TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Why Stephen Harper won't win the election...
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 »

I realise what you're saying Jayx1, but whether it's provincial, municipal, or federal, they are part of the conservatives.

Let us recount the lies told by Ernie Eves about how deeply in deficit we were before the last provincial election. I will not get the articles because I'm sure that if you follow politics, it will be fresh in your memory, and is accessible online.

Stephen Harper may not have caused scandal yet, but the conservatives are notorious for bad spending in Ontario under mike harris, in saskatchewan in the 80's and before the NDP made it's mark, and under mulroney. I can also point to the MFP scandal under mayor lastman.

anyway, I've had my fill of this discussion. Political issues will always have points of contention, and I've exhausted my interest.

Let's not forget the main purpose of media is to make money.

Nothing gets people to pay attention to media like controversial issue. I think some reporter decided to put gay marriage issue up front, even if Harper didn't say it.

Haven't heard other party leaders say much about gay marriage either, other than some non response to a reporter asking.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree Let's not forget the main purpose of media is to make money.

...and it shouldn't be. It's amazing how a country which prides itself on it's so-called freedom has such biased, self-interested media, as compared to a country like Poland, or many other Eastern European nations, where the media is usually on the people's side. And they do what they're supposed to do: report news.

quote:

Originally posted by Chiclet One more thing about putting it to a free vote: Many gays probably don't want their now established right to marriage to be put on the line. A liberal gov't would probably leave them and let them get married Chretien said something like human rights of a minority should not be decided in a referendum by the majority. I do agree however, that the left-wing media can be pretty biased in their representation. But anyways, as I was saying, if Harper loses, it could well be because he lost most of the gay vote.

The problem is that this was determined by the courts. The whole charter system is fundementally flawed and undemocratic. I think this is the surface of a much deeper problem. Unfortunately its the gay marriage debate that so clearly illustrates it.

ANd by redefining marriage as a civil union nobody's rights would be violated. The union would have exact same weighting as marriage except that the union could not be forced upon a church to perform the ceremony like same sex marriage has the potential to be.

Some people are already taking churches to court because they refuse to marry gays citing the charter for their rights. This is mainly where most canadians oppose gay marriage. Its not that they oppose gays being married, its the justified worry that it will lead to a loss of freedom of religion. Of course the media will never give you that angle of the story. All they want to project is fear.

quote:

Originally posted by Allegory I realise what you're saying Jayx1, but whether it's provincial, municipal, or federal, they are part of the conservatives. Let us recount the lies told by Ernie Eves about how deeply in deficit we were before the last provincial election. I will not get the articles because I'm sure that if you follow politics, it will be fresh in your memory, and is accessible online. Stephen Harper may not have caused scandal yet, but the conservatives are notorious for bad spending in Ontario under mike harris, in saskatchewan in the 80's and before the NDP made it's mark, and under mulroney. I can also point to the MFP scandal under mayor lastman. anyway, I've had my fill of this discussion. Political issues will always have points of contention, and I've exhausted my interest.

If thats the case then and we are linking provincial to federal politics, then lets talk about lying Dalton McGuinty's track record.

I'll take good ole Ernie any day of the week.

quote:

Originally posted by Allegory I realise what you're saying Jayx1, but whether it's provincial, municipal, or federal, they are part of the conservatives. Let us recount the lies told by Ernie Eves about how deeply in deficit we were before the last provincial election. I will not get the articles because I'm sure that if you follow politics, it will be fresh in your memory, and is accessible online. Stephen Harper may not have caused scandal yet, but the conservatives are notorious for bad spending in Ontario under mike harris, in saskatchewan in the 80's and before the NDP made it's mark, and under mulroney. I can also point to the MFP scandal under mayor lastman.

lol

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 The problem is that this was determined by the courts. The whole charter system is fundementally flawed and undemocratic. I think this is the surface of a much deeper problem. Unfortunately its the gay marriage debate that so clearly illustrates it. ANd by redefining marriage as a civil union nobody's rights would be violated. The union would have exact same weighting as marriage except that the union could not be forced upon a church to perform the ceremony like same sex marriage has the potential to be. Some people are already taking churches to court because they refuse to marry gays citing the charter for their rights. This is mainly where most canadians oppose gay marriage. Its not that they oppose gays being married, its the justified worry that it will lead to a loss of freedom of religion. Of course the media will never give you that angle of the story. All they want to project is fear.

Civil Unions are not the same as marriage. They afford some of the same rights, but not all. And it's not just to do with religion. If you really want, I can find the definition for you... but I'm lazy

And, about the whole "freedom of religion" thing: this echoes the times of interracial marriages not being accepted by religion. Ask Annie, she even has an old Christian teachings book that said that races shouldn't mix! I believe it was published only about 40 years ago...

Allowing gays to be married does not have to take away from "religious freedom". People sue for all sorts of things. As well, allowing gays to marry does not take away from anyone else's rights... in any way.

Oh, and fear mongering goes both ways. I went to an anti-same sex marriage rally and one of the speakers said "You know what happened with the Tsunami? Well, what do you think will happen to us if we let gays marry?! God is trying to tell us something!"

And I saw an full page ad in the Sun saying:

"IT IS CRITICAL THAT YOUR M.P. KNOWS WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE ANTI-MARRIAGE BILL C-38!
*The danger is imminent that politicians will force this anti-marriage legislation through a second reading immediately!
*Our greatest Canadian treasure is about to be dumped into the garbage can of history.
*Tampering with the definition of marriage will spell disaster for the moral and social welfare of our country.
*The suicidal rush to fundamentally change a 6,000 year old institution is the canker that will destroy the roots of Canada�s �living tree�." - Concerned Canadian Parents

I tried looking them up, but the only contact they had was a PO Box. If you really stand by what you say, then why not make yourself open for feedback?

Garbage can of history? Suicidal rush? lol

Anyways, I didn't post here to argue my point of view on this specific issue, but rather one of the reasons why I think Harper might not win the election (the original topic of this thread!): many gays don't agree with him and they have a big enough portion of the vote to make a difference.

As I said before, IMHO, I don't think that the individual rights and freedoms of a group of people should ever be decided in a referendum.

^So it's better if it's arbitrarily defined in a court by few guys? (and girls)?

quote:

Originally posted by Wyndham lol the only reason they have these rights is because martin forced the vote, which was bullshit. If it was done properly by the liberals in the first place, it would never have come to this and would be a non issue for harper. But martin wanted to be known as the PM that legalized it so it was done undemocratically.

Oops, didn't see this right away.

Good point. I agree, mostly.

I was talking about where they stand politically as opposed to personally... and that reason being why I think Harper will likely lose the gay vote and possibly the election, not whether Martin did the most proper job of bringing on gay marriage.

Whether it would have been a non-issue or not for Harper if things happened differently, things happened this way and he made his stance known. Because of that, it will probably affect his votes.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree ^So it's better if it's arbitrarily defined in a court by few guys? (and girls)?

If it has to do with affording basic human rights and not denying them... sometimes, yeah.

Oh, here we go... I'll say it! I think marriage is a right that should be given to every consenting couple who wishes to have it. The existence of that basic right shouldn't be decided by some popularity vote. It should be decided by what is most in-line with extending freedom to our citizens. Oftentimes, what is popular isn't what is best for us. (i.e. racial segregation in the States probably wouldn't have been eliminated as quickly if it were left mere to a 'democratic' vote).

Though we don't have as grand acts of civil disobedience and the way it happened was most certainly rushed, I think that overall, legalizing same-sex marriage has made our country progress, if even by fluke, whether we want it now or not. I can almost guarantee that in 15-20 years, this will be as much of an issue as interracial marriage. That, and many of us will be bragging about how our country was one of the first to do it.

Now that's only my opinion.

PS, I like your tree icon.

Chiclet I agree with you that marriage is something for all people to enjoy. I also agree with you that some religious people are nuts and some are even bigots. However religion is theirs to choose to believe in or not. All im saying is that despite Harper's personal views i doubt highly that gay marriage will be revoked even if the conservatives win.

Will Harper get right up Bush's ass though? I honestly dont' know who I'm voting for....I've always voted Liberal but I just don't feel right doing it again.

Will Harper, for example, put our boys in Iraq? (unlikely given the fact that Canadians are overwhelmingly against that war and that decision would topple his likely minority government)

Will he get Canada back into the missile defence plans with the yanks?

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 Will Harper get right up Bush's ass though? I honestly dont' know who I'm voting for....I've always voted Liberal but I just don't feel right doing it again. Will Harper, for example, put our boys in Iraq? (unlikely given the fact that Canadians are overwhelmingly against that war and that decision would topple his likely minority government) Will he get Canada back into the missile defence plans with the yanks?

At this point he would probably not send anyone to iraq since everyone knows that it was a sham. As for missle defense. Well maybe. But ill postulate this thought. The americans are doing it with or without us. They are using our airspace whether we like it or not. When the americans asked us to sign on they werent asking for much money if any. They wanted to give us the opportunity to have canadian officials present at NORAD overseeing something that ultimatly will affect our airspace as well. Id argue that this actually gives us MORE SOVERIEGNTY that we have now.

Yes missle defense is a big waste of time and money. But id rather have canadians overseeing it and having a say in it than having it us affect us with no monitoring at all.

But of course if you listen to the typical left wing media they would never tell you that side of the story.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Chiclet I agree with you that marriage is something for all people to enjoy. I also agree with you that some religious people are nuts and some are even bigots. However religion is theirs to choose to believe in or not. All im saying is that despite Harper's personal views i doubt highly that gay marriage will be revoked even if the conservatives win.

Yeah, I agree. I also think that a lot of people don't even think it should be up for question, though.

I think many people will be feeling quite ambivalent about who to vote for this time around. It sucks that a lot of us will be voting defensively, no matter what side of the spectrum we're on.

Harper's not going to send troops to Iraq, simply because the CDS will have a fit. I don't think Harper has the balls to stand up to Gen Hillier, nor does Canada have resources to commit to both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Nor to mention highly unpopular with most of Canadian public, even the Conservatives.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree Harper's not going to send troops to Iraq, simply because the CDS will have a fit. I don't think Harper has the balls to stand up to Gen Hillier, nor does Canada have resources to commit to both Afghanistan and Iraq. Nor to mention highly unpopular with most of Canadian public, even the Conservatives.

exactly...

but it doesnt mean the media wont use it as a red herring to try and scare people.

...oh and because he looks like an automoton, robot who freaks me out. Nah I will vote for the underdog, not the dog...the underdog. Every conservative I know, takes a little longer to laugh at jokes, shits more often than most and likes strange sex....maybe I just have wierd friends who just happen to be conservative supporters.

quote:

Originally posted by 7-4-7 ...oh and because he looks like an automoton, robot who freaks me out. Nah I will vote for the underdog, not the dog...the underdog. Every conservative I know, takes a little longer to laugh at jokes, shits more often than most and likes strange sex....maybe I just have wierd friends who just happen to be conservative supporters.

LOL

quote:

Originally posted by 7-4-7 ...oh and because he looks like an automoton, robot who freaks me out. Nah I will vote for the underdog, not the dog...the underdog. Every conservative I know, takes a little longer to laugh at jokes, shits more often than most and likes strange sex....maybe I just have wierd friends who just happen to be conservative supporters.

Great reason to not vote conservative

"he doesnt look cool"

Well i have to say that my mother always told me that usually the least charming people are the most honest ones. ANd from experience shes proven to be right.

Send troops to Iraq? WHAT troops? I think the American troops would rather just do their job than have to bail out the Canadian troops (AKA hostages) once again.

The gay marriage issue was not "progress". An issue that is forced by the courts, who are supposed to be upholding the law instead of making the law, and then forced undemocratically by the government without consent of the people, is not "progress". I would never have had any problem with it, nor would Harper or his government have had any problem with it, if it were put to a vote as it should have been. Our constitutional documents mention nothing about gay marriage - however "right" or "wrong" you think it was to "legalize" it, it's downright sad that "rights" in Canada have become merely a tool for special interest groups to impose their will on the population when they can't push their agenda past a democratic majority.

As for missile defense, I can't believe there are still people out there who have the chutzpah to bitch and moan about the U.S. giving us an opportunity to pay virtually nothing but still be protected by and have partial control over the missile defense system. You think it's a waste of time and money? Compare the costs of building that system to the cost of a missile hitting a major U.S. city. Hopefully Harper will cooperate with the USA if he gets elected because that's what our country SHOULD be doing instead of talking smack about them all the time.

And Mike Harris being responsible for bad spending in Ontario? HAH! Mike Harris was the best thing that's happened to this province in over 20 years - the only problem was that he didn't get to follow his plan through to the end because millions of whiney liberals and trade unions couldn't stand the idea that he was cutting spending on their precious social programs. So they voted in McGuinty, who has so far broken EVERY SINGLE PROMISE he's made (he raised taxes his first day in office for Christ's sake, after specifically promising that he wouldn't), and looks suspiciously like he's about to break yet another promise with the Smart Metering initiative.

Jesus, talk about having the wool pulled over your eyes... I could actually stomach this thread on the first page but now I think the Loony Left has invaded and taken over.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 exactly... but it doesnt mean the media wont use it as a red herring to try and scare people.

Actually Martin's said that few times already...

quote:

Originally posted by 7-4-7 ...oh and because he looks like an automoton, robot who freaks me out.

Didn't seem to bother U.S. Democrats with Al Gore. They still bitched and moaned for 4 years that he didn't win because the election was "rigged". You want to talk about robots, look no further than that guy.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Send troops to Iraq? WHAT troops? I think the American troops would rather just do their job than have to bail out the Canadian troops (AKA hostages) once again.

*thumbs down*

Obviously you don't pay much attention to CAF.

The 'hostage' situation was UNPROFOR back in 94-95. Whole different ball game. Bad mandate and silly rules of engagement is bad mojo for any soldier.

Fast forward to 02 when 3 PPCLI went to Afghanistan, kicked ass and took names. A lot of them. You might remember that Americans decided to give Bronze stars to Canadian snipers.

Also, a Canadian general was deputy commander of a US Corps in Iraq. I dunno about you, but I don't put a foreigner in that kind of position unless you know he's good and the training he has is good.

Just a few examples.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut The gay marriage issue was not "progress". An issue that is forced by the courts, who are supposed to be upholding the law instead of making the law, and then forced undemocratically by the government without consent of the people, is not "progress". I would never have had any problem with it, nor would Harper or his government have had any problem with it, if it were put to a vote as it should have been. Our constitutional documents mention nothing about gay marriage - however "right" or "wrong" you think it was to "legalize" it, it's downright sad that "rights" in Canada have become merely a tool for special interest groups to impose their will on the population when they can't push their agenda past a democratic majority.

At one point, anti-racism groups were seen as 'special interest' groups.

quote:

Originally posted by Chiclet Oftentimes, what is popular isn't what is best for us. (i.e. racial segregation in the States probably wouldn't have been eliminated as quickly if it were left mere to a 'democratic' vote)... ...if even by fluke, whether we want it now or not. I can almost guarantee that in 15-20 years, this will be as much of an issue as interracial marriage.

I never said that the means necessarily justified the ends. It doesn't matter if Harper would have hypothetically cared about the issue or not. What matters to many voters, is that he did made his political stance clear: that if there is any chance for oveturning the legal marriage decision, it would be by voting Conservative.

^It would also be interesting to see what method would Conservatives use to overturn same sex marriage.

Can't do it in House of Commons because Libs, NDP and Bloc support it.
Can't do it in Supreme Court because it's full of Liberal appointees.
Only way is 'not withstanding clause' and that takes a lot of political coin to use, which Conservatives have very little of.
So it would be a political suicide for Conservatives to change what has already gained too much momentum to stop. (barring radical change in Canadian political climate)

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