NEED NEW REFORM PARTY

morfiny

New Member
Sep 7, 2006
2
0
1
Somer of us are at a loss to account for Harper's Folly. He has over recent years slapped down sensible sounds from Toews, Gallant and many another, on the evils of the Supreme Court, on the nonsense of 'gay' rights, on the death penalty and on bilingualism.

Sure, he is now a minority leader in Ottawa, but he even ruled out using 'notwithstanding' to save Canada. He promotes the pinkest elements and ignores where he came from.Meanwhile B.C. leads the way over the Gadarene Slope of deviant indoctrination in schools, with polygamy looming, then no doubt incest and pedophilia 'read into' the damned charter by the robed rogues.
We need a real Reform.
I live in exile far from my home town in Ontario and I quail at what has happened to our once-proud Christian Dominion. I'm even writing a book.
 

gc

Electoral Member
May 9, 2006
931
20
18
1. How exactly would the notwithstanding clause "save" Canada? I assume you are talking about same-sex marriage. Do you think Canada is 'doomed' because some people of the same sex want to get married?

2. How successful do you think a party that supports the death penalty, does not support gay rights, and supports any other social-conservative views you may be concerned about, be in Canada? I guess the closest would be the canadian alliance or the reform party, but they didn't do too well did they? Do you think a reform party/canadian alliance-type party would have any shot at forming even a minority government in Canada today? Not to mention it would split the right-wing vote, and almost ensure a liberal victory.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
morfiny said:
Somer of us are at a loss to account for Harper's Folly. He has over recent years slapped down sensible sounds from Toews, Gallant and many another, on the evils of the Supreme Court, on the nonsense of 'gay' rights, on the death penalty and on bilingualism.

Sure, he is now a minority leader in Ottawa, but he even ruled out using 'notwithstanding' to save Canada. He promotes the pinkest elements and ignores where he came from.Meanwhile B.C. leads the way over the Gadarene Slope of deviant indoctrination in schools, with polygamy looming, then no doubt incest and pedophilia 'read into' the damned charter by the robed rogues.
We need a real Reform.
I live in exile far from my home town in Ontario and I quail at what has happened to our once-proud Christian Dominion. I'm even writing a book.

I was a member of the Reform Party of Canada from just after its creation.

The biggest problem the party had was LOSING people with your mind-set.

Write your book, enjoy, I just hope you don't expect anyone to READ it!
 

LittleRunningGag

Electoral Member
Jan 11, 2006
611
2
18
Calgary, Alberta
members.shaw.ca
The biggest problem the Conservative Party has is that there are still elements in it holding your opinions. If the Conservatives could ignore their desire to control the way people behave, and focus on what they're actually good at (fiscal conservativism, responsible governement, etc.), they'd be really successful.

Unfortunately, for some reason, conservatives in Canada just can't seem to stop thinking about all the sex other people are having.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
It's a new kind of puritanism, really, which might be defined as the terrible fear that somebody, somewhere, might be having more fun than you are in ways you don't approve of. This has never been a Christian nation morfiny, not in the way you mean. What you called Harper's Folly looks to me like a realistic assessment of what the Canadian electorate will and won't stand for. Your views are in a minuscule minority. I won't read your book, I will never agree with you, and that's probably true of most Canadians. If people like you ever came to power, I'd be looking into emigrating to Australia or New Zealand. Or maybe an independent Quebec, which would probably happen not long after people like you came to power. My French isn't too bad...
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
Canada could use a jolt of old fashioned conservatism for sure. I think I'm grassroots. I don't mind gays in a civil marriage but I do want traditional marriage to stay the same way as a grossly disproportionate number of the globe's nations prefer it. Canada is way out of sync on this one. And I do mind the fact that although gays make up a tiny percentage of the population they're overwhelmingly present in the media. You cannot watch a mix of tv programs without being aware gays are strongly represented in the offering. How did they get so much pull?
I'm not anti-gay but I am anti-in-my-face-all-flippin'- day-gay. We've lost our sense of balance in this society.
And I'm pro death penalty and have never understood those who aren't. Put on the necessary precautions and then get rid of the MF's. Life's too short to be playing court games with career criminals and psychopaths all the time.
Will a New Reform Party work? No! Preston abandoned principle and really screwed up.People won't listen to any similar performance again. Harper has a chance to marry the best of Reform with new progressive policies. We'll see if he can do it.
 

LittleRunningGag

Electoral Member
Jan 11, 2006
611
2
18
Calgary, Alberta
members.shaw.ca
Canada could use a jolt of old fashioned conservatism for sure. I think I'm grassroots. I don't mind gays in a civil marriage but I do want traditional marriage to stay the same way as a grossly disproportionate number of the globe's nations prefer it. Canada is way out of sync on this one. And I do mind the fact that although gays make up a tiny percentage of the population they're overwhelmingly present in the media. You cannot watch a mix of tv programs without being aware gays are strongly represented in the offering. How did they get so much pull?
I'm not anti-gay but I am anti-in-my-face-all-flippin'- day-gay. We've lost our sense of balance in this society.
They got that kind of pull because they had to. Its people like you. What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage? I'll tell you. It is you, and people like you, being able to say that you are better than them. It makes them second class. Gee, I wonder why they have a problem with it. Why can't people just let each other live the way they want. If consenting adults want to do something that doesn't affect anyone else, why do people feel a pressing need to stop it?

And I'm pro death penalty and have never understood those who aren't. Put on the necessary precautions and then get rid of the MF's. Life's too short to be playing court games with career criminals and psychopaths all the time.
Because murder by the state is still murder. Its hypocracy.

Will a New Reform Party work? No! Preston abandoned principle and really screwed up.People won't listen to any similar performance again. Harper has a chance to marry the best of Reform with new progressive policies. We'll see if he can do it.
Exactly. If he will concentrate on fiscal policy, and just leave social policy alone, things will be great.
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
Twaddle. If gay marriage in Canada affects the health and stability of traditional marriage as an institution over the next quarter century I'll expect folks like you to take it 'like a man.' And fess up and do something about it.
Marriage and families are bedrock to any sustainable society. You don't mess with the formula. And if you do mess and you do phuck up then you pay for it down the road.
Traditional marriage is in enough trouble here. It doesn't need this further weight placed on the anchor. It's time for gays to get with the program. Civil marriage and all the attendant responsibilities and obligations inherent in a union should be plenty enough for them.
And the death penalty nonsense is trotted out again. Have you no shame? Any democratic society worth its salt will back up what it professes. Will back up its promise to protect the life and property of its citizens if they defer to its authority. Will honour commitments made to them if they're wronged.
Only the most irresponsible of societies would give safe haven to career criminals and psychopaths knowing their existence makes impossible any promise they might extend to their citizens.
 

LittleRunningGag

Electoral Member
Jan 11, 2006
611
2
18
Calgary, Alberta
members.shaw.ca
Twaddle. If gay marriage in Canada affects the health and stability of traditional marriage as an institution over the next quarter century I'll expect folks like you to take it 'like a man.' And fess up and do something about it.
Why would I? What they do doesn't affect me. If marriages stop working, that is the reponsibility of the people within those marriages. It is not the responsibility of me or anyone else.

Marriage and families are bedrock to any sustainable society. You don't mess with the formula. And if you do mess and you do phuck up then you pay for it down the road.
Traditional marriage is in enough trouble here. It doesn't need this further weight placed on the anchor.
It's time for gays to get with the program. Civil marriage and all the attendant responsibilities and obligations inherent in a union should be plenty enough for them.
Why? Again, I ask, in what way would same sex marriage affect you? What direct affect will it have on you?


And the death penalty nonsense is trotted out again. Have you no shame?
You brought it up.

Any democratic society worth its salt will back up what it professes. Will back up its promise to protect the life and property of its citizens if they defer to its authority. Will honour commitments made to them if they're wronged.
Which it can do with life sentences.

Only the most irresponsible of societies would give safe haven to career criminals and psychopaths knowing their existence makes impossible any promise they might extend to their citizens.
Following that logic you might as well be advocating totalitarian authority. Freedom means living with certain consequences. One of which is ensuring that the state is not killing its citizens.
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
Yes, and freedom means respecting the intelligence of people and giving them a vote on contentious issues. Giving their franchise the attention it's due.
If a vote were held on capital punishment it would pass.
If a vote were held limiting marriage to its traditional definition it would pass.

We can all run around voicing support for 'freedom.' I just want the little bugger exercised now and then. When parliamentarians - our august representatives - are at odds with public opinion on issues of large general interest and scrutiny I expect 'freedom' - and their duty to uphold what their constituents want - to receive the importance it's due.
That is the least we expect. And demand.
 

LittleRunningGag

Electoral Member
Jan 11, 2006
611
2
18
Calgary, Alberta
members.shaw.ca
Yes, and freedom means respecting the intelligence of people and giving them a vote on contentious issues. Giving their franchise the attention it's due.
If a vote were held on capital punishment it would pass.
If a vote were held limiting marriage to its traditional definition it would pass.

We can all run around voicing support for 'freedom.' I just want the little bugger exercised now and then. When parliamentarians - our august representatives - are at odds with public opinion on issues of large general interest and scrutiny I expect 'freedom' - and their duty to uphold what their constituents want - to receive the importance it's due.
That is the least we expect. And demand.

I truely agree. I want to see a vote on both these issues. It would be interesting to see just how advanced a society we've become.
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
I hope you're not inferring that Canada will only be 'advanced' if it votes the way you want it to.
Don't you find it peculiar that in a democracy like we have in this nation the public is usually scratching its head saying- how the hell did that happen? or - who voted for that here?!
If same sex marriage frays the fabric of marriage in general it's a damn poor idea. We won't know anything conclusively for at least ten years. From what I've seen of the same sex marriage situation in northern Europe, people are marrying even less than they were before and single parenthood is sky- rocketing as couples no longer feel compelled to respect the idea of traditional union. And that's just what's happening now.
Marriage is too important to western culture to be another political or social experiment.
 

LittleRunningGag

Electoral Member
Jan 11, 2006
611
2
18
Calgary, Alberta
members.shaw.ca
Don't you find it peculiar that in a democracy like we have in this nation the public is usually scratching its head saying- how the hell did that happen? or - who voted for that here?!

You need to expand your circle of friends. Plenty of people I know agree with much of what the Libs did (excepting, of course, the theft and lies). Plenty disagreed whole heartedly. I think that when we isolate ourselves by only befriending those who agree with our way of thinking, we really limit ourselves.

Have you heard of the concepts of echo chambers and incestuous amplification?

From the Link said:
The greatest danger of the echo chambers is unjustified extremism. So it's a well-known fact that if you get a group of people who tend to think something, after they talk to each other, they end up thinking a more extreme version of what they thought before, and the danger of that is you can make a situation where mutual understanding is, is difficult, and people don't appreciate but instead demonize those who disagree with them. And that's an ongoing threat to our democracy.
Link

tamarin said:
From what I've seen of the same sex marriage situation in northern Europe, people are marrying even less than they were before and single parenthood is sky- rocketing as couples no longer feel compelled to respect the idea of traditional union. And that's just what's happening now.
I'd like some proof of that please. A quick search for some stats revealed:

According to Wiki, the Netherlands was the first to legalise same-sex marriage.

Link

And according to a CBS study, divorce rates are at pretty much the exact same level as they were in 2000 (when it was legalised).

Link

tamarin said:
If same sex marriage frays the fabric of marriage in general it's a damn poor idea. We won't know anything conclusively for at least ten years.
...
Marriage is too important to western culture to be another political or social experiment.
But the question is still there. What is it that same-sex marriage will do to directly effect you. How will it interfere with your ability to live your life as you see fit? If it poses no danger to you, or frankly has zero effect on your life as you lead it, what business is it of yours?

You can decry same-sex marriage all you want. That is your right as a member of free nation. And that is a right that I would be willing to fight for. But you don't have the right to stop people living their lives in a manner that they see fit. Especially when their choice holds absolutely zero consequences for you and yours.

Claiming that same-sex marriage will cause the end of marital unions is both bull**** and irrelevent. If same-sex marriage has any effect on 'traditional' marriages, that is the fault of the people in those 'traditional' marriages. If those people feel that they have no need of marriage, and/or stable homes, that is their choice. You cannot blame same-sex marriage for that.

And another thing, if marriages by homosexuals is supposed to be the end of marriage as we know it, how can you possibly support civil unions? They are practically the same thing. The only difference is the language involved. I can understand the significance from the homosexuals' point of view. But I can't see it from your's.
 

LittleRunningGag

Electoral Member
Jan 11, 2006
611
2
18
Calgary, Alberta
members.shaw.ca
Doing some more research, I found an interesting link to a pair of articles regarding the same-sex marriage debate:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/issues/dueling.html

One of the interesting things that I noticed in the first article is that the number of divorces, and number of marriages, were increasing and decreasing (respectively) a good decade before same-sex marriage legislation was tabled. I read into that that support for same-sex marriage is a symptom, not a cause, of the growing irrelevance of 'traditional' marriages and families in Western society. Another symptom of the secularisation of society.

On September 5, 2003, the NFO CF Group released the results of a survey that they had done on Canadian attitudes toward same-sex marriage during late August. 46% of respondents said they supported same-sex marriage while 46% said they did not.
In other 2003 polls, the percentage of support had risen to slightly over 50%, and two thirds of Canadians believed that gay and lesbian couples in a committed relationship should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. This includes almost 40% of those who oppose the change in the definition of marriage. The debate in Canada is more about the use of the word marriage than about giving legal recognition to same-sex couples. This is evident in a Canadian Press/Leger Marketing poll in 2001, whereby only 18.6% of the public felt gays and lesbians shouldn't have the same tax breaks. This poll also showed 81% of those between 18-34 support same-sex marriages.
I think that you had best get used to the idea of same-sex marriage because eventually the bolded group will out number the rest of you.

Link
 

willbentley

New Member
Nov 1, 2006
4
0
1
disintegration

This correspondence began with a reasonable observation that Mr.Harper is not conservative -not enough for some, anyway!
Capital punishment is simply common sense, and secularism is illegal under the existing constitution, which says that Canada is under 'God.'
The abusive nature of the pro-deviant people posting here is evidence enough of their intolerant agenda. it is hardly a secret that they have infested the education system and are pushing pro-deviant propaganda onto kids as young as kindergarten level.
There are clear links bewtween homosexuality and paedophilia and that is reason enough to ban any 'gay' from teaching. As to their other ambitions, it is sad that any riding chooses a deviant to represent them in Ottawa or at provincial level.The capture of much of the media and, apparently, of the clergy in Quebec, at least, suggests the reason for high levels of pro-deviant attitudes in the younger part of the electorate. Indoctrination.
Constant exposure to lies will have an effect if not countered. That's why we need a new reforming party, as Morfiny said at the start.
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
No more new parties! No more dithering, excuse making, goose chasing and pie baking. We have sufficient political room on the national stage to effect what Canadians want. Put pressure on current political parties to be more inviting, more accepting, more inclusive of the grassroots. Demand that party strategy sessions reflect the need for change and accountability. Best of all ask your local candidate where he stands on riding representation in the House and what he's doing about it. Canada has been sloppy in the management of its democratic institutions. It has to stop.
 

Andem

dev
Mar 24, 2002
5,643
128
63
Larnaka
There are clear links bewtween homosexuality and paedophilia and that is reason enough to ban any 'gay' from teaching. As to their other ambitions, it is sad that any riding chooses a deviant to represent them in Ottawa or at provincial level.

Hah. I'd like to see you cite a source for that one. They have never been linked.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
The abusive nature of the pro-deviant people posting here is evidence enough of their intolerant agenda. it is hardly a secret that they have infested the education system and are pushing pro-deviant propaganda onto kids as young as kindergarten level.

Before you go using words like intolerant, you may want to check your language.

I took many courses in a liberal arts degree which focused on issues like human rights, deviance, and criminology. Homosexuality is not deviant. By and large it is accepted by the majority of citizens, it is accepted that they have rights equal to all other citizens and furthermore deviance is a label used by those in power to control particular groups. If you really want to get into the nuts and bolts of it, you could argue that those calling groups deviant are themselves deviant and I would call it just that. In the sense that intollerance is a countenance that the majority of people do not support.

I would love to see the information you reference as to the pushing of an agenda, or propoganda in the public schools by homosexuals. I have an inclination that it wouldn't stand up to the rigors of scrutiny.

To those here who are against homosexual marriages, are you married? If so, do you feel any differently about your own marriage for the simple fact that there are homosexuals marrying now? Do you feel that homosexuals marrying will be more devastating to the familly than divorces are? How does a homosexual marriage affect your own?