Election!

[Cube Inmate]

Don't feel like debating things, but I have only one request for everyone on here:

Please, LIE TO POLLSTERS!

I'm bloody tired of hearing of a new poll every two days, each of which reflects the biases of the pollster. In order to take back democracy and shut up these pollsters, I suggest we make every effort to make their numbers meaningless.

Spread the word.

[Bertuzzied]

hahaha. I do all the time. I even told them i was a volunteer for Anders. hahaha. suckers. Like that matters though don't the polls have an error rate of 10-20%?? hahaha

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Don't feel like debating things, but I have only one request for everyone on here:

Please, LIE TO POLLSTERS!

I'm bloody tired of hearing of a new poll every two days, each of which reflects the biases of the pollster. In order to take back democracy and shut up these pollsters, I suggest we make every effort to make their numbers meaningless.

Spread the word.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

On another note, i'm sure most people at the Calgary Sun hate the Liberals but why the hell did they run that stupid cartoon on their front page??!

I can't seem to find an online picture of the front page. Is it the cartoon with Martin up in a tower about to drop a big sack of money?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

hahaha. I do all the time. I even told them i was a volunteer for Anders. hahaha. suckers. Like that matters though don't the polls have an error rate of 10-20%?? hahaha

No. <3%

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Remember Calgary WEST. Vote for anyone but Rob Anders.

On another note, i'm sure most people at the Calgary Sun hate the Liberals but why the hell did they run that stupid cartoon on their front page??!
Once again it demonstrates why it definitely is the Toilet Paper of Canada.

Actually, the Toronto Star is the toilet paper of Canadian media, but SunMedia isnt far above it.

The Edmonton and Calgary Suns in particular are often as biassed as many Ontario based papers and media outlets are. Who they are biassed toward is the primary difference between them.

[Cowperson]

I'd love to see an election without polls . . . . . just YOU trying to figure out which way to vote instead of following the trend.

That would be . . . . something else.

The SUN cartoon as seen in Ottawa today:

http://www.ottawasun.com/FrontPage/2...8/1328093.html

The Toronto Star election section:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...d=974089105216

Cowperson

[troutman]

Harper is preaching to the converted. People who do not want Adam and Steve to get married are already going to vote Conservative. Why alienate those on the fence that are nervous about the Conservative social agenda? Bush won the last US in election (in part) on this issue, but it will not work in Canada.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Remember Calgary WEST. Vote for anyone but Rob Anders.

On another note, i'm sure most people at the Calgary Sun hate the Liberals but why the hell did they run that stupid cartoon on their front page??!
Once again it demonstrates why it definitely is the Toilet Paper of Canada.

New site up soon. Order your lawn signs here:

http://www.voteoutanders.com/

[Bertuzzied]

I highly doubt someone like Bush could ever win an election in Canada. They must put something into the US drinking water.

Originally Posted by troutman

Bush won the last US in election (in part) on this issue, but it will not work in Canada.

[MarchHare]

This is why the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, and provide licenses for civil partnerships only. The government will never come up with a definition of marriage that will make everyone happy, so don't even try. Let the people come up with the definition of marriage that suits them best. Marriages certificates can be provided by the religious institution of your choosing.

So you'd cut off your nose to spite your face? And what about those of us who don't belong to any religious institution but would nonetheless like to get married? My girlfriend and I, for instance, are not religious at all, but we both want to be married someday; a civil partnership is definetely second-rate to us, as it is to the homosexual couples who want to be married and the conservatives who wish to deny that to them.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Actually, I am fully aware of the semantics in this. This truely is a battle over a word, nothing more. It has been blown up into more by left-leaning hypocrites attempting to turn it to political favor.

It took two sides to blow up this issue (obvious), the homosexuals who want marriages, and those who believe they don't qualify for 'marriages'. It was not one vocal side making it an issue, with a subdued and fearful conservative element wailing in defense.

You're right though, it is over a word. Though, to say it's 'just a word', is clearly false, because both sides are fighting tooth and nail over it. And I don't blame the homosexuals, they live in a Western culture, they want a Western union, and we call them 'marriages' here... so that's what they want. If we called them 'unions', they'd want that.

There is no issue with a gay union having the same legal rights as a hetro marriage. Nor do I see any reason why a gay union needs to be called a marriage. No more than I see any reason why a common-law union should be called a Marriage.

A 'traditional marriage' has the 'right' to be called a 'marriage'. Your side attempts to deny that 'right' from gay union/marriages... apparently because you see no reason they would want it...? They want the word... why not give it to them? How does it negatively impact anything hetero?

What are the negative consequences of calling a Homosexual Union a 'Marriage'? Seriously, real consequences, beyond 'I use that word, so they can't'.

[RougeUnderoos]

I find it quite refreshing that this thing has already been absolutely sidetracked by this totally inconsequential issue and we have nobody to blame but Harper and he'll have nobody to blame but himself when he loses.

People won't vote for him because they are afraid he's too socially conservative. So what is the first thing he does? Volunteers his own socially conservative agenda. Sure the Liberals would have brought it up. So what? It doesn't mean he has to, on his own accord, on the very first day of the campaign.

It's the equivalent of Paul Martin coming out today and saying "we are going to set up a federal sponsorship program in Quebec if we win the election".

[flames_1987]

Just a certain level of intrest to me and something that's been on my mind. In the last American election, It was really evident how many people voted purely on whether or not they were democrats or republicans. This seems to have been the case for a while now, that it doesen't matter who's running one bit, if your a republican you vote republican no matter what. I can understand each party represents certain things no matter who the current leader is, but the candidates themselves seem to play no role what so ever. This isn't saying Bush is better then Kerry or vice versa, but the results from the last two elections were almost carbon copy in some states. How much would people say this same thing goes on in Canada? A lot of people do label themselves conservative, liberal exc. due to where each "party" stands in terms of the politcal spectrum. How many people actually listen to what the MP's running or the leader of the certain party has to say? Is it as bad as America's?

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

So you'd cut off your nose to spite your face? And what about those of us who don't belong to any religious institution but would nonetheless like to get married? My girlfriend and I, for instance, are not religious at all, but we both want to be married someday; a civil partnership is definetely second-rate to us, as it is to the homosexual couples who want to be married and the conservatives who wish to deny that to them.

So what is the difference between marriage and civil union that is so important to you if you are not religious?

EDIT: In addition, this does not exclude homosexuals from getting married, as they can find a religious institution that is willing to give them that marriage certificate. Out of the government's hands, as it should be. The only thing the government needs to be a party to is the tax implications, and social services provided equally.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

So what is the difference between marriage and civil union that is so important to you if you are not religious?

EDIT: In addition, this does not exclude homosexuals from getting married, as they can find a religious institution that is willing to give them that marriage certificate. Out of the government's hands, as it should be. The only thing the government needs to be a party to is the tax implications, and social services provided equally.

If I may...

My parents were married. My grandparent's were married. Their parents were married. To me, according to my history and family, it is important to me that I be allowed to get married. There is nothing religious about it, as far as I'm concerned, and my parents felt the same way. In this society, to show your undying love and bond to another person, you get 'married'.

I don't believe in God, and have no faith in Christianity. Does this mean I shouldn't be able to get married, even though I want to?

[MarchHare]

So what is the difference between marriage and civil union that is so important to you if you are not religious?

See Agamemnon's last post.

Non-religious heterosexual couples already have the option for a civil union. It's called a Common Law partnership, but thousands (if not millions) of non-religious Canadians choose to get married anyway, for purely cultural reasons.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Something like $1.75 per vote if they cross a certain threshold...?

I believe it is something along the lines of 2% nationally or 5% in a certain number of provinces. Anyway Green got well over a million $s in public funding last election. Let's hope the hippies on the Pacific coast get off their asses in droves and go vote Green. Not much chance sadly of a Green MP coming from anywhere else in this country. Very unfortunate.

What we really need to do is change from this archaic "First Past the Post business and the Westminster style of government. Canadians need to look a bit more Euro, at least government wise.

[Tron_fdc]

I wonder if the Greenies will be in the leadership debate this time???

[MolsonInBothHands]

So, just to understand what you are saying...
The piece of paper your ancestors have says "Marriage", and you are not religious, so a ceremony in front of a JoP would suffice, but only if it says "Marriage", not "Union" or "Partnership"?

This sounds like an opportunity for Cheese to start a non-religious religion. For a small fee you can have him perform the ceremony, and a license stating you weren't married before god, but damnit you're still married.

By the way, if respecting your ancestors beliefs and traditions is such a huge issue for you, would you care to predict grandpappie's reaction to a gay marriage being performed in his church? The rules for marriage have already changed, what is wrong with a little more change?

Without trying to be inflammatory, or offensive, all I am saying is so many people talk about the need for absolute separation of church and state. So take the religous overtones out of the licensing. If it is important enough for the couple to have the sacred word "marriage" on their certificate, they will have every means to use an institution that has the same definition of marriage as them.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I find it quite refreshing that this thing has already been absolutely sidetracked by this totally inconsequential issue and we have nobody to blame but Harper and he'll have nobody to blame but himself when he loses.

People won't vote for him because they are afraid he's too socially conservative. So what is the first thing he does? Volunteers his own socially conservative agenda. Sure the Liberals would have brought it up. So what? It doesn't mean he has to, on his own accord, on the very first day of the campaign.

It's the equivalent of Paul Martin coming out today and saying "we are going to set up a federal sponsorship program in Quebec if we win the election".

So true..the guy is a complete novice when it comes to playing politics, its been a problem for the cons for a while now...this is where the Libs are just shine through, they have so much experience, they can play the game, and will surely jump all over this. Whether it is right or not, you have to be able to "sell" the public..huge advantage for the Libs in that aspect