April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Well I only said judges shouldn't, and thats for partiality reasons. The rest are cool. The only places I don't think religious people should be involved is the legislative and judicial processes, because those effect everyone from every orientation/race (gay, straight, black, white, asian). Otherwise, go wild with religion in jobs.

You're assuming the worst from religious judges, though. You're applying a blanket statement that none of them could be fair and impartial because of their religious beliefs. Counterexample: a GWB-appointed conservative Christian judge in Pennsylvania ruled against teaching creationism/ID in public schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmil...chool_District

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Well I only said judges shouldn't, and thats for partiality reasons. The rest are cool. The only places I don't think religious people should be involved is the legislative and judicial processes, because those effect everyone from every orientation/race (gay, straight, black, white, asian). Otherwise, go wild with religion in jobs.

Are you suggesting that only atheists be allowed to run for office? Or are their convictions too strong as well. Only those with no belief system then?
I won't vote for someone who has really strong beliefs, ie. young earth creationists, but it is definitely their right to run for office.

I remember a study from 2008 when Mitt Romney was being spoken about the first time for president and there was a poll taken to find out which religious viewpoint was most palatable with the voters. Atheism was ranked at the very bottom.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I admit that their is an assumption of the worst for sure, but more than anything I just want people to get the fairest trials as possible. I believe in the rule of law, so I just want it to be upheld with the highest chance of impartiality. I'm also curious how you can prevent creationism from being taught in public schools. I'd imagine it comes back to public schools receieving public dollars, thus making it a violation of the church/state seperation.

Again I mentioned before, how easy is it for someone to have the bible and Jesus be an intergral (or whole) part of their lives, and then just disregard that like its nothing? I don't blame them for letting religion affect their decisions.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Again I mentioned before, how easy is it for someone to have the bible and Jesus be an intergral (or whole) part of their lives, and then just disregard that like its nothing? I don't blame them for letting religion affect their decisions.

As someone who believes the Bible and Jesus to be an integral part of my life, I don't believe that "Biblical" morality should be legislated by the government. Despite the most out of tune singers in the choir being the loudest sometimes, I think that most Christians would agree with me, and in Canada, at a even higher percentage than in the US.

[photon]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Accusing a pastor of a criminal offence is within a reasonable range of respect?.

If that pastor was a poster here they could report it to the moderators.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by darklord700

With your logic, any person with religious belief shouldn't be judges, police, doctors or nurses too because they don't pass the logic test.

Perhaps I should have used green text....

Having said that, those that believe in fairy tales do tend to get a lower opinion in my eyes. I mean I like Red Riding Hood and all, and most of the Disney princesses are pretty hot, but I`m fairly capable of seperating fiction from reality. I expect at least that in elected officials.

[Slava]

Wow, do some work for a day and this thread is terrible now....

[FLAMESRULE]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...896/story.html

FACEPALM!!! Seriously, this is why its so f'ing hard to vote for them...I'm afraid to even go a news website to see what the next WRA issue is. Climate change is a fact.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

Maybe nobody saw it, because i didnt see an answer anywhere...but I had asked a question about Danielle Smith and her time as a trustee on the CBE. What has she said about that while on the election trail? If as many have suggested a minority govt is coming, either PC or WR, have any of the leaders been asked about working in a minority situation?

I think an element was brought up by Sherman in the Herald/Journal online debate today.

Although probably not the answer you were looking for, Sherman just basically asked if he would be the Health Minister in a Minority government. (it's buried in this recap of the debate though and not the full quote)

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Albwe...880/story.html

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I admit that their is an assumption of the worst for sure, but more than anything I just want people to get the fairest trials as possible. I believe in the rule of law, so I just want it to be upheld with the highest chance of impartiality. I'm also curious how you can prevent creationism from being taught in public schools. I'd imagine it comes back to public schools receieving public dollars, thus making it a violation of the church/state seperation.

Again I mentioned before, how easy is it for someone to have the bible and Jesus be an intergral (or whole) part of their lives, and then just disregard that like its nothing? I don't blame them for letting religion affect their decisions.

You can't teach creationism in public schools because it isn't in the curriculum. It could fit into a religious studies course if the option was offered, but it isn't science and therefore can't be taught in science class.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...896/story.html

FACEPALM!!! Seriously, this is why its so f'ing hard to vote for them...I'm afraid to even go a news website to see what the next WRA issue is. Climate change is a fact.

There is plenty of dispute that man-made climate change is a fact, actually. Whether you consider that to be credible dispute is up to you. Of course, you chose to pick that out and ignore where she said this: "“In the meantime we need to support consumers in making the transition to cleaner fuels.”

You're getting worked up over something that was always known: Wildrose isn't going to stifle our oil industry, but like everyone else, will talk about the need to transition to cleaner fuels.

[c.t.ner]

For those curious here's the link to the full transcript of the online debate:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...r16/index.html

Here's the exchange on climate control:

Jason Markusoff:
Mr. Mason, first, please: A question from Robert of Calgary, but we’ve heard it from many places: Do you believe in climate change? What should be the provincial government's response to climate change, or should the provincial government wait for a plan from the federal government?

Raj Sherman:
Robert, good question - YES.

Put a price on carbon and apply the carbon levy to ACTUAL emissions. Industry will use half of the money to invest in green tech and municipalities get the other half for green transportation on a per capita basis.


Raj Sherman:
I am sorry Brian, You're up first.

Danielle Smith:
We recognize the world is in a long term transition away from hydrocarbon fuels. We believe the best way to reduce emissions is through consumer rebates for energy audits, microgeneration and home renovations, as well as broad based tax breaks for investment in R&D for new environmental technologies.

Mason and Redford Answer

Jason Markusoff:
Ms. Smith: We'd ask you again to answer Robert's question on whether you believe in the science of climate change.


Danielle Smith:
We have always said the science isn't settled and we need to continue to monitor the debate. In the meantime, we need to support consumers in making the transition to cleaner fuels. I agree with Dr Sherman about natural gas being key to reducing CO2 and toxic emissions.

Raj Sherman:
Danielle, are you seriously denying climate change???

That was the exchange on that. (MODS if it's too long, I can remove it or add in Mason's & Redford's answers)

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

My concern in either case is of course is that when you bring private into the health care equation, profit also enters to equation. So obviously they have no reason to offer these procedures at the public health rate. Meaning either the government will pay more for health care (and our taxes rise no doubt), or patients have to come up with the difference between the cost and the theoritical voucher value, making it highly unlikely they will choose the more expensive option and thus not actually helping with wait times at all. Just curious how it all works really.

The Canada Health Act makes it illegal to overbill, so no matter where someone will get the service it will cost the same to taxpayers. To do otherwise would be circumventing federal law.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I don't think that Harper would have campaigned on the GST cut if he had known that he would be able to hold onto the office for as long as he has. I saw the GST cut as a one time action to reduce taxes that would be hard to undo. If he cut income taxes instead then successive parties would be able to creep them back up but that will be much harder to do with the more visible GST.

He did also mention that provinces had the option to increase their sales taxes by the same two percentage points turning the cut into a permanent transfer.

A preference for irreversability is actually one of the things I dislike about Harper. You see the same thing with the gun registry - getting rid of it is one thing, destroying the data is another. To me it shows a lack of respect for Canada's voting public, and the future governmentments they might elect. Perhaps this is because he knows his power comes from a bad electoral system (first-past-the-post - he's never attracted the median voter, which I believe is an important test for an electoral system). As for income taxes, his government has in fact raised them by tinkering with the brackets. Sneaky, sneaky.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...896/story.html

FACEPALM!!! Seriously, this is why its so f'ing hard to vote for them...I'm afraid to even go a news website to see what the next WRA issue is. Climate change is a fact.

Well, that certainly explains why they think the carbon capture program is a waste.

[Resolute 14]

So Harper made it clear that electing the Conservatives means getting rid of the registry, and when he does exactly as he promised, that is "a lack of respect for the voting public"?

Nice dig on how he "never approached the median" too. Not that any Liberal PM ever did either.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

You're comparing jet fighters to gay rights and abortion rights?

You can't be serious.

Harper hasn't enacted on a single one of his so called hidden agenda items.

Politically the theory that Alberta will put a consititutional change in front of Harper and he'll allow Alberta to opt out because Harper secretly hates gays for example is silly.

Why would he do that, is he bored of governing?

Even beyond that do you really think that some anti-gay anti-abortion group is going to really collect 500,000 signatures in 6 month to enact this kind of challenge, and then (with something that is a federal and not provincial juristiction) is going to pass a review by the Supreme Court of Canada?

Ahh the problem of the internet not getting through what I was trying to say Obviously its assinine to suggest fighter jets and rights are the same. My point was more candidates often do not live up to all of the things they said they'd do or the pledges they make during a campaign, so while it sounds good now, one must remember talk is cheap.

To whether I think an anti-gay or abortion group could get 500,000 signatures? I'd guess abortion maybe (30% of Albertans are pro-choice) and probably not for gay rights (27% against). Because gay rights are a human rights thing, I think it's less likely to garner big support. Abortion on the other hand I think could get enough signatures. It'd be tough but again not impossible by any stretch.

Originally Posted by J epworth kendal

The Canada Health Act makes it illegal to overbill, so no matter where someone will get the service it will cost the same to taxpayers. To do otherwise would be circumventing federal law.

Thanks, good to know we're smart enough to put provisions ensuring it won't happen.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

For those curious here's the link to the full transcript of the online debate:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...r16/index.html

Here's the exchange on climate control:



That was the exchange on that. (MODS if it's too long, I can remove it or add in Mason's & Redford's answers)

Like the televised debate, she again looks to dodge the question. Damn she is smart. Try to avoid answering anything and you can't offend any voters.

Edit: Redford also didn't actually endorse it....hmmmm

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

So Harper made it clear that electing the Conservatives means getting rid of the registry, and when he does exactly as he promised, that is "a lack of respect for the voting public"?

Nice dig on how he "never approached the median" too. Not that any Liberal PM ever did either.

I don't think you understand what median voter means. (Hint: it does not mean 50%. ) Many (if not all) Liberal PMs have held median voter support.

Why did Harper destroy the gun registry data? Because otherwise, future governments might re-instate the program. Instead he's made it so that if the public elects a government with a mandate to re-start it, it'll cost another $2 billion. That's what's "a lack of respect for the voting public", the irreversability aspect of it.

[Senator Clay Davis]

It doesn't strike me as fiscally conservative to destroy data that could cost $2billion to replace. Unless you think you're going to be there a while and won't need to spend that $2billion again. Of course the fact the data cost $2billion to replace makes it unjustifiable to start the program again.