I doubt Harper is going to win, but if he does...

[Flame On]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Apr 26 2005, 08:07 AM
Just the fact that the Liberals are completely unwilling to listen to any views other then thier own

ie "Its in the constitution stupid" lapel buttons on the gay marriage issue. Thats not the slogan of a party that believes in open debate, nor is receptive to the other side.

The fact that the Liberals can't bridge the gap with the west because they don't understand how we think, Paul Martin's words and not mind, indicates a certain amount of closed mindedness.

You're full of it. Horrible analogy to try and explain how conservatives (the very meaning of the word means less open) are more open than Liberal (who's very meaning is broad). Then you try and defend it based on what, that just cause the liberals are open to including gay marriage doesn't prove they're more open!
So what views are the cons so open to? Open to more prejudice, open to more rules limiting personal choice maybe, nothing more.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@Apr 26 2005, 08:47 AM
Huh? That's the first time I've heard anyone try and argue that conservatives are more open-minded than liberals.

Get used to it because that is reality in the real world rather than the orchestrated pretend world of corruption under the Liberals where the limitless sky is promised while they're picking your pockets and funneling the money into their own party coffers.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Flame On+Apr 26 2005, 09:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame On @ Apr 26 2005, 09:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-CaptainCrunch@Apr 26 2005, 08:07 AM
Just the fact that the Liberals are completely unwilling to listen to any views other then thier own

ie "Its in the constitution stupid" lapel buttons on the gay marriage issue.# Thats not the slogan of a party that believes in open debate, nor is receptive to the other side.

The fact that the Liberals can't bridge the gap with the west because they don't understand how we think, Paul Martin's words and not mind, indicates a certain amount of closed mindedness.

You're full of it. Horrible analogy to try and explain how conservatives (the very meaning of the word means less open) are more open than Liberal (who's very meaning is broad). Then you try and defend it based on what, that just cause the liberals are open to including gay marriage doesn't prove they're more open!
So what views are the cons so open to? Open to more prejudice, open to more rules limiting personal choice maybe, nothing more.[/b][/quote]
You're basing your position on the meaning of the words "Liberal" and "Conservative"?

Wonderful! Where the rubber meets the road the Liberals are the furthest thing from open-minded or tolerant. Only the NDP is less tolerant and open-minded than the Liberals. This is shown in their Absolute need to control every thought and behavior of the citizens of this country--including taking over provincial jurisdictions such as marriage, education, health, to name just a few.

[Hakan]

Seriously, do you have any of idea what you're talking about?

Sorry for being glib but this is just ludicrous.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Sammie+Apr 26 2005, 11:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Apr 26 2005, 11:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

You're full of it. Horrible analogy to try and explain how conservatives (the very meaning of the word means less open) are more open than Liberal (who's very meaning is broad). Then you try and defend it based on what, that just cause the liberals are open to including gay marriage doesn't prove they're more open!
So what views are the cons so open to? Open to more prejudice, open to more rules limiting personal choice maybe, nothing more.

Your basing your position on the meaning of the words "Liberal" and "Conservative"?

Wonderful! Where the rubber meets the road the Liberals are the furthest thing from open-minded or tolerant. Only the NDP is less tolerant and open-minded than the Liberals. This is shown in their Absolute need to control every thought and behavior of the citizens of this country--including taking over provincial jurisdictions such as marriage, education, health, to name just a few. [/b][/quote]
The conservative party are financially ruinous potentially to the country. They would also make relations to the US far worse and they also would totally corrupt the whole country.

If we're going to be pointless and devoid of truth.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Sammie+Apr 26 2005, 06:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Apr 26 2005, 06:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flames Draft Watcher@Apr 26 2005, 08:47 AM
Huh? That's the first time I've heard anyone try and argue that conservatives are more open-minded than liberals.

Get used to it because that is reality in the real world rather than the orchestrated pretend world of corruption under the Liberals where the limitless sky is promised while they're picking your pockets and funneling the money into their own party coffers. [/b][/quote]
Your post doesn't address open or closed mindedness and thus I'm at a loss as to why you responded to mine.

Yet another rant about the thieving liberals while you ignore the actual discussion taking place here.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Sammie+Apr 26 2005, 06:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Apr 26 2005, 06:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

You're full of it. Horrible analogy to try and explain how conservatives (the very meaning of the word means less open) are more open than Liberal (who's very meaning is broad). Then you try and defend it based on what, that just cause the liberals are open to including gay marriage doesn't prove they're more open!
So what views are the cons so open to? Open to more prejudice, open to more rules limiting personal choice maybe, nothing more.

Your basing your position on the meaning of the words "Liberal" and "Conservative"?

Wonderful! Where the rubber meets the road the Liberals are the furthest thing from open-minded or tolerant. Only the NDP is less tolerant and open-minded than the Liberals. This is shown in their Absolute need to control every thought and behavior of the citizens of this country--including taking over provincial jurisdictions such as marriage, education, health, to name just a few. [/b][/quote]

[sarcasm]

Obviously the meanings of conservative and liberal and their ideologies and philosophies are irrelevant to this discussion.

[/sarcasm]

Your post screams ignorance about the basis of the conservative and liberal positions.

I find it hard to believe you can express yourself reasonably and yet demonstrate such a lack of understanding about political ideologies and philosophies in a discussion centered around that very topic.

I don't think your point about centralization of government has ANYTHING to do with thought or behaviour control. Are you paranoid? What's funny is that from my point of view if anybody was worried about the gov't controlling behaviour then the conservatives should be the last party they support as they've shown to be the biggest supporter of backwards social policies and enforcing fundamental and traditional christian values on peoples of every culture, religion and sexual preference. In other words, they are closed minded about several current social problems of the day.

Show us you know anything about politics. Please. Because so far you're just embarassing yourself. You've done nothing to prove how the Liberals and NDP are the most closed-minded and your example (centralization of gov't) has very little or nothing to do with the issue at all.

Do you know what open-minded means? Cause this post doesn't make me a believer.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by Sammie@Apr 26 2005, 11:37 AM
Your basing your position on the meaning of the words "Liberal" and "Conservative"?

But Sammie, you can't argue with the meaning of a word. Words are set in stone. Words can't be changed. Whatever the dictionary says must stay true. Right?

Odd how you can choose to ignore the definitions of "Liberal" and "Conservative",
but god forbid anyone try to change the defintion of marraige. :wacko:

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates+Apr 26 2005, 08:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winsor_Pilates @ Apr 26 2005, 08:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Sammie@Apr 26 2005, 11:37 AM
Your basing your position on the meaning of the words "Liberal" and "Conservative"?

But Sammie, you can't argue with the meaning of a word. Words are set in stone. Words can't be changed. Whatever the dictionary says must stay true. Right?

Odd how you can choose to ignore the definitions of "Liberal" and "Conservative",
but god forbid anyone try to change the defintion of marraige. :wacko: [/b][/quote]
:huhsign: What the heck are you talking about? How the heck did we get from the meaning of the the words "liberal" and "conservative" to the definition of marriage? I think you should read what I wrote again. I was questioning Flame On's attempt to position the Liberals and Conservatives on the left/right scale based on the meaning of the words liberal and conservative. Especially when the only thing liberal about the Liberal government is how liberally they tax us and then spend the tax money they've taken from us. :huhsign:

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+Apr 26 2005, 02:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ Apr 26 2005, 02:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Your basing your position on the meaning of the words "Liberal" and "Conservative"?

Wonderful! Where the rubber meets the road the Liberals are the furthest thing from open-minded or tolerant. Only the NDP is less tolerant and open-minded than the Liberals. This is shown in their Absolute need to control every thought and behavior of the citizens of this country--including taking over provincial jurisdictions such as marriage, education, health, to name just a few.

[sarcasm]

Obviously the meanings of conservative and liberal and their ideologies and philosophies are irrelevant to this discussion.

[/sarcasm]

Your post screams ignorance about the basis of the conservative and liberal positions.

I find it hard to believe you can express yourself reasonably and yet demonstrate such a lack of understanding about political ideologies and philosophies in a discussion centered around that very topic.

I don't think your point about centralization of government has ANYTHING to do with thought or behaviour control. Are you paranoid? What's funny is that from my point of view if anybody was worried about the gov't controlling behaviour then the conservatives should be the last party they support as they've shown to be the biggest supporter of backwards social policies and enforcing fundamental and traditional christian values on peoples of every culture, religion and sexual preference. In other words, they are closed minded about several current social problems of the day.

Show us you know anything about politics. Please. Because so far you're just embarassing yourself. You've done nothing to prove how the Liberals and NDP are the most closed-minded and your example (centralization of gov't) has very little or nothing to do with the issue at all.

Do you know what open-minded means? Cause this post doesn't make me a believer. [/b][/quote]
My dear sir, I'll put my understanding political idealogies and philosophies against your understanding any day. This has nothing to do with paranoia, it has everything to do with reality--a foreign concept to Liberals. The Liberal belief is that the people of Canada are stupid and their philosophy is to centralize all power in Ottawa. This is nothing new, writers have been writing about this and teaching it in political science courses since, at least, the 1970s.

On the other hand, the new Conservative Party say they shouldn't interfere in the jurisdictions of the provinces and municipalities.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Sammie@Apr 26 2005, 11:56 PM
On the other hand, the new Conservative Party say they shouldn't interfere in the jurisdictions of the provinces and municipalities.

And I believe that is where Canada needs to be headed. I find it hard to believe a government in Ottawa knows what's right for a place like BC better than the provincial government of BC itself. In a country of our size I think it wiser to place more power in the hands of the provinces themselves. Though, that's not to say the federal government still shouldn't play a large part in Canadian politics (equalization and such).

With regards to this little debate over definitions and such, the spending in the last Alberta PC budget certainly doesn't do the definition of 'conservative' any justice. A party can call itself whatever it wants to in order to give people an idea of where it stands ideologically, but it's what it does that really defines it in my eyes...

[Flame On]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay+Apr 27 2005, 01:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAllTheWay @ Apr 27 2005, 01:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Sammie@Apr 26 2005, 11:56 PM
On the other hand, the new Conservative Party say they shouldn't interfere in the jurisdictions of the provinces and municipalities.

And I believe that is where Canada needs to be headed. I find it hard to believe a government in Ottawa knows what's right for a place like BC better than the provincial government of BC itself. In a country of our size I think it wiser to place more power in the hands of the provinces themselves. Though, that's not to say the federal government still shouldn't play a large part in Canadian politics (equalization and such).

With regards to this little debate over definitions and such, the spending in the last Alberta PC budget certainly doesn't do the definition of 'conservative' any justice. A party can call itself whatever it wants to in order to give people an idea of where it stands ideologically, but it's what it does that really defines it in my eyes... [/b][/quote]
I agree and what defines the Conservative party are not allowing gay marriage and some debate as to even allowing same sex civil unions. The Liberals also have raised the question of marijuana which is what governments should be doing debating and proposing. Being OPEN to talk.
All closed doors in the conservative party.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Sammie+Apr 26 2005, 10:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Apr 26 2005, 10:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

But Sammie, you can't argue with the meaning of a word. Words are set in stone. Words can't be changed. Whatever the dictionary says must stay true. Right?

Odd how you can choose to ignore the definitions of "Liberal" and "Conservative",
but god forbid anyone try to change the defintion of marraige. :wacko:

:huhsign: What the heck are you talking about? How the heck did we get from the meaning of the the words "liberal" and "conservative" to the definition of marriage? I think you should read what I wrote again. I was questioning Flame On's attempt to position the Liberals and Conservatives on the left/right scale based on the meaning of the words liberal and conservative. Especially when the only thing liberal about the Liberal government is how liberally they tax us and then spend the tax money they've taken from us. :huhsign: [/b][/quote]
Well the only thing open about the Cons is how open they'll be to George Bush's evangelical system of integrating church and state.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Sammie@Apr 27 2005, 05:56 AM
This has nothing to do with paranoia, it has everything to do with reality--a foreign concept to Liberals. The Liberal belief is that the people of Canada are stupid and their philosophy is to centralize all power in Ottawa. This is nothing new, writers have been writing about this and teaching it in political science courses since, at least, the 1970s.

On the other hand, the new Conservative Party say they shouldn't interfere in the jurisdictions of the provinces and municipalities.

Why did you attempt to turn a discussion about open vs closemindedness into a debate about centralization of gov't?

You must not have had much worth saying on the subject since you've tried to change it.

Pretty pathetic attempt at proving how the Liberals and NDP are close-minded. Pretty pathetic attempt at showing us you actually know what you're talking about. At the first sign that somebody is going to call you on your obvious BS you try and change the subject.

Is it worth arguing/responding to you at all or is that the way you're going to debate?

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Flame On+Apr 27 2005, 07:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame On @ Apr 27 2005, 07:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

And I believe that is where Canada needs to be headed. I find it hard to believe a government in Ottawa knows what's right for a place like BC better than the provincial government of BC itself. In a country of our size I think it wiser to place more power in the hands of the provinces themselves. Though, that's not to say the federal government still shouldn't play a large part in Canadian politics (equalization and such).

With regards to this little debate over definitions and such, the spending in the last Alberta PC budget certainly doesn't do the definition of 'conservative' any justice. A party can call itself whatever it wants to in order to give people an idea of where it stands ideologically, but it's what it does that really defines it in my eyes...

I agree and what defines the Conservative party are not allowing gay marriage and some debate as to even allowing same sex civil unions. The Liberals also have raised the question of marijuana which is what governments should be doing debating and proposing. Being OPEN to talk.
All closed doors in the conservative party. [/b][/quote]
Hey I actually like the fact the Liberals are at least willing to discuss all that. However, there is a divide within the party on the same sex issue that should be considered too. Sure there's lots of talk from all sides and I like that, but we'll see what happens.

Also, i've reached the point on the gay marriage issue where I don't think I could care any less now. The CPC says they'd put it to a free vote in parliament in terms of the definition of marriage, and that they'd leave it up to religious organizations to pratice whatever they want with regards to marriange. Whatever, just get it done and over with so our lives can resume...

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay+Apr 27 2005, 04:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAllTheWay @ Apr 27 2005, 04:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I agree and what defines the Conservative party are not allowing gay marriage and some debate as to even allowing same sex civil unions. The Liberals also have raised the question of marijuana which is what governments should be doing debating and proposing. Being OPEN to talk.
All closed doors in the conservative party.

Hey I actually like the fact the Liberals are at least willing to discuss all that. However, there is a divide within the party on the same sex issue that should be considered too. Sure there's lots of talk from all sides and I like that, but we'll see what happens.

Also, i've reached the point on the gay marriage issue where I don't think I could care any less now. The CPC says they'd put it to a free vote in parliament in terms of the definition of marriage, and that they'd leave it up to religious organizations to pratice whatever they want with regards to marriange. Whatever, just get it done and over with so our lives can resume... [/b][/quote]
It should probably be noted that the CPC are the ones who put Gay Marriage on the political map. They chose social values to be the platform they built their 'success' on, and the dividends are obvious; people talk a LOT more about gay marriage/abortion as political factors in this country than things like the economy.

Though, in the end, I think this will work out poorly for the Cons. The British conservatives are getting hammered politically, and I'd think that our politics/voting habits resemble the British at least as much (if not more) as the Americans.

It should also be noted that just as there is a split in the Liberal Party on the definition of Gay Marriage (and legality), there is a split in the CPC. Some want to allow the barest minimum of rights to gay couples, and some want to make sodomy illegal. Every party has their 'sides', but the centre of those 'sides' is in a very different place for these 2 parties.

[kn]

Originally posted by Flame On@Apr 25 2005, 11:31 PM
Closed mindedness is trying to impose a value system that only some hold on to that's based on superstition and prejudice.

Are you equating religion and superstition?

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Apr 27 2005, 10:46 AM
It should probably be noted that the CPC are the ones who put Gay Marriage on the political map. They chose social values to be the platform they built their 'success' on, and the dividends are obvious; people talk a LOT more about gay marriage/abortion as political factors in this country than things like the economy.

Yeah no kidding. Alot of good that's doing them. Not to get off-topic, but why not call it a 'civil union' and leave it at that and/or just let the churches decide what they want to do? Bah, I don't want to get back into this debate again heheh.

But again, my whole position on the overall issue at hand here is I just think the Liberals have worn out their stay and it's time for a change. Don't really care who it is, but that's easy for me to say as I wouldn't mind seeing what the CPC would do in power and there are the ones most likely to take over...

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay@Apr 27 2005, 05:09 PM
Not to get off-topic, but why not call it a 'civil union' and leave it at that and/or just let the churches decide what they want to do?

I believe that is has been mentioned several times by other posters that the supreme court has ruled that you cannot have two definitions for the same thing. In this case 'marriage' and 'civil unions'. The only difference between the two being sexual preference. Therefore it is discimination to have the two terms.

Anyone can correct me if I've got anything wrong. Surprising how many times this is asked and how many times it's answered...

[MarchHare]

Also, under the Liberals' proposed legislation, churches are free to define marriage any way they want. Only the government's definition of marriage is being changed in order to bring Canada's marriage laws in line with supreme court rulings saying that banning homosexuals from marrying is a violation of the Charter.