April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Senator Clay Davis]

I hate that thought process though. Voting for someone just to vote. Your vote is your voice really, and by choosing not to vote I would be saying "I don't find any party's platform appealing enough to deserve my vote". Remember voting is a right, which you can excercise if you will. Its not an obligation, and yes I understand many hundreads of thousands died so I can have this right. Exactly. This right

If I vote for the PCs or Liberals or NDP just because they're the least-worst of the bunch, that just seems silly. My vote is my support for one party, not a vote against other parties. So if I don't feel firm in my support for a party, why should I give them my vote?

Ultimately I will likely vote, and it will probably be for the Alberta Party. But once I examine their platform more, if I don't like some of the things I see, I'm not just gonna vote for the sake of voting.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So you're saying standing up for biggots is courageous? I mean I guess in a sick way it kind of is. But standing up for repression to me is not courageous. I appreciate her "libertarianism" (worst term in politics FYI), but she's not decrying hate speech. Thats cowardly to me. If we don't stand up to hate speech, it will only perpetuate.

And screaming about a hidden agenda from the others is designed for one purpose: To stoke fear in your party members. "See, those liberals hate us conservatives! Lets show them!". And the Wildrose ads I've seen for senate are so hilariously awful. They don't actually all advertise the senate candidate, most just say "Vote Wildrose for Seneate and send the PCs a message". Now thats not fear mongering, but its attempting to appeal to people's emotions, which is just as bad. Politics should involved logic and rationality, not emotion. How many good decisions are made in life on emotion?

I was pointing out that she is being courageous in applying consistency in what she professes as her guiding philosophy. And, in many cases, standing up for free speech is courageous, because it requires you to support a concept that is often applied ignorantly. In Canada, I'd like to give credit to the majority of the population that recognizes ignorance and bigotry for what it is. Smith has stated that she is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage AND that they will not be legislating on these social issues. Not sure how more clear she needs to be about her personal views and the WRP position on this.

And the WRP is not screaming about a hidden agenda. They are drawing a comparison to the election tactics used by the federal Liberals to those being used by the provincial PCs. The PCs are saying that citizen-initiated referenda somehow equates to the subjugation of women and gays (or some such nonsense.) Which one is fearmongering?

[Regular_John]

The election is in one week and I still feel like it's a choice between twiddle dumb and twiddle dee.

The PC's have really rubbed me the wrong way with their arrogance (.5 drinking law, no meet committee, sin tax discussions) but the Wild Rose has really not convinced me they'd be any better.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by jaydorn

The PC's have really rubbed me the wrong way with their arrogance (.5 drinking law, no meet committee, sin tax discussions) but the Wild Rose has really not convinced me they'd be any better.

WR didn't convince me they would be any better but I'm still voting for them for they couldn't be any WORSE than PC.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Are you suggesting that we should only build schools if we have a surplus? I always thought that something like new schools should be budgeted for. We either need the schools or we don't, building them only if we have a surplus makes it seem like an Art Gallery that would be nice to have but only if we have the cash laying around and nothing else to spend it on.

The so called Dani-dollars would only kick in after all budgeted items are paid for and would be combined with cash to municipalities and long and short term savings.

Originally Posted by zuluking

So in calculating "real" money proposed budget numbers neither the energy dividend or the schools are factored into the planned spend for their respective parties as they are both based on an unknown variable?

I'm not advocating either of these plans. You asked where the money comes from to build the schools and I gave you their answer.

The reality is that the only party that actually tells you how things are paid for and shows a completely costed and balanced budget is the Liberal party. They tell you point blank that they will raise taxes. Its a pretty simple choice for the fiscal conservatives in my eyes:

A) A party that claims that they can fix everything, cut nowhere that hurts, save money and even spinoff money for citizens. They don't really say how they would do this though and are somewhere between $200M-$600M short per year.

B) A party that promises new infrastructure builds, more healthcare dollars and also promises to fix everything. They don't spin-off money and instead use that to fund some of these ideas. They also run deficits from time to time when the economy goes south.

C) A party that promises fixes for everything, new infrastructure builds, improved heatlh and education. Oh ya, and to do this its all costed and involves a small tax increase.

Basically speaking, those are the choices. How as a true fiscal conservative and using only that as your major criteria you could look at option one favourably is beyond me. Its the least sensible of the three platforms given what we know about politics and politicians.

My guess is that if the Wildrose forms government they trot out the "the PCs left us worse than we thought" line.

[darklord700]

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2012/04/1...bleeding-badly

"Nearly two-thirds of bedrock Tory supporters from the last election will be voting Wildrose this time. Just one-third are sticking with the party that many have likely voted for for two or three or four decades.

...no party can survive a collapse of its base on the magnitude of the one being suffered by the Tories."

I'm exactly this kind of voter who's crossing floor to WR. I'm beginning to think that Redford is a double spy paid for by WR. It does take some work to wreck a party overnight.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by zuluking

I was pointing out that she is being courageous in applying consistency in what she professes as her guiding philosophy. And, in many cases, standing up for free speech is courageous, because it requires you to support a concept that is often applied ignorantly. In Canada, I'd like to give credit to the majority of the population that recognizes ignorance and bigotry for what it is. Smith has stated that she is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage AND that they will not be legislating on these social issues. Not sure how more clear she needs to be about her personal views and the WRP position on this.

And the WRP is not screaming about a hidden agenda. They are drawing a comparison to the election tactics used by the federal Liberals to those being used by the provincial PCs. The PCs are saying that citizen-initiated referenda somehow equates to the subjugation of women and gays (or some such nonsense.) Which one is fearmongering?

I suppose in a way she deserves credit for consistency. But hate speech is not protected by free speech, so thats not relevant. It is hate speech, period. She should condemn it, and she missed a chance to prove to people they have nothing to fear and that she'll stand up for rights. She didn't.

Appealing to emotion and fearmongering are the same thing. The PCs saying gays could be in trouble isn't wrong, because of course citizen intiated referendums can rally enough votes to put gay marriage and equal rights on the ballot. California Prop 8 anyone?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So you're saying standing up for biggots is courageous? I mean I guess in a sick way it kind of is. But standing up for repression to me is not courageous. I appreciate her "libertarianism" (worst term in politics FYI), but she's not decrying hate speech. Thats cowardly to me. If we don't stand up to hate speech, it will only perpetuate.

Unfortunately, what you may describe as 'bigotry' is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and while you may want to classify things you disagree with as 'hate speech', our nation was founded on the priciple of freedom, including the freedom of religion.

So yes, standing up for someone's religious freedom is admirable. That's standing up for liberty.

Also, guaranteeing that a party would never legislate upon divisive beliefs, especially of a social nature, is leadership.

Danielle Smith has done an excellent job of promoting liberty while providing solid leadership, and that's why she will make a fantastic premier! The first female Premier elected by Albertans!!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So you're saying standing up for biggots is courageous? I mean I guess in a sick way it kind of is. But standing up for repression to me is not courageous. I appreciate her "libertarianism" (worst term in politics FYI), but she's not decrying hate speech. Thats cowardly to me. If we don't stand up to hate speech, it will only perpetuate.

I'm sorry, where did Smith "stand up for repression" again? I don't see her promising to take away any rights. Quite the opposite, actually. All she is doing is letting someone exercise his right to free speech. Which in this case also translates into a right to let everyone know he's an idiot.

Would I vote for that guy? Nope, but he's not in my riding. Will it affect my intention to vote for Wildrose? Nope. Redford's crocodile tears are hilarious though. A year-old blog post? Guaranteed they knew about it the moment he was announced as a candidate. They just held onto it until they felt they could use it for maximum manipulation of the public.

But really, it is all just another aspect of the pathetic "hidden agenda" slurs that a desperate PC party is engaging in. We saw the same attacks from the Liberals against the federal PCs. Six years into a Conservative government, the world hasn't ended. Nor would it under a Wildrose government. Why? Because people like Hunsperger are a small minority of the overall party support right now. Just as they used to be a small minority of PC party support before Wildrose.

Redford is where she is because she lost a large percentage of mainstream voters. They are the ones that will drive policy because they make up the majority of Wildrose at this point.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Appealing to emotion and fearmongering are the same thing. The PCs saying gays could be in trouble isn't wrong, because of course citizen intiated referendums can rally enough votes to put gay marriage and equal rights on the ballot. California Prop 8 anyone?

Here is where we disagree, I have enough faith in the citizens of this province to believe that 51% will vote in favour of gay marriage if it somehow made it onto the ballot. I have a hard time imagining that 20% of the population would sign a petition to ban gay marriage as well. The logistics of obtaining that many signatures is staggering and would require a coordinated effort across the province.

[Knalus]

The statement "Not your Father's PC Party" is pretty bad. When you see how well "our Father's" PC party ran this province, I would have voted for it.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The Constitution of Canada incorporates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[1] Section 2 of the of the Charter grants to everyone, among other things, freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media. Section 1 restricts the granted freedoms by making them subject "only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society

Obviously taken from Wikipedia, but there it is. Hate speech is not protected, sorry.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Knalus

The amount of discussion about this topic is frankly a little silly. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you. Just look at how the party of Stockwell Day and the ever so scary Preston Manning is doing right now with their majority. This talk about the Wildrose is identical. It's unfounded in it's level of fear, and misguided in nearly everything else.

You mean terrible?

Conservative trangressions:
- Cutting an most economically efficient tax (GST) to "return the surplus to taxpayers" when we should have been saving it, while simultaenously increasing spending about 40% (still talking pre-recession), thus creating a structural deficit.
- Initiating a tough-of-crime/war-on-drugs agenda that immitates failed American policies. The long term costs of this program WILL be huge.
- Undermined said agenda by destroying the long gun registry (and being arrogant enough to prevent future governments from restoring it if that is the public will by deleting the data). Tough on pot, soft on guns!
- Predicted that Canada would not go into recession, and thus didn't budget any stimulus spending until forced to by the opposition.
- Set a bad precendent by proroguing parliament when the PM clearly had lost the support of the House of Commons.
- Continued attempts to pass regressive copyright law that stifles innovation.
- Found in contempt of parliament for failing to provide proper information to parliament.

Harper's government has been a mix of misguided "vision" (copyright) and populist garbage (GST cut, tough on crime). When he does the populist thing, it's usually bad policy, and when he spends his political capital on things that are unpopular, they're often bad policies too.

============

Originally Posted by darklord700

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/04/15...gic-says-smith

“Peter Lougheed said the great thing about Progressive Conservatives is that we not only listen to Albertans, we are Albertans, and we do evolve and we do change and we do embrace change and we do embrace opportunity,” said Redford

Nanny Alli please don't put words in my mouth. I don't change, I'm the same old ugly right wing extremist that don't care about homelessness as before. I for one certainly don't embrace change, if the change is for you to put your hands in my pocket, sorta speak.

You're Peter Lougheed? "Nanny Alli" is Peter Lougheed?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Here is where we disagree, I have enough faith in the citizens of this province to believe that 51% will vote in favour of gay marriage if it somehow made it onto the ballot. I have a hard time imagining that 20% of the population would sign a petition to ban gay marriage as well. The logistics of obtaining that many signatures is staggering and would require a coordinated effort across the province.

I agree that I don't think you could get the votes, but its not wrong to suggest is it? Its not impossible at all to imagine enough signatures being gathered to at least put it on the ballot. And thats the problem, once it's one the ballot, then its an option. It shouldn't be an option. We live in a country of equality for all, which I will always believe in.

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by darklord700

WR didn't convince me they would be any better but I'm still voting for them for they couldn't be any WORSE than PC.

Haha that's certainly fair enough, at this point it might just be enough.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Appealing to emotion and fearmongering are the same thing. The PCs saying gays could be in trouble isn't wrong, because of course citizen intiated referendums can rally enough votes to put gay marriage and equal rights on the ballot. California Prop 8 anyone?

Actually, they couldn't even if they wanted. Such a proposal would be unconstitutional. Frankly, one would have to be an idiot to think that such referendums would (a) ever pass here, or (b) be capable of withstanding a SCOC challenge in the highly unlikely event they did.

So yes, the PC's saying gays could be in trouble is wrong. They are trying to manipulate you Clay, and it seems you are the type who is susceptable to it.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Obviously taken from Wikipedia, but there it is. Hate speech is not protected, sorry.

Your understanding of hate speech is laughable.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Look I don't dispute that the PCs are fear mongering, because I've said all party's do it. No matter whether you call it fear mongering, conspiracy, tricks whatever, its appealing to emotion, the lowest common denominator, And the fact the SCOC is almost certain to vote down any citizen initiated referendum, then why the hell even have it out there as an issue? Other than to give those misinformed the belief they get laws passed through a referendum. If its going to be shot down anyways, why waste anyone's time/money? (Especially money. We know how expensive long court fights can be. Doesn't strike me as fiscally conservative.)

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Your understanding of hate speech is laughable.

Sigh....

Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada, provisions in the Human Rights Act and in other federal legislation, and statutory provisions in each of Canada's ten provinces and three territories. The Criminal Code prohibits "hate propaganda."

[SebC]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Your understanding of hate speech is laughable.