The marriage "Saviours"

[bluealberta]

...........and you know this how exactly?
If you want to go back in history, all parties supported the law that said that homosexuality was illegal and was punishable by prison terms, so I guess we should judge all parties based on this? Things change, things evolve.

Ah, but you see, that strikes to the heart of the matter...the rest of Canada has been continuously evolving...but the Conservative Party chooses not to...as I said, they sugar-coat their bigotry, and call it moderate...

The conservatives policy on SSM is the same as mine. They support SS unions, but want to retain the traditional definition of marriage. But are you saying that the Conservatives want to outlaw homosexuality and imprison them again? I hope not, because that would not be the truth.

You haven't commented on the letter from the law professors...do you really thing they are as left-wing as you think I am?

I am sorry, I must have missed that one. When did you post it and in what thread?

 

[Vanni Fucci]

I am sorry, I must have missed that one. When did you post it and in what thread?

I posted it today, in this thread, page 21, last post...

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

It's a very good letter. It points out that your position is unconstitutional, Blue. it also points out that Harper is inherently dihonest and would play politics with anything if he though it would garner a vote or two.

 

[Cathou]

Cathou,

The political party that blue ardently supports has a history, long before their current incarnation, of discriminating against gays and lesbians. If that party should come to power, they would do immense damage to the equality that gays and lesbians have fought so hard for. The current stance of preservation of the traditional definition of marriage is just political posturing to appear to be more centrist to voters than they actually are. Blue knows this, and plays their game and plays it well, but we must never forget that his is a sugar-coated extremist view that has no basis in constitutional law or of equality as protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

When I have the time, do a little historical expose on the Conservative Party and their social policies to establish for all to see where these views have come from. I assure you, it will be an eye-opener...

i'm very well aware of the politics of the concervartives, and i dont want them the take power at any cost. like we discuss a few page pages ago, i have personnal intersts to keep same-sex marriage legal. but i'm not willing to condemn everyone who support the conservative yet...

and blue, i would be a she :wink:

 

[no1important]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

By the way, is not categorizing me and other moderate conservatives as bigots not a sign of bigottery itself? Degrading and insulting another group sounds suspiciosly like bigottery to me and and a lot of others.

That sounds suspicously like the plea of an unrepetent bigot to me...

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

Do you really believe that all of those law professors are left-wing extremists? Somehow I doubt it...

That was a good letter and the truth. I know Harper is hiding his true intentions on this topic.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

That was a good letter and the truth. I know Harper is hiding his true intentions on this topic.

Everyone knows...except blue... :wink:

 

[no1important]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

The truth is Blue incase you are wondering is that Harper will invoke notwithstanding clause on this issue if he, unfortunatly were to get a majority government. But since he knows he won't he will not admit his real intentions. He will not succeed trying to use notwithstanding clause if he gets a miniority (which he should know thats the best case scenerio for him) thats why he is quiet about using the notwithstanding clause as it would cost him votes. Its all about playing the political game, not to mention his lust for power.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

The truth is Blue incase you are wondering is that Harper will invoke notwithstanding clause on this issue if he, unfortunatly were to get a majority government. But since he knows he won't he will not admit his real intentions. He will not succeed trying to use notwithstanding clause if he gets a miniority (which he should know thats the best case scenerio for him) thats why he is quiet about using the notwithstanding clause as it would cost him votes. Its all about playing the political game, not to mention his lust for power.

Precisely... 8)

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

The truth is Blue incase you are wondering is that Harper will invoke notwithstanding clause on this issue if he, unfortunatly were to get a majority government. But since he knows he won't he will not admit his real intentions. He will not succeed trying to use notwithstanding clause if he gets a miniority (which he should know thats the best case scenerio for him) thats why he is quiet about using the notwithstanding clause as it would cost him votes. Its all about playing the political game, not to mention his lust for power.

Even if he did, it is part of the constitution that is available. You can't on one hand claim that SSM is guaranteed because it is part of the constitution then condemn someone else for using the notwithstanding clause, which is also part of the constitution. Picking and choosing is not an option. So as much as I may disagree with SSM as being part of the constitution, you cannot disagree with the use of the notwithstanding clause for the same exact reasons.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

The truth is Blue incase you are wondering is that Harper will invoke notwithstanding clause on this issue if he, unfortunatly were to get a majority government. But since he knows he won't he will not admit his real intentions. He will not succeed trying to use notwithstanding clause if he gets a miniority (which he should know thats the best case scenerio for him) thats why he is quiet about using the notwithstanding clause as it would cost him votes. Its all about playing the political game, not to mention his lust for power.

Right, Vanni. And smilin Jack has no lust for power by supporting a corrupt government in exchange for pieces of silver. And Martin has shown how desparate he is for power the last year and a half. If you are going to be fair, you have to include all three leaders in the same categorization, or none. The only one who really has no lust for power is Duceppe, but then he has about as much power already as he can ever have, doesn't he, unless Quebec actually does separate.

Precisely... 8)

 

[peapod]

Amazing, your not a bigot, but you support a bigot leader with a hidden agenda. That makes you what??? Make sure you wrap it up in a nice christian bow.

 

[mrmom2]

I do believe we have the anti-Rev in our friend Blue here :lol: Keep up the good work Blue :wink: It makes for good debate and gives people with not much knowledge of these subjects great info on both sides of the coin 8)

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

Right, Vanni. And smilin Jack has no lust for power by supporting a corrupt government in exchange for pieces of silver. And Martin has shown how desparate he is for power the last year and a half. If you are going to be fair, you have to include all three leaders in the same categorization, or none. The only one who really has no lust for power is Duceppe, but then he has about as much power already as he can ever have, doesn't he, unless Quebec actually does separate.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh yeah blue, because we all know that it's better that corporations get a better tax deal than it is to fund social programs...and in supporting the government, and wishing to do his f**king job, Jack Layton has most certainly sold his soul to the devil...

...and it's so much worse than the deal that Harper made with the separtists...and we should believe that they are working in the best interests of Canada, should we?

What a friggin' twit...do you make this shit up, or do you have streaming video feeds from Conservative campaign central???

un-f**king-believable... 8O

 

[Reverend Blair]

Even if he did, it is part of the constitution that is available. You can't on one hand claim that SSM is guaranteed because it is part of the constitution then condemn someone else for using the notwithstanding clause, which is also part of the constitution.

Harper would be invoking notwithstanding to take rights AWAY from people. Same sex marriage is now a fact...a legal right...in most jurisdictions in Canada.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

Right, Vanni. And smilin Jack has no lust for power by supporting a corrupt government in exchange for pieces of silver. And Martin has shown how desparate he is for power the last year and a half. If you are going to be fair, you have to include all three leaders in the same categorization, or none. The only one who really has no lust for power is Duceppe, but then he has about as much power already as he can ever have, doesn't he, unless Quebec actually does separate.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh yeah blue, because we all know that it's better that corporations get a better tax deal than it is to fund social programs...and in supporting the government, and wishing to do his f**king job, Jack Layton has most certainly sold his soul to the devil...

...and it's so much worse than the deal that Harper made with the separtists...and we should believe that they are working in the best interests of Canada, should we?

What a friggin' twit...do you make this shit up, or do you have streaming video feeds from Conservative campaign central???

un-f**king-believable... 8O

Temper temper, Vanni!!

So if two parties vote together, there automatically has to be a deal? There were no promises from either party to the other that I have heard of. The only thing I am aware that these two agree on is to bring down a tired, corrupt, unethical, lying, stealing, immoral government. I don't care if it is the NDP and the Conservatives, or the NDP and the Bloc who get together to do this, just do it.

By the way, the flip side of your corporation rant is that these corporations employ thousands of people and provide good returns in exchange for investing in their companies.

And your believability factor just took a huge hit with your last post. You simply made the point I have made all along about the left: Marginalize, insult, and degrade anyone who does not agree with you. You are very good at this scarey tactic. Too bad most are catching on to your hidden agenda.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

It is you who can't bring yourself to call opposing political parties by their real names, Blue. It is you and your conservative buddies that accuse members of the NDP of being communists. It is you that, instead of looking at reality and actions, insist that the NDP and Liberals are somehow fiscally irresponsible.

You know what a representative for the BQ let out on Politics the other day? That the BQ wasn't going to vote to shut down the House of Commons but the Conservatives convinced them to by pointing out that if the House wasn't on CPAC, Gomery would be.

So you went to a meeting to convince them to help you out.

Here's a little tidbit about the budget, btw...Danny Williams, Conservative premier of Newfoundland, said that a vote against the budget is a vote against the Atlantic Accord yesterday. Williams is very popular and people listen to him. More than that, he's right.

That kind of puts Maritime Conservatives in a tough spot, doesn't it? If they vote with their party, they are voting against their constituents. So should they try to defeat the Atlantic Accord, or should they try to save their jobs?

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

By the way, the flip side of your corporation rant is that these corporations employ thousands of people and provide good returns in exchange for investing in their companies.

Don't even get me started on corporations...they are soulless entities that don't give a fiddler's f**k about you or me or anyone that is under their employ...because their only concern is to their shareholders and the bottom line is never black enough...I've seen far too many jobs in my field go offshore to have any faith in what the corporations can do for us...

...so flip your coin all you want blue, but hang onto it, because you may need it when your modest living is threatened by corporate outsourcing... :evil:

 

[bluealberta]

I do believe we have the anti-Rev in our friend Blue here :lol: Keep up the good work Blue :wink: It makes for good debate and gives people with not much knowledge of these subjects great info on both sides of the coin 8)

That's the main idea. Only by exchanging ideas can this country be fixed, and it won't be fixed with just left wing or just right wing ideas. Thankfully.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

It is you who can't bring yourself to call opposing political parties by their real names, Blue. It is you and your conservative buddies that accuse members of the NDP of being communists. It is you that, instead of looking at reality and actions, insist that the NDP and Liberals are somehow fiscally
irresponsible.

Rev, you have consistently called other parties by certain names and have called individuals names which are untrue, so get over it. I call the NDP socialists, which is what they are. We already have a communist party in Canada. Surely you can't state with a straight face the Liberals are fiscally responsible? In order to refresh your memory: HRDC $1billion; EI Surplus: $46billion; Gun Registrry: from $2million to $2billion; Adscam: Amount to be determined, but certainly unethical and possibly illegal activity. The NDP promise a lot knowing they will not have to follow through with their promises, federally. So yes, the Liberals are certainly fiscally irresponsible and the NDP maybe would be.

You know what a representative for the BQ let out on Politics the other day? That the BQ wasn't going to vote to shut down the House of Commons but the Conservatives convinced them to by pointing out that if the House wasn't on CPAC, Gomery would be.

So you went to a meeting to convince them to help you out.

So the BQ can be convinced by TV coverage? Pretty weak argument.

Here's a little tidbit about the budget, btw...Danny Williams, Conservative premier of Newfoundland, said that a vote against the budget is a vote against the Atlantic Accord yesterday. Williams is very popular and people listen to him. More than that, he's right.

Here is another little tidbit. Harper proposed the Atlantic Accord before Martin stole it. Harper has already said he would keep it in place because it was his idea first. Were Williams comments before or after Harpers commitment to keep the Accord?

That kind of puts Maritime Conservatives in a tough spot, doesn't it? If they vote with their party, they are voting against their constituents. So should they try to defeat the Atlantic Accord, or should they try to save their jobs?

See Above.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Rev, you have consistently called other parties by certain names and have called individuals names which are untrue, so get over it.

Only in response to your rants. Besides, when I call Stephen Harper or his followers bigots, it is because of the bigotted policies they support and their refusal to remove people like Randy White and Tom Flannagan from positions of power.

Surely you can't state with a straight face the Liberals are fiscally responsible?

Eight balanced budgets and a good chunk of the debt (mostly built by Mulroney) paid off. I don't think they are socially responsible, though they aren't as irresponsible as the Conservatives, but it is hard to argue with their fiscal record.

The NDP promise a lot knowing they will not have to follow through with their promises, federally.

Yet their platform was endorsed by far more economists than endorsed the Conservative plan.

So the BQ can be convinced by TV coverage? Pretty weak argument

It's not weak at all. You are going to planning sessions with them, working with them behind closed doors, and doing a lot of conniving.

Meanwhile the NDP swing an open deal with the Liberals, are still pushing to ensure that it will result in a balanced budget, are still questioning other Liberal policies (did ya see Pat Martin yesterday? He told the housing minister to shove his head up his attic :lol: ) while your side does nothing but disrupt the House and refuse to work.

You are swinging back room deals to get off work early.

Here is another little tidbit. Harper proposed the Atlantic Accord before Martin stole it. Harper has already said he would keep it in place because it was his idea first. Were Williams comments before or after Harpers commitment to keep the Accord?

They were late yesterday. Harper has been making those claims for weeks. Everybody is aware of them. Williams nailed him to the wall yesterday. I guess nobody in the east trusts Harper. You can't really blame them considering the brutally nasty things that Harper has said about the east over the years.