April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by darklord700

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ca...239/story.html

Here's an interesting poll.

Is Ms Smith the sexiest politician you've ever seen?
(Never thought of Smith this way but better than Catholic school headmaster looking Redford for sure)

Had to say no; after all Justin Trudeau is elected now.Oh and there's that Senator. Tough choices.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Had to say no; after all Justin Trudeau is elected now.Oh and there's that Senator. Tough choices.

Or Sarah Palin, dumb is sexy to me.

[Arsenal14]

Originally Posted by darklord700

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ca...239/story.html

Here's an interesting poll.

Is Ms Smith the sexiest politician you've ever seen?
(Never thought of Smith this way but better than Catholic school headmaster looking Redford for sure)

Being Ukrainian I'd vote for our currently jailed former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko

[Yeah_Baby]

I don't think it should matter what they look like.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I don't think it should matter what they look like.

Thanks Sgt. Buzzkill.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Thanks Sgt. Buzzkill.

[shermanator]

Ruth Ellen Brousseau is my hottest politician (she was the one who won her riding despite barely campaigning and going to Vegas)

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Had to say no; after all Justin Trudeau is elected now.Oh and there's that Senator. Tough choices.

Justin won't be so pretty in a few days

[SebC]

Originally Posted by darklord700

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ca...239/story.html

Here's an interesting poll.

Is Ms Smith the sexiest politician you've ever seen?
(Never thought of Smith this way but better than Catholic school headmaster looking Redford for sure)

Apparently that question has been removed by the moderators. But there is "Should Alberta nationalize the oil sands?"

LOL, WTF? "No" isn't strong enough.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

A common misconception about social conservatives (and no, I'm not one of them) is that they want to impose their views on others. This isn't true at all; they simply want the freedom "to be". IE: no government interference in religion, teaching their children, dictation on moral issues, etc.

Wildrose stands for protecting the freedoms of all. PC are (and have been for a while now) going down the wrong path in an effort to capture this niche voter.

Children are people too. Protecting the freedom of all includes protecting a child's right to education even when their parents would deny it to them.

Danielle Smith also supports "conscience rights", which is the freedom to deny other people of their rights.

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

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

This jives with my views of Redford too. She's a "the government (specifically Allison Redford) knows best type." These types of politicians can do extreme and long lasting damages to our freedoms.

*cough* Stephen Harper *cough*

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by SebC

Apparently that question has been removed by the moderators. But there is "Should Alberta nationalize the oil sands?"

LOL, WTF? "No" isn't strong enough.

Considering Alberta isn't a nation, heh.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by fotze

Its like you are my twin. I vote for the financial side over the social side too, mostly selfishly and thats why I have said I think left wing people are, on average, less selfish voters.

If NDP gets in they can really fata stuff up (or at least thats my fear) with their fiscal business. If that means gays don't get to marry for a few years so be it.

Socially speaking, the judiciary can generally keep the really extreme left/right policies in check since they will likely be unconstitutional or ultra vires in some way, shape or form. So I don't consider it selfish to vote on these policies second and fiscal policies first.

Fiscally speaking, there really isn't any check or balance to widespread economic incompetence. Which is why I always vote for the party that will likely do the best job with the economy. Right now, the PCs are starting to look a little too much like the Ontario PCs and Liberals spending like sailors on shore leave, and not enough like prudent fiscal conservatives banking resource wealth for the future for my liking. Handing Mason the keys to the economy would be like giving a toddler a handgun, and Sherman has shown nothing to prove he won't spend more and raise taxes, thus nullifying the AB Advantage.

I hope Redford gets an eyeopener in this election, stops the smear attempts on the WRA and starts realizing Albertans are not fiscally liberal. A PC minority with a WRA controlling vote may be the best case scenario for fiscal conservatism.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by SebC

Children are people too. Protecting the freedom of all includes protecting a child's right to education even when their parents would deny it to them.

We already have laws for parents who refuse to send their children to school or insure they are educated.

By your reasoning then we should be also be teaching every religion in school.
No sense including one belief and not another, right.

Generally, I think parents are in a better position than government to make educational choices for their children. (An exception to this would be cases where children have been removed from the home for whatever reason)

Danielle Smith also supports "conscience rights", which is the freedom to deny other people of their rights.

You have that backwards.

Conscience rights protect the beliefs of individuals; it doesn't deny others theirs. They can still get whatever service/product they need.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Would that be the same event that the PC's boycotted entirely because of all your whining?

I suspect the PC whining will happen more and more considering they are being challenged for once.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Yeah, I'm a bit confused. I'm supposed to be outraged that Danielle Smith wrote a column 9 years ago, expressing a view that has now been endorsed by the Ontario Court of Appeal?

Surely there are better things to take her to task on.

Just goes to show how desperate the PCs are.

Either that, or they think burying their collective heads in the sand will solve many of the problems surrounding prostitution.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by fotze

Its like you are my twin. I vote for the financial side over the social side too, mostly selfishly and thats why I have said I think left wing people are, on average, less selfish voters.

If NDP gets in they can really fata stuff up (or at least thats my fear) with their fiscal business. If that means gays don't get to marry for a few years so be it.

Except gays can marry, so my conscience would be clear if I voted WRA or even PC to keep the NDP away from ever having any say in the government.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

We already have laws for parents who refuse to send their children to school or insure they are educated.

By your reasoning then we should be also be teaching every religion in school.
No sense including one belief and not another, right.

Please explain how you consider this to be the logical extension of not allowing parents to keep their kids from learning about safe sex, evolution etc.

Originally Posted by First Lady

Conscience rights protect the beliefs of individuals; it doesn't deny others theirs. They can still get whatever service/product they need.

People have the right to equality. They have the right to not be discriminated against. Those are the rights that cannot co-exist with allowing "conscience rights", and they are fundamental rights to any liberal democracy.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by SebC

Please explain how you consider this to be the logical extension of not allowing parents to keep their kids from learning about safe sex, evolution etc.

Doesn't equate to me thinking they don't need to be educated on these things.
I simply believe some areas are best left to parents. Sex and religion being a couple.

Having said that, I personally have no issue if there are schools that offer these topics. However, it should remain as it is now in that parents can "opt their children out".

People have the right to equality. They have the right to not be discriminated against. Those are the rights that cannot co-exist with allowing "conscience rights", and they are fundamental rights to any liberal democracy.

No, from what your saying the rights of some workers are of lesser value than the people they serve. That, sir is the very definition of inequality.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I simply believe some areas are best left to parents. Sex and religion being a couple.

Having said that, I personally have no issue if there are schools that offer these topics. However, it should remain as it is now in that parents can "opt their children out".

In doing so, you condone a system where children of (typically) religious parents get an inferior education compared to the general public. You are sanctioning a "right to keep your children ignorant", and placing a higher value on that than on the quality of the child's education.

I find this highly objectionable. A person, and a society do not develop by censoring ideas. Some ideas have more merit than others, but the ideas that don't have merit should be evaluated as such, rather than censored. Don't believe in evolution? Great, defend your position. Don't plug your kid's ears and go "LA LA LA LA".

Originally Posted by First Lady

No, from what your saying the rights of some workers are of lesser value than the people they serve. That, sir is the very definition of inequality.

People have equality. Rights do not. Religious rights have to take a backseat to other, more important rights. Otherwise I can go around shooting people, as long as it's because God told me to.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Arsenal14

Being Ukrainian I'd vote for our currently jailed former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko

Yulia is a looker. I don't think Canadians have the stomach to elect a very good looking female leader yet. The Ukrainians are far ahead of us.