TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Conservatives lead Liberals by 12% nationally
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Harper has said that he has specific views on such matters but would let parliament decide their fate. Even though he is prime minister he is but one vote in the house of commons. Since he plans on holding free votes (something the liberals rarely do), the outcome of such votes will be essentially what the people want. And apparently most people want same sex marriage etc which is why even if it were to come to a vote in the house, i doubt it would be struck down. The conservatives realize that to do so would be political suicide. I respect a man who even in the face of strong public opposition, manages to maintain what he believes in (even if i dont agree with some of them) despite the polls. That he doesnt flip flop in the wind like most politicians would shows a lot of integrity.

Sure...and Buzz Hargrove, as leader of the CAW, has but one vote (does he even vote?). His opinion carries much sway among the union members...just as Harper's personal opinion, even if it's a "free" vote, will matter to some extent. It may not sway the masses, but it's far from irrelevant.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam Martin held the gay-marriage vote just to garner the gay vote anyway, not because he actually cared about homosexual's rights. ...

so what? I don't care what *he* thinks...I care what he does...whether what he does is as a result of what he thinks or in spite of what he thinks is not really the point, IMHO.

Chretien was a devout Catholic, but quite clearly voiced his support for abortion. That support is what mattered, given his position as PM...not that he was a Catholic.

Harper said that, in a free vote, he will vote for a return to the traditional definiton of marriage, despite the Supreme Court ruling that definiton unconstitutional. Why?

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT Harper said that, in a free vote, he will vote for a return to the traditional definiton of marriage, despite the Supreme Court ruling that definiton unconstitutional. Why?

I guess the issue with me is that I view a marriage from a Christian perspective. In my mind, deeming that a WORD (as marriage IS a word) is unconstitutional is laughable. Sure the 'legal' definition can be, but it's based on a word in the English language that is defined as being a union between one man, and one woman. I've no problem with gay people taking it upon themselves to get 'married', but in my mind, whether they are or not, they simply are not, because for a marriage to actually BE a marriage, it must be recognized by God. Then again, who am *I* to say what makes a marriage one that is recognized by God (after all, I am not God). However, I think the BIble makes it pretty clear that members of the same gender are not to partake in sexual acts together.

I guess the point is, in the grand scheme of things, even though homosexuals can SAY they are 'married', they're really just part of a civil union that is recognized by the Government as a 'marriage' for the sake of gaining a few votes. And, being that it's more a matter of semantics than the actual right to be recognized by the Government as being 'married', the issue isn't all that important to me. However, when electing someone to be the Prime Minister of my country, I prefer that the man have a backbone, be able to stand up for what he believes in, and not sway to public pressure over a matter that he holds close to his heart (in other words, I like a man of integrity to be in office). Paul Martin has swayed with the breeze on every issue from Gay marriage, to crime prevention, depending on which way the political wind is blowing at the time. This is not reminiscent of a man of integrity. In fact, it clearly stands out in my mind as a PROBLEM with the man himself, since he flip-flops so regularly, it's hard to say whether his promise today, will be the same promise he keeps 6 months from now. At least Harper stands by comments he made in the past, or admits to changing his mind for one reason or another, which Paul Martin has never done, according to him, everything he's changed his mind on, he's ALWAYS felt that way about (RE: Not Withstanding Clause).

In other words, whereby I'm willing to give an untested Harper the benefit of the doubt and believe that he is a man of integrity who has good character until he PROVES otherwise. Martin has ALREADY proven to me that he is neither, and that translates right down the ranks of his party.

I think that intent is VERY important behind a decision like granting a right. I want to know WHY a politician believes what he is doing is right. Politicians NEVER have to defend their beliefs anymore, maybe it's because no one wants to offend eachother, which is sad... if no one was ever willing to offend others, we'd never have discovered that the Earth was round, we'd never have created democracy, we'd never have discovered that the Earth ISN'T the center of the universe and etc. etc. It seems every time a politician has a new idea, it's struck down as being 'Un-Canadian', as if we have a culture to call our own in the first-place!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Spam Martin held the gay-marriage vote just to garner the gay vote anyway, not because he actually cared about homosexual's rights. The fact that anyone believes otherwise is laughable, oh, and he originally was against the idea was he not?

If I recall he was against the idea until the courts ruled that it was unconstitutional to prevent homosexuals from getting married. It would seem to me that he's simply protecting the constitution..... oddly enough that's what he has been sworn to do.

Given the recent polls, I hope that people in my riding don't start voting liberal strategically. Trinity-Spadina doesn't have a conservative candidate, and with the liberals losing, they might switch their NDP vote to liberal in hope of swaying a left vs. right majority...Olivia Chow really deserves to win.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Olivia Chow really deserves to win.

she's got my vote.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam Martin held the gay-marriage vote just to garner the gay vote anyway, not because he actually cared about homosexual's rights.

thats amusing because the opposite is true in the US. One of the reasons Bush won was because he made gay marriage an election issue. Him being against it, he captured the vote of many poor african americans who would normally vote democrat - but because the large majority of them are very religious, they voted republican.

if harper would divuldge his election contributors list, i would SERIOUSLY consider voting conservative. all his talk of transparent govt doesnt ring true when he's obviously hiding somthing he doesnt want people to know.

Reason # 589614520 why I am glad I dont live in the US.

Liberals are trying to bribe NDP candidate:


http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/rel...ctionFor=575314

quote:

Originally posted by simms327 if harper would divuldge his election contributors list, i would SERIOUSLY consider voting conservative. all his talk of transparent govt doesnt ring true when he's obviously hiding somthing he doesnt want people to know.

he has... all doners over $200 have always been revealed.

quote:

Originally posted by simms327 if harper would divuldge his election contributors list, i would SERIOUSLY consider voting conservative. all his talk of transparent govt doesnt ring true when he's obviously hiding somthing he doesnt want people to know.

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1027/

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Given the recent polls, I hope that people in my riding don't start voting liberal strategically. Trinity-Spadina doesn't have a conservative candidate, and with the liberals losing, they might switch their NDP vote to liberal in hope of swaying a left vs. right majority...Olivia Chow really deserves to win.

Olivia Chow's last act as a city councillor was to make life for clubs in her ward more difficult. Obviously shes pandering to the king-spandina noise whiners.

How can anyone who enjoys nightlife and/or is employed by it support olivia chow?

quote:

Originally posted by Ortemy Liberals are trying to bribe NDP candidate: http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/rel...ctionFor=575314

this could be huge. And if true yet another example in a long list of examples on what a dictorship the liberal party really is.

They treat canada like its a banana republic.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 How can anyone who enjoys nightlife and/or is employed by it support olivia chow?

Uh, what? Were you around for idance?

quote:

Originally posted by basilisk Uh, what? Were you around for idance?

shes changed her tune since then....

http://www.king-spadina.com/newspap...ubCrackdown.pdf

Those who support nightlife in 2006 dont support olivia chow.

Most of these things are already being done such as the security to patron ratio. But forcing clubs to get metal detectors wont work. All it does is add expense. Same thing with noise control. So now we have to cater to a bunch of whiners who just moved in just because they happened to be in her ward? I think not.

quote:

Originally posted by Ortemy Liberals are trying to bribe NDP candidate: http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/rel...ctionFor=575314

proof? anyone can have a statement notorized.

how about we talk about the CPC MP who has actually been charged with attempting to illegally smuggle a Mercedes and over 100 bottles of booze into the country and with lying to customs officials?

yeah...

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 shes changed her tune since then.... http://www.king-spadina.com/newspap...ubCrackdown.pdf Those who support nightlife in 2006 dont support olivia chow. Most of these things are already being done such as the security to patron ratio. But forcing clubs to get metal detectors wont work. All it does is add expense. Same thing with noise control. So now we have to cater to a bunch of whiners who just moved in just because they happened to be in her ward? I think not.

I don't see what the big deal is... is any of this law yet, or are they simply in the beginning stages of trying to address the problem of shottings and such at nightclubs?

We might disagree on this, but the club district IS a big stupid mess every weekend... considering it's a whole lot of 905ers making the mess I don't blame Olivia for trying to look out for her constituents.

That being said, I don't agree with forcing metal detectors on clubs... and generally favour de-regulation... but this does seem pretty innocuous, overall. Again, it's not a situation where anyone is asking for clubs to be shut down - only that they respect the people in the community and take a few measures to ensure the safety of their patrons.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Olivia Chow's last act as a city councillor was to make life for clubs in her ward more difficult. Obviously shes pandering to the king-spandina noise whiners. How can anyone who enjoys nightlife and/or is employed by it support olivia chow?

Because overall, I support the NDP platform more than I support the conservative one.
On the list of my hot political issues, clubbing is pretty far down.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT proof? anyone can have a statement notorized. how about we talk about the CPC MP who has actually been charged with attempting to illegally smuggle a Mercedes and over 100 bottles of booze into the country and with lying to customs officials? yeah...

Well, to be honest with you I don't really care about the proof. I don't believe in honest politicians. I am pretty sure that conservatives are no better than liberals in this sense, it's just liberals were in power for waay too long and lots of things got worse since then. So I think it's time for another party to try.

quote:

Originally posted by basilisk I don't see what the big deal is... is any of this law yet, or are they simply in the beginning stages of trying to address the problem of shottings and such at nightclubs? We might disagree on this, but the club district IS a big stupid mess every weekend... considering it's a whole lot of 905ers making the mess I don't blame Olivia for trying to look out for her constituents. That being said, I don't agree with forcing metal detectors on clubs... and generally favour de-regulation... but this does seem pretty innocuous, overall. Again, it's not a situation where anyone is asking for clubs to be shut down - only that they respect the people in the community and take a few measures to ensure the safety of their patrons.

http://www.king-spadina.com/reports/NightClubIssues_Report03.pdf


read a bit further into this group's agenda and you will see the big deal.

Basically in this report to the city the practically call for the end of nightclubs. They refer to bars, restaurants and bistros as "normal" and nightclubs as "high impact". Note that anything open past 9pm and anything that charges a cover is considered a nightclub to these people.

The king-spadina group which olivia chow supports has a clear mandate to shut down nightclubs and convert the area into an "old fogey" area of restaurants and bistros (who actually uses the word bistro anymore? LOL)

Note that most of the population that has moved into the area came after 1996 which is after the area was well proliferated with nightclubs and designated by the city as an entertainment area. These idiots should have known where they were buying into. For that reason i feel ZERO sympathy for these residents.

Olivia chow supports these iniatives which is why you shouldnt support olivia chow.

http://www.king-spadina.com/reports...es_Report03.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Because overall, I support the NDP platform more than I support the conservative one. On the list of my hot political issues, clubbing is pretty far down.

u are a professional dj right?

quote:

Originally posted by Ortemy Well, to be honest with you I don't really care about the proof. I don't believe in honest politicians. I am pretty sure that conservatives are no better than liberals in this sense, it's just liberals were in power for waay too long and lots of things got worse since then. So I think it's time for another party to try.

great...now we don't need proof to condemn people, lol.

point being, I see your allegation and raise you with actual criminal charges I'm quite curious to know how a car and shitload of booze is going to be disproved in court...

quote:

Originally posted by Spam I guess the issue with me is that I view a marriage from a Christian perspective...

I read your whole post...but really it stops here, doesn't it?

Until a marriage license is issued by the state, it's only a "marriage" in the eyes of those involved. If you get married in the Church and don't get a license, it's NOT a legal marriage.

So long as marriage is also a legal status, the Church has no business preventing gays from marrying (civil marriage).

The argument you seem to be putting forth, and many (myself included) would support it, is for a separate legal term for civil marriage FOR ALL PEOPLE, not just gays. Let the Church keep marriage as a sacrament...but then ALL civil "marriages" would be termed something else (unions, for eg). What can't be done is to have civil marriage remain "marriage" for hetero couples, but be "unions" for gay ones.
"Same, but different" doesn't cut it.

Imagine if immigrants seeking and qualifying for Canadian citizenship were told "well, you won't be called a "citizen", we're going to call you something else...but don't worry, it's the same thing". that wouldn't fly either.

what's worse here is that it's Christian morality that's at the root of this dispute...speaking of which, I posted this in another thread from yesterday's Toronto Star:

quote:

Tory evasive over comments Jan. 12, 2006. 11:16 PM KEVIN MCGRAN STAFF REPORTER Conservative candidate Rondo Thomas refused to answer questions yesterday about his comments that describe same-sex marriage issues as a battle between �righteousness� and �immorality.� �Show some respect,� Thomas said as he drove away from a Star reporter and photographer, refusing to say whether he stood by the comments captured on video last February, and whether he�d been ordered by Conservative party headquarters to remain tight-lipped. Thomas, an evangelical minister, missed two all-candidates debates this week in Ajax-Pickering just as Liberal incumbent Mark Holland posted Thomas�s video on his campaign website. On the video, Thomas says: �There is going to be a clash of morality views between those who believe in righteousness and those who believe in immorality and when we collide there is going to be conflict.�

so it is "fear mongering" to suggest that there is an element in the CPC that is pushing morality?

I suppose we could argue that there are some in Liberal party that is pushing their brand of morality.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 u are a professional dj right?

A professional?
It's just a hobby for me. Music is something I will enjoy regardless of who gets elected. It is not a long term thing for me - nor is living in Toronto, for that matter!

In any case - assuming that because someone enjoys clubbing or DJing, clubbing is their only political priority is totally ridiculous.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.