Nice attempt at trying to deflect from your bigoted views. High River is not a suburb of Calgary and we are considered rural folks by most people.
My expectations from the provincial govt are just as important as those from the cities. For you to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. We are quite happy with Danielle Smith as our MLA and the work she has done advocating for our community and making the rest of Alberta aware of the culture of entitlement in the PC party. I only hope she is smart enough to bring in a platform Albertans can accept so we can get rid of the PC party.
But you are a suburb of Calgary though. If the majority of people who live in High River worked in High River, different discussion. Since most work in Calgary, it is in effect a suburb. It just has a more rural setting, but the people don’t deal with the typical rural setting, namely one that is predominantly white and predominantly Christian. They deal with multiculturalism every single day, unlike most who live in rural settings.
The second paragraph is a promo for the Wildrose/slamming the PCs, so I’m glad you appreciate what Danielle is doing for you. I find her to be a very weak leader who passed on the chance to dismiss her bigoted candidates in the last election in favour of “they have the right to say it” (of note: She is a former Ted Morton supporter, noted former PC bigot).
Anyways if I chose my words better in the beginning no one would have said anything. I shouldn’t have made it seem like I find all rural voters to hold those views. But look at the entirety of the political spectrum in both Canada and the US. If the candidate is against equal rights for some groups(or as they like to put it, believe in “traditional values”), are pro life, pro gun etc.. the odds are they’ll be from a rural district. Such a platform doesn’t play as well in urban areas. We have a textbook example involving the Wildrose, when a couple comments from its members doomed them to fewer seats in Calgary and Edmonton than the Liberals and NDP, but cost them very little in Southern Alberta, where the nearly swept.
So yes, not all people who live in rural areas are bigots; likewise there are people in urban areas who are racists, homophobes and even Oiler fans.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The correct term for towns like High River (and Airdrie and Cochrane and Okotoks) is "bedroom community" or "commuter town" or "exurb". High River is not a suburb of Calgary, but it's most definitely not rural either.
The Following User Says Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
The correct term for towns like High River (and Airdrie and Cochrane and Okotoks) is "bedroom community" or "commuter town" or "exurb". High River is not a suburb of Calgary, but it's most definitely not rural either.
Parasite community is the word you are looking for.
I dont think Ric McIvor intended his attendance to support the hate filled messaging against homosexuals.
The majority of politicians are religious, the majority of religions are against homosexuality. So should a politician attending any church, Mosque or temple face the same kind of criticism. Is it just because this group is not mainstream and overtly homophobic? Is the less overt homophobia of other organized religion somehow better?
So I don't judge Ric for attending this particular event. How has Rics voting record been in the city and in the legislature for issues surrounding homosexuals. I would rather judge him by his voting record than by an event he attended.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
But you are a suburb of Calgary though. If the majority of people who live in High River worked in High River, different discussion. Since most work in Calgary, it is in effect a suburb. It just has a more rural setting, but the people don’t deal with the typical rural setting, namely one that is predominantly white and predominantly Christian. They deal with multiculturalism every single day, unlike most who live in rural settings.
The second paragraph is a promo for the Wildrose/slamming the PCs, so I’m glad you appreciate what Danielle is doing for you. I find her to be a very weak leader who passed on the chance to dismiss her bigoted candidates in the last election in favour of “they have the right to say it” (of note: She is a former Ted Morton supporter, noted former PC bigot).
Anyways if I chose my words better in the beginning no one would have said anything. I shouldn’t have made it seem like I find all rural voters to hold those views. But look at the entirety of the political spectrum in both Canada and the US. If the candidate is against equal rights for some groups(or as they like to put it, believe in “traditional values”), are pro life, pro gun etc.. the odds are they’ll be from a rural district. Such a platform doesn’t play as well in urban areas. We have a textbook example involving the Wildrose, when a couple comments from its members doomed them to fewer seats in Calgary and Edmonton than the Liberals and NDP, but cost them very little in Southern Alberta, where the nearly swept.
So yes, not all people who live in rural areas are bigots; likewise there are people in urban areas who are racists, homophobes and even Oiler fans.
We have a very large filopino community to works in local businesses and for Cargill. Then there's a huge segment of retired people that live here also. And yes we do have families that communte to Calgary to work but they are not as big a segment of this town as you might think. That being said we are not a suburb but a bedroom community as MarchHare correctly posted.
Danielle made a (rookie) mistake that may have cost her the election. I agree she should have given them the boot as soon as the comments were made. Since that time she has admitted to her errors and has promised to do a better job of vetting of candidates running in her party. That however doesn't make her a bigot.
Going forward my focus will be on what Danielle brings to the table come next election and can she convince Albertans to vote for a change. Time will tell on that and dispite what the polls says, we all know what happened last election..
[QUOTE=Dion;4806223
Danielle made a (rookie) mistake that may have cost her the election. I agree she should have given them the boot as soon as the comments were made. Since that time she has admitted to her errors and has promised to do a better job of vetting of candidates running in her party. That however doesn't make her a bigot.[/QUOTE]
If that is the message that she is sending out, then she is a weak leader, the issue wasn't only the candidate, it was her complete inability to do anything about a guy who was caught running their mouth in the past about controversial issues rather going with the whole libertarian approach. That is a weak leader who couldn't control a difficult situation in an appropriate manner and looked weak as a result.
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard
If that is the message that she is sending out, then she is a weak leader, the issue wasn't only the candidate, it was her complete inability to do anything about a guy who was caught running their mouth in the past about controversial issues rather going with the whole libertarian approach. That is a weak leader who couldn't control a difficult situation in an appropriate manner and looked weak as a result.
To clarify she admitted she should have kicked him out of the party and not doing so was a huge mistake on her part.
If there is no reason why he would logically agree or be forced to resign, by what standards do you use to judge that it was a valid request?
I mean, I would be within my rights to ask you for $1000, but that doesn't mean my request isn't absurd.
For the same reason other politicians are called upon to resign when their abuse of government privilege (i.e.: travel expenses or personal apartment renovations) become public knowledge, or they are caught in a conflict of interest, etc.
You see, we do have this little thing called freedom of speech. McIvor exercised it on the weekend, as is his right. But there can be social consequences to such exercising, and among them is the right of his detractors to argue that McIvor is unfit to serve as a representative of the people.
For the same reason other politicians are called upon to resign when their abuse of government privilege (i.e.: travel expenses or personal apartment renovations) become public knowledge, or they are caught in a conflict of interest, etc.
You see, we do have this little thing called freedom of speech. McIvor exercised it on the weekend, as is his right. But there can be social consequences to such exercising, and among them is the right of his detractors to argue that McIvor is unfit to serve as a representative of the people.
Except abusing government privilege and being involved in a conflict of interest are against the rules. They have rules that are outlined somewhere, or are alluded to in a general code of conduct that is agreed to when they are elected.
Unless I am misinformed, associating with idiots isn't on the list of things that you can't do.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Ric McIver apologizes for participation in March for Jesus
Quote:
Today in Calgary, McIver said he made a mistake.
"What I did not do — and what I regret and what I apologize for is — I didn't do my homework. I didn't check the website," said McIver. "Anybody that's angry, I agree with them. [There is] nasty, mean-spirited stuff on this website that there's no excuse for and I apologize for drawing attention to it."
Quote:
McIver said he developed a relationship with the group while he was on Calgary city council. He used to stop by when the organization held barbecues outside City Hall to feed the homeless.
He said this is the end of his relationship with the March of Jesus.
If you want to know what McIver really thinks of Pawlowski and the Street Church, just watch this YouTube video (linked by @Crackmacs and @mikesbloggity on Twitter) from 2012:
...aannnd McIver is done. Willing to bet his challengers in the next MLA election will love playing the first minute of this video over and over and over.
This just cements the guy knew about what the preacher was preaching but either silently agreed, or frankly didn't think it was all that bad. I call BS on failed to Google, this guy knew, or is a walking moron.
