit. Wow. Talk about being out-of-touch - The judge thinks the public would be outraged if he sentenced the already guilty/convicted pimps to a five year sentence rather than being outraged that he released them with time-served.
  13. Don't forget the indexed pension that kicks in after 6 years - just gotta get re-elected once. I'm actually ok with the pay and benefits the MPs get. Lots of ex-lawyers and business people who could earn more in private industry and you do want to have qualified people willing to do the job. Wouldn't it be nice though if some portion of their pay was tied to job-performance? Impossible to measure of course - but a guy can dream!
  14. Everyone keeps blaming Scheer but I think he's probably a fine person and well suited for the job. Unfortunately, it's the boys in the backroom giving advice and planning the strategy that are the problem. He's got an answer to those questions they keep asking about abortion, LGBTQ issues, citizenship but has clearly been advised to try to softly deflect and avoid stating anything solid that can be twisted and repeated ad-nauseum by the media. He tried to answer the questions like Trudeau answers - by not answering, hoping that the focus would change. Instead the focus became; why didn't he answer the questions. Anyway, IMO, this was a failure of the Conservative Party more than a failure of Scheer himself.
  15. That's too bad. I was hoping they'd get up and running, last 6 months and then strand 10-15,000 passengers all around the continent before going bankrupt. A good opportunity to educate the public, the media and the investors lost. I guess this means the investors have already been educated.