Elizabeth May, The Green Party Grabbing into CPC Territory?

[Catchme]

Oh I am sure many Liberals vote for equality and social issues. The point being they should not be marginalized in the first place is it not?

All human life must be respected, unless that human life is living off a placenta.

Well, too bad more did not think like that and we would not have to be dealing with it every 2 minutes. Plus I guess you must be a hetrosexual, wealthy white middle aged male.

Hold on, every wealthy, white, heterosexual, middle aged male, have the exact some politicial view's. I never knew that, thank's for your insight. If I were to say every middle aged native held the exact same view's I have a feeling you would call me racist.

Point taken, I should have aged it from 18 -80.

[Saturn]

Though Elizabeth May lost her seat bid in the recent London North by-election, her campaigning showed that perhaps the Green Party are trying to move into the CPC camp to steal votes from the social -conservatives. As they have certainly stepped out of the "progressive veneer" they had adopted.

One wonders though if there are enough social -conservatives that believe in environmental issues to make it worth their while? Because Progressives will be leaving the Green Party in droves.

http://tinyurl.com/t8xal

http://www.breadnroses.ca/forums/viewtopic...t=19154&start=0

http://blog.greenparty.ca/en/node/406#comment

Yet another politician gone loony. What's up, Elizabeth? You've talked women out of having abortions and you can't imagine what would make a person do such a terrible thing and you'd never have one yourself. Wow! I can't imagine what would make anyone imagine that whatever is not good for them must be bad for everyone else. I can't imagine that the leader of the green party should be making the decision whether to have children or not for others. I can't imagine what would make anyone with an intact brain say something so stupid in public (even if it was in front of nuns) given that she is the leader of a party that has a completely different position on the issue. World's gone nuts!

[Canadian Blue]

Point taken, I should have aged it from 18 -80.

Wow, so much intelligence from such a simple mind.

Yet another politician gone loony. What's up, Elizabeth? You've talked women out of having abortions and you can't imagine what would make a person do such a terrible thing and you'd never have one yourself. Wow! I can't imagine what would make anyone imagine that whatever is not good for them must be bad for everyone else. I can't imagine that the leader of the green party should be making the decision whether to have children or not for others. I can't imagine what would make anyone with an intact brain say something so stupid in public (even if it was in front of nuns) given that she is the leader of a party that has a completely different position on the issue. World's gone nuts!

Maybe she's just not in the "Abortions make me horny crowd".

[Topaz]

One ??? I have about Miss May, wasn't she born in the US and if she did eventually win the chance to become PM, she wouldn't be able to.

[Catchme]

Point taken, I should have aged it from 18 -80.

Wow, so much intelligence from such a simple mind.

Yet another politician gone loony. What's up, Elizabeth? You've talked women out of having abortions and you can't imagine what would make a person do such a terrible thing and you'd never have one yourself. Wow! I can't imagine what would make anyone imagine that whatever is not good for them must be bad for everyone else. I can't imagine that the leader of the green party should be making the decision whether to have children or not for others. I can't imagine what would make anyone with an intact brain say something so stupid in public (even if it was in front of nuns) given that she is the leader of a party that has a completely different position on the issue. World's gone nuts!

Maybe she's just not in the "Abortions make me horny crowd".

Insults aside, You cannot escape the fact that Canada and indeed a great deal of world still suffers under a male dominated, male priviledged society. Denial of it is pointless.

And yes, it seems the world has gone nuts after reading the last response to comments on May's outing as a regressive.

[Canadian Blue]

Insults aside, You cannot escape the fact that Canada and indeed a great deal of world still suffers under a male dominated, male priviledged society. Denial of it is pointless.

Strangely enough two of the profession's I want to go into have about 80% females, and 65% females in the occupation, I wonder if I should complain about the female dominated profession's.

How is it exactly pointless, especially with regards to abortion since some people have a valid argument why they think a fetus deserves the same rights as any other human. I am pro-choice, but I'm not with the crowd that seem's to love seeing a high rate of abortion's.

[Saturn]

Strangely enough two of the profession's I want to go into have about 80% females, and 65% females in the occupation, I wonder if I should complain about the female dominated profession's.

You should complain about female dominated professions because "female dominated" means low pay. As soon as too many women start making it into a profession, wages drop. Female dominated industries pay far worse than male-dominated industries. Entering a profession where women outnumber men by 4:1 seems like a bad choice (financially) on your behalf.

[Catchme]

Insults aside, You cannot escape the fact that Canada and indeed a great deal of world still suffers under a male dominated, male priviledged society. Denial of it is pointless.

Strangely enough two of the profession's I want to go into have about 80% females, and 65% females in the occupation, I wonder if I should complain about the female dominated profession's.

How is it exactly pointless, especially with regards to abortion since some people have a valid argument why they think a fetus deserves the same rights as any other human. I am pro-choice, but I'm not with the crowd that seem's to love seeing a high rate of abortion's.

Wow, 2 professions dominated by women, now that is equality isn't it, this means there are only 1,999,998 professions now dominated by men then.

Denial of the fact they we are still male dominated world is pointless.

The whole statement of some people have a valid argument is a very broad and opinionated, meaning unsupported commentary. Your telling me something is valid does not mean in fact that it is.

Your stance choice or not if you are a woman is your own. If your a man you have no stance at all to give.

And who do you determine are: "the crowd that seems to love seeing a high rate of abortions"? Cause if you are "pro-choice" your one of em.

[Canadian Blue]

You should complain about female dominated professions because "female dominated" means low pay. As soon as too many women start making it into a profession, wages drop. Female dominated industries pay far worse than male-dominated industries. Entering a profession where women outnumber men by 4:1 seems like a bad choice (financially) on your behalf.

I never knew that education and social work were profession's which have below average wages, at least not according the sites that I went too.

Wow, 2 professions dominated by women, now that is equality isn't it, this means there are only 1,999,998 professions now dominated by men then.

Can you actually back any of your arguments up, or is this more tripe coming from your mind. I was referencing two occupation's which I'd like to get into that are dominated by women. I don't see the point in crying discrimination about it.

The whole statement of some people have a valid argument is a very broad and opinionated, meaning unsupported commentary. Your telling me something is valid does not mean in fact that it is.

Yet you haven't been able to support any of your statements yet.

Your stance choice or not if you are a woman is your own. If your a man you have no stance at all to give.

Once again that issue isn't that simple son, a man can have a stance on that issue. After all it is an issue of moral's and ethics, and one which is much more complicated than your mind can handle.

And who do you determine are: "the crowd that seems to love seeing a high rate of abortions"? Cause if you are "pro-choice" your one of em.

I'm pro-choice, however am personally pro-life. Meaning I find that abortion will happen anyway, however social attitudes should change to reduce abortion's, as well as program's to help mothers with raising children.

Once again, this issue is way too complicated for your mind to grasp.

Saturn, Catchme, back up your arguments, show the stats that show in each occupation how pay has dropped with more females getting into the job, as well as show the all of the male dominated occupation's with statistics as compared to female dominated occupation's.

[Catchme]

Can you actually back any of your arguments up, or is this more tripe coming from your mind. I was referencing two occupation's which I'd like to get into that are dominated by women. I don't see the point in crying discrimination about it.

Frankly, do not mind discussing with you, but I do mind your unfounded slurrs and find it hard to respond with pleasnt responses. The fact that women have a glass ceiling and are paid lower, is common for public knowledge. It does not require endless stats to support, you need only google gender imbalance in the work force, and you get 2 million hits. Your comments are disengenuous at best.

The 2 job positions you refer to are in the union sector, wage discrimination based upon genderdoes not occur in union jobs.

The whole statement of some people have a valid argument is a very broad and opinionated, meaning unsupported commentary. Your telling me something is valid does not mean in fact that it is

Yet you haven't been able to support any of your statements yet..

I have supported where needed to, and you just tried to deflect away from your lack. Good try.

catchme said: Your stance choice or not if you are a woman is your own. If your a man you have no stance at all to give.

'Canadian Blue' said=Once again that issue isn't that simple son, a man can have a stance on that issue. After all it is an issue of moral's and ethics, and one which is much more complicated than your mind can handle. .

No, a man cannot have a stance on that issue, it simply is not any man's right to say anything regarding a woman's right to self determination of her own body. And no it is not an issue of morals or ethics. It is an issue of rights.

And please do stop with trying to make belittling personal comments about other posters, they do not look good on you, nor or they pertinent to the topic.

catchme said: And who do you determine are: "the crowd that seems to love seeing a high rate of abortions"? Cause if you are "pro-choice" your one of em.

'Canadian Blue' said= I'm pro-choice, however am personally pro-life. Meaning I find that abortion will happen anyway, however social attitudes should change to reduce abortion's, as well as program's to help mothers with raising children.

No, you are either pro-choice, or you are not, there is no mushy middle. Do not confuse the issue of right to self determine with poverty issues amongst women and children needing to be fixed.

Once again, this issue is way too complicated for your mind to grasp.

No I would say the shoe is onthe other foot, if I wished to discuss the person posting not the topic. I don't!

..Catchme, back up your arguments, show the stats that show in each occupation how pay has dropped with more females getting into the job, as well as show the all of the male dominated occupation's with statistics as compared to female dominated occupation's.

Sorry don't have to do that with common public knowledge.

[geoffrey]

No, you are either pro-choice, or you are not, there is no mushy middle. Do not confuse the issue of right to self determine with poverty issues amongst women and children needing to be fixed.

That's not true. I'm strongly against abortion, in every possible way I'd like to see abortion ended. But I don't think prohibitive legislation would create the greatest net 'goodness' to society. These women are going to get abortions anyways and end up getting themselves killed or diseased in the process. Let's limit the body count to just the babies.

It's not an issue of self-determination anyways, that is the biggest cop out from the pro-choice side. Oh, the baby is the woman's body. My ass. That's a baby my friend, whether you like it or not.

I've yet to hear a clearly defined answer, backed up with some logic, of when you can kill a child and it not be murder.

[Canadian Blue]

No, you are either pro-choice, or you are not, there is no mushy middle. Do not confuse the issue of right to self determine with poverty issues amongst women and children needing to be fixed.

Yes their is:http://www.democratsforlife.org/

As well some people believe that a right to life is a basic human right as well, and they have a compelling argument for why a human fetus is a human being.

Sorry don't have to do that with common public knowledge.

So your arguing women are underrepresented in every occupation, and found some way to correlate more women getting into an occupation with that occupation having wages lowered. All based on no statistics, or any actual argument.

The funny thing about the "conventional wisdom" argument is that it is rarely based on any facts. Once again, prove it. Conventional wisdom and common public knowledge have often been found to be universally false.

Sometimes I wonder if these people even have any clue about the world.

[Catchme]

The funny thing about the "conventional wisdom" argument is that it is rarely based on any facts. Once again, prove it. Conventional wisdom and common public knowledge have often been found to be universally false.

Sometimes I wonder if these people even have any clue about the world.

There is a difference between "conventional wisdom" and common public knowledge that is easily provable by just looking at male to female ratios in job positions.

Plus, you need only google, women under-employed, stats on wage or job parity between genders

You get literally millions of official reports and stats on the FACT that women are paid lower than men in equivalent jobs, that are non-union positions as I pointed out and that you decided to over look. You also get millions of reports from around the world that show women have a glass ceiling and are underrepresented in the majority of highly skilled highly paid job positions.

Please I ask again that you refrain from personal commentary!

[Saturn]

I never knew that education and social work were profession's which have below average wages, at least not according the sites that I went too.

Saturn, Catchme, back up your arguments, show the stats that show in each occupation how pay has dropped with more females getting into the job, as well as show the all of the male dominated occupation's with statistics as compared to female dominated occupation's.

Education is a good choice for you because schools are bending backwards to hire male teachers, so you'd have a huge advantage there. Social work? Why would you even think about that?

The stats are widely available - you can find them yourself. Women make roughly 75c for each $1 a man makes even when education, experience, work hours, etc. are taken into account.

[Saturn]

That's not true. I'm strongly against abortion, in every possible way I'd like to see abortion ended. But I don't think prohibitive legislation would create the greatest net 'goodness' to society. These women are going to get abortions anyways and end up getting themselves killed or diseased in the process. Let's limit the body count to just the babies.

It's not an issue of self-determination anyways, that is the biggest cop out from the pro-choice side. Oh, the baby is the woman's body. My ass. That's a baby my friend, whether you like it or not.

I've yet to hear a clearly defined answer, backed up with some logic, of when you can kill a child and it not be murder.

Regardless of your own opinion, there is no evidence that a fetus is anything more than tissue before 5 months into a pregnancy. Abortions are performed after the first trimester only in cases where the mother's health/life are at risk. So, no, abortion doesn't kill anyone.

Again you ignore reality. The fact is that the aborted children are those who would be most likely to end up on the welfare rolls and later in jail. If people like you were to lay off the rhetoric, the welfare rolls (mostly made up of single moms, who had babies in their teens, and their kids) would undoubtedly shrink. That's the welfare bums you can't stand. On one hand you hate abortions, on the other you hate the product of failure to have an abortion. Again, you ought to be more consistent in your views. You either oppose abortion and are willing to pay the financial consequences or you don't oppose abortion and you don't want to pay. You can't have it both ways!

[Canadian Blue]

There is a difference between "conventional wisdom" and common public knowledge that is easily provable by just looking at male to female ratios in job positions.

Plus, you need only google, women under-employed, stats on wage or job parity between genders

You get literally millions of official reports and stats on the FACT that women are paid lower than men in equivalent jobs, that are non-union positions as I pointed out and that you decided to over look. You also get millions of reports from around the world that show women have a glass ceiling and are underrepresented in the majority of highly skilled highly paid job positions.

Please I ask again that you refrain from personal commentary!

If we have million's of reports, why can't you give us a link. I'm not here to back up your argument, you have to that on your on. Once again show a report in Canada that says Canadian women in the same occupation get paid less than men, and a reason for it.

Education is a good choice for you because schools are bending backwards to hire male teachers, so you'd have a huge advantage there. Social work? Why would you even think about that?

School's are bending over backwards to hire male teachers, I haven't seen it.

Regardless of your own opinion, there is no evidence that a fetus is anything more than tissue before 5 months into a pregnancy. Abortions are performed after the first trimester only in cases where the mother's health/life are at risk. So, no, abortion doesn't kill anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_Debate#Pro-life

[Catchme]

If we have million's of reports, why can't you give us a link. I'm not here to back up your argument, you have to that on your on. Once again show a report in Canada that says Canadian women in the same occupation get paid less than men, and a reason for it.

As I said no I don't have to provide any links for what is classified as common public knowledge. This common public knowledge had be known for decades, and it would seem you are the only person alive that does not know this and the reasons for. Anyway that is enough off this topic deflection.

saturn said: Regardless of your own opinion, there is no evidence that a fetus is anything more than tissue before 5 months into a pregnancy. Abortions are performed after the first trimester only in cases where the mother's health/life are at risk. So, no, abortion doesn't kill anyone.

canadian blue provided in answer a link below to wikipedia as proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_Debate#Pro-life

Did you see all the citations that were needed for the pro-life stance in your link to give it any credibiliy? Not that it would any way no matter how many were actually given, even supposing they could be.

FYI, Wikipedia is written by any joe or jane wanting to give their version of facts, that is why citations and other links are required to make what it says. Interestingly the link provides a good deal of pro-choice information that DOES NOT need citations, they are fully supported

[geoffrey]

Regardless of your own opinion, there is no evidence that a fetus is anything more than tissue before 5 months into a pregnancy. Abortions are performed after the first trimester only in cases where the mother's health/life are at risk. So, no, abortion doesn't kill anyone.

Philosophically, the argument must be made that the destruction of the organism won't cause harm. I don't have to prove that it does cause harm, you have to prove it doesn't. But hey, we're not really debating this, are we?

Actually, it's legal to get an abortion in Canada up until the head is out of the vagina. Would a doctor do it? Probably not, but everyone has a price.

Again you ignore reality. The fact is that the aborted children are those who would be most likely to end up on the welfare rolls and later in jail.

Maybe we should just randomly spot kill most children born into low income families if that's the desired outcome.

If people like you were to lay off the rhetoric, the welfare rolls (mostly made up of single moms, who had babies in their teens, and their kids) would undoubtedly shrink. That's the welfare bums you can't stand. On one hand you hate abortions, on the other you hate the product of failure to have an abortion. Again, you ought to be more consistent in your views. You either oppose abortion and are willing to pay the financial consequences or you don't oppose abortion and you don't want to pay. You can't have it both ways!

I just did have it both ways.

[Canadian Blue]

As I said no I don't have to provide any links for what is classified as common public knowledge. This common public knowledge had be known for decades, and it would seem you are the only person alive that does not know this and the reasons for. Anyway that is enough off this topic deflection.

Listen son, you are the only one using the "common public knowledge" argument on here. Luckily most intelligent people don't use this argument to debate the issues of the day. Look at major supreme court cases and you'll find issues are much more complicated than "common public knowledge" which is in itself a fallable argument since the public may not be fully aware of the research and studies done on things like abortion, women in the workforce, capital punishment, etc.

http://www.answers.com/topic/fetal-rights

Once again this debate is way too complicated for you to argue, especially since you are only using the "common public knowledge" argument which is a fallable argument. I'm sure that common public knowledge back in the 19th century was that all blacks wanted to rape white women, and all native American's were savages. The "common public knowledge" argument is a flawed one, as the common public often doesn't have all the information when it comes to the issues, how can a person make a claim, yet know nothing about research and studies done on the subject?

canadian blue provided in answer a link below to wikipedia as proof.

Yes, it's alot better than using rotten.com

FYI, Wikipedia is written by any joe or jane wanting to give their version of facts, that is why citations and other links are required to make what it says. Interestingly the link provides a good deal of pro-choice information that DOES NOT need citations, they are fully supported

That doesn't make sense, in order for information to be true doesn't it have to be backed up by studies and research???

Once again can you name a major supreme court case were the only argument was based on "common public knowledge", it takes more than that in order to prove a point. It has to be backed up by proof, something which "common public knowledge" can't really take into account.

It doesn't get much dumber than this!

Actually an interesting fact, the former dictator Ceauşescu outlawed abortion when he came into power. However later on it was that policy that would inevitably bring about his downfall, as most of the people protesting would have probably been aborted.

[Canadian Blue]

As for the abortion debate, I'm pro-choice, because I don't see how making it against the law will change society as women would likely go to backstreet abortionists. However it's preferable to keep it safe, legal, and rare.

I don't like to believe in absolute truths, as absolute truths are rarely absolute. So that's why we must always give pro-life activists, as well as animal rights activists a venue to have their opinion's heard. For all we know abortion may simply be the equivalent of the idea of eugenics which was popular in western civilization at a time. Which is why it is important to allow all people to be allowed to speak up on issues such as abortion, animal rights, the environment, peace, etc.

Again you ignore reality. The fact is that the aborted children are those who would be most likely to end up on the welfare rolls and later in jail. If people like you were to lay off the rhetoric, the welfare rolls (mostly made up of single moms, who had babies in their teens, and their kids) would undoubtedly shrink. That's the welfare bums you can't stand. On one hand you hate abortions, on the other you hate the product of failure to have an abortion. Again, you ought to be more consistent in your views. You either oppose abortion and are willing to pay the financial consequences or you don't oppose abortion and you don't want to pay. You can't have it both ways!

I'd be willing to pay more in taxes in order to see the number of abortion's in this country lowered. I don't think we should put a cost on a human life. As well I'm not sure if those are your own view's Saturn, however that sounds like a eugenics argument. Their has been a link between the number of abortion's and crime going down, however that should say something about our society when crime only goes down when the disenfranchised choose to have abortion's instead of raising children.

As well, before we start slamming all christian's, lets remember that many christian's were behind the drive for welfare, and were a driving force in the abolitionist movement.