Become a part of the TranceAddict community!Frequently Asked Questions - Please read this if you haven'tSearch the forums
TranceAddict Forums > Local Scene Info / Discussion / EDM Event Listings > Canada > Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont. > Why Stephen Harper won't win the election...
Pages (17): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »   Last Thread   Next Thread
Share
Author
Thread    Post A Reply
djeso
.: Secret Society :.



Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada

quote:
Originally posted by Cosmic Fur
Coupled with your post in "waitresses r people too" thread, I sense some anger in you, young Jedi.


that wasn't me posting i gotta learn to log out when I have drunken friends over

LMFAO at young Jedi


___________________
Great Music Stations: 2HP.ca Radio & etn.fm

Last edited by djeso on Dec-03-2005 at 07:27

Old Post Dec-03-2005 07:16  Poland
Click Here to See the Profile for djeso Click here to Send djeso a Private Message Visit djeso's homepage! Add djeso to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Dj Smitty20
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Nov 2002
Location: your toilet

Stephen Harper is my biggest obstacle in voting Conservative to be honest. He is just too far to the right on certain social issues where I find myself leaning toward the left. Why do people care so much about gay marriage! Geez.

Now, if the Tories would just reform a bit and make their platform about:

-maintaining and improving healthcare (limited privatisation),
- wise tax cuts where applicable/possible WITHOUT favouring big business,
- not getting too far up the Yanks' arses
- emphasising Canadian culture (ie, our roots, none of this holiday tree crap! drawing the lind FIRMLY in the sand concering religious freedom) instead of pandering to every pressure and immigrant group like the Liberals and NDP
- limiting immigration big time
- accepting gay marriages and abortion
- a much stronger committment to the JOKE that is our armed forces

Then I would surely vote for them. Trouble is, their leadership is based too much in the west and have social values that I deem a bit scary. They have to recognise that to succeed, they're going to need a leader from Ontario who can't be linked to some crazy church group and is actually socially MODERATE.

Bring the party a bit more to the left and they'd do better. With Harper, it's not going to happen.


___________________
"No offense, but you're stupid"

Old Post Dec-03-2005 10:23  Canada
Click Here to See the Profile for Dj Smitty20 Click here to Send Dj Smitty20 a Private Message Visit Dj Smitty20's homepage! Add Dj Smitty20 to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
TheVrk
Mediterranean Canadian



Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Windsor, Canada

Steven Harper, plain and simple, is fucking ridiculous

Old Post Dec-03-2005 11:22  Croatia
Click Here to See the Profile for TheVrk Click here to Send TheVrk a Private Message Visit TheVrk's homepage! Add TheVrk to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Allegory
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Mar 2004
Location: deep within the confines of your fragile little mind...

I'm pretty sure I remember the conservatives launching this poster campaign emphasizing the value of family, and the poster illustrated all these happy couples holing hands and families with children, with this tagline basically meant to convey that "this" was the way the nuclear family should be. Definitely meant to dissuade people from accepting gay courtship. I'm pretty sure it was during Stockwell Day's tenure.

I'm trying to find it...


___________________
"It's too cerebral, man! We're trying to make a movie, not a film!!!!!!" - Kit Ramsey

Old Post Dec-03-2005 15:41 
Click Here to See the Profile for Allegory Click here to Send Allegory a Private Message Add Allegory to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
DigiNut
You kids get off my lawn!



Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto, Self-proclaimed Centre of the Universe

quote:
Originally posted by Allegory
Lets be honest. Our scandal pales in comparison to what's happening in many countries. If it wasn't the gomery inquiry, people would be going off on something else.

There are literally millions of people swimming in corrutpion far more grand then we could possibly ever fathom; perhaps we should look to our neighbours to the south. People are dying everyday. Most Afrcian countries don't even have a government to speak of, let alone know the meaning of democracy.

let's be honest people, what we deal with is small potatoes. And you can be as disgruntled as you'd like, but I'm sure there are many people who would do anything to switch places with a Canadian.

That's all I have to say. discussion closed for me.

Oh, this old story again. Corruption in the LPC isn't as bad as the corruption in the totalitarian 3rd-world dictatorships, so let's vote them back in again!

I'm sorry but what are you on? Small potatoes? We're talking about billions of dollars here that's been taken out of our own pockets. If you ask me, that's EXACTLY what's happening in the dictatorships across the world - the only difference is that most of us had more money in our pockets to begin with.

Who the fuck cares what's happening in Africa? This is a Canadian election, and we're supposed to be voting for the person who best represents OUR interests. It's great that we're doing better than Nigeria and Paraguay, but we're really pretty far behind the rest of the G8, and the Lieberals aren't going to bring us ahead.

Stockwell Day was the CA, which is not nearly the same party as the Conservatives. Stockwell Day is not Stephen Harper. Brian Mulroney is not Stephen Harper. And if Harper did care *that* much about family values to make it a centerpiece of his platform (which he hasn't done), I would consider that a good thing because it's the sorry state of family values that's responsible for so much crime and poverty in the big Canadian cities.

Tell me, why exactly do you "shudder" at the thought of Harper leading this country? What is that based on, other than an obvious knee-jerk reaction to any Conservative?


___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Old Post Dec-03-2005 16:10  Canada
Click Here to See the Profile for DigiNut Click here to Send DigiNut a Private Message Add DigiNut to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Allegory
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Mar 2004
Location: deep within the confines of your fragile little mind...

This is the man you want to elect...

And the last I heard this was a forum where insults were suposed to be limited.

Of course I guess old habits die hard diginut...

Please read this carefully, and process the kind of leader you'd like to elect. I can pull up many articles to back up my "shuddering views" of this party.

And like I said, this is my opinion.

Harper is not being "completely honest"
Challenge from 133 experts in Canada's universities

"Have we no respect for the rule of law? . . . We are supposed to be the party that stands for the rights of individuals. Times have changed and it's time we changed with them."
Marie-Josee Lapointe, former press secretary to Tory Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, "Harper's gay marriage strategy exposes rift among Conservatives", CP, Jan. 27, 2005

Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative Party, is not being "completely honest" with Canadians about his strategy to fight same-sex marriage. His disingenuous approach conveniently ignores the unconstitutional foundation it is based on.

The Vancouver Sun (Jan. 24) and Toronto Star (Jan. 25) call Harper's approach a "dishonest strategy". The Victoria Times Colonist (Jan. 25, 2005) wrote of "hollow brinkmanship ... He should acknowledge, therefore, that if Parliament denies same-sex marriage rights to all Canadians, the courts will give it to them."

This afternoon in a news conference Harper confirmed he won't use the notwithstanding clause, and he claims his party has "sought legal advice" and Conservative party lawyers support his strategy. Harper apparently should send his lawyers back to school.

Today 133 law professors, including Deans of Law, from Canada's universities, coast to coast, issued a letter challenging Harper to drop the pretense and deliver some straight talk about gay marriage. Harper has a long history of hidden agendas, apparently lacking the courage to be upfront about his radical right-wing agenda aimed at attacking Charter rights and freedoms.

Open Letter to The Hon. Stephen Harper from Law Professors Regarding Same-Sex Marriage

The Hon. Stephen Harper
Leader of the Opposition

Dear Mr. Harper,

The federal government has made it clear that it intends to introduce legislation in the House of Commons to extend to same-sex couples the right to marry. You have indicated that you oppose this legislation, and intend to propose amendments to limit the definition of marriage to only opposite sex couples. You also stated that it would not be legally necessary to use the Charter's notwithstanding clause to protect a statutory definition of marriage that excludes same sex couples. As law professors, we strenuously disagree. You must be completely honest with Canadians about the unconstitutionality of your proposal, which will only guarantee that same sex marriage ends up back before the courts as opposed to being resolved by Parliament. Your position is surprising for someone who has constantly defended the preeminence of Parliament.

Even though the Supreme Court of Canada did not address this issue in the recent same-sex marriage reference, courts in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and the Yukon are now unanimously of the view that a definition of marriage that excludes same-sex couples is unconstitutional. The consensus of constitutional experts is that these decisions are correct. You must explain to Canadians how your plan to entrench the traditional definition of marriage will pass constitutional muster. The truth is, there is only one way to accomplish your goal: invoke the notwithstanding clause. Premier Klein has been honest with Canadians on this subject. You must be completely candid with Canadians as well.

If Parliament were to adopt your proposal and define marriage to exclude same sex couples, this legislation would very quickly end up in court, and be struck down as unconstitutional. However, the Charter allows Parliament to have the last word on many issues of fundamental rights, through the notwithstanding clause. Frankly, we do not think this is an appropriate case for the use of this extraordinary provision. However, if you believe that same-sex couples should be prohibited from getting married, you should propose legislative amendments that include a notwithstanding provision.

The fact that you want Parliament to enact clearly unconstitutional legislation and adopt the traditional definition of marriage without using the notwithstanding clause leads us to suspect that you are playing politics with the Supreme Court and the Charter. The use of the notwithstanding clause would have to be justified to Canadians, who overwhelmingly support the Charter. Not using the notwithstanding clause therefore protects opponents of same sex marriage from political controversy. And if the Supreme Court judgment struck down the opposite sex definition of marriage, opponents of same sex marriage would blame the Court for challenging Parliament's will.

In short, those who oppose same sex marriage without supporting the use of the notwithstanding clause are shifting political accountability from themselves to the Supreme Court. Rather than ending the Supreme Court's involvement, it would further embroil the Court in this issue. You should either invoke the use of the notwithstanding clause, and justify this decision to Canadians, or concede that same-sex marriage is now part of Canada's legal landscape. If you intend to override Canadians' constitutional rights, you at least owe it to them to say this openly and directly. Canadians deserve better.

Sincerely,

Professor Sujit Choudhry, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Professor Jean-François Gaudreault-DesBiens, Faculty of Law

Additional co-signers:

Professor Wendy Adams, Faculty of Law, McGill University
Professor Sharryn Aiken, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University Professor Jennifer Bankier, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professor Benjamin Alarie, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Reem Bahdi, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professeur André Bélanger, Faculté de droit, Université Laval Professor D. G. Bell, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick Professeure Marie-Claire Belleau, Faculté de droit, Université Laval Professor Benjamin Berger, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria Professor Jeff Berryman, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professor W. A. Bogart, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professeur Thierry Bourgoignie, Département des sciences juridiques, UQAM
Professor Susan Boyd, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia Professor Kim Brooks, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia Professor Jutta Brunnée, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Karen Busby, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba Professor Gillian Calder, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria Professor Angela Campbell, Faculty of Law, McGill University Professor Timothy Caulfield, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta Professor Aloke Chatterjee, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick
Professor Rebecca Cook, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Brenda Cossman, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professeure Gisèle Côté-Harper, Faculté de droit, Université Laval Professor Steve Coughlan, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professor Carys Craig, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University Professeur Francois Crépeau, Faculté de droit, Université de Montréal
Professor Robert J. Currie, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professeur Hugo Cyr, Faculté de science politique et de droit, UQAM. Dean Ronald Daniels, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Professor T. Brettel Dawson, Department of Law, Carleton University Professor Maneesha Deckha, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria Professeure Édith Deleury, Faculté de droit, Université Laval Professor Thomas J. Denholm, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professor Richard Devlin, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professor Aaron Dhir, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professor Bernard Dickens, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Meinhard Doelle, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professor Susan Drummond, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
Professeur Nicole Duplé, Faculté de droit, Université Laval
Professor David G. Duff, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor David Dyzenhaus, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Lisa Karen Fainstein, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba
Professor Angela Fernandez, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor M. Michelle Gallant, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba Professor Daphne Gilbert, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa Professor Joan Gilmour, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University Professeure Michelle Giroux, Faculté de droit, Section de droit civil, Université d'Ottawa
Professor Myron Gochnauer, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick
Professor Randal Graham, Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario
Professor Leslie Green, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University Professor Donna Greschner, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan
Professeure Sylvette Guillemard, Faculté de droit, Université Laval Professeure Paule Halley, Faculté de droit, Université Laval
Professor Winifred Holland, Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario
Dean Patricia Hughes, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary
Professor Allan Hutchinson, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
Professor Frederick Innis, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba Professeur Pierre Issalys, Faculté de droit, Université Laval
Professor Martha Jackman, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa Professor Richard Janda, Faculty of Law, McGill University
Professor Rebecca Johnson, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria Professor Darlene Johnston, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Larissa Katz, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University
Professeur Pierre-Claude Lafond, Science politique et droit, UQAM Professeur Christelle Landheer-Cieslak, Faculté de droit, Université Laval
Professeure Louise Langevin, Faculté de droit, Université Laval Professeur André Lareau, Faculté de droit, Université Laval Professeure Sophie Lavallée, Faculté de droit, Université Laval Professeure Nicole LaViolette, Common Law, Université d'Ottawa Professeur Sébastien Lebel-Grenier, Faculté de droit, Université de Sherbrooke
Doyen Pierre Lemieux, Faculté de droit, Université Laval
Professor Trudo Lemmens, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professeure Katherine Lippel, Faculté de science politique et de droit, UQAM
Professor Jennifer Llewellyn, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professor A. Wayne MacKay, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professor Patrick Macklem, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Audrey Macklin, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Kathleen Mahoney, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary Professor Carissima Mathen, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick
Professor Brian M. Mazer, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professor Heather McLeod-Kilmurray, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
Professor Kent McNeil, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University Professor Errol Mendes, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa Professor Armand de Mestral, Faculty of Law, McGill University Professor Sophia Reibetanz Moreau, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Professor Mayo Moran, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professeur Christine Morin, Faculté de droit, Université Laval Professor Ronalda Murphy, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professor Roxanne Mykitiuk, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
Professor Jennifer Nedelsky, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Ken Norman, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan Professeur Geneviève Parent, Faculté de droit, Université Laval Professor Debra Parkes, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba Professor Karen Pearlston, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick
Professor Steven Penney, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick
Professor Lisa Philipps, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University
Dr. Jo-Anne Pickel, Department of Law, Carleton University
Professor Sukanya Pillay, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professor Michael Pratt, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University
Doyen Daniel Proulx, Faculté de droit, Université de Sherbrooke Professor René Provost, Faculty of Law, McGill University
Professor Melanie Randall, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick
Professor Denise Réaume, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Arthur Ripstein, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Annie Rochette, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia
Professor Carol Rogerson, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professeure Louise Rolland, Faculté de droit, Université de Montréal Professeur Alain Roy, Faculté de droit, Université de Montréal Professor Bruce Ryder, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University Professor Teresa Scassa, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professor David Schneiderman, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Jennifer Schulz, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba Professor Martha Shaffer, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Colleen Sheppard, Faculty of Law, McGill University Professor Barney Sneiderman, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba Professor Daniel Soberman, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University Professor Lorne Sossin, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor Hamish Stewart, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto Professor James Stribopoulos, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta Professor David Tanovich, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professor Myra J. Tawfik, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professor Lorna Turnbull, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba Professor Marcia Valiante, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professeur Jean-Pierre Villaggi, Faculté de science politique et de droit, UQAM
Professor Rose Voyvodic, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor Professor Rosemary Cairns Way, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa Professor Michelle Williams, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professor John A. Yogis, Faculty of Law, Dalhousie University Professor Claire Young, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia
Professor Margot Young, Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia
Professor Frederick Zemans, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University


___________________
"It's too cerebral, man! We're trying to make a movie, not a film!!!!!!" - Kit Ramsey

Old Post Dec-03-2005 16:27 
Click Here to See the Profile for Allegory Click here to Send Allegory a Private Message Add Allegory to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
moneyman
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada

quote:
Originally posted by Abercrombie
I see people are scared of her. And you're dead wrong. I did not vote conservative.

I always voted for the best person in my riding, and never cared which political party the person I vote for represents. I vote for the person who will speak out on my behalf, who wants to make a change and do something for the region I live in. I didn't vote for her a year and a half ago, because she was new to the scene and inexperienced.

I'd never vote for a backbencher who sits on his ass, because he's a member of an admirable party.

Harper didn't give a rat's ass about her opinions and her ambitions, so it's her old party's fault she left, not hers.

You vote for party? You take that risk of party migration. You vote for a candidate, that person will still work for you. That is why it's the name that's in big bold letters on the ballot, and not the party.


Buddy i dont know what sort of contorted view of reality you have, and judging by you avatar which im assuming is you your a little older and should have realized by now, unless your clueless, not a single politician really gives a rats ass about you or me or anyone else. They care about votes, so dont even kid yourself if you think any of these people are "speaking out on your behalf". Its about votes and which one of them can get into office and find a loop hole in the system to get themselves some extra cash and get a new Benz.

So no matter who you vote for your not gooing to see them do much of what they promise they will, and your just gonna bitch about it in the end anyway.

Last edited by moneyman on Dec-03-2005 at 16:36

Old Post Dec-03-2005 16:31 
Click Here to See the Profile for moneyman Click here to Send moneyman a Private Message Add moneyman to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
DigiNut
You kids get off my lawn!



Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto, Self-proclaimed Centre of the Universe

quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Mr. Harper (regardless of his merit as a policywog) suffers from a severe lack of style.

While I do believe that he doesn't play the game as well as a party leader should, I'm not sure if it's as severe as some people believe. Have you watched him speak, either in a campaign speech or in parliament, or are you making assumptions based on second-hand information (such as the news media or your peers)?

If you've seen it firsthand, and that's what you believe, then you're entitled to that and I certainly won't press on that issue; however, I think a lot of what we're seeing is exactly what happened with the Kerry vs. Bush campaign in the U.S. The mass media loved (and still loves) to portray Bush as a cowboy who can barely speak English and any competing Democrat (in that case Kerry) as an incredibly well-spoken individual just oozing with great ideas and hard-hitting arguments. But in reality it was the other way around - Bush did screw up from time to time but it was Kerry who really kept putting his foot in his mouth, he couldn't even keep his platform consistent from one day to the next. All he did was bash the Republicans no matter what they did.

Anyway, that may seem like an irrelevant diversion into U.S. politics, but the point I'm making is that Americans actually watched the campaign first-hand and voted based on that. The rest of the world, especially most Canadians, just heard about the campaign filtered through the news media and to this date still believe that Bush has a sub-moronic IQ and that only the "rednecks" voted for him. Harper really isn't that terrible a speaker - he's actually pretty good, even if he's not as suave as Trudeau or Clinton. I'd put him at least on par with Martin, who certainly isn't a public speaking genius.

My problem with Harper is that he's adopting the same pathetic strategy that the Democrats used in the U.S. election - he's just relentlessly attacking the Liberals without addressing the real issues and giving us some numbers and a real agenda. It's too easy for people to talk about his "hidden agenda" when he doesn't tell us his real agenda. And when he does talk about his agenda, it seems to suck, i.e. lowering the GST instead of income tax. But even with that, he *is* just playing the game, because Canadians are accustomed to income tax but everybody hates the GST. So I have reason to be critical of Harper because he doesn't seem to be taking a very fiscally conservative position, but I think he actually IS "playing the game" for all the Joe Sixpacks out there - the problem is, nobody's listening, because after 12 years of Liberal leadership they've simply come to accept the Liberal party as the natural governing party of Canada.


___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Old Post Dec-03-2005 16:31  Canada
Click Here to See the Profile for DigiNut Click here to Send DigiNut a Private Message Add DigiNut to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
DigiNut
You kids get off my lawn!



Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto, Self-proclaimed Centre of the Universe

quote:
Originally posted by Allegory
And the last I heard this was a forum where insults were suposed to be limited.

Of course I guess old habits die hard diginut...

Please point me to the insult, because I'm not seeing it. It's starting to look like any real debate is an "insult" to you.

And yes, I read the whiney letter about same-sex marriage. I really don't care. Honestly, it's really not that important an issue compared to our economy, our international relations, and government corruption. It affects maybe 1% of the population. He's barely even mentioned the issue.

All Harper even wants to do is put to a vote. I'm not going to debate here whether or not gays "should" have the "right" to marry - let's just hypothetically say that yes, they should. Fine, but the courts still overstepped their bounds trying to force the issue, and it does involve a constitutional change, which is something that's supposed to be put to a referendum.

Is this an unpopular move for Harper? Definitely. Is it morally wrong? Maybe. Is it really that important? Hardly. It affects neither you nor I nor 99% of Canadians. Milking billions of dollars out of our pockets affects us. Liberal tax-and-spend policies affects us. 6-month waiting lists at hospitals affects us. Gay marriage as a "hot-button" issue is something I really lost interest in about 6 months ago.

Harper SHOULD just let it go, but his stance on that is not going to deter me from the real issues (mainly the LPC's racketeering and how he plans to reform the government, pay off our debt, balance our budget and lower our taxes).


___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Old Post Dec-03-2005 16:44  Canada
Click Here to See the Profile for DigiNut Click here to Send DigiNut a Private Message Add DigiNut to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Allegory
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Mar 2004
Location: deep within the confines of your fragile little mind...

quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
Please point me to the insult, because I'm not seeing it. It's starting to look like any real debate is an "insult" to you.

And yes, I read the whiney letter about same-sex marriage. I really don't care. Honestly, it's really not that important an issue compared to our economy, our international relations, and government corruption. It affects maybe 1% of the population. He's barely even mentioned the issue.

All Harper even wants to do is put to a vote. I'm not going to debate here whether or not gays "should" have the "right" to marry - let's just hypothetically say that yes, they should. Fine, but the courts still overstepped their bounds trying to force the issue, and it does involve a constitutional change, which is something that's supposed to be put to a referendum.

Is this an unpopular move for Harper? Definitely. Is it morally wrong? Maybe. Is it really that important? Hardly. It affects neither you nor I nor 99% of Canadians. Milking billions of dollars out of our pockets affects us. Liberal tax-and-spend policies affects us. 6-month waiting lists at hospitals affects us. Gay marriage as a "hot-button" issue is something I really lost interest in about 6 months ago.

Harper SHOULD just let it go, but his stance on that is not going to deter me from the real issues (mainly the LPC's racketeering and how he plans to reform the government, pay off our debt, balance our budget and lower our taxes).



I guess this is where we differ greatly. I do deam moral issues as being important. It paints the identity of this country, and it is imperative that we maintain a mandate of equality.

I am well aware that the liberals have done something awful, but I sincerely believe the same will occur with the conservatives, and that is absolute. I can post many proven conservative failures of years past, provincially and federally. but it will not do anything. Peple will still balk at me and come up with some piece of contradiction.

Evey party has its bout of corruption, and the only reason the liberals are in the spotlight is that they got caught. Please, you really think Harper is using this because he cares about the rest of Canada! c'mon.

Gilles Duceppe may be the only person who actually cares how this affects people, for he is the only won made a fuss before anyone who listened. I am a leftist with pragmatic views, and so far even the NDP fails to see reality.

We will never have exactly what we want, especially in the area of taxes, money, anything financial. If one wants utopia, move to Sweden

Politics is what it has always been, a game of ego and very good performing. What we as Canadians have to start doing, is measure what is important to us, and not conforming to what should be valued. We sit here and banter on forums, but we don't appeal to the system, because it would take actual work! weeks, months, even years of work.


___________________
"It's too cerebral, man! We're trying to make a movie, not a film!!!!!!" - Kit Ramsey

Old Post Dec-03-2005 17:04 
Click Here to See the Profile for Allegory Click here to Send Allegory a Private Message Add Allegory to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
DigiNut
You kids get off my lawn!



Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto, Self-proclaimed Centre of the Universe

quote:
Originally posted by Allegory
I am well aware that the liberals have done something awful, but I sincerely believe the same will occur with the conservatives, and that is absolute. I can post many proven conservative failures of years past, provincially and federally. but it will not do anything. Peple will still balk at me and come up with some piece of contradiction.

Evey party has its bout of corruption, and the only reason the liberals are in the spotlight is that they got caught. Please, you really think Harper is using this because he cares about the rest of Canada! c'mon.

If you can come up with a list of scandals perpetrated by the Conservatives that comes even close to what we've seen from the Liberals in the last 10 years, I will bow to your position and vote Liberal in the upcoming election. To say that they're only in the spotlight because they got caught... if you are unable or unwilling to infer whether or not someone is trustworthy based on real, tangible evidence, then you really shouldn't vote.

I wouldn't be too worried about our "identity" either. We're already the laughing stock of the rest of the world because we have no military and our "culture" is just a balkanized version of the USA. I'll vote for the candidate who can recognize the difference between equal opportunity and equal results.

And Sweden = utopia? Was that a joke? Do I look like a Socialist to you? Utopia to me is a place with no taxes and no government programs except for the police, the courts, and the military. I may never see that in my lifetime but I can at least vote for the government that will take us one step closer instead of 10 steps further away.


quote:
We sit here and banter on forums, but we don't appeal to the system, because it would take actual work! weeks, months, even years of work.

Speak for yourself.


___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Old Post Dec-03-2005 17:16  Canada
Click Here to See the Profile for DigiNut Click here to Send DigiNut a Private Message Add DigiNut to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Wyndham
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Toronto

great posts diginut

Old Post Dec-03-2005 18:18  England
Click Here to See the Profile for Wyndham Click here to Send Wyndham a Private Message Add Wyndham to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message

TranceAddict Forums > Local Scene Info / Discussion / EDM Event Listings > Canada > Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont. > Why Stephen Harper won't win the election...
Post New Thread    Post A Reply

Pages (17): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »  
Last Thread   Next Thread
Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackRichie hawtin @ moscow. [2005] [0]

Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackRONSKI SPEED feat MQUE - Are You? (Sun Decade dub) [2009]

Show Printable Version | Subscribe to this Thread
Forum Jump:

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:39.

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
 
Search this Thread:

 
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict

Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
Support TA!