how would you vote.....

[Mike F]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Apr 7 2005, 10:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Apr 7 2005, 10:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

If I vote for the Green Party here in SE Calgary it's not going to change anything.

It's not at all like casting a vote for Nader in 2000 and sending Bush to the White House.[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Flames Draft Watcher@Apr 8 2005, 01:43 PM
How do you figure? It's pretty much a given that a Conservative will win my riding, so my vote for Green is not affecting the end result one way or the other except by the dollars my vote represents and the message it might send.

I see zero correlation to the US and Nader.[/quote]

And in the majority of cases those individuals who voted Nader in the US didn't matter in the outome of that election due to the electoral college system, but the "Vote Nader in an attempt to move the Democratic party back toward the true left" movement ensured that in some cases it really mattered.

Similarly here your individual Green vote may not matter, but a "Vote Green" movement will go a long way to ensuring that those ridings that are close tip Conservative.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Mike F+Apr 8 2005, 06:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Apr 8 2005, 06:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

<!--QuoteBegin-Flames Draft Watcher@Apr 8 2005, 01:43 PM
How do you figure? It's pretty much a given that a Conservative will win my riding, so my vote for Green is not affecting the end result one way or the other except by the dollars my vote represents and the message it might send.

I see zero correlation to the US and Nader.

And in the majority of cases those individuals who voted Nader in the US didn't matter in the outome of that election due to the electoral college system, but the "Vote Nader in an attempt to move the Democratic party back toward the true left" movement ensured that in some cases it really mattered.

Similarly here your individual Green vote may not matter, but a "Vote Green" movement will go a long way to ensuring that those ridings that are close tip Conservative. [/b][/quote]
I'm not part of any movement.

I've never voted for the Liberals and I'm not going to change my tune now. Although it would be a bit of an ego boost if I was singlehandedly able to double the votes for a major political party (assuming the Liberal candidate votes for himself).

However, if I thought it was going to be even remotely close, I'd suck it up and vote for the Liberals. Considering they'll get roughly 0% of the vote where I live, I don't think not voting for them is going to save Canada from either the Liberals or the Conservatives.

[BlackRedGold25]

We have different words for gender and race because those are biological characteristics. Marriage is a social construct, an abstract concept created by society, not some innate genetic trait.

But marriage is defined by biological characteristics as well. The biological characteristics of a man AND a woman.

Race is an abstract concept as well.

A better comparison would be why don't we have seperate terms for white employee benefits and black employee benefits, and the answer, of course, is because if we did it would be considered discrimatory (and rightly so), just as denying homosexuals the right to marry is.

But a white employee and a black employee is the same. There is no tangible difference. A married couple is inherently different from a same sex union.

And homosexuals are not denied the right to marry. They can marry, just not a person of the same sex. Could I claim to be discriminated against if I join a health club and they don't allow to me to change in the women's locker room?

[Flame On]

They can marry, just not a person of the same sex.

That's what you fail to recognize. It's not for you or anyone else to allow two people to not do something, that another group is "allowed" to do. Thats descrimination and a violation of civil liberties.

[MarchHare]

But marriage is defined by biological characteristics as well. The biological characteristics of a man AND a woman.

Says you. There's nothing biological about the institution of marriage; it's purely a human-made concept.

Race is an abstract concept as well.

No, race is quite biological. Colour of skin, shape of eyelids, whatever -- these are all things that are determined by DNA. Marriage is not.

But a white employee and a black employee is the same. There is no tangible difference.

And I would claim that a same-sex and opposite sex couple are the same, and to deny one couple the right to happily marry is clearly discriminatory.

And homosexuals are not denied the right to marry. They can marry, just not a person of the same sex.

There used to be a time in the US where white people weren't legally allowed to marry blacks. They used the same reasoning at the time..."You can marry anyone you want, just of your same race." One day, years from now, you're going to look back on the statement you just made and think it's just as absurd as a white not being permitted to marry a black.

[peter12]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Apr 7 2005, 01:51 PM

Oh please. How short (or one-sided) our memories are. The Conservatives spent most of the last election campaign blasting the Liberals over the Sponsorship Scandal. They were just as much, if not moreso, into attacking the opposition rather than promoting their own message as the Liberals were.

And while this really pains me to say, the only party that was really promoting themselves last time around was the NDP.

Anyway, I'll be voting for the Liberals, even though I'm not happy about the Sponsorship Scandal and Gun Registry. If a few million per year of wasted tax dollars is the price to keep our soldiers out of Iraq and other ill-advised adventures and preventing us from turning into America Jr., I'll gladly pay it. I may have considered voting NDP as a protest, but there's no way I'm going to see the eight consecutive years of balanced or surplus budgets the Liberals gave us go squandered away under all the increased spending any NDP government is likely to introduce.

Also, it's probably worth noting that I would have voted for the PC party in the last election if they had still existed.

Give me a break. At least the sponsorship scandal is a valid thing to attack on.

The Liberals made up all sorts of crap about spending on aircraft carriers, Harper being against abortion... etc...

Remember the Liberal ads with the gun firing right in your face? Martin didn't run a campaign last election, he ran a smearfest against Harper.

Our Westminster style parliamentary democracy has no checks and balances on executive power, so the only way to get rid of a party that has fataed up really bad is with the ballot box.

And some of you dumbasses want to keep them in there. You want to reward them for royally screwing you in the ass instead of punishing them for their mistakes, lies and scandal.

I hope Martin and his slimy Liberal cronies are blown back to the Stone Age (politically speaking)!

[CaptainCrunch]

To me the fact of the matter is that Martin shouldn't even be running in the next election if his government falls.

Anyone in a leadership position knows, that if your at the head of the party, or a company, or a military unit, that you are responsible for the actions of your organization. Not knowing is no excuse.

Basically if you knew and ignored it or covered it up your liable.

If you didn't know, your incompetent and you shouldn't be there.

The only way that the liberals survive this is if Martin leaves politics. Senior leadership is gutted and Chretien is hauled away in handcuffs.

But of course the liberals have put enough money in the courts and the special interest groups that thier protected. Chances are some minor functionary who we've never heard of before will fall on his sword.

Canada is great country with great people and great potential. too bad all of the scumbags gravitate towards government.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Apr 9 2005, 12:04 AM
Canada is great country with great people and great potential. too bad all of the scumbags gravitate towards government.

I don't know how or when it happened, but it seems Mexico ended up with our government that used to govern us with the interests of the country and it's citizens at the top of its agenda. In the mean time, we've now become the Banana Republic Mexico used to be.

It's amazing what can happen in such a short time when almost half the people in this country are too lazy to go out and vote. Canada truly has the government Canada deserves and I'm VERY embarrassed to be a Canadian right now.

However, when these crooks finally get kicked out of office I'll be the life of the party and leading the dancing in the streets. Everybody will be invited to the party! Even those who foolishly voted Liberal again. I'm the forgiving type. Besides, until just a few years ago, I was stupid enough to vote Liberal for far more elections--and years--than I care to remember.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by peter12@Apr 9 2005, 05:41 AM



The Liberals made up all sorts of crap about spending on aircraft carriers, Harper being against abortion... etc...

Remember the Liberal ads with the gun firing right in your face? Martin didn't run a campaign last election, he ran a smearfest against Harper.

The "smearfest" went both ways.

[flamingchina]

I'll probably end up voting green again.
They are close enough to my tastes, although the conservatives are as well, I'd just like the conservatives to adopt some of their platforms.
I also like how on their site you can vote theit policies up and down.

[jam26]

Conservative as always, but those idiots in Ontario would re-elect the Liberals regardless, so it really doesn't matter.

[HOZ]

Conservatives. Voted Mulroney out now I want to give them another go.

I didn't think anyone could match their arrogance and corruption. Boy was I wrong. Liberals simply obliterated that benchmark with a whole new one of their own!
:angry:

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by BlackRedGold25+Apr 8 2005, 04:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BlackRedGold25 @ Apr 8 2005, 04:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Winsor_Pilates@Apr 8 2005, 11:15 PM
Marraige and civil unions are not equal. If they were we wouldn't need two titles and you wouldn't care of gays got married.

How are they unequal?

If men and women are equal then why do we need the terms?

Or the terms black, white, asian, aboriginal etc? [/b][/quote]
A word is only as important as the reaction it gets. Most people don't feel discriminated or elite by being called a man or woman.
The distinction of Marraige and Civil Union is clearly there to distinguish 1 group who has the right to the title of Marraige from another group that doesn't.
Gay people want the term marraige for the same reason you don't want them to have it. The term eliminates any difference between a stright marraige or gay, thus equality.
You see giving them that word as a defeat to your beliefs, and they see it as a victory for them in gaining equality.Therefore the word is important because of the power it holds through the reaction it gets.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Apr 8 2005, 11:04 PM
To me the fact of the matter is that Martin shouldn't even be running in the next election if his government falls.

Anyone in a leadership position knows, that if your at the head of the party, or a company, or a military unit, that you are responsible for the actions of your organization. Not knowing is no excuse.

Basically if you knew and ignored it or covered it up your liable.

If you didn't know, your incompetent and you shouldn't be there.

The only way that the liberals survive this is if Martin leaves politics. Senior leadership is gutted and Chretien is hauled away in handcuffs.

But of course the liberals have put enough money in the courts and the special interest groups that thier protected. Chances are some minor functionary who we've never heard of before will fall on his sword.

Canada is great country with great people and great potential. too bad all of the scumbags gravitate towards government.

Is your real name Gareth Keenan?


There are examples of leaders who don't get punished for huge mistakes those under them have made, and there's those that don't get punished when they themselves got it dead wrong. Try G.W.Bush for instance, his teflon coating meant nothing stuck to him to take the fall, well that and Karl Rove.
You say the leader should go down and be responsible fine. Paul Martin wasn't the leader though at the time the fraud was occuring.
Not really sticking up for Martin per se, but the liberals in general are not a few law breakers amongst them.
I just don't see the cons getting in anyway so I don't mind, too much to be affraid of them for in their social policy, rightly or wrongly.

[BlackRedGold25]

Originally posted by Flame On@Apr 9 2005, 03:07 AM
That's what you fail to recognize. It's not for you or anyone else to allow two people to not do something, that another group is "allowed" to do. Thats descrimination and a violation of civil liberties.

So you support polygamy then?

Why can two people do something that a group of three can't do?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Flame On+Apr 10 2005, 12:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame On @ Apr 10 2005, 12:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@Apr 8 2005, 11:04 PM
To me the fact of the matter is that Martin shouldn't even be running in the next election if his government falls.#

Anyone in a leadership position knows, that if your at the head of the party, or a company, or a military unit, that you are responsible for the actions of your organization.# Not knowing is no excuse.

Basically if you knew and ignored it or covered it up your liable.

If you didn't know, your incompetent and you shouldn't be there.

The only way that the liberals survive this is if Martin leaves politics.# Senior leadership is gutted and Chretien is hauled away in handcuffs.

But of course the liberals have put enough money in the courts and the special interest groups that thier protected.# Chances are some minor functionary who we've never heard of before will fall on his sword.

Canada is great country with great people and great potential.# too bad all of the scumbags gravitate towards government.

Is your real name Gareth Keenan?


There are examples of leaders who don't get punished for huge mistakes those under them have made, and there's those that don't get punished when they themselves got it dead wrong. Try G.W.Bush for instance, his teflon coating meant nothing stuck to him to take the fall, well that and Karl Rove.
You say the leader should go down and be responsible fine. Paul Martin wasn't the leader though at the time the fraud was occuring.
Not really sticking up for Martin per se, but the liberals in general are not a few law breakers amongst them.
I just don't see the cons getting in anyway so I don't mind, too much to be affraid of them for in their social policy, rightly or wrongly. [/b][/quote]
Paul Martin might not have been the leader per say, but he was the deputy prime minister, and he was the finance minister of the country. He was also the number two man in the Liberal party. He was also named as the successor to that thug Chretian. He had a responsibility to know every aspect of what his party was doing.

The AdScam issue has been ongoing for two years, he knew what was going on, and if he didn't he's an idiot for not finding out.

Now its coming out on a public forum.

Paul Martin is just as responsible as anybody.

He laughed off the HRDC scandal. He supported Chretian when Jean was trying to get his criminal friends loans. When the gun registry spiraled into the billion dollar mark, he said nothing.

So either he knew and is criminal and shouldn't be prime minister, or he's a moron and shouldn't be prime minister. Nice choices.

It'll be interesting to see this weeks Gomery results when some of the bigger guns testify.

At the very least Chretian should be stripped of his pension and imprisoned. At the most, Martin, chretien and the other Liberal cronies sould lose thier pensions and imprisoned, and the Liberal party should have to pay back every penny that was stolen from the tax payers. They should also be severly sanctioned until they come clean.

I'm sick of the Canadian system of government, its clear that it dosen't work.

And frankly everytime I do my taxes or look at my paycheck, I can't stand the Liberal's. I don't feel like I'm getting my fair share for my efforts. Yes the Canadian Government has erased thier yearly deficit, but its on the backs of the tax payers, rich and poor. To be honest, I don't mind paying my fair share of things, however when the tax rate is going to continue to spiral upwards, or I get a .54 cent savings in tax breaks its not worth it. While the cost of living in Canada has increased monumentally, so has the amount of money that the government is taking from us to fund stupid program, and irrelevant arts programs, oh and to lose billions to graft and corruption.

Its getting ridiculous.

[BlackRedGold25]

No, race is quite biological. Colour of skin, shape of eyelids, whatever -- these are all things that are determined by DNA. Marriage is not.

And the pigeonholing of a particular set of races is an abstract concept. Especially since there are black people who are whiter then some white people. How do we draw the line at what consistutes a particular race?

And I would claim that a same-sex and opposite sex couple are the same, and to deny one couple the right to happily marry is clearly discriminatory.

They are not the same.

A same-sex couple can not breed like a married couple can. And once the married couple has reproduced they can raise a child in an environment with both a male and female influence.

There used to be a time in the US where white people weren't legally allowed to marry blacks. They used the same reasoning at the time..."You can marry anyone you want, just of your same race." One day, years from now, you're going to look back on the statement you just made and think it's just as absurd as a white not being permitted to marry a black.

To relegate homosexuals' fight with marriage to blacks' fight for equality in the US is an insult. Homosexuals are trying to redefine a word. Redefining that word isn't going to make a lick of difference to their lives. Blacks had to fight for basic human rights in the US. What they fought for dramatically changed their lives.

There was also no black-white union, with equal rights, for interracial couples. Besides there is no inherent difference between a interracial married couple and a married couple from the same race.

[MarchHare]

Besides there is no inherent difference between a interracial married couple and a married couple from the same race.

And what, pray tell, is the inherent difference between a same-sex married couple and an opposite-sex one? And if your answer is, "One can reproduce and one can't", then what is the difference between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual one where either the husband or wife is sterile? Would you deny the right to marry to opposite-sex couples who are unable or unwilling to have children? Would you create a seperate but equal classification for them too, such as "Non-procreating heterosexual civil union"?

[RougeUnderoos]

"They can't change the dictionary" is about the weakest argument I've heard yet. Newsflash folks -- words get redefined all the time.

gay
f@g
queer
dyke
butch
pansy

See?

So do laws. It's called "progress". Argue against gay marriage all you want, but to say "you can't change the dictionary" is just wrong.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Apr 10 2005, 10:56 PM
I'm sick of the Canadian system of government, its clear that it dosen't work.

Relative to most countries in the world, the Canadian governement works quite well. You could go just about anywhere, and I'm sure more citizens in most countries would gladly trade. Sometimes living in such a comfortable country, we forget just how bad things are from a global prespective.

I also believe that Canada had more growth than any other G-7 country in the past decade. That tells me that the Canadian governent DOES work.