TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- The Official TOTA Elections thread
Pages (2): « 1 [2]
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DigiNut Oh noes, it's the dreaded Social Conservatives! OMG RUN AWAY!!!!!1111one Let's recap: Liberals burst into anger (or tears) whenever somebody makes that pitiful "religious" argument that gay marriage is immoral. And yet... - They accept that it is "moral" to have their property confiscated to pay for kickbacks to well-connected Liberals and Liberal supporters. - They accept that it is "moral" to tell hardworking parents that instead of caring for their children, they waste their money on beer and popcorn. - They accept that it is "moral" to paint a picture of our Armed Forces as a violent, fascist gestapo army that will occupy our streets and not allow us to leave our houses. - They accept that it is "moral" for 9 unelected judges to have the final say over an entire house of elected officials, based on a set of totally arbitrary unwritten standards, and they accept that it is "moral" to be trying to take away our singular means of recourse if that system goes awry. - They accept that it is "moral" for the government to be confiscating guns that people own legally, without any compensation. And they accept that it is "moral" to make it either illegal or impractical for our border guards to be armed, making it nearly impossible to keep the ILLEGAL guns out of our country. - They accept that it is "moral" for murderers who supposedly had a tough time growing up to get out of jail in 6 months, while the families of the victims receive nothing. - They accept that it is "moral" to demand that everybody receive the same quality of health care, and now child care, no matter how hard they've worked to earn themselves a better life. - They accept that it is "moral" to be bringing strippers into our country by the boatload (provided they supply nude pictures as proof of their qualifications), as well as hundreds of thousands of unskilled people who will be supported on welfare, while simultaneously denying entry to doctors, engineers, and many other hard working immigrants. - They accept that it is "moral" to be telling us we use too much electricity and should get used to freezing in our own homes, while simultaneously shutting down our coal-fired plants which would easily have met the excess demand. - They accept that it is "moral" to engage in non-stop bashing of our most important friend and trading partner. - They accept that it is "moral" to offer a cabinet position to a woman who defected from her own party for no reason other than personal advancement. - They accept that it is "moral" to force every public servant in the most remote redneck woods of BC to learn to speak fluent French. - They accept that it is "moral" to continue to slash our military budget, when our primary contribution to the post-9/11 effort in Afghanistan was a frigate that sank and had to be recovered by American troops, and when we can barely defend Hans Island from the Danes. All of those things are okay, but being opposed to gay marriage... unforgivable! Right? |
Diginut, you're doing the same thing. you reply to a point I make by pointing to something else.
I said, quite clearly, that it was insulting and offensive to our military to suggest that a broken ship was our largest contribution. That's simply a sensationalistic and false statement made by you.
Your point that the Liberal attack ad is more insulting could very well be true...but it doesn't address my point at all...you're dodging the criticism by pointing to something else.
"hey, he cheated on that test!"
"yeah, well she cheated more!"
irrelevant? maybe not to the overall situaiton...but a logical reply to the first point? nope.
as for the courts...the judge you mention has stated that judges have to apply the law further than what is written. This pretty much HAS to be the case, no? Otherwise, for every novel case that comes before the courts, it should be referred back to Parliament? that's hardly practical. "significantly novel" case? ok, then what standards determine significance?
scenario...Harper is PM...some MP finally puts forth a private memeber bill on gay marriage. Harper puts it to a free vote. It's voted down. Citizen A goes to court, the court rules the traditional definition is unconstitutional. Parliament amends the law.
same outcome (i.e. that the courts have to act, because Parliament is merely a "majority rules" environment). The current political climate (i.e. who's in power) can't be expected to determine/protect rights. I would agree that more checks need to be in place for judges, but that check should NOT come from the gov't!
if everything goes through parliament, and parliament alone, what protection is there for ANY minority issue? (let's get away from gay rights since some people seem to think that's all I care about, when really it's just the easiest, most current example). Minorities cannot (and should not have to) depend on the open-mindedness and sympathy of the majority to have their voice heard and have their rights protected.
so tell me how gay rights would have been advanced without liberal courts extending Charter provision? Exactly what % of the population and MPs would treat that as a priority in Parliament?
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.