Chandler Nomination - What's the deal?

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by First Lady

In this case they were inaccurate.

All the comments I saw in recent newspaper articles were those of Stephen Boissoin. The Alliance supports freedom of speech and religion.

What about the anti-gay comments he made on his radio show Freedom Radio ?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

What about the anti-gay comments he made on his radio show Freedom Radio ?

He made comments about gay activists. You can read the full comments, the Human Rights decision and my comments on this page...

http://www.projectalberta.com/board/...ghlight=#45001

[Kjesse]

This is what I refer to, its in my 2nd post in this thread:

"According to a settlement with the commission and an Edmonton man from earlier this year, Chandler declared that "God sees murder as equal to homosexuality," and compared gay activists to "the new Nazis," out to silence Christians."

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...d4&k=34743&p=1

He can speak as freely as he wants, but he has no place in the PC party if that's what he thinks.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Delgar

This is what I refer to, its in my 2nd post in this thread:

"According to a settlement with the commission and an Edmonton man from earlier this year, Chandler declared that "God sees murder as equal to homosexuality," and compared gay activists to "the new Nazis," out to silence Christians."

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...d4&k=34743&p=1

He can speak as freely as he wants, but he has no place in the PC party if that's what he thinks.

The first part of the statement is simply his religious views. While I don't agree with them; he is free to speak about his beliefs.

The second part is what the Human Rights Commission ruled on... you can find it in the link in my ^^post.

[Kjesse]

OK found and read the comments, here they are if anyone is interested. This has his comments verbatim from the radio show:

http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions...070426appa.pdf

That puts it in context, but still, he seems to be out there in the wild right wing yonder where politics and religion go hand-in-hand. I think its page 4 or 5 where he say our country's principles come from Judeo-Christian origins (while true, he's implying more than that).

And its not clear at first that he's talking about the Gay Militia (wow.... if that's true...) though he seems to temper his comments later on by referring to that.

It seems to me is what he's saying is, he doesn't "not" like gays, he doesn't like gay activists. He's hard to follow in that transcript.

I'm gonna stew over this for a while but it still seems to me the PC's made the right decision.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Delgar

http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions...070426appa.pdf

You’re a homosexual activist! You’re the type of person, [R.], that we are talking about. You are targeting us. We are the victim here. You know, and it’s just like Nazi Germany where, instead of going after the Jews, they’re going after Christians.


Laugh.

A political party trying to court anything more than the prized "Toothless Vote" would be wise to stay away from this dummy.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Laugh.

A political party trying to court anything more than the prized "Toothless Vote" would be wise to stay away from this dummy.

Makes you kinda wonder what's going on when Chandler can't decide what brand of homosexual he dislikes the most and which he don't.

Fellers like him are so ardent in their rhetoric it kinda makes you think they're in the closet themselves (see: Haggard, Ted, The Rev.). Just sayin'.

Some fellers dig fellers. Some dames dig dames. What the whoop.

[Cowboy89]

It's people like this that give mainstream conservatism a bad rep. Who would have thought that a group of people so concerned about economic freedom from government tyranny would battle so hard for government mandated religious laws.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

It's people like this that give mainstream conservatism a bad rep. Who would have thought that a group of people so concerned about economic freedom from government tyranny would battle so hard for government mandated religious laws.

Which group are you referring to?

[Reggie Dunlop]

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

It's people like this that give mainstream conservatism a bad rep.

Guy's a fruitcake. It's only a question of if the loaf is more nutty or fruity.

I mean, really. Guy goes on the Tee Vee and says to Canadians that some of them aren't even welcome in their own country. Is there even an English word for such stupidity? Hell, he makes even xenophobes wince.

Then he portrays himself as an embattled minority. Hell, the only time this chump's ever been at the back of the line was in a game of Tug O'War.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

It's people like this that give mainstream conservatism a bad rep. Who would have thought that a group of people so concerned about economic freedom from government tyranny would battle so hard for government mandated religious laws.

Agreed... people like this are why the right wing is so easily attacked by the left.

Though I find it ironic that someone like Stelmach, who is very much a social conservative with ideals of perverting society to his antiquated vision has a problem with another social conservative with ideals of perverting society to his antiquated vision. Chandler is a bigger redneck by far, but the point stands.

Why oh why can't a socially pragmatic and neutral party with actual fiscal conservatism come into play here?

[Reggie Dunlop]

You'd think if there's truly a Gay Militia out to take over the country as Chandler fears, they'd be ... um... a bit more conspicuous? I mean, being as well-funded and powerful as they supposedly are?

Y'know.... they could have some ... um... interesting armoured tanks rolling down the boulevards, not to mention simply fabulous uniforms.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Makes you kinda wonder what's going on when Chandler can't decide what brand of homosexual he dislikes the most and which he don't.

This comment reminds me of that dumass Michael O Malley of Catholic school board fame. Didn't really know what he was arguing about, he just really wanted to argue.

[Titan]

Back on the point of refunding his money or telling him not to run. I have a problem with telling someone they can't run. That smacks of old boys club. However, this is a party nomination and it requires the party's blessing to be their candidate. Knowing this going in, Chandler should have had a serious sit down with the party brass to discuss if he won, would they endorse him. Do that before spending the money. Therefore, No Refund For You.

Does highlight the tunnel vision of the PC party brass to not have anticipated this problem and not nipped it in the bud earlier.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Titan

Back on the point of refunding his money or telling him not to run. I have a problem with telling someone they can't run. That smacks of old boys club. However, this is a party nomination and it requires the party's blessing to be their candidate. Knowing this going in, Chandler should have had a serious sit down with the party brass to discuss if he won, would they endorse him. Do that before spending the money. Therefore, No Refund For You.

Does highlight the tunnel vision of the PC party brass to not have anticipated this problem and not nipped it in the bud earlier.

People like Chandler should be nowhere near any respectable party, left, right or centre. Spewing vitriol and social rhetoric doesn't belong.

HOWEVER... if you don't want this kind of person in your party, the correct thing to do is to disallow them BEFORE they drop $120,000. The PC party should reimburse him, with the caveat that any of his contributors should be able to get their money back.