April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Slava]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

LOL. You never know. You never know.

But to be honest that's one of those instances where #abvote is really useful. (There are other uses for it, but that's probably one of the easiest to understand) I'm always curious as to what's being said in these forums and seeing the reaction is very fascinating. So thanks for tweeting the conversation today.

I've been to a lot of these forums and it was a weird one. Strangest parts were (a) when the moderator made statements about the questions ahead of time. His preamble was very leading and just plain odd. I've never seen that before, and hopefully it doesn't happen again...people aren't there to hear what this guy thinks! (b) they asked for donations. Not the candidates or party, the group putting on the forum. Really weird.

[kn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Yep, typical Alberta -- rake the Christians over the coals while everyone else gets a free ride.

God willing, one day in this province we'll have an election between Christian conservatives and conservatives who are Christians, and our long provincial nightmare at the hands of the multi-culti pinkos will be over.

What religion is Alison Redford? Yeah, it doesn't matter. Hyperbole much?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Double edit: More Wildrose biggoted fun!

http://www.faithandmedia.org/articles/show/233

Ron Leech is running in Calgary/Greenway

Hey, I know Ron Leech! I actually went to his church for a while. He ran last time and lost to some guy with an awesome name... I can't remember... hold on.

Ah yes, Manmeet Bhullar! Great name. Ron had a good showing for an independent though.

I remember there being a lot of crossover into politics from the pulpit when I was at that church, and the views on homosexuality (sin) and other religions (lies from the devil, go to hell for believing them) were certainly taught there.

Originally Posted by Makarov

For example, I think that if a candidate openly believed in a flat earth or a 10,000 year old earth, those are also legitimate things to discuss in the context of an election campaign.

The church that Ron Leech used to pastor had young earth creationism as part of their statement of faith, something that you had to sign that you agreed to to become a voting member of the congregation. So he probably counts.

[kn]

Originally Posted by Makarov

If only the WRP had a candidate of Muslim or Jewish faith, then we could find out.

They have five visible minorities I believe; I have no idea what religious views they may have. But why does it only have to be a WRP candidate? If religious views of candidates are so important, why aren't other parties being scrutinized in this regard?

Can't answer that question until we get a decision from the Supreme Court in Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. William Whatcott, et al. (some time this year hopefully.)

In any event, in my view, its irrelevant. Statements don't have to constitute "hate speech" before the electorate can legitimately say "I don't want people who hold these views to be in charge of important decisions that affect my province." For example, I think that if a candidate openly believed in a flat earth or a 10,000 year old earth, those are also legitimate things to discuss in the context of an election campaign.

I agree with this. Ignorant views are ignorant views and certainly should be examined when someone is running for public office. What I'm interested in is the line for determining when something should be "tolerated". I think if it's constituted as "hate speech", or advocating violence, then it shouldn't be tolerated. But just because someone sees something as a sin isn't enough in my opinion. From what I've read, I'm in the minority though as clearly we aren't meant to tolerate those religious nuts.

[GP_Matt]

I think the performance bond stems from the release of contact info for all party members in the party. Once a candidate has his nomination papers filed he is given a list of all party members in the riding and their contact info. I am pretty sure the bond is to prevent the abuse of that list.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by kn

But just because someone sees something as a sin isn't enough in my opinion. From what I've read, I'm in the minority though as clearly we aren't meant to tolerate those religious nuts.

Did you read what Hunsperger wrote (or at least, attached his name to)? It argued against the inclusion policy of Edmonton's public schools (basically, that people should not be oppressed for who they are). That, to me, constitutes an action that is deplorable.

[Senator Clay Davis]

And to me, at least with those who have held office, there's a record of whether it appears their religious views have influenced their decisions. With these unknowns who say things like an inclusion policy is immoral, its fair to wonder whether they won't let their views effect their decisions.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by kn

They have five visible minorities I believe; I have no idea what religious views they may have. But why does it only have to be a WRP candidate? If religious views of candidates are so important, why aren't other parties being scrutinized in this regard?

If the candidates from other parties are discussing supernatural justice and the dreaded lake of fire for certain Albertans, I won't vote for them either.

If they are making public announcements about these issues, I want to know!

[First Lady]

Anyone ready for some levity? I know I am....

Let's try this...

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2012/04/...#disqus_thread

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But the blog getting out here has to come from somewhere, and people instantly label it as fear mongering. I don't think showing the electorate what certain candidates personal philosophies are is fear mongering. Its simply saying "Here's a couple of guys who clearly think gay people aren't really human. Do you want someone who holds intolerant views making decisions that affect everyone?"

Of course we shouldn't even be having this discussion anymore in the 21st century (equal rights for all), but obviously some members of the Wildrose party would very much like to have this discussion again.

His religous views are his, and him alone has no power to legislate any change against the gay population. I don't find that scary.

Redford is trying to get you and others to believe that this guy is going to try and legislate against gays. That said I saw no proof in his blog that says he's going to do exactly that. If you have proof, please post it.

His mistake was expressing his religous views in a public blog and is also an utter fool for doing so. It brought harm to the party he is running for and I suspect that in private he will lose his bond - and rightfully so.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

http://www.cochranetimes.com/Article...aspx?e=3530860

That is an article that talks about the candidate. The key quote is this one:

“He has a head shaving for cancer event that day,” she said, adding Copithorne will attend a forum in Banff as well as a Meet and Greet in Bragg Creek and Morley during the remainder of the campaign."

The Banff debate is after the rural paper deadlines, it is the debate on the 19th. The Canmore debate is on the 17th. I can understand one scheduling conflict, having worked for politicians before, but 3 scheduling conflicts to miss 3 debates seems like it is something that is orchestrated. Especially considering that I am pretty sure Smith was in Cochrane during the day and was off to another riding by the evening.

I asked Tom about his forum schedule.... this was his response.

Canmore on Tuesday. Banff on Thursday. Thanks for your support. TC

[Dion]

Danielle Smith will be part of a debate in High River on Tuesday night. I look forward to attending this forum and hearing the questions asked an answered.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Anyone ready for some levity? I know I am....

Let's try this...

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2012/04/...#disqus_thread

Hidden agenda!!!!

Redford is going to sell out our oil to the Chinese!!!!!

[kn]

Originally Posted by SebC

Did you read what Hunsperger wrote (or at least, attached his name to)? It argued against the inclusion policy of Edmonton's public schools (basically, that people should not be oppressed for who they are). That, to me, constitutes an action that is deplorable.

Ok, now the uproar makes sense and I certainly cannot condone that.

[Devils'Advocate]

I'm not in Alberta and have never been further west than Hamilton... but this pastor story is all over the news here as well.

I understand the "he isn't advocating policy nor would he have the power to create policy based on these stances", but isn't that he holds these beliefs enough to question his right to belong to the party? Would it be different if he said that black people are evil and should burn in hell? It all reminds me of the Ringma interview where he said that businesses should be allowed keep gays "in the back of the store" or be allowed to fire them based on their sexuality in the case that they might offend customers.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Dion

His religous views are his, and him alone has no power to legislate any change against the gay population. I don't find that scary.

Redford is trying to get you and others to believe that this guy is going to try and legislate against gays. That said I saw no proof in his blog that says he's going to do exactly that. If you have proof, please post it.

His mistake was expressing his religous views in a public blog and is also an utter fool for doing so. It brought harm to the party he is running for and I suspect that in private he will lose his bond - and rightfully so.

Fair enough, he can't legislate alone, but when you have him, Link Byfield, Ron Leech, John Carpay and who knows how many others doesn't it at least give you pause for thought? Maybe they don't actually pass legislation, but it certainly makes me wonder what other views they hold where they can and will legiislate. It certainly makes me question their judgment and decision making process in general though, and thats pretty significant.

[Senator Clay Davis]

So after reading the rags on the way into work today, I've come to realize why I really don't like Danielle Smith: She's a slick politician...and a total coward. I mean seriously, all she ever does is refuse to make a stand on any social issue except to say "We won't legislate it". And as I think about it, its the smartest move she can do. She knows if she actually shows a backbone and takes a side on a contentious issue, she'll be alienting a potential portion of the voting base.

But come on, let's be real: She has an opinion on these contentious social issues. She just doesn't have the backbone to actually stand up for what she believes in, because it will have negative consequences on her political fortunes. Danielle is clearly smart enough to know that the silent treatment alientates fewer people than actually making a stand. It to me makes her a leader I might like as a person, but really have no respect for whatsoever. Which makes me wonder if any of her MLAs would have any respect for her either (unless of course, she shares most of their views)

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Slava

Fair enough, he can't legislate alone, but when you have him, Link Byfield, Ron Leech, John Carpay and who knows how many others doesn't it at least give you pause for thought? Maybe they don't actually pass legislation, but it certainly makes me wonder what other views they hold where they can and will legiislate. It certainly makes me question their judgment and decision making process in general though, and thats pretty significant.

That is one of the beautiful parts of the voter recall idea. If it does turn out that they had a hidden agenda we can initiate a voter recall and kick them out.
Really, I think politicians need to put their personal views aside when they are elected. At that point they are there to represent the entire constituency and should do so.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Anyone ready for some levity? I know I am....

Let's try this...

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2012/04/...#disqus_thread

Something about terrible stock photos that always seems to make me laugh. There should be thousands of pictures of rigs operating in Alberta, why would they use an offshore rig in China?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

That is one of the beautiful parts of the voter recall idea. If it does turn out that they had a hidden agenda we can initiate a voter recall and kick them out.
Really, I think politicians need to put their personal views aside when they are elected. At that point they are there to represent the entire constituency and should do so.

But this is where the problem arises. How do you tell someone who has had the bible and Jesus be such an intergral part of their everyday day lives, to just all of a sudden completely not let that factor into your decision making? Human nature is human nature, so I can't blame them for letting something thats been a part of their daily lives forever affect their decision making. Which is why I refuse to ever vote for these people. No disrespect, but I have an impossible time believing they won't let their views factor into their decisions. If Jesus is as much of a factor as logic and reason, then no thank you.