Alberta's $8,000,000,000.00 Deficit - Page 5 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Azure · 08-27-2009, 11:51 AM

Wait, what?

Where?

FireFly · 08-27-2009, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Yeah, i was talking about the WRA.

Where are we talking about religious crap? Cause I'm pretty sure that's not part of our policies. In fact, the former VP of policy has a flying spagetti monster tattoo... So I'm not sure where people get off on this "Right wing, socially conservative" thing. It's the same tactic the federal Liberals used against the Conservatives.

Now, if you want to make sure we don't become religiously inflicted, get a membership and help pick a leader.

Liberals? Really? Not in this province, not ever.

Cowboy89 · 08-27-2009, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

Where are we talking about religious crap? Cause I'm pretty sure that's not part of our policies. In fact, the former VP of policy has a flying spagetti monster tattoo... So I'm not sure where people get off on this "Right wing, socially conservative" thing. It's the same tactic the federal Liberals used against the Conservatives.

Now, if you want to make sure we don't become religiously inflicted, get a membership and help pick a leader.

Liberals? Really? Not in this province, not ever.

I'm confused, you're a WRA member? I thought you had a definate socialist streak. No?

SebC · 08-27-2009, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

This is what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket (oil), and squeeze every last bit of yolk out cause you can't figure out when you're full (royalty schemes).

Pretty tough to avoid that in a free market with free trade. Specialization is a natural process that leads to an efficient economy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

Where are we talking about religious crap? Cause I'm pretty sure that's not part of our policies. In fact, the former VP of policy has a flying spagetti monster tattoo... So I'm not sure where people get off on this "Right wing, socially conservative" thing. It's the same tactic the federal Liberals used against the Conservatives.

First Lady is that you? Anyways, that's a horrible analogy because the federal Conservatives ARE social conservatives. They sure as hell aren't fiscal conservatives.

Slava · 08-27-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

Where are we talking about religious crap? Cause I'm pretty sure that's not part of our policies. In fact, the former VP of policy has a flying spagetti monster tattoo... So I'm not sure where people get off on this "Right wing, socially conservative" thing. It's the same tactic the federal Liberals used against the Conservatives.

Now, if you want to make sure we don't become religiously inflicted, get a membership and help pick a leader.

Liberals? Really? Not in this province, not ever.

When you have people like Link Byfield on your board you're going to be painted with that brush. You know what they say though, if the shoe fits...

FireFly · 08-27-2009, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I'm confused, you're a WRA member? I thought you had a definate socialist streak. No?

I work here actually. And I'm a socialist at heart, but understanding human nature, I know socialism would never work...

So in answer to your question, sort of.

FireFly · 08-27-2009, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SebC

Pretty tough to avoid that in a free market with free trade. Specialization is a natural process that leads to an efficient economy.

First Lady is that you? Anyways, that's a horrible analogy because the federal Conservatives ARE social conservatives. They sure as hell aren't fiscal conservatives.

As indicated by their leaving the gay marriage laws as is and doing nothing about abortion? What?

FireFly · 08-27-2009, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slava

When you have people like Link Byfield on your board you're going to be painted with that brush. You know what they say though, if the shoe fits...

I might suggest you read this article... Out of the horses mouth, so to speak.

http://www.westernstandard.ca/websit...d=3009&start=0

Isn't it possible to keep the two separate?

SebC · 08-27-2009, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

As indicated by their leaving the gay marriage laws as is and doing nothing about abortion? What?

They're pragmatic enough not to touch those with a minority government.

Ozy_Flame · 08-27-2009, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

Where are we talking about religious crap? Cause I'm pretty sure that's not part of our policies. In fact, the former VP of policy has a flying spagetti monster tattoo... So I'm not sure where people get off on this "Right wing, socially conservative" thing. It's the same tactic the federal Liberals used against the Conservatives.

Now, if you want to make sure we don't become religiously inflicted, get a membership and help pick a leader.

Liberals? Really? Not in this province, not ever.

You know, it was a good thing I represented BC in our Ministers conference because lord knows I would have driven Alberta to hell in a handbasket!

MarchHare · 08-27-2009, 01:22 PM

Quote:

As indicated by their leaving the gay marriage laws as is and doing nothing about abortion? What?

In the 2006 election, one of Harper's first campaign promises was that he would repeal the gay marriage law. The Conservatives attempted to do just that in December 2006, but the motion was defeated by the opposition parties (about a dozen MPs from each of the Liberals and Conservatives voted against party lines; the NDP and Bloc both unanimously opposed the measure).

So no, the Conservatives didn't leave the gay marriage law "as is". They tried to repeal it, but were defeated by the opposition.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Same-sex...rmed_in_Canada

Quote:

The Canadian House of Commons has voted 175 to 123 to defeat a motion by the Conservative minority government to re-open the same-sex marriage debate. If the motion had passed the government would have proposed a bill to restore the traditional definition of marriage as being exclusively a union between a man and a woman. The Conservative and Liberal parties did not whip the vote allowing their MPs a free vote.

The motion voted on read as follows: "That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, 47, made holding the vote a key promise in the 2006 federal election campaign.

Party breakdown of the vote was as follows:

FOR:
Conservatives: 111
Liberals: 13
Bloc: 0
NDP: 0
Independent: 0

AGAINST:
Liberals: 84
Bloc: 48
NDP: 29
Conservatives: 12
Independent: 1

DID NOT VOTE:
Liberals: 4
Bloc: 3
Conservatives: 1
Independent: 1
NDP: 0

MarchHare · 08-27-2009, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SebC

They're pragmatic enough not to touch those with a minority government.

Maybe for the abortion issue, but not for gay marraige (see my post above).

Slava · 08-27-2009, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

I might suggest you read this article... Out of the horses mouth, so to speak.

http://www.westernstandard.ca/websit...d=3009&start=0

Isn't it possible to keep the two separate?

It is certinaly possible except when you say things like:

"Besides, the whole distinction between “libertarian” and “social conservative” is ultimately bogus."

"Second, Danielle understands every bit as well as her competitors that “libertarians” and “social conservatives” have more in common than they have in difference..."

"Once we get past the labels, conservatives of all shades and persuasions confront a single political enemy: “progressivism"..."

Admittedly this last quote is simply mind boggling, which is why I threw it in here. Is he trying to say that progress is a bad thing? Clearly the last kind of government I want is one that is afraid of progress. I'm amazed his version of that article is electronic!

VladtheImpaler · 08-27-2009, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarchHare

In the 2006 election, one of Harper's first campaign promises was that he would repeal the gay marriage law. The Conservatives attempted to do just that in December 2006, but the motion was defeated by the opposition parties (about a dozen MPs from each of the Liberals and Conservatives voted against party lines; the NDP and Bloc both unanimously opposed the measure).

You are wrong. Harper promised a free vote on the subject and that's what it was - the Conservatives didn't try to do anything. Harper was no doubt happy the motion was defeated - it would have caused him nothing but problems had it passed.

Azure · 08-27-2009, 01:29 PM

Okay, so is anyone going to provide me with official WRA party policy about certain religious things or are you all just blowing smoke out of your ass?

FireFly · 08-27-2009, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slava

It is certinaly possible except when you say things like:

"Besides, the whole distinction between “libertarian” and “social conservative” is ultimately bogus."

"Second, Danielle understands every bit as well as her competitors that “libertarians” and “social conservatives” have more in common than they have in difference..."

"Once we get past the labels, conservatives of all shades and persuasions confront a single political enemy: “progressivism"..."

Admittedly this last quote is simply mind boggling, which is why I threw it in here. Is he trying to say that progress is a bad thing? Clearly the last kind of government I want is one that is afraid of progress. I'm amazed his version of that article is electronic!

Lol. Maybe taken out of context. In this context progrssive means 'more intereferance'. You want a government that meddles more?

You're good at taking things out of context though.

The point is that a so-called 'social conservative' is supporting a labelled libertarian. (Labelled by other social conservatives, that is.) Why? Because the idea behind conservativism is LESS GOVERNMENT. And Danielle supports that both fiscally and socially.

FireFly · 08-27-2009, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

You are wrong. Harper promised a free vote on the subject and that's what it was - the Conservatives didn't try to do anything. Harper was no doubt happy the motion was defeated - it would have caused him nothing but problems had it passed.

Thank you. Happer promised this to appease those members who are socially conservative. This is what politics is about. Had nothing to do with what he personally thought about the subject.

MarchHare · 08-27-2009, 01:34 PM

Then why did Harper himself vote in favour of the motion?

Slava · 08-27-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireFly

Lol. Maybe taken out of context. In this context progrssive means 'more intereferance'. You want a government that meddles more?

You're good at taking things out of context though.

The point is that a so-called 'social conservative' is supporting a labelled libertarian. (Labelled by other social conservatives, that is.) Why? Because the idea behind conservativism is LESS GOVERNMENT. And Danielle supports that both fiscally and socially.

You gave me the article and I pulled his words from there? How is that out of context at all? He is talking about the difference between libertarian and say that they are the same...that is the context of the comment.

The only part that might have been out of context was the mind boggling quote on him fighting progressivism, and that is what it is.

FireFly · 08-27-2009, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Okay, so is anyone going to provide me with official WRA party policy about certain religious things or are you all just blowing smoke out of your ass?

http://www.wildrosealliance.ca/pdf/W...cy_Summary.pdf

I think that the part they're all concerned with is where it says under social policies: "Recognize that all Albertans have equal rights, privledges and responsibilities."

It can't possibly be where it says... well wait. That's about it.

Actually, at our AGM a motion was passed to say this:

“That it be the practice of the Wildrose Alliance executive, when asked, to refer to the party as “fiscally conservative and socially moderate.” If asked, “socially moderate” means we are “socially responsible.” If asked, “socially responsible” means we believe that “in matters of widespread concern, the public should be able to determine the public interest, through initiative or referendum.”

Which means that we have nothing to say on the matter. It's up to the people.

How horrendous of us!