Belinda Stronach appointed to Cabinet

[peapod]

Well not exactly...there bluealberta...mostly is the fundies that are wacked out. I know plenty of church goers that give a rats ass if gays marry in a church or on queer as folk.

 

[bluealberta]

Well not exactly...there bluealberta...mostly is the fundies that are wacked out. I know plenty of church goers that give a rats ass if gays marry in a church or on queer as folk.

I will never dispute there are a small group of people out there that despise the lifestyle, if not the people, and will do anything to be negative about gays. I am not in this group, though, and dislike their attitudes as much as you. There is no more way to change their opinions, than there is to change the opinions of the extreme left.

To put all of us who want to maintain the definition of marriage, which the polls have consistently indicated the majority of Canadians want, is stereotyping at its best.

 

[Derry McKinney]

RE: Belinda Stronach appo

You only have one poll indicating that, Blue.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Belinda Stronach appo

You only have one poll indicating that, Blue.

Every poll I have seen over the last five months have said that. It seems to be widely accepted by all news outlets, including the CBC, and newspaper outlets, including the Globe and Mail.

 

[Derry McKinney]

RE: Belinda Stronach appo

There is one poll that gives three options. It split roughly into thirds. The other polls give two options and split roughly down the middle.

It doesn't (does not) matter though because your position is an infringement on human rights and therefore unconstitutional.

 

[peapod]

despise the lifestyle, if not the people, and will do anything to be negative about gays.

uh huh! if only it was just that. Try beatings and murder for a start. And don't be silly, the one thing about the left is their open mindedness, which give the ability to adapt and change.

 

[Cosmo]

Re: RE: Belinda Stronach appo

So now any religious person on the right is a freak? That is unbelievable, that arrogant attitude. It must be nice to be out on that island of perfection you are on. And there are no legal rights or benefits denied anyone by maintaining the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. All legal rights and benefits under a SS union are the same as that under a traditional marriage. But then you know that already, just as you know I support SS unions.

I don't think that's what Derry meant, Bluealberta. In fact, his response clears that up. Anyone who forces their religion on another is a freak ... right, left or centre, in my book.

Denial of SSM is based in religion so it logically follows that it is forcing people to follow christian dogma. It doesn't belong in politics. Your words about supporting SS unions are empty platitudes ... either we can get married, or we can't. That half measure is exclusionary and unacceptable. It's like saying women could vote in school elections but not in federal ones ... but thankfully we ended up with full right to vote.

I know you disagree with Derry, but please don't make it personal. If his posts are inflaming you to the point where you have to make personal attacks, I suggest you grab a cold beer, go watch the Simpsons and chill out a while. You are entitled to your views, as we all are, but keep it clean.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Belinda Stronach appo

So now any religious person on the right is a freak? That is unbelievable, that arrogant attitude. It must be nice to be out on that island of perfection you are on. And there are no legal rights or benefits denied anyone by maintaining the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. All legal rights and benefits under a SS union are the same as that under a traditional marriage. But then you know that already, just as you know I support SS unions.

I don't think that's what Derry meant, Bluealberta. In fact, his response clears that up. Anyone who forces their religion on another is a freak ... right, left or centre, in my book.

Denial of SSM is based in religion so it logically follows that it is forcing people to follow christian dogma.

It is not only Christians who oppose SSM.

It doesn't belong in politics. Your words about supporting SS unions are empty platitudes ... either we can get married, or we can't. That half measure is exclusionary and unacceptable. It's like saying women could vote in school elections but not in federal ones ... but thankfully we ended up with full right to vote.

I know you disagree with Derry, but please don't make it personal. If his posts are inflaming you to the point where you have to make personal attacks, I suggest you grab a cold beer, go watch the Simpsons and chill out a while. You are entitled to your views, as we all are, but keep it clean.

Make sure you use the same standards on Derry then. You are somewhat selective at times about censoring posts, as we have discussed before.

 

[Cosmo]

Re: RE: Belinda Stronach appo

Make sure you use the same standards on Derry then. You are somewhat selective at times about censoring posts, as we have discussed before.

Count on it, Bluealberta. I just happened across your comment. If I've missed Derry doing the same thing, let me know. Same rules apply to us all, mods included. No more throwing sand in each others eyes!

I love these debates and it's frustrating when it degenerates into a fight. No one benefits. You and I obviously share differing political views, but I find it fascinating to hear the "why" of what you believe.

 

[peapod]

Thats funny! you do even have the jam to admit that the homophobia comes from religious dogma, based on a book of myths. Tell me what other moral conclusions do you come to based on the book of myths.
In fact is nothing but good old religious dogma that has purposely created and the hate and crimes againist gays. You pass it on from one generation to the next. But hey who knows you have native childern come to birthday parties, maybe one day you will accept the human being known as the gay.

Quit whining about the moderators, like you said you can always go to that board where you feel more comfortable, you did know it is known around the net as the "hate" board. Wow! big surprise there eh?

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Belinda Stronach appo

Make sure you use the same standards on Derry then. You are somewhat selective at times about censoring posts, as we have discussed before.

Count on it, Bluealberta. I just happened across your comment. If I've missed Derry doing the same thing, let me know. Same rules apply to us all, mods included. No more throwing sand in each others eyes!

I love these debates and it's frustrating when it degenerates into a fight. No one benefits. You and I obviously share differing political views, but I find it fascinating to hear the "why" of what you believe.

I like debates too, but what I can't abide by is someone responding to my opinions by insulting, or taking an extreme response. For instance, when I say I want fiscally responsible social programs, the response comes back that I am against the poor, or the disabled, or children. I cannot argue what has not been said, and I cannot prove a negative. In my opinion, there is far too much money taken from the taxpayers of this country that is totally wasted, and every two weeks I get to be reminded of it when I look at my paycheck. Then to be told by someone else how I think is ridiculous. To accuse me of an extreme postion is totally false, yet because I don't agree with, in this case Derrys opinions, he classifies me as extreme right wing. That kind of attitude and response just stops reasonable debates cold, because there he is totally inflexible. So I agree with you about debates, and I like to hear the whys of the other side too. Just don't put words in my mouth that I don't say.

 

[bluealberta]

Thats funny! you do even have the jam to admit that the homophobia comes from religious dogma, based on a book of myths. Tell me what other moral conclusions do you come to based on the book of myths.
In fact is nothing but good old religious dogma that has purposely created and the hate and crimes againist gays. You pass it on from one generation to the next. But hey who knows you have native childern come to birthday parties, maybe one day you will accept the human being known as the gay.

Quit whining about the moderators, like you said you can always go to that board where you feel more comfortable, you did know it is known around the net as the "hate" board. Wow! big surprise there eh?

Just what the hell are you talking about? What book of myths?

If you are taling about Free Dominion, I don't go there. Looked at it and found it too right wing extreme for me.

So what is with the personal attacks about native kids? ARe you going to censore yourself? That was pretty much a personal attack, or goading, or inciting, or whatever your other buzz words are.

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[Derry McKinney]

For instance, when I say I want fiscally responsible social programs, the response comes back that I am against the poor, or the disabled, or children.

Because the social programs you would do away with support those people. The government you support provincially has cut such programs and people have suffered and even died as a result. The party you support federally would cut even deeper and, in fact, have made statements over the years (in their various guises) that show them to be dogmatic extremists.

Your "fiscally responsible" social programs are socially irresponsible.

 

[peapod]

the book of myths otherwise known as the bible! crimes committed againist gay people because of the nonsense in that book. And look I am still typing to...not struck down yet...maybe later.
I am not talking about free dommion even they don't sink as low as the hate board. I for one think the hole lot who have purposely created the religious dogma against gay people should be taken to the hague and put on trial for crimes againist humanity.

 

[bluealberta]

For instance, when I say I want fiscally responsible social programs, the response comes back that I am against the poor, or the disabled, or children.

Because the social programs you would do away with support those people. The government you support provincially has cut such programs and people have suffered and even died as a result. The party you support federally would cut even deeper and, in fact, have made statements over the years (in their various guises) that show them to be dogmatic extremists.

Your "fiscally responsible" social programs are socially irresponsible.

Just another example. Since when did wanting fiscally responsible social programs jump to doing away with these programs? You claims about Alberta are false and disgusting. You have no proof that the conservatives would cut deeper. In fact, their platform in last years election was criticized by the LIberals as being too expensive and would lead to deficit financing. Of course, now the liberals are well over what the conservatives proposed, but whats a few billion among friends. How could a budget proposal that was deemed too expensive make all those cuts? Simple. It can't, yet lies and innuendoes continue to be floated by those supporting the corrupt Liberals or their bed buddies, the NDP.

So, being fiscally responsible is in your eyes a bad thing. Thats why we have crap like the Adscam, Gun Registry, HRDC, Foundation Accounts, broken helicopter contracts, leaky subs, helicopters that can't fly, EI surplus taken from workers and employers. All these things are because we don't have any fiscally responsible social programs. Instead we have a bunch of slush funds for the Liberals, and now the NDP, to use their checkbook vote buying philosophy on.

So yes, I will continue to push for fiscally responsible programs, socially and otherwise, even in the face of irresponsible and ignorant opposition.

 

[Derry McKinney]

Since when did wanting fiscally responsible social programs jump to doing away with these programs?

Your extremely optimistic economic predictions combined with your rush to cut taxes for the rich and your corporate donors would require cuts. All of your rhetoric and history points to those cuts being made to social programs...a continutaion of the war on the poor that neo-conservatives have been waging since the Reagan/Thatcher/Mulroney triumvirate of the 1980's.

You claims about Alberta are false and disgusting.

You cut funding to the disabled. You quit funding education to reasonable levels. You closed hospitals. You cut social programs. You provided no benefits for the elderly.

In fact, their platform in last years election was criticized by the LIberals as being too expensive and would lead to deficit financing.

Not because of a commitment to social programs for the Canadian people though. It was the massive military spending geared to making us a support army for US foreign adventurism and massive tax cuts for the wealthiest in our society that made your plan expensive. It, like your military policy, would make us into an mini-me of the failed policies of the Bush regime that your leader admires so much.

So you are again out of arguments. Your reaction is to yell a scream and stomp your feet about the Liberals being corrupt. Just like the rest of Harper's ites, you haven't got any real policies to stand on.

 

[Cosmo]

Re: RE: Belinda Stronach appo

I like debates too, but what I can't abide by is someone responding to my opinions by insulting, or taking an extreme response.

I'm not convinced Derry was insulting you personally, but criticizing the party you appear to support. It seems you and he enjoy butting heads, so have at it ... just as long as neither of you gets nasty.

Personally, when I encounter someone who holds opinions I find offensive, I make one attempt at conversation then usually I move along. Life is too precious to let people piss me off. And I always remember the old saw, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". I'm not going to change anyone.

My only purpose with the post was a reminder to keep it clean.

 

[bluealberta]

Since when did wanting fiscally responsible social programs jump to doing away with these programs?

Your extremely optimistic economic predictions combined with your rush to cut taxes for the rich and your corporate donors would require cuts. All of your rhetoric and history points to those cuts being made to social programs...a continutaion of the war on the poor that neo-conservatives have been waging since the Reagan/Thatcher/Mulroney triumvirate of the 1980's.

The tax cuts for all were to be phased in over time. Quit going on history of the old PC's. This is a new party with new people and new policies. To continue to compare them to old parties is misleading.

You claims about Alberta are false and disgusting.

You cut funding to the disabled. You quit funding education to reasonable levels. You closed hospitals. You cut social programs. You provided no benefits for the elderly.

No, froze funding in some cases,yes. As far as hospitals, yes some were closed. Why? Here is an example. In the area I live, there were seven full service hosipitals within 60 miles of my community, which had a full service plus a regional hospital. This meant nine full service hospitals in a 120 mile diameter. Not only was this overkill, there were not enough people to staff it. With STARS, another piece of the puzzle fell into place, allowing seriously injured people access to the larger hospitals in Calgary and Edmonton. So unless you were here, which you were not, you really have no understanding of the situation. To say simply that hospitals were closed is a simple response from an ignorant, as in lack of knowledge, mind. And yes, benefits were provided for the elderly, based on income and need. My father in law turned 65 in the early 90's so I know full well what happened. The point was in order to get Alberta fiscally responsible, everyone made sacrifices, some willingly, some not. However the end result has been worth it, in my opinion. So perhaps you can leave your uninformed thoughts of Alberta out of the picture from now on.

In fact, their platform in last years election was criticized by the LIberals as being too expensive and would lead to deficit financing.

Not because of a commitment to social programs for the Canadian people though. It was the massive military spending geared to making us a support army for US foreign adventurism and massive tax cuts for the wealthiest in our society that made your plan expensive. It, like your military policy, would make us into an mini-me of the failed policies of the Bush regime that your leader admires so much.

Spending was over the liberals, which included spending on the military which the left, including liberals and NDP have tragically ignored. But social programs were to be reviewed to ensure the most money went to the right people.

So you are again out of arguments. Your reaction is to yell a scream and stomp your feet about the Liberals being corrupt.

Yes, I yell and scream as loud as I can about the corrupt Liberal government because they are a disgrace who have misused Canadian Taxpayers money, have stolen taxpayers money, and have used taxpayers money to fund the liberal government. Anyone who doesn't yell and scream tacitly supports the sleaze this government does, and is just as unethical.

Just like the rest of Harper's ites, you haven't got any real policies to stand on.

Of course the conservatives do, don't be obtuse. Just because you don't like them, don't say they have no policies.

 

[bluealberta]

the book of myths otherwise known as the bible! crimes committed againist gay people because of the nonsense in that book. And look I am still typing to...not struck down yet...maybe later.
I am not talking about free dommion even they don't sink as low as the hate board. I for one think the hole lot who have purposely created the religious dogma against gay people should be taken to the hague and put on trial for crimes againist humanity.

Do you think the religious books of the other religions that want to retain the traditional definition of marriage are bad as well? I don't know the board you are talking about, the other site I view is certainly not that.