betsy

Lol - I can't condemn the REBEL, because I don't follow Rebel News. We used to have FOX News way back - the only right-wing channel. What happened?

I'm not going to keep explaining. You ought to review some of my posts at least. Anyway............... WHATEVER.

You just have to go back and read my explanation. Go to religion section. I think I've given the detailed explanation there.

WHOOOOO-HOOOO! I'm all for you, Melissa!!!! Hey @DogOnPorch - have you seen this?

The talking heads complain, Polievre has avoided the press gallery! BRAVO, PIERRE! Keep doing so. Just focus on social media to get your message across. There's no difference between social media and the press gallery anyway - they deliver disinformation as bad as social media. We have to do our own research - to know what is truth, or fake news!

Akin tries to justify: "WE all want to hear politicians answer questions....." It depends on the quality of the question, and the motive for the question. Viewers aren't as ignorant as they used to be, Mr Akin. We can tell who's a true journalist - working by the ethics that's a standard for journalism. And of course.....viewers are used to hearing the delivery of the message before any questions. Questions come AFTER. That's how it's done. Have you got that?

I explained why. It's not her dancing - it's the appearance of what I mistook to be the caucus celebrating the appointment of 2 LGBTQ. Lol - you can like me however you want it, Michael. If thinking me "woke" is so important and feels so comforting to you - hey, to each his own. If I can be of any help to your well-being.......go for it.

And all those "talking heads" on CTV with Evan Solomon - who shallowly say, "yes David Aiken went out of line.....but, he apologised for it." And then get this, they freakin' focused on the fact that Poilievre called Akin a "LIBERAL HECKLER!" Why wouldn't Poilievre think and say that? I thought that myself - without being told! That's how it looked like on tv, oh you talking idiots! That's their issue! The talking heads nimbly turned the situation around to focus the attack on Poilievre instead. And they wonder why people have lost trust in the media? Hello? You treat us like idiots!

....with CENSORSHIP! I'm sick and tired of it! Livid with being held hostage by a mostly biased, if not leftist propaganda Liberal or ANTI-CONSERVATIVE machines! Who the heck voted for this GLOBAL NEWS idiot - David Aikin - to censor what I'm trying to hear? I want to hear what Poilievre was going to say, not some freakin undisciplined and unethical trashy reporter from Global News yapping it up - disrupting and being disrespectful not only to Poilievre, but especially to................................. ME - the viewer! I didn't interrupt my routine to hear a freakin reporter with his issues! I was there to hear what this candidate for PM was going to say! If this immature, UNPROFESSIONAL man who calls himself a journalist wants to question Poilievre - then, freakin get in line, idiot! I want to listen to Poilievre's message - not your stupid questions! I'm not the only one! Btw..... Have you apologised to Mr Poilievre?

In my reflection - what a tremendous comfort this biblical fact gives to me. The prophet Daniel didn't have any problems serving under a PAGAN king. However, he boldly and determinedly drew the line on worship.

As that photo had misled me to think it was a celebration of having appointed LGBTQs and being cheered by caucus, you should point out that the photo was taken in year 2018, at the wedding of Melissa. Thanks for DOP for clarifying that. The photo had been the reason for me to question if it clashes with my Christian belief - basing it on a particular Biblical verse. So far, Poilievre hasn't done anything to promote and endorse values that are not acceptable to a lot of Christians. People are not being forced to accept anything that goes against their conscience. In fact, that he's running on FREEDOM - particularly, expression - being himself, a believer in God, he'll also protect religious freedom/expression. That, to me, is quite important. That he acknowledges and admit to his stance of being progressive - being pro-choice and acceptance of same-sex marriage - that, to me, is his prerogative. I welcome his honesty on the matter. Like all of us, he is entitled to his free will. That's what free will is all about. I have no problem that he'd appointed LGBTQs or women or whatever for his team.....hoping that it's not only done as a political convenience but as also acknowledgment of their merit. That's how it's supposed to be - giving responsibilities thru merits. I'd doubt he'll appoint anyone who can't meet the challenge of a portfolio, which will cause him an embarrassment. It is biblical to treat people equally. To treat foreigners and immigrants living among us fairly, as we would treat our own people. The prophet Daniel didn't have any problem serving under a PAGAN king. However, he drew the line on worship. That is a comfort to me. On casting my vote - for me, it is looking at the BIG PICTURE.

Your clarification made a big difference. Here's what I said in the other forum:

I said goodbye already. You've proven that you're a waste of time.

WHAT AM I GOING TO FORGIVE? Boy, Boges - you don't read well. Go back and read my post again. S L O W L Y. NEVER SAID THAT! What part of this is hard to understand? BYE! We won't see eye-to-eye unless you tackle your problem.

EH? What are you on about? Can't you understand what I said? Perhaps you ought to put on your glasses. I didn't say adultery isn't a sin! Which part of this is hard to comprehend? I'm concerned about THE LEADER I would vote for - NOT THE HOMOSEXUAL person! I don't care if Polievre is pro-choice/pro-same sex marriage. Didn't I say I knew he was a progressive? He even admitted that in his victory speech! It was the photo that struck me. To me, it's one thing to believe differently - after all we'll all give our account to God, one on one - therefore, that would be between him and God. My concern is about a leader who PROMOTE AND ENDORSE sinful acts like the way Trudeau had done! Btw, did anyone actually heard Trudeau even mention God on his own? Anyway - clearly youve got serious comprehension issues. You're popping your veins for nothing.

Not the same argument! Donald Trump may have been an adulterer but I haven't known him personally. All I know about him are from what I read from the media. Even if he was an adulterer - you surely couldn't be serious to think Christians should all be sinless?? Do you know without any doubt that he was in an adulterous relationship while President of the US Who gave you the info? Did he tell you? Do you know it for a fact - or, you simply base it on the media? Look how this photo of Michael had been mistakenly associated by me that it had something to do with the caucus and the appointment! Good example that we cannot rely on what is being given in the media! And, what do I know of his relationship with God? That's between him and God! As long as he's not promoting adultery, flaunting it for us see - that's between him and God. Donald Trump - though sinner that he is like me - had never fought to uphold the murder of innocents - in fact, he aimed to remove it - nor did he try to make an issue of same-sex marriage in way of promoting and endorsing it. The attitude was that it's already here.

OH! That wasn't related to the appointment by Poilievre? Oh, that Michael! ? And here I thought, that's the caucus celebrating the fact that 2 LGBTQ got appointed. Thank you for calrifying that. Like I said, if Poilievre is pro-choice and pro-same-sex marriage - and had left it at that - I guess, it wasn't going to be a dilemma for me (considering the evil of Trudeau's heading towards socialism/communism which would be detrimental to religion). Poilievre has his own free will like everyone else. In the end, it will be between him and God. I wouldn't care either if he appointed LGBTQ for the job - it's not for me to judge their merit. Besides, I haven't heard Poilievre being loud about his pro-choice and same-sex stance - he's simply acknowledging where he stands on the matter. I don't think he's going to make big deal out of it like a big endorsement of the lifestyle. I see his appointments as a political move. It was the photo that really got me. I mistakenly thought that has something to do with the appointment. With Poilievre, it would mean having the Freedom of belief and religious expression. That means a lot to religion. I'm struggling with this. My issue is with the verse that talks of having been swayed by the unrighteous. It would apply to me since I know about God's position on homosexuality. Haven't I debated about it? Romans 1 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Though I have applauded the victory of Poilievre (more so because I see him as the one to end Trudeau's reign), the most recent thread by our friend Michael Hardner had me facing something I can't ignore. It gnawed on me as I did my walk (and after reading Michael's post). The picture is quite disturbing for me, as a born-again. Had Poilievre just simply admit being pro-choice and pro-same-sex marriage, and had left it at that - it would've been different.....after all, he is entitled to his own free will. If he'd appointed LGBTQs, I suppose that wouldn't have mattered either. But to "celebrate" in them, as what that photo had struck in me, is quite another matter. I speak from my Christian perspective. I suppose it's the same rationale why a baker wouldn't bake a cake for same-sex marriage. To do so, is to participate in the celebration or acceptance of what's not acceptable to our God. This verse was what kept intruding during my walk. Romans 1 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them. I cannot give my validation, let alone my approval. Come Federal election, I'll just sit it out. I cannot give my vote to any of them.

But, I do have to thank you for your OP, Michael. That's like a splash of cold water to wake me up. I need to re-think this.

@Michael Hardner What's so shocking about his appointments? He's always been a social-progressive! He said so in his speech: "No matter whom you love....." What he's doing is grabbing the weapon of Liberals and NDP which they'll try to use against him................... and, clubbing those two parties with it. ? That must indeed, be shocking for the two far-left parties! ?

........................and, not only did his mother did not have an abortion............. ........................but look how this adopted boy had come a long way! I had seen pro-choice arguments trying to demonize adoption. Apparently, his biological mom was in that Convention room. How fortunate she's witnessed first-hand that she made the right choice of giving birth to Pierre, and giving him that chance to live his life. His adoptive parents had done an excellent job! Thank you.

........but, they can't make an issue of it now. Poilievre is a social progressive. If he's said to be consistent with his stance, it means he's been a social progressive all along.

Good point you got there. Expect media to jump on that. FREEDOM, is big on his campaign. He can't run on it if he isn't pro-choice though.

Oh - so, it's not Poilievre who's being anti-wife. Okay.

Unfortunately, yes. He's said to be pro-choice. That's a big lump in my throat. He's a social progressive. But if we need a change, and for the sake of Canada's economy - and other non-social direction - it's something I just have to pinch my nose, and pray for.