Government on the brink?

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates+Apr 10 2005, 10:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winsor_Pilates @ Apr 10 2005, 10:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@Apr 10 2005, 03:20 PM
I'm also willing to bet that if there was an election called and the Liberal's were to win it, that the inquiry would be 86'ed the next day to protect the party.

Why would Martin shut down the inquiry that he called for in the first place?
The party that doesn't want to see the results of the inquiry is the conservatives. They are the ones who are pushing for an election while people are still upset and before we as the voters know the final results. The Libs are the party that wants to complete the inquiry so that people know the whole story.
Personally I'd much rather wait and see the whole truth before I decide how bad the scandel is and who is all responsable. [/b][/quote]
The irony there is that when AdScam broke, the opposition asked the Liberals not to call an election until the inquiry had wrapped up.

The Liberals refused.

One has to wonder just how much they knew of what was going on, and how damaging it was. It is entirely possible that they knew the results of this inquiry would hit the party hard, and were hoping for a long, majority mandate so that there would be nothing the opposition could do when these allegations broke.

Unfortunately for the Liberals, they ran a poor campaign and are stuck in a minority. Their powerplay failed, and with party support running at 25% (according to the radio this morning), they are about to be pushed into an election.

[Shawnski]

From the movie Forrest Gump: "Life is like a box of chocolates.... you never know what you are going to get."

Substitute "Liberals are" for "Life is" in that quote, and you have our reality.

No thanks.

[V]

There's a heluva difference between shifting a little from right to less-right, and completely changing face on more of the important social policies in the country.

As much as you'd like to, you can't compare the two.

Personally, I wish the Cons didn't make any changes. They didn't gain anything from the minor changes that they did make.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken@Apr 11 2005, 10:23 PM
Personally, I wish the Cons didn't make any changes. They didn't gain anything from the minor changes that they did make.

How do you know whether they gained anything from that or not? How are you measuring the impact?

They could have lost worse.

[V]

I make my assumptions based on where they lost and where they won, and there sure wasn't a heluva difference between campaigns. The election was still over after Ontario finished voting.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken+Apr 11 2005, 02:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dominicwasalreadytaken @ Apr 11 2005, 02:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Why would we want individual beliefs put aside once someone gains a seat in the government? The reason I vote for someone is because I like their belief and would like to see such beliefs implemented in the House of Commons.

I much prefer the Conservative government that refuses to change its identity in order to gain votes, as opposed to the Liberal party, whose views seems to change as often as there are days in a year.[/b]

That's the point I was trying to make. You misunderstood my post. I said "If individual beliefs should be put aside" in response to another post. I don't feel they should be. I also vote for someone because of their beliefs, and even though mine aren't conservative I would respect the conservative party for being true to their beliefs instead of changing to get eastern votes.

<!--QuoteBegin-Snakeeye
The irony there is that when AdScam broke, the opposition asked the Liberals not to call an election until the inquiry had wrapped up.

The Liberals refused.

One has to wonder just how much they knew of what was going on, and how damaging it was. It is entirely possible that they knew the results of this inquiry would hit the party hard, and were hoping for a long, majority mandate so that there would be nothing the opposition could do when these allegations broke.[/quote]

Good point. Its seems to have flip floped back and forth between who wants to see the results and who wants to hide them. All the more reason I hope we see everything before we have to vote again.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@Apr 11 2005, 10:10 AM
Well all he does is claim that he won't "impose" his beliefs on others. I'm not sure why I'd believe him to be honest. I'm pretty sure most Christians I know would like to impose a variety of their morals on me. He's not allowed to come out and say it and yet you know how he'd vote, certain issues he wouldn't back down on, etc.

He can't completely separate his beliefs and policy decisions. And if he did, I'd accuse him of not being a practising Christian and thus a complete phony.

Who has the better chance of being honest? The Liberals who are behind the Adscam fiasco and we know we can't trust them, or the Christian Conservatives who say they will not impose their beliefs on voters but haven't been given a chance to prove how honest they are?

Be honest.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Mike F+Apr 11 2005, 10:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Apr 11 2005, 10:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Sammie@Apr 10 2005, 11:38 PM
Let's let Stockwell Day speak for himself on this subject:

I believe that the scientific evidence is overwhelming that human life begins at the moment of conception,

What's to be feared here? What's so scary? Where does his religious beliefs interfere with carrying out his political duties?

If a politician said he felt overwhelmingly convinced that 2+2=5 would you vote for him/her? No, because it shows a lack of reason.

There is no overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the notion that human life begins at conception. For Stockwell to believe that shows that his religious/moral belief has interfered with his ability objectively and reasonably evaluate the facts of the situation. He just decided what it was he wanted to believe and convinced himself that reality must conform with his belief.

That's scary. [/b][/quote]
The fact that you believe what you believe on the issue makes you no different from Stockwell. Your religious/moral belief is interfering with your ability to be objective and reasonably evaluate the facts. You too have chosen to evaluate the scientific evidence on the beginning of human life to fit your beliefs.

That makes you just as scary as he is. Your going to have to reason much better than that if you want to convince anybody of the merits of your argument.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@Apr 11 2005, 11:32 AM
Well which party do you think would house more Christian religious fundamentalists than the rest? Which party caters it's social policies more towards this demographic?

It is and will continue to be a big reason why a large portion of the population will not vote Conservative. Even if you believe this issue is more one of perception than reality, it still exists.

What totally floors me is that you would keep a crook, who is robbing you blind in office, over a Christian because you don't trust a Christian. Especially when most Christians try to maintain (not always successfully) well document ethical standards.

It strikes me that you have a very bigoted view of Christians and your distrust of them is totally unreasonable. Furthermore, to call Stockwell Day a fanatical Christian is also being unreasonable because what constitutes a fanatic depends on where you sit on a moving liberal/fanatical scale. The more liberal you are the more people are added to your fanatical list.

It's all a matter of personal opinion rather than fact and you don't want anyone to have a different opinion from you.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Sammie+Apr 12 2005, 12:19 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Apr 12 2005, 12:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flames Draft Watcher@Apr 11 2005, 11:32 AM
Well which party do you think would house more Christian religious fundamentalists than the rest? Which party caters it's social policies more towards this demographic?

It is and will continue to be a big reason why a large portion of the population will not vote Conservative. Even if you believe this issue is more one of perception than reality, it still exists.

What totally floors me is that you would keep a crook, who is robbing you blind in office, over a Christian because you don't trust a Christian. Especially when most Christians try to maintain (not always successfully) well document ethical standards.

It strikes me that you have a very bigoted view of Christians and your distrust of them is totally unreasonable. Furthermore, to call Stockwell Day a fanatical Christian is also being unreasonable because what constitutes a fanatic depends on where you sit on a moving liberal/fanatical scale. The more liberal you are the more people are added to your fanatical list.

It's all a matter of personal opinion rather than fact and you don't want anyone to have a different opinion from you. [/b][/quote]
I would keep a crook? I'm certainly not voting Liberal. Not sure why you'd make that assumption.

I don't want anyone to have a different opinion from me? Not sure when I said that. Sounds like you're trying to put words in my mouth. Stop it.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Sammie+Apr 11 2005, 11:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Apr 11 2005, 11:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flames Draft Watcher@Apr 11 2005, 10:10 AM
Well all he does is claim that he won't "impose" his beliefs on others. I'm not sure why I'd believe him to be honest. I'm pretty sure most Christians I know would like to impose a variety of their morals on me. He's not allowed to come out and say it and yet you know how he'd vote, certain issues he wouldn't back down on, etc.

He can't completely separate his beliefs and policy decisions. And if he did, I'd accuse him of not being a practising Christian and thus a complete phony.

Who has the better chance of being honest? The Liberals who are behind the Adscam fiasco and we know we can't trust them, or the Christian Conservatives who say they will not impose their beliefs on voters but haven't been given a chance to prove how honest they are?

Be honest. [/b][/quote]
I can't vote for either of them. I don't trust either of them.

If you want to paint the parties with broad strokes then I can't vote for the thieves or the gay intolerants.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@Apr 12 2005, 08:51 AM
I can't vote for either of them. I don't trust either of them.

If you want to paint the parties with broad strokes then I can't vote for the thieves or the gay intolerants.

Apparently you're as good at putting words in my mouth as I'm supposed to be at putting words in your mouth. It also strikes me that there is no one group that's more intolerant and vindictive than the gay community.

Call me intolerant for saying this if you want, but spokes people from the gay community willingly spread a lot of innuendo about anyone who gets in the way of their agenda with next-to-no facts, or at best manipulated facts, to back up their accusations. This article is just one example of these vicious attacks that are not substantiated.

http://www.times10.org/murray92000.htm

I welcome anyone to do a historical review of Days' track record of homophobia and religious imposition on our community. Check it out folks, the Freedom trains baggage car overflows with extremism, homophobia, anti-poor and half-truths. In one meeting Day told me that being gay is a choice? Like I chose my blue eyes! Not just his words but his actions have proved that he is homophobic amd his much-touted track record confirms that. Not once, in any way did he support any Gay and Lesbian issue. He FOUGHT us every step of the way. He does not practice Politics of Respect as he suggests in his speech to the Alliance, quite the contrary.

Stockwell Day led the charge against the Gay and Lesbian Community during the Delwin Vriend Supreme Court case. We were in the eye of the judicial hurricane together. He showed his colours clearly and he prevents us from fostering children as in the Ms. T case. He was on the "Fence Building" committee to ensure legislative fences were built to prevent gay and lesbians from attaining the same level of equality enjoyed by other Albertans.

Stockwell Day and his Alliance party seem to believe that the fundamental issue of human rights should be put to a ballot. Where would Canada be today as a nation, if a vote were cast for and against minorities? All this said quite frankly, I am not surprised in the least to see him rise to lead the "Born Again Reform" party known as the Alliance. Mr. Days' views and the views of his party should be well known by all of you. The Alliance Party and those who are running are as far right as Canada has ever seen.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Sammie@Apr 12 2005, 05:20 PM
It also strikes me that there is no one group that's more intolerant and vindictive than the gay community.

Call me intolerant for saying this if you want

Calling you intolerant doesn't even scratch the surface. You make intolerant people look like Ghandi.

Is the gay community more intolerant and vindictive than the KKK?

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Sammie+Apr 11 2005, 04:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Apr 11 2005, 04:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike F@Apr 11 2005, 10:30 AM

If a politician said he felt overwhelmingly convinced that 2+2=5 would you vote for him/her? No, because it shows a lack of reason.

There is no overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the notion that human life begins at conception. For Stockwell to believe that shows that his religious/moral belief has interfered with his ability objectively and reasonably evaluate the facts of the situation. He just decided what it was he wanted to believe and convinced himself that reality must conform with his belief.

That's scary.

The fact that you believe what you believe on the issue makes you no different from Stockwell. Your religious/moral belief is interfering with your ability to be objective and reasonably evaluate the facts. You too have chosen to evaluate the scientific evidence on the beginning of human life to fit your beliefs.

That makes you just as scary as he is. Your going to have to reason much better than that if you want to convince anybody of the merits of your argument. [/b][/quote]
No, there is a big difference between me and Stockwell.

This isn't a matter of some evidence pointing one way, some the other...

The fact is, when human life begins isn't a question that can be answered scientifically; it's a subjective call. It's likely sometime between fertilization and birth in most people's books, but pinpointing it beyond that can't be done scientifically.

Unfortunately Stockwell can't believe that the religious doctrine that it begins at conception is subjective, so he just deems it to be an overwhelming scientific fact and there's no convincing him otherwise.

Just blindly accepting your subjective beliefs as incontravertable facts is a sign of flawed reasoning.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates+Apr 12 2005, 07:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winsor_Pilates @ Apr 12 2005, 07:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Sammie@Apr 12 2005, 05:20 PM
It also strikes me that there is no one group that's more intolerant and vindictive than the gay community.

Call me intolerant for saying this if you want

Calling you intolerant doesn't even scratch the surface. You make intolerant people look like Ghandi.

Is the gay community more intolerant and vindictive than the KKK?[/b][/quote]
Does the KKK still exist?

Thanks for such a very fine example of tolerance. I get your message. I MUST submit. We MUST all assimilate! Gays and Liberals are good. Conservatives, heterosexuals and Christians are bad and can't be trusted.

You're not suggesting Stockwell Day, Bishop Fred Henry, I, and anyone who voices similar reservations about the Liberal Party and the gay community MUST be members of the KKK, are you? Heaven help anyone who challenges edicts emanating from Ottawa and the gay community!

I MUST assimilate!!!

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Sammie@Apr 12 2005, 08:57 PM
You're not suggesting Stockwell Day, Bishop Fred Henry, I, and anyone who voices similar reservations about the Liberal Party and the gay community MUST be members of the KKK, are you?

Not suggesting this in the least. Just challanging your statement
"there is no one group that's more intolerant and vindictive than the gay community."

The KKK is just 1 clear example of a group that is more intolerant and vindictive than the gay community. And yes they do still exist.

My comment had nothing to do with Liberals, Conservatives, Bishops etc.
just your statement.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Apr 8 2005, 11:26 AM
I don't know who'll I'll vote for. Probably the Liberals because every party screws up and "wastes" money, but they are the only party that can screw up and still balance the budget and keep the economy strong.

Well that's just a great way of looking at it...

On one hand, I can sort of agree with the cynicism towards political parties you imply. However, 'screws up and wastes' money is a nice way of saying, or a complete avoidance of saying, 'stealing money.' The Gomery inquiry is not about money going to waste ala stupid programs like the Gun Registry. It is about fraud, corruption and theft commited by the Liberal Party.

So I really don't understand how you can justify voting Liberal again simply because every other party screws up and wastes money. It is true no party is above screwing up and wasting money. In the past decade-plus, however, only the Liberal party has been in the positon to steal money or commit fraud with taxpayers money and they have allegedely done just that (among other incompetances IMO. At least those were/are legal though.) No other party deserves to be labeled as money wasters and screw-ups as no other party in their current form has had a chance at holding a majority government, and thus been in a position to do so.

So go ahead and vote Liberal if you want. It's basically giving a thumbs up to the sorts of actions the Gomery inquiry is investigating, despite what you may think. Oh, and just to clarify, I actually had high hopes for the Liberals when Martin took over and would have considered voting for them if they had gotten their act together. They haven't, so my vote will be going elsewhere as I do not support these sorts of actions within government. My stance would be the same for any other party...

EDIT: I've just been informed that Britney Spears is pregnant, so I guess none of this matters anymore anyways...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Sammie+Apr 12 2005, 09:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Apr 12 2005, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Calling you intolerant doesn't even scratch the surface. You make intolerant people look like Ghandi.

Is the gay community more intolerant and vindictive than the KKK?

Does the KKK still exist?

Thanks for such a very fine example of tolerance. I get your message. I MUST submit. We MUST all assimilate! Gays and Liberals are good. Conservatives, heterosexuals and Christians are bad and can't be trusted.

You're not suggesting Stockwell Day, Bishop Fred Henry, I, and anyone who voices similar reservations about the Liberal Party and the gay community MUST be members of the KKK, are you? Heaven help anyone who challenges edicts emanating from Ottawa and the gay community!

I MUST assimilate!!!
[/b][/quote]
To twist "the gay community isn't as intolerant as the KKK" to "anyone who doesn't agree with the gay community is in the KKK" is a pretty slick strategy but it's just too hamfisted Sammie.

Don't try to hit a homerun on the first pitch. Try to finesse the tone of the thread to your side instead of trying to force it. For example, when this thread started out I didn't come out and say "Stockwell Day is a moron" in my first post. I worked it into the conversation, and soon enough we weren't talking about liberal corruption but fundamentalist foolishness. You just gotta be more subtle.


EDIT!! I see I did actually say "Stockwell Day is a moron" in my first post in the thread. It would be disengenous of me to change my opinion now though so I won't. He's still a moron.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Apr 8 2005, 11:26 AM
I don't know who'll I'll vote for. Probably the Liberals because every party screws up and "wastes" money, but they are the only party that can screw up and still balance the budget and keep the economy strong.

I'm presuming you vote for Ralph Klein provincially, correct?

[Sammie]

No, there is a big difference between me and Stockwell.

This isn't a matter of some evidence pointing one way, some the other...

The fact is, when human life begins isn't a question that can be answered scientifically; it's a subjective call. It's likely sometime between fertilization and birth in most people's books, but pinpointing it beyond that can't be done scientifically.

What you say is partially true. The difference is that you believe a fetus isn't human until birth while Stockwell believes a fetus is human from conception. This argument has nothing to do with science. Science is a red herring in this argument.

Unfortunately Stockwell can't believe that the religious doctrine that it begins at conception is subjective, so he just deems it to be an overwhelming scientific fact and there's no convincing him otherwise.

What Stockwell Day is saying is that it has been scientifically proven that human sperm and eggs are living organisms and ANY life created by a man and a woman through sex is therefore human life.

However, in the recent history of man, a subjective decision has been made by an influential group through the courts, that a growing organism in the womb of a woman is not human until it emerges from the womb and is able to live without assistance. This is a judgment call that cannot be substantiate through science until science is able establish what constitutes human life.

Just blindly accepting your subjective beliefs as incontravertable facts is a sign of flawed reasoning.

Now, that's a good example of a very subjective statement based on flawed reasoning! It's debatable who is blind as long as there's no scientific proof when human life begins. Stockwell Day is just as right as you are except he's a little more generous about when life begins and ends.

Everyone has a right to express his opinion on the subject and try to convince others he's right. I just don't understand the anger towards Stockwell's position.