|
Why Stephen Harper won't win the election... (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| moneyman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abercrombie
I'm a moron if I vote for Belinda Stronach... plain and simple, no matter what half of my brain im using, there is no better choice in my region. No matter which party she's with, like it or not, Daddy will pay for her campaign. |
Interesting reason for chosing to vote for her! |
|
|
| Chiclet |
Someone said earlier that LGBTs only make up 1% of the population? More like 10% or more.
A lot of big corporations have picked up on the fact that a lot of people in the gay community have money, power, and sway... that's why Pride has been so heavily corporate sponsored as of late. A lot of those people probably vote, too... maybe even a majority of them, since one of the Conservative election issues deals directly with their rights.
So, 10% of people can have a LOT of sway when we're looking at minority governments. If Harper loses, this might be a big reason why.
I think a lot of people are afraid of having a conservative government led by Harper, whether those fears are valid or not, they'll probably vote for Martin, even though they might think he's a dickwad. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Allegory
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. |
Having gay unions named civil union instead of marriage is much much less demoralizing than having a party steal and embezzle hundreds of millions of dollars and then pull slight of hand tricks with the public in order to make them think they are honest again.
Ill take the conservatives over the liberals at this point, any day. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Allegory
We will never have exactly what we want, especially in the area of taxes, money, anything financial. If one wants utopia, move to Sweden
|
Ask our resident swede about this one. Even in the left wing utopia they have gone to a system of mixed private and public health care. Even sweden has realized that 100% public is unsustainable. When will Canada ever figure this out? |
|
|
| EvilTree |
Has anyone actually seen Harper talk about gay marriage issue in this campaign?
I haven't... |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
Has anyone actually seen Harper talk about gay marriage issue in this campaign?
I haven't... |
me neither. He mentioned it once when asked by a CBC reporter and said the same thing as he's always said. "He would let the elected parliament decide instead of a court ruling by an unelected judge" |
|
|
| Chiclet |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
me neither. He mentioned it once when asked by a CBC reporter and said the same thing as he's always said. "He would let the elected parliament decide instead of a court ruling by an unelected judge" |
That was after he realized how it could affect his votes. It's his a safe, empty answer. Before that, he wouldn't hesitate to state he would push against same-sex marriage... saying it threatens the "sanctity" of marriage and it may lead to moves to legalize polygamy and even worse things.
Whether he claims to leave it to a free vote or not, many gay people aren't likely going to vote for somebody who they know is against gay marriage. It doesn't matter if he said it explicity during this campaign. People know how he feels about the issue and many will vote accordingly. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Chiclet
That was after he realized how it could affect his votes. It's his a safe, empty answer. Before that, he wouldn't hesitate to state he would push against same-sex marriage... saying it threatens the "sanctity" of marriage and it may lead to moves to legalize polygamy and even worse things.
Whether he claims to leave it to a free vote or not, many gay people aren't likely going to vote for somebody who they know is against gay marriage. It doesn't matter if he said it explicity during this campaign. People know how he feels about the issue and many will vote accordingly. |
I think those are his personal views which is fine. It doesnt mean he will let it affect his policy other than to bring it to a democratic vote in parliament. Chretien was a "devout" catholic which by very definition means he should be against abortion but you never saw any fuss about that.
Why the double standard? |
|
|
| Chiclet |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
I think those are his personal views which is fine. It doesnt mean he will let it affect his policy other than to bring it to a democratic vote in parliament. Chretien was a "devout" catholic which by very definition means he should be against abortion but you never saw any fuss about that.
Why the double standard? |
Because Chretien and Martin never hinted at using the notwithstanding clause to remove rights to same-sex marriage. |
|
|
| Chiclet |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
I think those are his personal views which is fine. It doesnt mean he will let it affect his policy other than to bring it to a democratic vote in parliament. Chretien was a "devout" catholic which by very definition means he should be against abortion but you never saw any fuss about that. |
Also, Chretien was adamant about keeping church and state separate. |
|
|
| Allegory |
Getting back to my earlier post regarding the letter that was written and backed by several law faculties in Canada, I think he realises it's it's the law of the land, and therefore, a dead issue.
Harper has more pressing issues to urge, first and foremost the sponsorship scandal to all Canadians and how he will not betray them.
I am not a liberal, I am a Leftist.
By request, speaking of conservative scandals, here is one for you to read:
Critics shocked by hydro deals |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Chiclet
Because Chretien and Martin never hinted at using the notwithstanding clause to remove rights to same-sex marriage. |
i think it was the media that insinuated that more than harper. Remember the left leaning media likes to paint him as a bogeyman. I honestly cant see any changes to the present state of marriage other than that it will have been endorsed by parliament |
|
|
|
|
