Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-08-2005, 01:36 AM   #41
speeds
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Mike F@Apr 8 2005, 05:01 AM
And you can't deny the success they had turning the country around after Mulroney, bringing all of Canada's debt back into Canadian hands, paying down a substantial portion of it, keeping the economy on track despite a global slowdown that helped knock the US into a huge hole, etc.
Interestingly enough Mulroney came up, on a slight tangent, at the EDM HF board, I might as well post a link I suppose:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=137727

mostly in mudcrutch and theoil's posts.
speeds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2005, 07:26 AM   #42
Incogneto
#1 Goaltender
 
Incogneto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Calgary - Transplanted Manitoban
Exp:
Default

I would vote for the better of two evils.

Harper = More evil than Martin
Incogneto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2005, 09:01 AM   #43
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

I'm with you on 6 of those points Crunch, but I see you left off big hitters such as missile defense, US relations, and same sex. However, that's a seperate discussion in of itself. I'm not looking for issues based reasons to vote for the Conservatives as we all have our own positions on those. I'm looking for the answers on:

1) Missile defense, under the conditions set by the American's (no cost, place at the implementation table etc) Yes

2) Improvement of U.S. relations Absolutely

3) Same Sex Marriage As long as guarantee's are put into place seperating the concept of gay marriages from the recognition of the church, fine. I don't care what people do in thier private lives and bedrooms. The feds have promised that they won't go after the churches for thier beliefs on this, but the filing of a hate crime investigation against Bishop Henry, and the threat of pulling tax exemption status from the church if they don't toe the line has me once again questioning the government in place.

1) Can a party that has troubles holding itself together (the McKay/Stronach camp vs. the Harpers) lead a nation and run a government?

Thats an exellent question, in the short term it comes down to Harper's strength of leadership. However I would rather have a semi fractured party at the moment then the liberals and thier lies.

2) Can it make inroads into Ontario and Quebec (Moreso ON as QUE will likely go PQ), presenting and selling a vision for the country that wins them over?

I believe they can in Ontario if again Harper can silence the few idiots surviving in the party. However every party has them, the Liberals are just more effective at glossing over them. I believe that Quebec will become irrelevent in the next election. The PQ and Diceppe (sp?) have done an outstanding job, and my gut feeling is that very few votes are going to go to the Liberals, or PC's in a snap election.


3) Can Harper inspire a country with his leadership? This is critical - he's a recluse and I wonder if he's really capable of an inspiring Kennedy like speech, to rally voters to his party.

Does Paul Martin inspire the nation? or have a great deal of charisma. Lets face facts, the last really charismatic leader that we had, that could have inspired this nation was PET. I don't know whether its the schools, or the fact that most of the really good leaders go into private business. But we just don't seem to grow government leaders like other nations out there. Our prime minister is more of and administrator then a leader. And in Paul Martin's case, more concerned about his wallet and his party, then his nation.


This is really is Harper's election to lose. Steven - show me why I should vote for you rather than what's wrong with Chretien et al.

And I agree, but lets face facts, the campaign that the Liberals are going to run is going to be dirtier and nastier then any in the past, because its the only way that they can muddy the waters about Adscam. If the Conservatives are smart, they'll stick to the issues of responsible government and tax dollar wastage.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2005, 09:03 AM   #44
Sammie
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by InCoGnEtO@Apr 8 2005, 07:26 AM
I would vote for the better of two evils.

Harper = More evil than Martin
Please tell me more about this evil, EVIL man, Harper. If he's really THAT bad the whole world should be told.
Sammie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2005, 09:16 AM   #45
Sammie
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by I-Hate-Hulse@Apr 7 2005, 11:43 PM
1) Can a party that has troubles holding itself together (the McKay/Stronach camp vs. the Harpers) lead a nation and run a government?
2) Can it make inroads into Ontario and Quebec (Moreso ON as QUE will likely go PQ), presenting and selling a vision for the country that wins them over?
3) Can Harper inspire a country with his leadership? This is critical - he's a recluse and I wonder if he's really capable of an inspiring Kennedy like speech, to rally voters to his party.

This is really is Harper's election to lose. Steven - show me why I should vote for you rather than what's wrong with Chretien et al.
1) Can a party that has troubles holding itself together (the McKay/Stronach camp vs. the Harpers) lead a nation and run a government?

It seems to be doing a far better job of holding itself together than the Liberals right now. Do you think Mr. Dithers and Chretien and their people get along very well?

2) Can it make inroads into Ontario and Quebec (Moreso ON as QUE will likely go PQ), presenting and selling a vision for the country that wins them over?

Why not. Not all the votes the Liberals loose in Quebec will go to the BQ.

3) Can Harper inspire a country with his leadership? This is critical - he's a recluse and I wonder if he's really capable of an inspiring Kennedy like speech, to rally voters to his party.

And a corrupt government led by Mr. Dithers--with his useful gift of speaking many words while saying absolutely nothing that makes any sense--will inspire us all? Is Harper any more of a recluse than Martin and how do you know?
Sammie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2005, 09:59 AM   #46
I-Hate-Hulse
Franchise Player
 
I-Hate-Hulse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Sector 7-G
Exp:
Default

Quote:

Does Paul Martin inspire the nation? or have a great deal of charisma. Lets face facts, the last really charismatic leader that we had, that could have inspired this nation was PET. I don't know whether its the schools, or the fact that most of the really good leaders go into private business. But we just don't seem to grow government leaders like other nations out there. Our prime minister is more of and administrator then a leader.
You bring up a great point here. Why is it that we have such dull and uninspiring government leaders? I caught Barak Obama's speech at the Democrat's National Convention and it blew me away - you could feel the intensity and vision in his words. Canadian ones? Yawn. It it part of being "Canadian?" I think Harper's problem is that his non verbal cues need a lot of work - his face is devoid of expression. Almost makes Al Gore look like Mr. Excitement...

Quote:
The PQ and Diceppe (sp?) have done an outstanding job, and my gut feeling is that very few votes are going to go to the Liberals, or PC's in a snap election.
During the debates, I can still remember saying to myself - hey, if this guy wasn't a seperatist - he'd be pretty good. Crazy.

The unfortuntate thing is that of the three things I asked, Harper's actions in the next 4 weeks are the only things that can answer them. Spotlight's on you Steve-o.
I-Hate-Hulse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2005, 02:43 PM   #47
Flames Draft Watcher
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Mike F@Apr 8 2005, 05:01 AM
As for those who are going to vote Green -- in this election more than any other, a vote for Green is a vote for a Conservative government with an asterisk. Basically the equivalent of voting for Nader in 2000.
How do you figure? It's pretty much a given that a Conservative will win my riding, so my vote for Green is not affecting the end result one way or the other except by the dollars my vote represents and the message it might send.

I see zero correlation to the US and Nader.
Flames Draft Watcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2005, 02:45 PM   #48
Incinerator
Franchise Player
 
Incinerator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 30 minutes from the Red Mile
Exp:
Default

Conservatives for me. What Capn'Crunch said.

1) Missile Defense--If Bush wants to pay I'm all for it, as long as it doesn't cost Canadian taxpayer a dime.

2) US Relations--See above, and strap a barrel of oil on the back of every single cow. Problem solved.

3) Same-sex Marriage--Conservatives are not homophobic, it's amazing how many Canadians have been brainwashed by Martin. Civil Unions will have the EXACT same benefits as Marriages, just a different name because the government should NOT have the power to invent new definitions for words in the English language. What is so hard to understand? If same sex couples can get "married" then what is next? We change the definition of Mac n' Cheese to "Spagetti n' Cheese" because Macaroni now means Spagetti as defined by the Liberal government?
Incinerator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2005, 02:48 PM   #49
Flames Draft Watcher
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Incinerator@Apr 8 2005, 08:45 PM
3) Same-sex Marriage--Conservatives are not homophobic, it's amazing how many Canadians have been brainwashed by Martin. Civil Unions will have the EXACT same benefits as Marriages, just a different name because the government should NOT have the power to invent new definitions for words in the English language. What is so hard to understand? If same sex couples can get "married" then what is next? We change the definition of Mac n' Cheese to "Spagetti n' Cheese" because Macaroni now means Spagetti as defined by the Liberal government?
Why do you have a problem with the definition changing? The world is changing, our language is changing, etc. Give us the real reason you have a problem with it because I don't buy that you are "against the changing of the definitions of words." What does pasta have to do with same-sex marriages?
Flames Draft Watcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2005, 03:17 PM   #50
Lurch
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Exp:
Default

I would vote Green. The only party with a fiscally responsible socially liberal policy that appears to care about future generations as well. It never fails to amaze me that more of the 'stay out of my pocket' crowd, myself included, is also not part of the 'stay out of my bedroom' crowd. CPC and Liberal hit half my agenda each, leaving me on the fringe with the Greens.
Lurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2005, 03:23 PM   #51
Incinerator
Franchise Player
 
Incinerator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 30 minutes from the Red Mile
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+Apr 8 2005, 08:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ Apr 8 2005, 08:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Incinerator@Apr 8 2005, 08:45 PM
3) Same-sex Marriage--Conservatives are not homophobic, it's amazing how many Canadians have been brainwashed by Martin. Civil Unions will have the EXACT same benefits as Marriages, just a different name because the government should NOT have the power to invent new definitions for words in the English language. What is so hard to understand? If same sex couples can get "married" then what is next? We change the definition of Mac n' Cheese to "Spagetti n' Cheese" because Macaroni now means Spagetti as defined by the Liberal government?
Why do you have a problem with the definition changing? The world is changing, our language is changing, etc. Give us the real reason you have a problem with it because I don't buy that you are "against the changing of the definitions of words." What does pasta have to do with same-sex marriages?[/b][/quote]
Macaroni and Spagetti are both pastas, just like Marriage and Civil Unions are (will be) both legally recognized, tax-benefits generating partnerships between two individuals that will provide the other spouse with certain additional benefits should one of them leave this world earlier than the other. But while Macaroni and Spagetti are both pastas, with basically the same ingredients, they also come in different shapes (and in the case of Marriage and Civil Union, different labels).

The problem with changing definitions of words: Yes, the world is changing, and I have no doubt there have been numerous words that have been invented or changed over time since the beginning of civilization and the English language. But these words were certainly not changed overnight, by government bureaucrats no less. Let me reiterate that I do not have a problems with words changing with the times. I do however, have a SERIOUS problem when the government is able to rewrite the dictionary on a whim. NO government in the democratic world should have the right to rewrite the dictionary as it pleases (read: to buy more votes from the minority) just as no government in the democratic world should have the right to stick its nose into private citizens' bedrooms. Pierre Trudeau legalized homosexuality in 1969, that is progressing with the times; Paul Martin insisting all Canadians to agree with him that a union of same sex couples be called "marriage", that is language Nazi; Paul Martin claiming himself to be of Catholic faith, that is hyprocricy at its finest.
Incinerator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2005, 04:01 PM   #52
Flames Draft Watcher
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Exp:
Default

I don't see how allowing gays to marry equates to sitcking its nose into private citizens bedrooms. In fact I think you could argue that not allowing gays to marry is meddling with the private affairs of citizens.
Flames Draft Watcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2005, 04:17 PM   #53
MarchHare
Franchise Player
 
MarchHare's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: YSJ (1979-2002) -> YYC (2002-2022) -> YVR (2022-present)
Exp:
Default

Re: Marriage vs. Civil Unions

They tried "seperate but equal" during the civil rights movement in the US. I'll leave the results of that little experiment as an excercise to the reader.
MarchHare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2005, 04:59 PM   #54
BlackRedGold25
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by MarchHare@Apr 8 2005, 10:17 PM
Re: Marriage vs. Civil Unions

They tried "seperate but equal" during the civil rights movement in the US. I'll leave the results of that little experiment as an excercise to the reader.
Well, if "separate but equal" is such a horrible concept maybe we should get rid of all instances of it from our society. No more mens/womens washrooms/locker rooms/changing rooms. Just unisex washrooms/locker rooms/changing rooms everywhere. No more Olympic events segregated by gender.
BlackRedGold25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2005, 05:01 PM   #55
Flame On
Franchise Player
 
Flame On's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Exp:
Default

Plus gays don't want what others deems them worthy to have. "Here gays, I'm graciously allowing you to civily unify, but I won't allow a marriage".
Talk about elitist right. Who cares if you think "that should be ok".
Oh and as for the whole opting out of things, the people who always bring that up mention ballet or other "soft things", like somehow it's out of whack with say military, where it is not! But that would work both ways, I'd far rather pay for more art culture education etc. over throwing money at the military which in my mind is never gonna be much more than pathetic in this country and lets face it redundant (not wholey I'll grant you). Further, kids sports facilities - No
Taxing oil companies which pollute - Yes
Tax incentives to green energy - Yes.
Flame On is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2005, 05:05 PM   #56
Winsor_Pilates
Franchise Player
 
Winsor_Pilates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Van City - Main St.
Exp:
Default

I guess I'm the first and probobly only person on here to say I'd vote NDP, just as I did last time. I vote based on my ideology and would personally sacrifice some money to have a healthier, cleaner and safer nation.
As for all of you who want to pick and choose your taxes, run for office and decide what's worth tax dollars and what isn't. That's part of what we elect government to do. If everyone could choose their own payments, we wouldn't even have health care because most people are too damn selfish to share any more than they're made to. You can't enjoy the benefits of this nation that suit you and disreguard what is needed for everyone else.
Winsor_Pilates is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2005, 05:15 PM   #57
Winsor_Pilates
Franchise Player
 
Winsor_Pilates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Van City - Main St.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by BlackRedGold25+Apr 8 2005, 03:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BlackRedGold25 @ Apr 8 2005, 03:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@Apr 8 2005, 10:17 PM
Re: Marriage vs. Civil Unions

They tried "seperate but equal" during the civil rights movement in the US. I'll leave the results of that little experiment as an excercise to the reader.
Well, if "separate but equal" is such a horrible concept maybe we should get rid of all instances of it from our society. No more mens/womens washrooms/locker rooms/changing rooms. Just unisex washrooms/locker rooms/changing rooms everywhere. No more Olympic events segregated by gender. [/b][/quote]
Marraige and civil unions are not equal. If they were we wouldn't need two titles and you wouldn't care of gays got married. It is clear that people on both sides of the argument see the word Marraige as of more importance than civil union. Don't blur the distinction into being no more than the difference between washrooms.
Winsor_Pilates is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2005, 05:21 PM   #58
BlackRedGold25
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@Apr 8 2005, 11:15 PM
Marraige and civil unions are not equal. If they were we wouldn't need two titles and you wouldn't care of gays got married.
How are they unequal?

If men and women are equal then why do we need the terms?

Or the terms black, white, asian, aboriginal etc?
BlackRedGold25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2005, 05:50 PM   #59
MarchHare
Franchise Player
 
MarchHare's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: YSJ (1979-2002) -> YYC (2002-2022) -> YVR (2022-present)
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by BlackRedGold25+Apr 8 2005, 05:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BlackRedGold25 @ Apr 8 2005, 05:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Winsor_Pilates@Apr 8 2005, 11:15 PM
Marraige and civil unions are not equal. If they were we wouldn't need two titles and you wouldn't care of gays got married.
How are they unequal?

If men and women are equal then why do we need the terms?

Or the terms black, white, asian, aboriginal etc? [/b][/quote]
That's such a completely fallacious argument I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse.

We have different words for gender and race because those are biological characteristics. Marriage is a social construct, an abstract concept created by society, not some innate genetic trait.

A better comparison would be why don't we have seperate terms for white employee benefits and black employee benefits, and the answer, of course, is because if we did it would be considered discrimatory (and rightly so), just as denying homosexuals the right to marry is.
MarchHare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2005, 06:11 PM   #60
Flame On
Franchise Player
 
Flame On's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@Apr 8 2005, 04:05 PM
I guess I'm the first and probobly only person on here to say I'd vote NDP, just as I did last time. I vote based on my ideology and would personally sacrifice some money to have a healthier, cleaner and safer nation.
As for all of you who want to pick and choose your taxes, run for office and decide what's worth tax dollars and what isn't. That's part of what we elect government to do. If everyone could choose their own payments, we wouldn't even have health care because most people are too damn selfish to share any more than they're made to. You can't enjoy the benefits of this nation that suit you and disreguard what is needed for everyone else.
That's what I'm saying, voting out individual taxes is a fantasy. I was going further by saying that in my experience, most people that bring that up usually follow it with this sort of thinking: I don't want to pay for a sculpture I want it to go on attack helicopters (a hypothetical example).
Which is as realistic as me voting in or out the things I listed.
Flame On is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:45 PM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy