The news gets worse for the Republican party .. - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

longsuffering · 10-13-2006, 09:48 AM

Republican congressman confesses to accepting bribes.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/...Corruption.php

Cheese · 10-13-2006, 10:15 AM

lets see...Politicians and bribes? I dont think it is limited to a single party.

Funny how the many Conservative voters here dislike the US Conservatives. Are the Yanks that far right even for our Alberta posters?

Cowperson · 10-13-2006, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheese

lets see...Politicians and bribes? I dont think it is limited to a single party.

Funny how the many Conservative voters here dislike the US Conservatives. Are the Yanks that far right even for our Alberta posters?

Every two term USA administration since Eisenhower has descended into profound scandal and bribery . . . . Republican and Democrat.

You could probably say the same thing about two or three term Canadian federal governments as well.

The longer the stay in power, the more likely it seems to become that the power will be abused by a wider group.

Cowperson

Bobblehead · 10-13-2006, 10:20 AM

The Abramoff scandle has been going on for a while. I'm surprised the Dems weren't able to make it an even larger issue.

Bobblehead · 10-13-2006, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Every two term USA administration since Eisenhower has descended into profound scandal and bribery . . . . Republican and Democrat.

You could probably say the same thing about two or three term Canadian federal governments as well.

The longer the stay in power, the more likely it seems to become that the power will be abused by a wider group.

Cowperson

I agree, but I don't like the idea of term limits. This is simply because there are some good legislators, and as rare as they seem to be it would be a shame that they are turfed from office just because others cannot handle the position with dignity for longer than 1 1/2 terms.

mykalberta · 10-13-2006, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheese

lets see...Politicians and bribes? I dont think it is limited to a single party.

Funny how the many Conservative voters here dislike the US Conservatives. Are the Yanks that far right even for our Alberta posters?

The difference between Ab Cons and US Cons is that in the US the Religious sentiments write laws ver batem and in Ab Religious sentiments guide the laws.

Also the extreme wealthy dominate in both parties, but they are much more prominent in the US since they are much more wealthy - example repealing the estate tax etx. No one minds putting say a 5 mil limit (given the current real estate/land increase) but US cons use that sentiment to take it to the exteme and saying no estate tax for the sickeningly rich of the world.

The dems/Libs do the same just on the other side of the spectrum. One day they will say they want to save the environment the next day they will say they want all Walmart's closed because they arent paid enough. No one is going to fight them on wanting cleaner air and safer water and so it becomes difficult to fight them on the walmart issue - same principle as the Hells Angels giving Christmas presents to needy kids - its difficult for some to fight the Hell's Angels because of the bs present's for needy kids.

MYK

Cheese · 10-13-2006, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The difference between Ab Cons and US Cons is that in the US the Religious sentiments write laws ver batem and in Ab Religious sentiments guide the laws.

Also the extreme wealthy dominate in both parties, but they are much more prominent in the US since they are much more wealthy - example repealing the estate tax etx. No one minds putting say a 5 mil limit (given the current real estate/land increase) but US cons use that sentiment to take it to the exteme and saying no estate tax for the sickeningly rich of the world.

The dems/Libs do the same just on the other side of the spectrum. One day they will say they want to save the environment the next day they will say they want all Walmart's closed because they arent paid enough. No one is going to fight them on wanting cleaner air and safer water and so it becomes difficult to fight them on the walmart issue - same principle as the Hells Angels giving Christmas presents to needy kids - its difficult for some to fight the Hell's Angels because of the bs present's for needy kids.

MYK

well didnt Alberta Cons write legislation banning Gay marriage in churches? Cant remember?
The National Conservatives IF given the chance of a full majority Govnmt would be no different IMHO. Even now they are planning a bill that allows churches a way around the whole Gay marriage syndrome....

Without preventive legislation, some government members fear that church groups and individuals would be taken to court for uttering negative remarks about gays that other members of society view as discriminatory.
That is why the measures are being considered in two parts: to protect individuals from having to perform same-sex marriage, and to protect free speech.
The measures the Conservatives are pondering resemble a private member’s bill unveiled this year in the Alberta legislature, which would have allowed civil service marriage commissioners to refuse their services to gays.
That bill, introduced by Alberta MLA and PC leadership candidate Ted Morton, would also have forbidden anyone from being punished legally for speaking out on or acting on their beliefs against gay marriage.

Im sure that this would NOT be the only area that the churches or religious right would/might influence the Can-Cons.

Bring_Back_Shantz · 10-13-2006, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheese

well didnt Alberta Cons write legislation banning Gay marriage in churches? Cant remember?

The National Conservatives IF given the chance of a full majority Govnmt would be no different IMHO. Even now they are planning a bill that allows churches a way around the whole Gay marriage syndrome....

Without preventive legislation, some government members fear that church groups and individuals would be taken to court for uttering negative remarks about gays that other members of society view as discriminatory.

That is why the measures are being considered in two parts: to protect individuals from having to perform same-sex marriage, and to protect free speech.

The measures the Conservatives are pondering resemble a private member’s bill unveiled this year in the Alberta legislature, which would have allowed civil service marriage commissioners to refuse their services to gays.

That bill, introduced by Alberta MLA and PC leadership candidate Ted Morton, would also have forbidden anyone from being punished legally for speaking out on or acting on their beliefs against gay marriage.

Im sure that this would NOT be the only area that the churches or religious right would/might influence the Can-Cons.

There's a big difference between banning gay marriages in churches (as you suggested), and givnig chuches the right to refuse to perform marriages that do not meet their religious view of waht a marriage is.

The debate over civil servants refusing is a toally different debate, altogether, but suffice it to say no one was BANNING gay marriages in churches, simply giving the churches the choice.

Cheese · 10-13-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

There's a big difference between banning gay marriages in churches (as you suggested), and givnig chuches the right to refuse to perform marriages that do not meet their religious view of waht a marriage is.

The debate over civil servants refusing is a toally different debate, altogether, but suffice it to say no one was BANNING gay marriages in churches, simply giving the churches the choice.

first off im NOT disagreeing with you...Im simply pointing out that its no different here. A con is a con is a con....they all lie in the same bed.

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 10-13-2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheese

well didnt Alberta Cons write legislation banning Gay marriage in churches? Cant remember?
The National Conservatives IF given the chance of a full majority Govnmt would be no different IMHO. Even now they are planning a bill that allows churches a way around the whole Gay marriage syndrome....

It's a "syndrome" now? Yeesh.

You may be right that there are people on the far right in Canada too. I think the difference is that there are people who are so entrenched in power in the U.S. that they can afford to not only be ideologues, but to be completely out of touch. Gay marriage is one of those issues--nobody much cares about it except a small group of noisy Christian right lobbyists. But the right can use it as a wedge issue in close races, so that elections get decided by the very small number of people who actually feel strongly about opposing it.

I don't know what the content of the bill you're talking about is--and of course, gay marriage legislation is pointless if the government doesn't have to comply with it. But FWIW, my opinion is that Churches should be allowed to make their own judgements about it--if a congregation decides they don't want to perform same-sex marriages, fine. As long as there's adequate access and equal rights, I don't see the problem. The government (and its marriage commissioners) is kind of another story. They have an obligation to provide the same kind of service to everyone.

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 10-13-2006, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

There's a big difference between banning gay marriages in churches (as you suggested), and givnig chuches the right to refuse to perform marriages that do not meet their religious view of waht a marriage is.

The debate over civil servants refusing is a toally different debate, altogether, but suffice it to say no one was BANNING gay marriages in churches, simply giving the churches the choice.

That's what I was trying to say, only you were more succint. I doubt too many same-sex couples would want to get married in a church that didn't welcome them anyway--especially since there are plenty that do.

RougeUnderoos · 10-13-2006, 11:50 AM

Churches have always been able to deny a wedding to whoever they want. I think this whole "they'll force churches to marry people" stuff is nothing more than a scare tactic.

Igottago · 10-13-2006, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheese

lets see...Politicians and bribes? I dont think it is limited to a single party.

Funny how the many Conservative voters here dislike the US Conservatives. Are the Yanks that far right even for our Alberta posters?

Our political scale is generally tilted to the left in comparison to American political ideology. Conservatives in Canada are probably more to the left than the Democrats are in America. Its interesting comparing the different dynamic in the political psychology of USA vs Canada.

Resolute 14 · 10-13-2006, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheese

well didnt Alberta Cons write legislation banning Gay marriage in churches? Cant remember?

I believe they proposed a law that would permit churches to refuse to perform or host gay marriages. Nothing about banning them.

As far as Canadian conservatism vs American conservatism goes, the Republican party is considerably farther to the right than the CPC or APC's are. Calling them by the same name does not make them the same thing.

The BC Liberals apparenly have a lot more in common with conservative ideology than they do liberal.

Bobblehead · 10-13-2006, 12:47 PM

While some people can fit in a nice little category, others just don't fit. I'd consider myself to be fiscally conservative, but socially is disagree with much/most of the current conservative policy. I always voted PC, but have difficulty convincing myself to vote CPC.

People and ideologies rarely fit nicely into a small set of descriptions.