Election time? - Go now or wait for Gomery?

[camochick]

I think it's funny that people on here are basically calling people who are not into the conservatives a bunch of idiots brainwashed by the liberals. I'm not brainwashed, I watch the news, read the papers, do independant research on things. I even took the time to research the adscam stuff when the publication ban was on. Who is to say that the conservatives won't let the country down. Politicians are politicians no matter what party they are from.

 

[Infanteer]

First off, let's not turn this into a gay marriage debate - I'll simply take that stuff down.

Secondly, Camochick, if you haven't figured it out by now, you are getting tagged for this:

I also don't want them telling me if i can have an abortion or not. I cannot support a group who would rely on the bible to rule the country. I prefer to keep religion and politics seperate.

Are you going to substantiate these statements, despite the fact that the contrary has been pointed out already?

 

[camochick]

Yeah the contrary has been pointed out. I just think that a party can say one thing to get elected and do another once they are actually elected. The liberals said they would get rid of GSt, I'm still paying it. I don't want this to turn into a gay marriage debate, but for me that is a major issue if we go to an election. I don't think that civil unions are good enough, i think that everyone deserves the same rights.

On another note, the prime minister just did a press conferance and said that he will call a confidence vote next week on the budget and if he loses that he is going to call an election.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I'm not brainwashed by the liberals and I don't like the fact that people here are basically calling people who would vote liberal a bunch of brain washed idiots.

How else would you describe people who hold such a strong hatred for a party who haven't even read their platform?  By the way I should add that I'm for gay marriage and abortion, but based on recent policy from the new CPC (influenced in large part by the people like Stronach/McKay), and I would contend they are a very different party than they were only 2 years ago.  It's up to you if you're willing to do the research or not or keep the 'brand' you have identified them with, but if you're going to vote you should do your due diligence. 

Link to the new policy document which was just released on March 19, 2005 and as such hasn't gotten a lot of play in the media yet about what has fundamentally changed:
http://www.conservative.ca/documents/20050319-POLICY DECLARATION.pdf

I should add at the end of the day that means you vote NDP because that's closer to your ideology, knock yourself out, but the Liberal Party (and in particular Paul Martin - see Canadian Steam Ships) has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt they are liars and cannot be trusted.



Matthew.   

P.S.  See link to NDP affiliate site with a pretty accurate chronology of Martin's dealings with Canadian Steamships which lists the money Martin & family pocketed as opposed to paying taxes at $103 million between 1995 and 2002 which was based on a CBC town hall meeting.  Link: http://www.flyourflag.ca/chronology/

 

[George Wallace]

....... Who is to say that the conservatives won't let the country down. Politicians are politicians no matter what party they are from.

Who is to say that they are?  The Lieberals say that, and if you fall for their logic, then we who think differently would naturally come to the logical conclusion that their "Brainwashing" has been successful.  This "Vote for the Devil you know, rather than the Devil you don't know" logic is truly faulty.  Who says the other guy is a Devil; he could be a Saviour.  It amazed me that that saying has such an effect on Canadians voting in the last election, yet they contradicted that philosophy when commenting on the US election, perferring the Devil they didn't know (Keary) over the Devil they did know (Bush).  What a confused lot we are!

I personally don't care how you vote, but hope that you will exercise your rights to make a 'valid' vote, not spoiling your ballot.

 

[Joe Blow]

Are we establishing something close to a consensus that it is time to go to the polls?

[Edit: Curses.. That's what I get for tempting fate and moderators..]

 

[Infanteer]

How else would you describe people who hold such a strong hatred for a party who haven't even read their platform?    By the way I should add that I'm for gay marriage and abortion, but based on recent policy from the new CPC (influenced in large part by the people like Stronach/McKay), and I would contend they are a very different party than they were only 2 years ago.

Same here, I'm all for gays marrying and not touching Morgenthaler - I don't think the Conservatives would do that with the old PC element (Stronach/MacKay - I actually like MacKay and think he'd be better than Harper) in it; the party would melt down if it gave into the small bible-thumping portion.

 

[George Wallace]

I don't think that civil unions are good enough, i think that everyone deserves the same rights.

I look at this as nonsense.  I am about to celebrate my twentieth Anniversary.  We had a Civil Ceremony, no Church ceremony, and it has not affected our marriage.  

On a slightly different tangent......Common law marriages don't even require a Civil ceremony to be considered "Legal".

 

[Reccesoldier]

I can't bring myself to vote for a group of people who want to tell me who I can and can't marry. I also don't want them telling me if i can have an abortion or not. I cannot support a group who would rely on the bible to rule the country. I prefer to keep religion and politics seperate.

From the policy paper:

The Conservative party believes that Parliament through a free vote and not the courts should determine the definition of marriage. A Conservative Government would support the freedom of religious organizations to determine their own practices with respect to marriage.

There is absolutely nothing in the Conservative paper on abortion. AAMOF the leader has said that a conservative government would NOT introduce any legislation with regards to abortion.

As already stated your statement about "rely on the bible to rule the country" is completely off the mark.

 

[PuckChaser]

I can't bring myself to vote for a group of people who want to tell me who I can and can't marry. I also don't want them telling me if i can have an abortion or not. I cannot support a group who would rely on the bible to rule the country. I prefer to keep religion and politics seperate.

I think thats a pretty broad statement, and without links to policy or quotes, you're just tossing flames around.

As to the bible thing, the Republicans in the US are far more Conservatives than our Conservatives, I don't think they'd even try to tamper with abortion or combining Church and State. Opening up those things in this campaign would just ruin their chances for election.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Same here, I'm all for gays marrying and not touching Morgenthaler - I don't think the Conservatives would do that with the old PC element (Stronach/MacKay - I actually like MacKay and think he'd be better than Harper) in it; the party would melt down if it gave into the small bible-thumping portion.

Agreed on MacKay (this time I'll spell it right).  I think he will be PM one day....



M. 

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

On the point of separation of Church and State; it is this Lieberal Government who have crossed the lines.  They have interfered in the Catholic Churches policies on marriage.  They have instructed all CF Chaplains that they"WILL" conduct same sex marriages, even though their Religion may be against it.  They have insisted on the Chaplaincy Corps of the CF change their Cap Badge, due to their false impressions on the significance of the Maltese Cross.  They are the ones interferring in Church policies and politics.

This is exactly the point: having a situtation where the State issues diktats to the Church under the aegis of "separation of Church and State" is hypocricy of the highest order (OTOH, legitimacy and democracy aren't exactly Liberal strong points)!

 

[Reccesoldier]

They have instructed all CF Chaplains that they"WILL" conduct same sex marriages, even though their Religion may be against it.  

George, do you have a source for this? I've heard it before but I've nevwer seen it in writing and I am sent all the CANFORGENS here in D-Land North.

 

[FredDaHead]

I don't think that civil unions are good enough, i think that everyone deserves the same rights.

So, you want religion to stay out of the state, but you want the state to tell religion what to do? How hypocritical is that? What's next? Ordering church officials to sing 'Oh Canada' before each service, and wear maple leafs instead of crosses?

I want religion and state to be separated, because I don't want a skewed interpretation of the Bible to be used to run my country, and I sure as hell don't want the state to tell my church what it can and cannot do. If catholics don't want gay marriage, that's their/our right. But I guess freedom of religion only applies to bringing weapons into schools, and depriving women of their rights, eh? Oh, and of course, giving terrorists a 'get out of jail free' card.

I guess my point more or less ties in with what I_am_John_Galt said... Just needed to vent.

 

[George Wallace]

Don't know of the CANFORGEN, but here are a couple of links dating back to the New Year:

Wed, January 19, 2005


A gay old time on base

New military policy allows chaplains to marry same-sex couples

By KATHLEEN HARRIS, Parliamentary Bureau


 
GAY AND lesbian army couples can now get married on military bases. The Canadian Forces has quietly drafted a policy calling for military chaplains to formally bless same-sex weddings. Guidelines -- considered "interim" until the federal government passes a law redefining marriage -- outline the process for pre-nuptial counselling and using the base chapel for same-sex ceremonies.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/OttawaSun/News/2005/01/19/903105-sun.html

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25879.0.html

 

[Infanteer]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/11/pm-budget050511.html

Well, looks like the 19th is the date set for a real confidence vote.  Looks like the two independents may have some swing - I'm pretty sure Kilgour is pimping out his vote for more leverage in his old party (the guy is a two-time turncoat), but Cadman's vote may be key; he's stated that he'll go with his constituents in Surrey, who he claims have been phoning and emailing him with demands of non-confidence.

Reminds me of something I said almost a year ago:

The Strategic MP; Chuck Cadman:  This is the one that has got me thinking the most, and I haven't seen much about it so far in the media; maybe they'll wise up to it.  A few squeakers in British Columbia finished up in the Conservatives favour, giving them 99 seats in the Commons.  Chuck Cadman, ousted from the Conservative spot in a Surrey riding by another candidate signing up some "instant Conservatives" from his ethnic community, managed to show that alot of residents in his riding still believe in the importance of the term representative in our representative democracy.  Good on them for voting for a candidate that will represent them in Parliament instead of voting for what has become in recent times a party front man.  Cadman has stated that he will poll his constituents to see what party, if any, they are interested in forming; with the way the seats turned out, Cadman can probably have the option of staying neutral and being a factor in the House.  Either way, hopefully he has the stones to keep his word and stay free of a party or go with his constituants wishes, because I guarantee you all three parties would be willing to "buy" him.

Anyways, three big implications from this:

1:  The NDP is not in the strategic position to offer an alliance to form a majority government.  The Liberal 135 and the NDP 19 puts them at 154, one short of the majority government.

2:  If the Conservatives and the Bloq decide to band together on a devolution of power agenda, they would sit at Conservative 99 and Bloq 54: 153, two short of the Majority vote.

3:  Cadman, the swing guy can join his old Conservative Party to bring a Bloq/Conservative alliance up to 154, deadlocking Parliament at a 154:154 tie (assuming the NDP and the Libs get cozy).  What happens with deadlock in Parliament votes anyways?  Alternatively, he could be "bought" with a Cabinet position to bring an NDP/Liberal majority coalition up to the 155 seat critical mass.  This theory may play out, or it may not; the fluidity of a minority government could send this entire theory to the scrap heap.

 

[camochick]

So, you want religion to stay out of the state, but you want the state to tell religion what to do?

I never said anyone should tell the churches what to do.

And it's all good and fine that the conservatives are saying this stuff now, but what happens when they are elected. We have endured many years of politicians saying one thing and doing another. Who really knows what their policies will be like if elected. I for one do not want to find out. To me there isnt really a choice. I guess I will have to follow the election , do my research and then make a decision. 

 

[FredDaHead]

And it's all good and fine that the conservatives are saying this stuff now, but what happens when they are elected. We have endured many years of politicians saying one thing and doing another. Who really knows what their policies will be like if elected. I for one do not want to find out. To me there isnt really a choice. I guess I will have to follow the election , do my research and then make a decision.  

We've been lied to enough by the Liberals, don't you think? Maybe it's time to "give a chance" to someone else, instead of giving a gazillionth chance to the Liberals, no?

If we're gonna get screwed over, why not try something new? Each new term to the liberals gives them more confidence to steal our money.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Brain-washed idiot" is not appropriate simply because someone supports a party other than the CPC.

"Brain-washed idiot" is, however, appropriate for someone who believes in myths about the CPC.

I grew up in the '70s and '80s.  My parents grew up in the '50s and '60s.  My grandparents etc.  I have a pretty good idea how "bad" things were in the "old days".  Tell me, to what decade do you imagine the CPC is going to roll us back?  Are we one CPC majority away from realizing a shift in time and space to Dickensian England or the segregated southern US?  Get real.

I am not sure what opinion I should form of someone who believes that marriage is the defining and pressing federal policy issue of our time.  I expect a rational and intelligent human being to behave like one and accord to matters of the federal state the import they warrant - assuming they are matters of the federal state in the first place.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quotes,
I never said anyone should tell the churches what to do.
I prefer to keep religion and politics seperate.
I can't bring myself to vote for a group of people who want to tell me who I can and can't marry.
Civil unions, what a joke, let's deny a part of the population the rights of another

...is it just me or are you so wound up about the Reform party that you bounce around like a superball where they are concerned?

...so if the churches got together and said they would not marry gays what do you think the govt. should do?....Make them?

Sorry for the off-topic but I think its relevent in the political way she see's the Conservatives.